Examine positive and negative ways that the political behavior of managers might impact on organisations. Politics in an organization is basically not held in principle nor assumed as necessary in promoting organizational growth. Managers, however, tend to acquire political behavior due to a number of inevitable factors emerging from people and general organizational structure which occur to guide their managing approach towards complexity. Apparently, as observed in reality, these managers become politically inclined to perform their duties chiefly on the basis of gratifying personal interests and responding to the complex nature of socio-cultural stimuli within the company. Nevertheless, whether a manager’s political attitude leads to positive or negative outcome for an organization, the power associated with managerial functions normally plays a crucial role in shaping such political behavior and determining if power and politics can be brought in a combination that creates good effect thereafter, or otherwise. In a typical working environment where job specification involves sales and marketing and the company reaches the point of incurring huge debts and losses rather than profits, managers necessitate to press the employed agents to push for and exceed sales quota. Often, they are disposed to behave politically with coercive power in order to drive subordinates to work hard and focus on meeting the organization’s targeted revenues. This, however, may bear negative consequence when the manager’s political behavior through intimidation merely rouses fear of losing job and not motivation to augment one’s level of performance. It would also establish an atmosphere in which social injustice is perceived especially when it is plain to see for the working class that they are highly expected to deliver results only to fulfill selfish goals of the upper management. On the other hand, it is possible as well to tolerate politics in the presence of superiors who exert force by way of encouraging the entire team to be more productive and efficient for the team or its individual members to obtain rewards while contributing to increase the organization’s desired yield. Political control in this setting induces synergy which would necessarily reflect in the workers who exude confidence and render a more personalized service in return. Since there emerges real mutual advantage out of a manager’s utilitarian manner of conveying instructions herein, people become attracted to pressure and series of errands with positive mind because they have guarantee of individual gain. Eventually, they can be made to align their own objectives with the company’s vision, knowing that their perseverance is not in vain and is meant to be richly rewarded by the managers who possess both authority and capacity to recognize and empower employees for their worth. Though political behavior could be assessed as strategic or manipulative, employees would be amenable to such aspect of management as long as it remains capable of maintaining a win-win situation between the managing head and the staff being managed. From another perspective, managers who have been designated into their position as a result of conventional politicking are rather likely to adopt the old unscrupulous ways of handling leadership responsibilities. Instead of seeking general welfare, they choose the convenience of being on the safe side and defend the influential members of an organization despite unethical deeds. Employees are by experience more prone to resign from job in a company whose management suppresses them to air views or sentiments particularly the ones that run contradictory to the prevailing system. With failure to support the just cause of those who hold no status of power, the corresponding lack of integrity and respect brought by the natural course of negatively politicizing actions, direct or indirect, further impact lowness of esteem and ruin of morale. Any working person who encounters as such may most probably be deprived of proper stimulation toward productivity and personal development within an organization where politics among figures of authority turns into a device or mechanism of ‘dirty play’ which breeds disillusionment more than fulfillment for the majority. Sometimes, if one finds it difficult to ladder up or be pulled to promotion out of the rank-and-file, such person may be caught rubbing shoulders with his boss whom he ought to exchange political favor with. Whether or not the person deserves to be granted the desired position, the boss cannot be considered to have acted in good political terms with the rest of the organization without due process in this case for it would be judged as favouritism or a form of conspiracy. That way, the political behavior threatens to nullify an organization’s existing laws and the managing superior must be liable for the consequences of his decision which is void of legitimate consensus. If, on the contrary, the politics of the governing body serves as a significant challenge for an ordinary worker to learn by heart and distinguish clearly which virtues are sound and professional based on the manager’s political bearing then, in this fashion, he might go after the opportunity of refining his own character. Hence, the employee may hereafter opt to be part of changing certain ways that may help improve the organization’s well-being no matter how issues on negligence or corruption persist. References Maslyn, John., Perceptions of Positive and Negative Organizational Politics: Roles of the Frequency and Distance of Political Behavior, retrieved 2 January 2013, <. http://webs.twsu.edu/farmer/Articles/Maslyn,%20Fedor,%20Farmer,%20&.%20Bettenhausen%202005%20SMA.pdf>. Power and Political Behavior, retrieved 2 January 2013, <. http://www.swcollege.com/management/nelson-quick/instructor/ob4e/nqimch11.doc>..