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.

Office politics is no different from other aspects of life at the office - or of life in general. Appearances matter. It's usually the best-packaged idea that wins, not the best idea. And the first step toward victory is to position your idea so that your victory is everyone's victory.

"Real political skill isn't about campaign tactics," says Lou DiNatale, a senior fellow at the McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts/Boston and a veteran political consultant. "It's about pulling people toward your ideas and then pushing those ideas through to other people. In electoral politics, people overestimate the importance of polls and direct mail. What really matters is, Can you make people want to vote for you? The questions in business are, Can you get people to move? Do people trust your instincts? It comes down to personality and positioning."

Cindy Casselman's campaign inside Xerox illustrates DiNatale's point. Soon after she joined the company, she learned how bad communication among employees had become. She and a few colleagues concluded that a Web site could change things for the better - as long as it was a haven for free speech, not a den of corporate-speak. "Employees were telling us they wanted timely, relevant, honest information," Casselman says. "They wanted the truth, with no corporate spin. They wanted to know where they stood and where the company stood."

Hence the WebBoard - a project that lots of people inside Xerox were just as likely to consider threatening as to find inspiring. So as Casselman stumped for it - whether to recruit allies for her Sanctioned Covert Operation or to raise funds to design and build a prototype - she emphasized the benefits that would accrue to whatever audience she was addressing at the time. "We were able to get some interesting people to join us," says Casselman. "Everybody we asked wanted to do it."

For example, Casselman's two closest allies came from very different parts of the company - and joined the SCO team for very different reasons. Rick Beach, now 49, was the manager of advanced-technology business services at Xerox Business Services (XBS) in Palo Alto, California. He saw the WebBoard as a business opportunity. XBS is a fast-growing division that manages documents for other big companies. For Beach, the WebBoard was a place to test "virtual document delivery" - to explore how digital technologies would affect traditional document management. Plus, it had the potential to improve communications inside a company he cared about. "When I connected with Cindy," Beach says, "the reaction was, 'Here's a big problem and a big opportunity coming together.'"

Malcolm Kirby, now 43, worked in Xerox's information management division in Rochester, New York. He had recently been a lead player in the company's transition from mainframe computers to networked PCs. For Kirby, the WebBoard would showcase this new technology architecture. Plus, the project sounded like fun. "It's unusual in a global corporation like Xerox for three people to have such a big impact," Kirby says. "It's also unusual for people to launch an initiative that poses lots of risk but no personal gain. But that's what this project represented."

Casselman, by positioning her idea in different ways to different people, managed to position it just right, says Allan Cohen. "Always look for ways to get the most for everybody," he urges. "Always try to blend your goals with the goals of the people you want on your side. If you can't do that, package your project by stressing what's best for the organization. Even if someone doesn't give a damn about the organization, that's a hard argument for anyone to counter."

Rule 2: Don't just ask for opinions - change them.

Opinion polls have a bad name, but no serious candidate runs for office without them. Politicians don't use polls just to identify their supporters. They also try to find out who opposes them, how deep the opposition is, and how people's views evolve over time. What goes for electoral politics goes for office politics. You can't change people's minds if you don't know what they're thinking.

John Gorman, a veteran pollster based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, got his start in the field when, as a Harvard undergraduate, he conducted surveys for George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign. His firm, Opinion Dynamics Corp., now conducts polls for the FOX News Channel as well as for a wide range of companies and associations. "Go after basic questions," he advises: "Do people really believe that what you're proposing will benefit the company? Do they believe that what the company says it's about - its mission statement - is what it really is about? Whose help do you need? Whose permission do you need?"

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