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.

Gorman makes a second point: The process of exploring people's opinions gives you an opportunity to shape them as well. You can ask questions in ways that build support for the outcome you want. The political pros call it "push polling." Chris Newell of Lotus calls it common sense. He was forever selling his ideas to colleagues even as he was testing out those ideas. "I tried to create an internal groundswell," he says.

Jim Krzywicki, 36, Lotus's vice president of worldwide customer support and education, says that Newell never wasted an encounter with him - or with anyone else in the organization. "He had his 'elevator speech' ready at all times," Krzywicki reports. "If he met the president of the company on the elevator, he would have made his point by the time they got off. Chris is continually checking with people. That gives him very sensitive antennae - and it helps him develop broad-based support and understanding."

How persistent was Newell? "Let me put it this way," Krzywicki says with a smile. "My wife's the only one with the number to my car phone. But I remember picking it up once and saying, 'Hi, honey.' It turned out to be Chris. He wanted to bounce an idea off me."

Over time, Krzywicki became a key ally in Newell's campaign. "I would call Jim to test out strategies," Newell says. "But he always gave me more than just information. He became a cheerleader, a champion. He started bringing my ideas to people or into meetings that I couldn't reach."

Gorman also offers a word of warning that many people overlook: If you solicit feedback from the wrong people, he says, you're likely to reach the wrong conclusions. "You always have a bias to go to the easy people first, the people you already know or can get to fast," he says. "You have to overcome that bias. You have to reach out to the hard-to-get people."

Tom Hicks approached the hard-to-get crowd right from the start. He knew his campaign to redirect the Discovery Channel's commitment to interactive TV faced long odds. So he did some polling on how strong the opposition would be. His approach? Go to the toughest constituency of all - the interactive-TV committee. He and two colleagues made a presentation and asked for feedback: "They patted us on the head, said our plan was nice, and asked how we could make money. They didn't see a business model."

Hicks gained some useful insights from that reaction. For one thing, the committee didn't take his ideas seriously enough to fight them. For another, he realized that his proposal had a genuine weakness: the lack of a convincing business model. "We then did what all good groups do," Hicks says. "A bunch of us got together after work, had some beers, and dreamed about how this thing was going to happen and how we could tap the enthusiasm that [CEO] John Hendricks had about interactivity."

Gorman makes one final point about polling your colleagues: Don't let the process of testing the waters sink your ship before it sails. "For the truly creative, brilliant, once-in-a-lifetime idea, opinion research is a deadly thing," he says. "Research is a conservative process. I always remind people that the personal computer didn't research very well in the 1970s."

Rule 3: Everyone expects to be paid back.

Here's the good news about office politics: You don't have to spend late nights at fund-raisers or badger high rollers for big checks. Sure, you need resources. But most people have most of what they need - even if they work out of a small office or hold a modest title. "People tend to underestimate their potential power," says Allan Cohen. "Because they don't know how to get power, they assume they don't have power. Don't think you have nothing to offer people just because you don't have the budget to buy them. Even the 'poorest' people in an office have currencies they can work with."

So what is the most precious currency of organizational life? On this question, all the experts agree: personal relationships. "All favors are personal," says Marilyn Moats Kennedy. "If your boss works hard to get you an assignment, that's between you and your boss. You should understand that the boss is acting personally, not institutionally. Nothing done in the name of the organization earns credit for the organization. Only the individual who did the good deed earns the credit." Cohen has a name for this phenomenon - the Law of Reciprocity. "The secret of the universe," he says, "lies in six words: Everyone expects to be paid back."

How do you turn the Law of Reciprocity into support for your campaign? First, you should never underestimate the power of a good idea. Most people in most companies want to do the right thing. Give them an opportunity to make a positive contribution, and chances are that they will. Second, you should never underestimate the desire to leave a mark. Most new-idea champions aren't in a position to order people to participate in their projects. But people will often volunteer when they see that their work will make a difference - and perhaps earn them recognition in the process. Finally, never underestimate the value of a simple "thank you." Keep expressing appreciation for what your supporters do, and they'll keep doing it. Share the credit, and they may do more.

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