Chapter 15
Understanding and Overcoming Organizational Politics

Even when you're out to get something done—not to do someone in—you have to play politics.

—Michael Warshaw, “The Good Guy's (and Gal's) Guide to Office Politics,” Fast Company, April 1998

Organizational politics—a dirty word, a cynical explanation of all that is disagreeable, a descriptive term, or an opportunity? Many people are cynical about politics in organizations, by which they mean a rotten version of politics, the underhanded promotion of personal interests. That is one kind of politics, probably more aptly described as sheer nastiness. It doesn't take organizational life to find self-serving behavior.

Such behavior is self-oriented politics, with the primary goal benefitting only the individual, without concern for the organization or department. The people out for only themselves may use methods seen as duplicitous, such as saying opposite things about their opinions to different people, currying favor with false compliments, harming colleagues by innuendo, or spreading false rumors.

Those distasteful behaviors are certainly unpleasant and do occur. But often, people interpret more innocent behavior as self-seeking or underhanded because the offender's motives or style aren't clear. It is too easy to attribute bad personal motives to the person whose behavior you don't like and not bother to find out directly the motives from that person. When you already believe someone is nasty, why take the chance on unnecessary interaction? That can feel too risky. Be sure you aren't leaping to negative conclusions.

Indeed, the premise of the influence model in this book is that everyone has personal interests—currencies—that they value, which are perfectly legitimate sources of motivation and must be met to gain influence. Difficulty arises only when people consistently and completely place those interests ahead of or at the expense of the needs of the organization, unit, or everyone else.

The second kind of political behavior requires awareness of how organizations by their nature are political, because different groups have different assignments and interests, and some individuals, by role or behavior, have more power than others. You can't be fully effective without understanding this more benign but potent form of organizational politics, in which unique and idiosyncratic customs develop and impact behavior. This is a normal development of all social systems and should be understood, not disparaged.

This chapter will focus on this second type of “politics” (and we will revisit how to deal with the first type in the next chapter). In our discussion below, we will make the case that “organizational politics” are not only inevitable but necessary as the organization adapts to current conditions. And then we will show how you can be influential with that.

The Nature of Organizations

For the second form of politics, the subject of this chapter, the sources are the nature of organizations. No matter how clever the designers, planning and predicting all the ways people and groups will have to interact is impossible. The formal organization is a blueprint, but in everyday life, many improvisations arise to fill in the gaps that people can't adequately account for. These improvisations inevitably create an informal organization, in which some individuals and groups do more or less than expected—and needed—to make the organization function. Just think, for example, of how important the president's assistant is when some things require immediate attention and others can be stalled. Some people who want appointments are obnoxious while others are pleasant, some executives need information that's closely guarded, certain customers can't be ignored whereas others can. Over time, the assistant develops responses that go beyond the president's simple rules or policies because he must judge how to cope with new situations. The responses become a pattern, and soon informal arrangements become more routine. The three favored executives may have coffee with the assistant from time to time, discussing topics when it's not formally required. Multiply these kinds of informal arrangements many times, and soon a professional mapmaker would be needed to reflect the constantly shifting distribution of interaction and decision making. Organizations would be less efficient and effective without the informal organization alongside the formal one.

As a result of the informal organization (and partly causing it), individuals accrue more or less influence, depending on their individual knowledge, past jobs, personal history, competence, and personal style. Not infrequently, people the charts say should have little power actually have a lot, and vice versa. To get things done, you must know who is who and what actual influence they have.

In addition, the natural bumps in work outcomes and the collision of work styles lead organizational members to develop different feelings about one another and whole groups of people. This history is very much present, though perhaps just “understood,” even when the original sources of tension are long forgotten.

Furthermore, parts of organizations created to accomplish specific goals and activities, especially when measured on them, tend to pursue those goals even at the expense of the total organization or other parts. This doesn't mean they are selfish or bad corporate citizens; it is just inherent in the design. Whenever decisions are made, each group tries to influence the decisions in their favor, which is exactly what politics is about. Thus, politics refers to pursuit of interests; it would be strange if each area did not do that. (The leader's job is to find ways to make the overall organizational goals at least as attractive, so components pull together.)

All organizations also have a history, preferred procedures or protocols for doing things, certain key gatekeepers and trendsetters, and certain symbols that have to be invoked. Many members are aware of these, consciously or instinctively, and operate within the preferred structure.

When you look at organizational politics this way, part of your job is to understand the dynamics and inevitable conflicts, accept them as part of organizational life, and learn to work through them to accomplish your work. Savvy organizational members account for all of this as they proceed. Knowing the landscape is part of effectiveness. But if you define this type of “politics” as bad, you won't understand it and therefore you lose influence.

Knowing it and working through and around it, however, does not require anyone to descend into the worst kind of personal politics. Though sometimes tempting, that seldom produces good long-term results. Therefore, don't put down politics. Don't be “above” politics. That attitude is not only naïve but also a harsh judgment that reality is “bad” and, in its own way, is just as political a position. If you avoid or scorn politics you give away power, while underhanded, secretive, or nasty behavior creates poisonous relationships and eventually hurts your reputation. Play hard but fair.

Culture Determines the Way Politics Are Played

Organizations differ in their cultural beliefs about politics. First, they vary greatly in how easily they accept the idea that it's okay for departments or projects to actively pursue their own interests. No one thinks that departmental interests don't matter, but they might believe that departmental benefits should only be byproducts of good work for the organization. In other organizations, pursuing departmental self-interest is seen as natural and inevitable, so almost anything is fair game.

The second cultural difference is how much conflict among departments is accepted. Some organizations frown upon the very idea of conflict and opposing positions and try to suppress differences. When that occurs, opposing positions don't disappear, but have to operate underground, which makes them more difficult to handle and can produce the negative personal politics that can be so nasty. (If you have dealt with many nonprofit organizations, you will recognize this pattern.)

The alternative doesn't have to be like some companies in New York, where fighting is an art form, and winning the battle is more important than achieving organizational goals. More and more organizations are seeing the value in openly expressing differences and then working to achieve creative win-win outcomes. Much of the material in this book can lead to that form of productive conflict.

Get the Lay of the Land

For you, the important lesson is to know what game you are in. You shouldn't descend into petty backbiting just because it goes on in your organization, but staying back and saying “tsk, tsk” to yourself leaves you completely out of the action. Conversely, don't assume that everyone will cheerfully wade into arguments just because that's your preference. And you must consider how legitimate the overt pursuit of your department's interests is and be upfront about what you are after. Knowing the game you are in is perhaps the first rule for effectiveness. (This rule is parallel to the relationship advice we give about understanding how individuals prefer to be approached.)

When you must get something done that is likely to touch other areas, learning their rules of engagement is part of the work. Just as we advocate that you understand how individuals want to influence and be influenced, so do you need to understand what is important in that other area. What might work for those in production might not be effective in dealing with scientists in the lab.

Collecting Political Information

If you are relatively new and don't know, ask. You can seek out old-timers or people who seem well connected, and ask how things work. In Table 15.1 we provide some of the kinds of questions you can ask to understand how things work and how to proceed.

Table 15.1 Questions to Help Determine How to Operate Consistently within the Political Climate of the Organization

What are the key stakeholders' hot buttons?
Where are the land mines buried; what issues are loaded?
Is there any significant history that I should know?
Who are the powerful but hidden people?
Who are the king/queen makers?
Are there people with (established) connections that you must not cross?
Who must be courted so they don't oppose you even if they do not fully agree with your plans?
What are the unspoken rules for getting along?

Diagnose Stakeholders

All of the preceding is background work you do to diagnose the organization's important players or groups. If you tune in to the culture and politics at the start, you will better identify who is important and must be dealt with. Knowing the key stakeholders is critical to success.

As we have stressed, influence happens when you provide something the person you want to influence values in return for what you want. (Some people might argue that such clarity about how influence works encourages organizational politics, but the politics of interests are built in, as we discussed earlier.) To deal with the natural interests of individuals and groups that might not be compatible with what you want or have to offer, you need to understand each of them very well. Besides the obvious departmental benefits, what other things do they care about? If you can figure that out, you increase the range of possible areas for making exchanges.

In general, we advocate a direct approach and conversation about interests, and if in your organization most people acknowledge the legitimacy of personal and departmental interests, you can ask. The question might look like this: “I need your cooperation, and I know you will need to feel you are benefiting, too, so if you can tell me what matters to you, I will try to satisfy your goals.” If, however, such straight talk is frowned on or if (even worse) relationships are so suspicious that any request makes you feel too vulnerable, you will have to diagnose at a distance. Chapter 4, “How to Know What They Want,” and Chapter 3, “Goods and Services: The Currencies of Exchange,” give lots of advice on how to do this, but here we summarize and add to it.

Think about the stakeholders' organizational situation. What pressures and forces act on them? Early in this chapter, we talked about how the culture is part of these forces, but there are others. What are their actual work assignments, and which other key players must they interact with in their assignments? How are people measured and rewarded? How pressured are they? What technologies do they use, and how do those affect their ability to do their work? What are the most typical educational backgrounds of the people in that area? Is there a history of tension with your group? Do they always have problems with certain other areas?

Answering these questions can alert you to what each stakeholder might value, which allows you to appropriately frame your request and the payoffs to the stakeholder. The answers also can help you decide in advance how to talk to each important stakeholder about your plans. What you emphasize will vary with your views of each person's interests and values; any complex influence attempt will have many possible benefits, and you want to be seen in the best light for each one. It isn't a matter of lying, but of knowing what to stress. If you anticipate, for example, that one group may feel threatened by your initiative's potential impacts, then you might focus on some potential benefits to them when you approach.

The Importance of Knowing Yourself

Dealing productively with the political system requires intense attention. You must make complex trade-offs when deciding where to push and where to back off and need considerable nerve to navigate among competing points of view. Thus, you will find it especially important to clarify your own objectives and understand your own attitudes and values. What are your needs—your hot buttons— and what is most likely to throw you off balance? Your values and ethics will probably be tested, as you decide when to be completely open, when to say only what is necessary, and when to bluff. Thinking about how to fit your approach to many different people and groups can feel like an overwhelming burden. You will need great clarity about your objectives and boundaries. The more self-aware you are at the start, the less you must learn on the fly when you are most pressured.

This is crucial if you are in an organization that plays dirty politics (and dealing with that will be the focus of the next chapter). But even when that is not the case, self-awareness is necessary. All organizations, by the very fact that they have to allocate scarce resources, are competitive for the personnel, money, and space that you want. You are also going to have to influence others further up in the organization, so clarity on what is primary and what is secondary is important.

To illustrate that and see a skilled, high integrity political player at work, look at how Fran Grigsby handled a complex political situation where she was faced with possibly killing a $100 million project of a well-liked senior peer—while having to navigate organizational politics in the process.

Fran Grigsby held important management positions in a number of companies. Some years ago, she moved from DEC to Commuco and soon found herself faced with a really tricky task in an organization with a tough culture. She was asked to head a project that most observers considered doomed, but it had been started by a respected senior manager who was still around and invested in it, and she had to figure out how to proceed.

Lessons from Fran Grigsby's Political Experiences at Commuco

Knowing the Environment

Note how Fran carefully assessed key stakeholders and what was important to them. She built alliances that allowed her to solve the issues and survive organizational politics. A lot of this has to do with mind-set (a key emphasis in this book). This is how Fran describes her thought processes:

There are two components to political savvy: I think a lot about constituencies. Who are the groups and categories I'm dealing with? I do continual sorting in my head, whatever I'm working on. The strategy is churning in my head, whatever is going on. It's like a mental map; I do it naturally. I'm creating plans for each constituency. For example, I made sure that the evaluation team that was formed were connected, long time in Commuco, who got credibility from who they are, so when they say something, it is given credibility.

Your Needs Are Legitimate

We started this chapter by acknowledging that meeting one's own needs is legitimate as long as it is not at the expense of the organization. There are many ways to do that, of which performance is one of the most central. This includes past performance—your reputation is extremely important. It doesn't guarantee a lack of opposition, but it does help gain latitude and some support. It sounds obvious, but by doing good work early and often, you can acquire some of the armor of credibility.

If you are new to the organization, however, your past performance may not be worth much; some insular places may even hold it against you. So you must understand how to gain early credibility.

One way is to do a great job with an existing problem in the organization, especially when others haven't had the courage to deal with it. Of course, taking it on creates a risk, but a success will dramatically increase your credibility, as Fran experienced. You may not be as lucky as one young man we know: at his first job a huge mess in procedures had been unsuccessfully wrestled with for months, but with computer techniques he had just learned at school, he solved it in a few days. Instant hero! But you can seek out difficulties where your perspective as an outsider is useful.

You may well then run into the kinds of political barriers that Fran found; you can then demonstrate credibility by understanding the existing culture's concerns about what you are doing and asking a lot of questions about how things work. Not only does that give you valuable information, but by knowing enough to inquire and then doing so, you make yourself more credible. After all, to politically minded others, checking out the scene is only natural and prudent.

But performance only helps insofar as it is known. One doesn't have to be a blowhard to be known. Again, here is how Fran puts it.

Also, you have to know which way the wind is blowing, doing things that will put you in a good light.…It's knowing how to make yourself look good independent of reality. Or for example, noticing external things, like what category of product is getting a lot of press these days. It's a gut sense, hard to say. There is a style of presenting things as a manager (you can think of it as creating your own wind), personal PR, that takes a project or opportunity and feels totally comfortable with discussing business plans, futures—where everyone knows the plans are not literally true, but if you have the guts and balls to say I will make it into a $5 billion business, that gains respect, because you are willing to say I can make the wind blow!

Be Prepared to Compromise When It Would Preserve Larger or Longer-Term Goals

Only you can decide when to back off from a dearly held position, but in most cases, that must be done at times to succeed. Balancing your vision and principles with tactical necessity is hard, and perseverance is important, but don't adopt a “my way or the highway” mentality. Actual politicians usually have figured out how to get along with even ideological opponents, and know that they have to give a little to get what they care about. Good politicians are natural exchangers and preserve relationships despite disputes.

Work the Network, Constantly Planting Ideas or Potential Plans and Building Your Connections

Working the network is the logical way to get good information about important stakeholders and form good relationships. Furthermore, if your ideas might force people to change something, they usually need time for digestion. What seems frightening or radical at first can become more comfortable with repetition and slowly acquired bits of information.

If What You Have to Do Is Personally Unacceptable, Get Out as Soon as You Can Find a Better Alternative

Even though Fran was successful, ambitious, and quite good at getting things done in a tough, high-pressure, political organization, she didn't want that kind of life and eventually left. Some people don't like working in a quiet, pleasant environment, finding it too sleepy, while others would find any large organization too pressured. Even some small organizations can be remarkably political—claustrophobic vipers' nests. Find what suits you.