The politics of coastal policy, planning and governance in Canada and Australia : business as usual, at a distance, or collaborative?

Canada and Australia are countries with substantial coastal zones which provide significant economic, social and environmental benefits and opportunities. The coastal zones of Canada and Australia also share significant threats such as, pollution, loss of biodiversity, and climate change, while also facing different challenges that are unique to their particular contexts. Effective management of such zones therefore represents a considerable challenge because of the: complexity of biophysical processes; multiple threats faced; uncertainties associated with understandings of such processes and threats, and the multiple jurisdictions and stakeholder viewpoints as to how such environments should be managed. Further, coasts and the sustainability of coastal resources and ecosystems have been argued to represent ‘wicked problems’ such that their governability is called into question. Therefore drawing on recent experiences in coastal policy, planning and governance in Newfoundland, Canada, and Victoria, Australia, this paper assesses the adequacy of current approaches to coastal governance in the two jurisdictions. In doing so we draw on recent policy and governance literature to consider whether coastal policy, planning and governance in Newfoundland and Victoria, reflect a collaborative, neoliberal, or business as usual (ad hoc, top down) approach. Based on such an assessment we consider the prospects for more integrated coastal zone management in each jurisdiction, as well as broader implications for governance and the resilience of coastal systems. It is argued that while both jurisdictions would benefit from a more collaborative approach, the mechanisms for bringing about such an approach would vary and will not come easily in light of institutional and historic barriers.

The positives and negatives of organizational politics: a qualitative study

The study aimed to develop a richer understanding of how employees perceive organizational politics in contemporary organizational contexts, and to identify whether organizational politics is described in both positive and negative terms. Design/methodology/approach: Individual in-depth interviews were conducted using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis with 14 employees across three organizations. Findings: Participants’ perceptions of organizational politics were interpreted according to four levels: reactive, reluctant, strategic, and integrated. The four levels captured how individuals defined, described, and perceived outcomes of organizational politics. Definitions included organizational politics as destructive and manipulative (reactive), as a necessary evil (reluctant), as a useful strategy that helps get things done (strategic), and as central to organizational functioning and decision-making (integrated). Political behaviors were described in terms that correspond to five established bases of organizational power: connection power, information power, coercive power, positional power, and personal power. Descriptions of organizational politics encompassed positive and negative individual and organizational outcomes. Implications: Traditional negatively framed definitions of organizational politics need to be extended and elaborated. Definitions of organizational politics need to accommodate a range of understandings. Originality/value: Despite numerous calls for qualitative research regarding organizational politics, this is one of very few qualitative studies in this area. The proposed classifications of levels, definitions, and behaviors complement and extend existing conceptualizations of organizational politics. We contribute an understanding of organizational politics that is more balanced than existing negatively skewed conceptualizations and that will have implications for measurement and management of organizational politics.