There are few business activities more prone to a credibility gap than the way in which executives approach organizational life. A sense of disbelief occurs when managers purport to make decisions in rationalistic terms while most observers and participants know that personalities and politics play a significant if not an overriding role. Where does the error lie? In the theory which insists that decisions should be rationalistic and nonpersonal? Or in the practice which treats business organizations as political structures?
Whatever else organizations may be (problem-solving instruments, sociotechnical systems, reward systems, and so on), they are political structures. This means that organizations operate by distributing authority and setting a stage for the exercise of power. It is no wonder, therefore, that individuals who are highly motivated to secure and use power find a familiar and hospitable environment in business.
At the same time, executives are reluctant to acknowledge the place of power both in individual motivation and in organizational relationships. Somehow, power and politics are dirty words. And in linking these words to the play of personalities in organizations, some managers withdraw into the safety of organizational logics.
source: https://hbr.org/1970/05/power-and-politics-in-organizational-life
The questions that you raise lead in different directions.
Here's Zaleznik's approach in broader organizational and sociological context: https://irjhis.com/paper/IRJHIS2202012.pdf
I would go back even further to neo-institutionalism and ethnomethodology to understand "leadership" as a construct, social and organizational construct. That would be my preference.
But regarding the question about university growth, fitness landscape characteristics and the ecosystem of higher education are determinative. The higher education sector has peaked about 2010, and is in the process of radically contracting, as can be seen here: https://kivu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/overshoot-carrying-cap.jpg
Internal institutional politics can play a huge role in growth of the academic institutions. However, strong political strategy can also improve resource allocation management and strategic decision-making - as well as diplomacy.
On the downside, this leads to misallocation of resources and conflict that will stymie innovative ideas. To address this, institutions need to: embrace transparent governance, model diversity among leadership and within the institution itself; have clear policies with transparent accountability mechanisms. Internal politics are part and parcel of the intricate tapestries that keep academic departments running, and to navigate them successfully is a hallmark of any high-functioning or innovative environment for scholarly pursuit.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing