Illusions and Other Games: A Trifocal View of Organizational Politics

Despite recent and growing interest in organizational politics, conceptual thought in this area tends to be dominated by a single theoretical perspective. In this paper we describe and contrast three views of organizational politics (functionalist, interpretive and radical) according to their differing structures, processes and outcomes. Each view, or lens, directs attention to some aspects of politics and away from others, and each has strengths and weaknesses embedded in it. In order to assess whether multiple perspectives on politics can be fruitfully applied simultaneously, we describe and analyze a case of a hospital administration engaged in budgeting games and illusion making.The data for the case were collected using naturalistic inquiry and multiple methods including structured and unstructured interviews, review of documents, observation of meetings and casual interaction facilitated by frequent visits over a ten-month period.The case revolves around the hospital administrators' attempts to deal with what they termed a “disastrous deficit” and the most serious financial situation in the hospital's history. Strategies for dealing with the funding agency and board of directors included the management of meaning and communications about the term “deficit.” The three perspectives on organizational politics highlight different dynamics in the case.The interpretive perspective on politics assumes that parties exert influence by constructing the meaning of what others experience. Focusing on a deeper structure of power, the elements of politics which become highlighted are the use of language, information, metaphor, symbols, myths and humor. In the hospital case the administration managed meaning so that others believed that the hospital faced a significant deficit. The creation of illusions of financial crisis through use of linguistic games was supported by symbolic gestures, jokes, hit lists and other reality construction strategies.The functionalist perspective on politics is broken into two subsets, the rational and the pluralist. In this case the rationalist perspective was not operating to any great extent. Every effort was made to avoid both data-based debate or resolution of differences through the use of appeal to authority. The functionalist perspective does highlight the possible reasons for the extensive use of information manipulation by identifying the key players in the game and the bases of power they utilize.The radical perspective directs attention to the larger context of the case and asks at a deeper level why the Ministry of Health, Board of Directors and top administration are engaged in such game playing. Analysis of the political policy context of health care is suggested through this perspective.The analysis of the case using multiple perspectives reveals that a unidimensional critique is almost always going to be flawed. A richer understanding comes from the simultaneous use of all the perspectives. The question of a possible integration of perspectives is raised, and five possible approaches are briefly explored. The value for managers in the use of multiple perspectives lies in increasing their ability to understand and diagnose organizational events. Explicit use of more than one lens on politics heightens understanding of the dynamics and context of the situation and provides more options for action.