banner

Subscribe by email (it's free!)

Your email:



Facebook fan site

RR test

call us 888-123-4567
Loading

Working 5-9

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Politics at work - inevitable and not necessarily bad

  
  
  

At a previous company I faced a crucial decision a couple years into my tenure.  My boss was leaving the firm and my job was being redefined by the recently appointed CEO.  As my scope of responsibilities was being dramatically changed I was faced with a question – should I go for my boss’s job or accept the fate of whatever role I settle into?  The answer proved to be my undoing and I learned the most valuable political lessons of my career here.

Julius Ceaser and Brutus

Until that point in my career I labored under the idealistic vision that companies are meritocracies.  Certainly, fast moving technology companies seemed the poster children for such this ideal.  But what I failed to realize was that as every company grows it inherently becomes political because humans are, by nature, political. 

That’s right – every company is political at some level.  No company sets out to be political when it starts but they all end up there.  It isn’t because they recruited bad apples along the way, or even that the culture changed for the worse.  Rather, I’ve come to believe that as a population grows humans seek to align themselves with sub-groups, to classify and subdivide crowds as friend or foe.   

George Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” has been parodied much but fundamentally that is often how humans make sense of the rapidly changing world around them.  But just as in personal life you should be careful not to disclose allegiance at work - for one thing you may have misjudged people and forever lose them as allies.  Clichés like “keeping your cards close to your chest” cannot be appreciated until you’ve played your hand too soon and been beaten soundly as I was.

So, what were the political cues I missed?

  1. My outgoing boss, by virtue of having announced his departure and under dubious circumstances, had little to no pull left in the organization.  His recommendation, even if I were to get it, would have carried little value yet I focused my energy on getting his backing because I felt he knew me best.

  2. The power was squarely in the hands of the new CEO and he was trying to understand who were threats and who were allies.  Having a relatively young executive ask for a high profile post screamed “threat” rather than “ally” and I didn’t realize this. 

    As Sun Tzu said in his famous book The Art of War, “never outshine the master”.  Yet at every meeting with the CEO I tried to show him how ready I was for the role by challenging conventional wisdom – even his viewpoint – to show my smarts.  I thought he’d appreciate diversity in opinion but, particularly as a new CEO, he was trying to size up the team and all he saw in me was “threat” or perhaps more simply “irritating.” Perhaps if I had just given the CEO time to settle in and learn about me I would have had my chance; if not then maybe later in time.

  3. I saw the CEO align himself with stereotypical “yes-men” and was disgusted by everyone in the scene.  I just couldn’t understand how the CEO liked such sycophants, particularly people had a dubious performance record to date.  Well, as I learned belatedly, the world is not a just place.  People who self-aggrandize, bend the rules, suck-up and even take credit for other’s work do sometimes get ahead.  You need not be this way but don’t get upset if others do this and win.

After I went through this turmoil I came upon a fantastic book – “Power: Why some people have it – and others don’t” by Stanford GSB professor Jeffrey Pfeffer.  I took his class at school but to my loss didn’t recall the lessons later when I needed them.  Reading his book later I realized how naïve I was. 

As Pfeffer says “welcome to the real world – not necessarily the world we want, but the world that exists.”  And lest you eschew power politics as disdainful, Pfeffer points out that those who have power and can control their professional lives are healthier and live longer, even after controlling for all sorts of lifestyle and genetic factors.  

The book isn't advising you to be unethical or "play dirty" but simply to understand your strengths and weaknesses as it relates to working with others and to correctly assess the environment you work in.

Indeed, politics forces one to socialize and to understand another person's viewpoint rather than forcing your version on everyone.  It gives one the chance to collaborate and inspire others.  Hence politics at work may actually be an opportunity to lead.

Pfeffer’s book did show me that I did one thing right.  Even though I was stupid in the way I asked for the promotion at least I tried and gained some practice.   And as my first foray into politics I learned several valuable lessons that will hopefully serve me in the rest of my career.  And, for you the reader, I hope they help you avoid the mistakes I made.

 

come-work-for-hubspot

Comments

Great article with a great insight. 
 
However, I didn't catch the argument for how politics weren't necessarily bad. The article didn't seem to cover how politics could ever be good.
Posted @ Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:51 PM by Dharmesh Shah
Thanks Dharmesh. You're right that the title is somewhat misleading; I rushed that late last night when writing.  
 
