RSS

The Good Guy's (and Gal's) Guide to Office Politics

By: Michael WarshawTue Dec 18, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Even when you're out to get something done - not to do someone in - you have to play politics. Fast Company's five-point campaign manual will help you play to win.

When Cindy Casselman took a communications job at Xerox headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut, the company's communications weren't so good. If Xerox made a big acquisition or had a disappointing quarter, many of its 85,000 people read the news in the papers before they got the scoop from the company. Casselman was determined to change things. "I was manager of employee communications," she says. "I took my job seriously."

But Casselman, now 50, didn't have much formal authority. She was, to use an out-of-favor phrase, a middle manager: someone whose boss had a boss who had a boss. So she assembled a makeshift budget and mustered a volunteer team that she called the Sanctioned Covert Operation (SCO) - "sanctioned," because her direct boss tolerated what looked like a modest project; "covert," because her actual goals were more ambitious than she let on.

Today, thanks to the SCO, any Xerox employee can visit the WebBoard, the company's spirited intranet site, and talk to other employees, read up-to-the-minute news about internal developments - and in general get more connected to what's happening inside this vast enterprise. How did Casselman have such a big impact with so few resources? She had a knack for playing politics.

Chris Newell, 47, is founder and executive director of Lotus Institute, a 20-member unit of Lotus Development Corp. (based in Cambridge, Massachusetts) that develops solutions using Lotus Notes software. It's a fun and interesting job - but hardly a position of power. "We generate new ideas about how software interacts with culture," he says. "We're the shrinks of shrinkwrap."

Last year, Newell became convinced that the emerging field of "knowledge management" represented a big market opportunity for Lotus and its parent company, IBM. So he became a major catalyst behind a series of knowledge-management products that Lotus and IBM began to roll out by the end of the year. Newell didn't have the authority to order such initiatives. But he did know how to play politics.

About three and a half years ago, when the Discovery Channel wanted to extend its high-profile brand beyond cable TV, CEO John Hendricks assembled a committee to explore interactive television. Tom Hicks, now 44, thought the company should focus on the Internet. But this was 1994, when pundits were heralding interactive TV and the Net was still an unproven medium. Worse, Hicks ran the division that produced Discovery's magazines. Today the Discovery Channel Online is a much-celebrated presence on the Web. And when was the last time you watched interactive TV? Pushing for this mid-course correction wasn't easy. It meant playing politics.

Office politics. Just say the words, and you sense the disdain. Isn't "playing politics" a tool for people who can't get ahead on merit - who pursue their own agenda regardless of what's good for their colleagues or the company? That's the downside of office politics. But what about the upside? Office politics is a lot like "real" politics. Plenty of politicians launch campaigns simply because they relish the privileges of power. But at least some politicians campaign for things that matter to people other than themselves. Dismissing all political campaigns as cynical and self-aggrandizing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The same goes for office politics.

"When people talk about office politics, they usually mean something dirty or underhanded," says management professor Allan Cohen, dean of faculty at Babson College and coauthor of Influence Without Authority (John Wiley & Sons, 1991). "But nobody exists in an atmosphere where everybody agrees. Politics is the art of trying to accomplish things within organizations."

Marilyn Moats Kennedy, a career coach based in Wilmette, Illinois, claims that the underlying logic of office politics is changing - and opening the door to campaigners who want to get things done rather than do other people in. "Workers today," she says, "compete for schedules and projects, for money and training. But they rarely compete for power - especially when that means power over others. Instead of power, people want assignments that build skills valued by the market. Learning experiences are what's really important."

Herminia Ibarra, an associate professor at the Harvard Business School who teaches a popular course called "Power and Influence," offers yet another perspective on office politics: You don't have to be a jerk to make things happen. "Integrity," she says, "can be a source of power."

So throw your hat in the ring! If you've got an idea worth fighting for, don't hire a campaign consultant. Consult Fast Company's five-step manual for waging a successful campaign. To paraphrase Plato, that well-known consultant: Those who think they're too smart to engage in politics will be governed by those who are dumber.

Rule 1: Nobody wins unless everybody wins.

From Issue 14 | March 1998

Sign in or register to comment.
or

Recent Comments | 2 Total

June 20, 2009 at 9:13am by Peter Freeth

An organisation with around 200 employees working in the public sector asked us to develop a coaching program for their senior managers which would accelerate the implementation of their new strategy.

An ambitious 10 year business plan needed strong leadership to guide an underlying culture change, shifting the focus of the business from a public sector mentality to one of business and commercial awareness. The CEO had been in place for only a short time, having been promoted rapidly from company accountant to Finance Director to CEO.

We coached the CEO to develop this strategy, and this evolved into a coaching program for the senior managers, supporting them in implementing the strategy in their own areas of the business.

From the beginning, the CEO avoided key issues during coaching and inconsistencies began to show during conversations between the CEO and the Directors. During a strategy workshop, Directors closed ranks, recited rehearsed statements about the strategy and looked to the CEO for approval.

After just two months into the coaching program, it was clear that some managers' ideas to implement the strategy were being blocked, whilst others were contradicting themselves and avoiding accountability. The CEO was continuing to avoid key issues and was making very little progress overall.

The main issue appeared to be the avoidance of accountability. Staff would avoid work that they were not interested in and their managers would take on extra work rather than make individuals accountable for their actions, so work flowed up the organisational structure rather than down and managers took on a higher workload resulting in longer working hours, greater stress, mistrust and resentment .

We called a meeting with the CEO and told her that we were closing the coaching program.

The fundamental issue was that the CEO was manipulating her managers and the board in order to support her own hidden agenda; her early exit. She knew that she did not have enough experience as a CEO to secure her next position, so the only option was a significant achievement in the form of a merger with another organisation which would give her an instant successor from outside the organisation, enabling her to block succession from within. She had already removed two Directors and had identified a third who she was setting up to fail in key performance areas. She influenced board elections to ensure support from new members and gave the impression that she was protecting her team from the board in order to control communication between them.

This complex system of control and manipulation bred mistrust, avoidance and dishonesty throughout the management team and began to create a barrier to the CEO's own hidden agenda. The business was disintegrating faster than she could orchestrate her exit, and at some point the board would take the exit decision away from her, leaving her with neither the experience nor the achievements to move forwards yet equally unable to move backwards.

At our final meeting, we told the CEO that we had identified all of this, and that we were no longer part of the game. Although she was surprised at our withdrawal from the program, she admitted to everything that we said. She recognised the risk that she faced, and the danger that she was putting the company in. If we had said nothing and continued to coach her, the coaching would have been ineffective because of her manipulation and avoidance. By admitting to her behaviour, she had taken responsibility for it and no longer needed coaching. Either way, our feedback was more valuable than any coaching ever could be.

www.askrevelation.com