What I meant was that something which is inevitable cannot be good or bad but but should just be accepted.  
 
However, in thinking some more I think a pure meritocracy has risks in that you are at the mercy of one measurement criteria/standard - which may not be fair itself.  
 
Politics forces one to socialize and to understand another person's viewpoint rather than forcing your version on everyone. It gives one the chance to inspire others. Hence politics at work may actually be an opportunity to lead.
Posted @ Monday, October 17, 2011 6:58 AM by Arjun Moorthy
Very interesting article. Looking back, how would you approach the situation taking into account the lessons noted above?
Posted @ Monday, October 17, 2011 3:13 PM by Jenn Yorke
Thanks Jenn. I'm not sure what I'd do differently but perhaps: 
 
1. I would have spent time with the CEO and his allies, learning what was important to them, what their assumptions were on where the business should go and helping them achieve those goals; rather than challenging them. Even if I didn't agree at the outset I should have waited to object. If I detected an increase in trust from the CEO then I would have asked for the promotion. 
 
2. I would have accepted that if I wasn't nominated for the post in time there would be other chances in the future.
Posted @ Monday, October 17, 2011 3:24 PM by Arjun Moorthy
Arjun, 
 
While I agree that every organization becomes political to some degree, what makes me uncomfortable about this article is that I feel like your suggesting that the best approach is to acquiesce and, essentially, become one of "them". 
 
Reading this article, I got a pretty strong feeling that I wouldn't have wanted to work for your new CEO. He seemed at best insecure and at worst just a horrible and selfish leader. So the thought of trying to please him by tempering myself didn't sit well. 
 
That said, I understand very well that we all, at some point, deal with individuals and circumstances that are less than ideal in order to protect our livelihoods. I guess the question is how much of your soul are you willing to sell to get to the next rung on the corporate ladder. 
 
The problem with politics in the work place is the very same problem with politics in general. It has been distorted beyond recognition. At least here in the U.S., the political system is supposed to work for the people. Like all citizens, I am supposed to be able to voice my needs and concerns to, say, my Senator. My Senator is supposed to be my conduit to the Legislative branch. My Senator is supposed to help make my life better. Somehow, someway, sometime this got totally turned on it's head and instead of trying to please "the people", politicians, generally speaking, are pandering to those who can either help keep them where they are (e.g. donors) or help them get to the next level. 
 
So, can politics in the work place be a good thing? I say not under the currently accepted definition. A great manager is managing down, not up. A great leader defines success and asks their team what they need to be successful then does everything in their power to provide it. A great leader's number one priority should leading not climbing. We are capitalists, though, so by definition we want more. Unfortunately, this mentality does not lend itself to great leadership. 
 
I'm not really a fan of pointing out problems without at least having some suggestions for how to make things better, but in this situation I find myself at a loss. This is a very difficult problem to solve and I suspect, if it is going to change, it'll take generations. I'd like to live to see it, though.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:54 AM by Colleen
Hi Colleen - thanks for the very thoughtful comment. Two things that I hope can help: 
 
1. For many professionals they cannot quit and find new jobs easily, especially in this economy. Hence, my suggestion to accept that politics is a part of every job is to help people understand that's its usually unwise to leave a job simply to get away from a political scene. Of course, if the situation is causing undue stress then it's worth leaving but accepting the reality of politics rather than fighting it will reduce stress. Not an idealistic comment I know but a realistic one. 
 
2. The idea that a manager works for his team first is a good one; one I myself try to live by. However, as a manager's scope of responsibilities grows s/he invariably has to make decisions that will seem unfair to some subset of her/his team. If, however, the manager achieves success for the majority of the team has she/he not done her job? 
 
To take the parallel of government, many revered leaders (Churchill, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Nehru) often upset constituents as they had to "split the baby" in many decisions. Politics is not pretty and seldom is any ruler unanimously popular. But this is how large groups are governed and rather than saying "I'm out of this country" when you are unhappy with the political system you often have to say "ok, I am going to accept somethings and change other things, starting with my vote."  
 
Does that help?
Posted @ Monday, October 31, 2011 8:39 AM by Arjun Moorthy
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics