surviving organizational politics pdf printable

Surviving Organizational

PoliticsThe Art of Becoming an

Effective Political Player

Mike Marinaccio, PH.D.

Copyright 2008 by Mike MarinaccioAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical method, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews. For permission requests contact: The Organization for Entrepreneurial Development www.oedglobal.orgCover design and illustrations created by Ryan Brandt.ORDERING INFORMATIONPlease send orders to The Center for Entrepreneurial Education and Advancement (CEEA), the academic and research arm of The Organization for Entrepreneurial Development (OED), www.oedglobal.org. Special discounts are available on quantity purchases. Printed in the United Sates of America1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10ISBN 978-0-9800597-2-4

http://www.oedglobal.org

DedicationFor my grandchildren and the political players they are today

and who need no lessons on how to get grandpa to do what they want. My hope is, as they become the political players of

tomorrow, the lessons here will allow them to get others to behave the way they have grandpa acting today.

4 Surviving Organizational Politics

Surviving Organizational Politics 5

Table of Contents

1 Organizational Politics: The Force You Shouldn’t Deny ................132 Organizational Politics: How to Become a Political Survivor .......253 Meet the Players ....................................................................................354 Know Who’s in the Game ....................................................................435 You Can Be Political and Ethical .........................................................516 What Your Organization Tells You About Politics ...........................597 Gaining Political Power........................................................................698 The Importance of “Fitting In” ............................................................779 Satisfying Your Personal Needs ..........................................................8310 You Need Help, So Don’t Go It Alone ..............................................9111 Don’t Get “Boxed-In” .........................................................................9712 Reality and the “Spin Doctor” .........................................................10513 Nothing Stays the Same ................................................................... 11114 You’re the Politician Now ................................................................12115 Farewell to the Players .....................................................................127

The Organization for Entrepreneurial Development endorses non-sexist language. However, in an effort to make

this book clear, consistent and easy to read, we’ve used “he” throughout the odd-numbered chapters and “she”

throughout the even-numbered chapters. The copy is not intended to be sexist.


ForewardOver the years, I have worked with many of today’s best

and most successful business leaders who have taken their organizations to exceptional heights. More than a few

scratched and clawed their way to the top. Some elegantly slid right into success. I have read the management books and studied employee behavior from many disciplines, gleaning a great many insights. When it comes to organizational politics, I find myself at a loss. I have always been quick to distance myself from the negative behaviors I associated with organizational politics and have even taken pride in my somewhat direct, “no BS” style. When Dr. Mike first mentioned organizational politics, I was skeptical. However, I have watched this guy for more than a dozen years. He differentiated himself as a military officer. And is there any occupation in which it is more important to know when and how to salute and say “Yes, sir”? I have seen him navigate corporate board sessions, manage tough issues and handle difficult people with unmatched agility. A friend, peer and business partner, Dr. Mike was pre-eminently qualified to challenge my beliefs about organizational politics. So, I took his assessment and worked through his exercises. Over the years, as I watched him in dozens of different situations, I saw this book take shape. By the time he turned his interests into a doctoral program and later a dissertation, I was finally rethinking my position on organizational politics.


I discovered that I was ignoring a basic principle of success: I don’t work in a vacuum, nor can I succeed on my own. Rarely does anyone have the luxury of complete independence and freedom of action. Because we function within the context of the organization we work for, we need the cooperation of others whose motivations may be quite different than our own. In the broadest sense, our ability to influence others to do what we want them to do is organizational politics. It is my privilege to introduce this book to you. By its end, you will understand the dynamics of political behavior and have the tools you need to become an effective political player. You will know how to survive and succeed in the political world of your organization.

Eric LeamanPresident

Organization for Entrepreneurial Development2008


IntroductionLet me introduce you to three characters: Robert, Marissa

and Tyler. Each is a composite of someone I know and have worked with in the past. And each wrestles with the effects of

organizational politics. You’ll get to know them well as you read my book.Robert works for a fairly large, highly structured organization. Every day he goes to work, his success depends on gaining the cooperation of his workers, his peers, his bosses and a variety of other people. Unfortunately, every night he goes home somewhat frustrated because those he works with don’t seem to want to go along with his suggestions or directives. He believes they just don’t get it!Marissa owns a small business. She started her business because she is passionate about her work. She goes to work excited by the prospect of each new day and the chance to do what she truly loves. However, she goes home every night worn out and frustrated by a day of dealing with employees, suppliers, students and a variety of other people who present constant obstacles to her ability to really do what she loves.Tyler has spent years in rigorous education and training to gain the expertise needed to practice his profession. He goes to work every day anticipating the opportunity to face unique professional challenges that will engage his knowledge and build his professional reputation. Yet, he goes home every night frustrated by the seemingly inept capabilities of his colleagues and his inability to get his clients to understand and accept his advice.


For nearly 40 years, I’ve experienced what it’s like to sit in Robert, Marissa and Tyler’s seats. I’ve been a military officer, a corporate executive, an entrepreneur and business owner, a consultant and a teacher. I’ve worked in governmental organizations, profit and not-for-profit organizations, small and large businesses, and academic institutions. I’ve worked for organizations that are local, regional, national and international in scope. Based on this spectrum of work experience, I’ve found that skill, talent, experience, education and intelligence do not necessarily lead to organizational success. In fact, I’ve often seen very capable people fail and far less capable people succeed. The secret to organizational success and to removing daily frustrations, like those experienced by Robert, Marissa and Tyler, lies in your ability to control your work environment. And the secret to controlling your work environment is mastering the art of political behavior. Organizational politics isn’t bad, unethical or harmful, despite what you may think. In reality, all of us engage in political behavior. The key is to understand it, not fight it. And, more importantly, to become an adept political player. I wrote this book to help you recognize the value and positive aspects of political behavior, especially those of you who think of it as something negative. The fact is, organizational politics is unavoidable! So, you might as well understand it, embrace it and learn how to be an effective politician.Think of this book as your organizational survival kit. As you read further, you’ll see Robert, Marissa and Tyler in action, as political players. You’ll explore how the dynamics of organizational politics impact each of them, and see how their inability to understand and follow good political practices may leave them frustrated. You’ll see the political choices they have, how they deal with them, come to understand the “rules” of effective political behavior and realize that political behavior is a natural part of human interactions. You’ll see – whether consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, positively or negatively – that every day each of us engages in political behavior in all of our relationships. Finally, I hope you’ll embrace the idea that being able to deal with organizational politics is a matter of survival in organizational life.Still not convinced about the importance of organizational politics? Wondering if this book is really for you? Then ask yourself the following questions:


My Politically Savvy Assessment Yes [ ]

No [ ]

Are you aware of how an organization impacts the behavior of its employees? [ ] [ ]

Have you consciously tried to understand the nature of your organization? [ ] [ ]

Do you understand how your organization’s nature puts constraints on the behavior of its employees and also takes advantage of opportunities to influence them?

[ ] [ ]

When you deal with people outside your organization, do you try to understand the organizational parameters that affect their behavior?

[ ] [ ]

Do you believe that other people’s beliefs are the basis for their actions? [ ] [ ]

If you want to influence employee behavior, do you believe it’s just as important to manage their beliefs or perceptions as it is to manage the reality behind them?

[ ] [ ]

Do you know who in your organization holds power, how that power affects the organization and where you fit in those power structures?

[ ] [ ]

Do you care how the motivations of others may help or hinder you when working on a project? [ ] [ ]

Do you know how to manipulate the parameters of success so you can be more flexible in your actions? [ ] [ ]

Do you know the importance of building political allies? [ ] [ ]

Do you know how to build your personal political agenda? [ ] [ ]

Do you believe that there is an ethical foundation for political behavior? [ ] [ ]

If you answered “No” to at least half of these questions, this book is for you. Welcome to the world of organizational politics!


1Organizational Politics:

The Force You Shouldn’t Deny

Think you’re not influenced by organizational politics? Think again. Everyone who works with people is influenced by the political behavior of his co-workers.

Some understand it and consciously use it to achieve their objectives. Others believe political behavior is something wrong and unethical. They avoid organizational politics and get angry when they think others are acting “politically.” The vast majority of us fall somewhere between these two extremes. We may be unaware that we always work in a political environment and, therefore, don’t see the potential that organizational politics has to make us feel either satisfied or disgruntled at work. Here’s the all-important first step in your organizational survival training: accept the fact that political behavior is everywhere and it’s not going away. Every Management 101 curriculum should include several lessons on organizational politics. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.


What Is Organizational Politics? There are academicians who study the way individuals act within an organization and how their behavior impacts the overall ability of an organization to operate. This discipline is called Organizational Behavior. Political behavior is part of this discussion.Many things impact the way people behave within an organization. Personalities play a major role, especially in how people with very different personalities interact at work. Add to the mix the drive for results, and the environment is ripe for political activity. Political forces can be personal, group or organizational. They all contribute to the way people behave at work, and these behaviors impact organizational performance in many ways: productivity, absenteeism, turnover, organizational citizenship and job satisfaction. It’s important to view organizational politics as a set of unlimited forces that influence both the positive and negative behaviors of employees on a very personal level. Also keep in mind that employees belong to at least one and possibly several groups, such as departments, work units, teams and shifts. The forces within each group also affect each person’s behavior. The impact of all these collective behaviors forms a powerful interpersonal dynamic. This dynamic creates a natural phenomenon known as Political Behavior.Remember the simple chemistry experiments you did in grade school? For instance, you may have started with a cup of water (your organization) and three common but very different household items (other people): baking soda, laundry detergent and vinegar. Stir the baking soda and laundry detergent into the water and everything’s fine. Add the vinegar and the mixture foams up and over the glass, creating a froth of tiny bubbles. Political behavior is like a chemical reaction. Things happen when you bring together different personalities and behaviors. To understand political behavior, you must first understand Organizational Power. Have you ever thought about a co-worker and asked yourself, “Where does his power come from?” I’m sure you’ve noticed that some people have a lot of power, others only act like they have power and some appear powerless.

Types of PowerWe all have some kind of power. It is spread across an organization and falls into five categories: Coercive Power, Role Power, Reward Power, Referent Power and Expert Power. By itself, each form of


power significantly impacts an organization. When combined, individuals with these kinds of power generate significant influence.

Coercive Power is probably most familiar to you. It’s like explaining to a three-year-old why he needs to pick up his toys. “Because I said so!” In that situation, compliance is required or coerced. Options are few. In business, coercive power comes into play when someone with authority like the government or especially when the boss “says so.”Role Power is positional, or power gained by the role or title a person holds within an organization. For example, a CEO has positional power within his organization. Some bosses assume power through their positions, while others achieve it in other ways.Reward Power stems from what a person can do. For example, when someone has the ability to reward or punish you, he gains a position of power. This could be the power to give you a bonus for a job well done or withhold a raise for an infraction. It can also be the power to give or withhold needed support for something you need.Referent Power is built on relationships. This type of power may come from knowing the right person or being a member of the same club. Some people have an exceptional network, and others gain power through the car pool they share. Through an ability to gain a person of power’s ear, referent power is highly effective in getting a point heard and influencing decisions.Actions often speak louder than words. The person with Expert Power is able to sway decisions or influence others based on the skill and expertise he holds. This expertise may stem from education, years of experience on the job or even a certification offered through academies or special groups. When it comes to Expert Power, one must continually develop it or find himself outdated. Therefore an individual who swings the “expert bat” will often be very deliberate in what he does and how it’s done.

Putting Power to WorkWe all have power. However, power by itself is inert. It needs a catalyst. Organizational politics happens when a person behaves in a certain way in order to convert his power into results. In other words, it’s political when one person attempts to use whatever power he has to influence the behavior of another.Here are three key characteristics of the power/politic dynamic:


It’s an interpersonal dynamic requiring more than one 1. person. The power wielder is able to use something to influence others who are dependent on him.Organizational politics occurs within the context of an 2. organization and its activities. How the power wielder chooses to use his power (political 3. action) is a personal decision.

Perceptions of Organizational PoliticsSo, organizational politics is an unavoidable part of human interaction. It happens when one person tries to influence another. Each of us has some degree of inert power, or some ability to get others to agree with our positions, ideas, plans, suggestions and the like. In most cases, we believe we’re right and that everyone should just go along with us. This works just fine as long as those we’re trying to influence agree with us and their positions match our own. In these situations there’s little or no conflict. However, when people disagree with us and resist acting as we wish, we try to persuade them. This persuasion involves directly using our own power or indirectly leveraging the power of others. Whatever the case, persuasion is the core of political behavior. Persuasive political activity can be perceived as positive or negative, depending on the viewpoint of those who receive it. What causes it to be perceived as positive or negative? If you’re trying to persuade people to change their positions, initally they will probably take a negative view of your actions, and resist your effort. If you want to increase your chances for political success, you need to make sure your activities are viewed in a positive way. To better understand how political behavior is perceived, we need to examine human nature. Regardless of what we’d like to think, most people’s actions are driven by self-interest. For instance, if you need a co-worker to help you with a project after lunch, you might offer to get him a cup of coffee first thing in the morning. A nice gesture like that makes it easier to ask for a favor later. People typically act in ways they believe will benefit them personally. Their interests may or may not coincide with the interest of the person trying to influence their behavior. When there’s a perception that an individual engages in political behavior for his own benefit, it tends to be viewed as negative. Although, in reality, each of us acts in what we believe is our own best interest. The key to having your political behavior perceived positively is to mask the motivation of self-interest. Make it appear


that your political activity stems from some cause that’s important to the person or people who are the targets of your action. In other words, make sure your co-worker understands how helping with your effort will benefit him in the long run. Let’s take this a step further. Since this power/politic phenomenon is both a personal and interpersonal dynamic and it takes place within an organizational context, you need to consider several things to understand both its impact and consequences.

What is the personal motivation driving the political •behavior? If the motivation is self-interest rather than organizational interest, the political action has a high probability of being considered negative. What are the results of the behavior on the person or •people who are directly impacted by the behavior and the organization? If the political action results in a positive impact on the person who initiated it (regardless of motivation) and a negative impact on the organization and people in the organization, then, the political action also has a high probability of being considered negative. Despite the motivation and direct results of the behavior, •how is the political behavior perceived? Ultimately, people who observe the action determine whether it’s considered positive or negative. This point is key. If you want to increase the probability of a positive perception, make sure your political actions always are perceived as taking into account the interests of the organization and the people you’re trying to influence.

Political TypesAs a player in organizational politics, you have three basic options. The first is to accept the reality of political activity and adapt your political behavior, making sure your personal intent is balanced by organizational need. Or, secondly, you can believe there is something inherently distasteful, unethical, manipulative or dirty about political behavior and blatantly ignore its reality. A third option exists. You can be completely unaware or ignorant of the political behavior happening in your organization, as well as its potential effect on yourself and those around you. Let’s call the players who fit these three optional behaviors the Politician, the Maverick and the Victim.


The Politician He understands political behavior, and his political actions are well thought out. He starts by knowing the players. He then creates an ethical framework for his political activity, assuring the objective of his political behavior is perceived as “the right thing to do.” Next he understands that he and the people he’s trying to influence work within an organizational framework.The Politician understands the organization’s values. He decomposes their structures, assesses their power bases and sensitizes himself to their cultures. He builds an agenda based on his objectives within the context of those organizational characteristics.Once the Politician sets his agenda, he carefully assesses the motivations and interests of those involved in or affected by his political agenda. He identifies whose interests would be aided by his agenda and whose interests would be hurt. Based on this assessment, he actively builds a network of allies and tries to neutralize those who may oppose his agenda. When recruiting allies, he carefully makes commitments he knows he can keep.Now, the Politician is ready to initiate political action. He actively works to manage not only his progress, but also the perceptions others have of that progress. Finally, he recognizes that things change over time, so he continually reassesses his actions, making changes in his behavior as needed. The MaverickHe thinks he understands political behavior. However, he is often cynical and has a fundamentally false perception of what politics means. The Maverick believes politics is something unethical, practiced only by self-serving individuals who don’t consider what’s beneficial to the organization or to others. He looks with disdain on those he believes act politically.Because of this negative attitude, the Maverick refuses to act in any way that can be construed as political. He arrogantly believes that political behavior is beneath him. Therefore, he consciously acts indifferently toward the characteristics of his organization or the opinions of others. He believes he knows what’s right and that anyone who has any brains or common sense will see that he is right, agree with him, and praise and credit him for his brilliance. Furthermore, he believes those who disagree with him are stupid, unethical or flatly wrong. Because the Maverick is convinced there’s no ethical foundation for political behavior, he doesn’t attempt to understand the nature


or characteristics of the organization. He is indifferent to the needs and motivations of those who differ from himself. Consequently, his actions are the antithesis of effective political behavior. He is absorbed by his desire to act as he thinks best. The irony is that this self-absorbed behavior embodies exactly what he claims to disdain – a person who acts solely in his own interests despite how they affect the organization or others. The VictimThe Victim is completely unaware of the nature of political behavior. He neither consciously accepts it as an effective way to accomplish his objectives nor does he consciously reject it. Unlike the Politician, he makes no conscious effort to understand the way organizational characteristics or the motivations of others may affect his potential for success. Unlike the Maverick, he has no overt disdain for political behavior. In fact, when these are pointed out to him, he gladly tries to comply with them on a temporary basis. He’s fine just going with the flow, with no real attempt to understand what causes the flow or where it may lead him. He’s not aware of how he’s affected by the political behavior of those around him.

Political Players in ActionTo get a clearer picture of these three political types, let’s look at a few scenarios. You’ll quickly see how each political type would act in the situations presented.Scenario 1: Bill Hansen, Small Business OwnerBill started his business nearly 10 years ago. Mary, his wife, worked side by side with him in the early days. Now, she only works part time. They currently have 35 employees. Bill runs sales, marketing and customer service. Rusty, Mary’s brother, is in charge of operations, although he might be in over his head. Some employees like Rusty because he’s jovial and makes them feel good even when they make mistakes. Others are frustrated because Rusty never seems to get things done. From a strictly business perspective, Bill needs Rusty to run an efficient operations department. From a political perspective, Bill needs Rusty to change his behavior.Bill the Politician recognizes that his company is a family business and the work environment is affected by family relationships. In this context, he acknowledges that his wife holds a position of power, even though he is the “owner.” Bill also recognizes that while Rusty frustrates some employees, he has the support of others. From a political perspective, Bill must get the support of his wife and those


employees who are angry with Rusty, and at the same time, he must neutralize those who are in Rusty’s support group. Bill the Politician will start by discussing the situation with his wife. Because he’s sensitive to Mary’s relationship with Rusty, Bill wants to find a way to deal with Rusty that is comfortable for her. He may even persuade Mary to confront Rusty about his performance problem and, as a loving sister, offer assistance, mentoring and support. At the same time, Bill can work with the employees who have problems with Rusty and assure them he understands their feelings. He also can explain he’s working with Rusty and ask for their patience and assistance in getting Rusty to improve his performance. Rusty’s first “improvement” exercise may be showing his supporters how he plans to change his behavior while still treating them in a friendly manner. Bill the Maverick knows that family relationships exist, but he’s insensitive to family dynamics. To Bill’s way of thinking, he’s the boss, he knows how Rusty should behave, and he believes he’s right in demanding that Rusty change his behavior. He directly confronts Rusty, insists on change and threatens to fire him. He doesn’t care that Rusty resents this confrontation and complains to both his sister and his supporters. The employees who are troubled by Rusty’s performance take great delight in Bill’s hard-line position, while Rusty’s supporters resent Bill’s treatment of him. Then, there’s Bill’s wife, Mary, who’s angry about how he treated her brother. A bad situation becomes even worse.Bill the Victim does nothing. While he doesn’t necessarily like Rusty’s behavior, he convinces himself he can live with it. He’s afraid of making his wife, Rusty and Rusty’s supporters angry. He tries to be extra nice to those having trouble with Rusty, hoping that he can divert their frustration. In this scenario, a bad situation seemingly stays the same on the surface. Underneath, it’s silently spiraling deeper and deeper, meaning more problems for the business. Scenario 2: Marti Campbell, CEOMarti Campbell was hired as chief executive officer shortly after the death of Steve Jacobsen, the founder of SJ Inc. Given Marti’s background and expertise, she’s directed the company toward the international marketplace and has significantly grown the business. But many of the “old-timers” don’t like the new emphasis and the way it’s changing their jobs. The challenge for Marti is setting a new strategy and direction for the organization.From a strictly business perspective, Marti’s issue is continuing to pursue a successful new strategy. From a political perspective,


Marti’s issue is gaining the support of the old-timers, sometimes known as “creating buy-in.”Marti the Politician recognizes the company has a history. Over the years, it’s developed a culture and a specific way of doing things. A group of key employees has made the company successful and enjoyed success themselves. Many of these old-timers are set in their ways – they don’t see any advantages to changing successful practices. Marti recognizes that dictating change may get surface-level or lip-service support but not the heartfelt support she really needs. So she takes the time to know these old-timers, identifies their personal motivations and tries to identify the “real” leader. Based on this personal interaction, she links her new strategy to personal motivations, especially that of the group’s leader. Perhaps it’s a bonus program, a new set of attractive responsibilities, the opportunity to travel and take family along, or the promise of an early retirement if the new strategy is a success. Once she has the support of one or more of the old-timers, especially the leader, she can use him as a point person to change the attitudes of others.Marti the Maverick demands respect, loyalty and obedience as the new CEO. She lays out her program and expects all employees to change their attitudes because she’s right and her program is what the company truly needs. The “old-timers” resent Marti’s position and use their power to covertly undermine her directives. Marti starts a war with the “old-timers.” She may win, but blood will be spilled, and it may be her own.Marti the Victim ignores the potentially negative attitude of the “old-timers.” She sets her strategy and just assumes that they’ll all go along with it. She’s blind to the fact that they don’t whole-heartedly support her. She allows them to entrench and solidify their power in the company. She keeps pushing her agenda, but doesn’t seem to notice that people aren’t following. As a result, she will never really solidify her position as CEO. Scenario 3: Tim, Sean and Neo TecTim Fisher and Sean Sevens started Neo Tec as a lark several years ago while they were in business school. Who could have guessed that the company’s now well on its way to an IPO? Tim wants to keep the company like it is. Sean brings in buyers and investors almost every week and would like to “cash out.” In either case, the partners have more money than they ever imagined. Their issue is conflicting objectives.From a strictly business perspective, Tim and Sean’s issue is setting the future strategy of their company. From a political perspective,


their problem is achieving individual dreams for their personal futures. They need to figure out how Neo Tec can give both of them the opportunity to satisfy their dreams.Tim and Sean the Politicians see the conflict in their positions. As friends and partners, they sit down and talk through their differences. They search for a strategy that both can accept. They recognize that compromises must be made and that, in all probability, neither will be 100 percent satisfied. But they agree to accept and support a compromise position.Tim and Sean the Mavericks entrench themselves in their positions. Each is convinced he’s right and feel that arguing will eventually convince the other. If it doesn’t happen, too bad. Eventually, their confrontation will intensify until one gives in by resentfully surrendering or leaving the partnership. Whatever the outcome, their friendship is irreparably damaged. In all likelihood, their partnership is in jeopardy and possibly at an end.Tim and Sean the Victims ignore the differences in their positions. Each continues to pursue his own agenda, indifferent to what the other does. The company is in turmoil, with no clear strategy or direction. Scenario 4: Jane Malloy and Her New BossJane Malloy inherited a business from her dad. As the business grew, it expanded to several regional offices. Eventually, Jane sold it to a holding company. As part of the sales agreement, she was retained to run the East Coast offices. New directors were put in place to manage the other regions. Tom, head of the holding company, is Jane’s new boss. She has the loyalty of the company’s major customers. Tom wants to introduce them to other products the holding company produces, but Jane’s not impressed by these product offerings. From a strictly business perspective, Tom’s issue is making the acquisition of Jane’s company a success by leveraging its customer base to cross-sell other products. From a political perspective, Tom’s issue is gaining the loyalty of the acquired company’s customers.Tom the Politician recognizes he needs Jane’s support. He plays to her personal motivations and provides incentives to help transfer the loyalty of her customers and their solid relationships to the new company and to him.Tom the Maverick confronts Jane and demands a change in her behavior. His action results in resistance and a reduced potential for success for the company, as well as for Tom and Jane.


Tom the Victim allows Jane to continue her behavior and tries to achieve his objective without her overt cooperation. Again, this isn’t a strategy with a high probability of success.

How About Your Political Beliefs?This book will help you adopt the attitude of the Politician. After reading these scenarios, you no doubt agree the Politician has the greatest potential for success. Before you learn how to become a Politician, let’s test your beliefs about political behavior.

Positively Somewhat Positively

Neutrally Somewhat Negatively

Negatively

1 2 3 4 5

I view organizational politics:

Organizational politics affects my attitude toward personal job satisfaction:

Organizational politics affects my attitude toward staying with my current business:

Organizational politics affects my attitude toward personal rewards:

Organizational politics affects my attitude toward personal job performance:

Organizational politics affects my general attitude toward the organization:

Organizational politics affects my general attitude toward my job experience in general:

Solely Organization

Mostly Organization

Organization/ Self Equally

Mostly Self

Solely Self

When engaging in organizational politics I act with whose interests as my priority?

When engaging in organizational politics I feel other members of the organization acted with whose interests as the priority?

Total Score


Scoring: Total the numbers in each vertical column and then add them together across the bottom.So how did you do?If your total score is below 20, you have the attitude of the Politician. You probably believe political behavior can positively impact an organization and its employees. The following chapters give you tools and resources to better manage the dynamics of organizational politics.If you scored between 20 and 40, you’re predisposed to playing the role of the Victim. You tend to be ambivalent about political behavior and are either consciously or unconsciously diverting your attention away from the dynamics that run your business. You may feel a strong pressure to do something but end up doing little. This position can be a pressure cooker for stress and job dissatisfaction. But there is hope! The following chapters include tools and resources that will increase your power and generate more consistent, positive results, allowing you to stop being a victim.If you scored more than 40, you have a tendency to be a Maverick. Generally, you have a negative attitude about political behavior, probably try to avoid it and are disdainful of those you think act politically. In the real world, few people can succeed with this position. The following chapters provide a wide array of tools and resources that will allow you to expand your thinking and broaden your actions. They also present alternative ways for you to behave in the world of organizational politics.

Summary: Politics Is SurvivalLet’s summarize what we’ve discussed:

Organizational politics is the ability to influence others to act in a way consistent with your beliefs, ideas or agenda.

Organizational politics is a natural dynamic of human interaction and, consequently, of human behavior in business.

When interacting within an organizational environment, political behavior is necessary for success.

You effectively deal with politics by being a Politician. Effective political behavior can be learned and may be your best resource for success.

Being an effective Politician is a key to organizational survival.


2Organizational Politics:

How to Become a Political SurvivorNo matter where you work or what you do, you’ll encounter

organizational politics and meet people who fit the profiles of the Politician, Maverick or Victim. Playing politics happens

in the blink of an eye. If you’re unprepared for the politics or choose to ignore it, you can get caught in a swirl of “people issues.” In that same blink, the skilled Politician adeptly identifies who is part of her political world, puts political behavior into an ethical context and then identifies the organizational context in which it’s being conducted. The Politician understands whom she is dealing with and then establishes an ethical and organizational context for her political agenda and activity. She builds support for her agenda and makes necessary commitments. As she works, she controls the perceptions of what’s being done. Finally, the Politician recognizes that things change over time, and she continually reassesses and makes changes as needed. That’s a lot of territory to cover in the blink of an eye! Truthfully, it happens that quickly. The sharp and fast-acting skills of the Politician can be developed. It starts by learning to ask some basic questions. The Politician learns to quickly gather answers, which


help her understand the forces operating behind the political activity. Here are the Politician’s basic questions:

Who’s playing this political game with me?•Can I be a politician and still be ethical? •Is politics the same in every organization?•Who should be the focus of my political activities?•Are there subtle things I should be aware of that impact my •political behavior?What do I want to accomplish as a result of my political •behavior?Do I need help in accomplishing what I want to do?•In seeking political help, what kind of commitments should •I make?How do I influence what people think about my political •behavior?Can I assume that things will remain the same?•

Embodied within the answers to these questions are a set of key drivers. When understood, they offer the Politician a set of rules for effective political behavior. Those drivers are: relationships, ethics, structure, power, culture, agendas, constituencies, commitments, perceptions and change. We’ll review each in great detail, but here’s a quick overview.

The Drivers of Political SurvivalDriver 1: Politics and RelationshipsThe Politician immediately addresses the first driver of organizational politics when she answers the question: “Who’s playing this political game with me?” Politics is interpersonal. Other people and their organizations are the cast of potential players with whom the Politician must interact. Rarely in organizational politics does one person play in her own, isolated world. The rub of human dynamics gives organizational politics the feeling of playing a game. Since the Politician’s intent is to influence the behavior of other players and get them to act the way she wants, politics becomes a game of influencing relationships. When playing this game, the Politician’s first step is to identify who else is in the game and what organizations these other players represent. The Politician knows the inhabitants of her political world. These players aren’t just people inside the Politician’s own organization, they include people from all organizations that


may need to be influenced. The list of possible players includes suppliers, customers, prospective customers, regulators, community members, other external colleagues and family members, as well as those inside the Politician’s organization such as supervisors, subordinates, peers and other internal colleagues. For the Politician, understanding her relationship with each of these other pertinent players and their relationships with each other is essential. Also, it is just as imperative to understand the motivation of each of these players. This leads to Rule 1 of effective political behavior.Rule 1: The Politician is engaged in a game of influence. The Politician must know who’s in the game, what the relationships are among the players and what the motivations of these other players are.The concept of politics and relationships is the basis of Chapter 4. Driver 2: Politics and Ethics Many people resist labeling themselves “Politicians.” They have felt the impact of political behavior and are convinced political behavior is something negative. They may blame politics for the loss of a job, a missed promotion, an unsatisfactory pay raise or bonus, an uncomfortable work environment or a slew of other unpleasant things they’ve experienced in their careers. Because of this, they abhor the word “Politician.” They believe those who engage in politics are fundamentally unethical. They respond with a resounding “NO!!” when answering the question: “Can I be a politician and still be ethical?”I recently surveyed people in a wide array of businesses and found the results very interesting. A very high percentage of them felt they acted in an ethical, non-political way, while most people around them tended to act in an unethical, political way. If most of us think others are somehow more unethical or more political than we are, there’s a high probability those around us think our actions are political and unethical. It’s a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.We all have opinions, ideas and a desire to have things a certain way and, as a result, we naturally want to influence others. This is political behavior. By nature, we’re all politicians every day of our lives. Some of us are simply in denial about it. Accepting it clears the path for our inner-consciences to feel comfortable with political behavior. We also need to reconcile our own innate politics with ethics.


Yes, there are political players who act unethically, but this usually hurts them in the long-term. The Politician’s political behavior is based on an ethical standard that allows her to be a good, long-term political player. That ethical foundation actually becomes the Politician’s political persona. This leads to Rule 2 of effective political behavior.Rule 2: The Politician must create an ethical foundation for her political behavior and act within the constraints of that ethical foundation.The concept of politics and ethics is the focus of Chapter 5. Driver 3: Politics and StructurePolitics is not the same in every organization. It varies greatly from organization to organization and even within different departments within the same organization. The Politician understands this and offers a resounding “NO!!” when answering the question: “Is politics the same in every organization?” The Politician understands that political activity is influenced by three organizational characteristics: structure, power bases and culture. Structure is the most fundamental influencer. It sets the organizational constraints and conditions a successful political player must understand and play by. Let’s examine two organizations. The first is highly bureaucratic and rigidly structured. The second is an open, entrepreneurial organization. In the first, the Politician understands the constraints imposed by the management hierarchy, formalized procedures, budget approval processes, etc. Her political activity, and the political activity of all the other players in the organization, must be conducted within these highly structured organizational parameters. In the second organization, the Politician recognizes the structure is much less restrictive, allowing her and all those around her to operate in a much freer and more open political arena. An open-thinking, free-wheeling political player wouldn’t be very successful in a rigid, highly structured organization. Likewise, a rigid political player wouldn’t be very successful in an open, loosely structured organization. This leads to Rule 3 of effective political behavior:Rule 3: The Politician must adapt her political behavior to the structural characteristics of the organization. Politics and structure are the subjects of Chapter 6.


Driver 4: Politics and PowerThe Politician begins to recognize the messy nature of organizational politics when she answers the question: “Who should be the focus of my political activities?” Organizations don’t always function the way their formal structural characteristics would indicate. Power structures and culture, the other two organizational influencers, often buffer and even alter the influences imposed by the formal organizational structure. For example, in a structured environment, individuals are expected to “alert” superiors to avoid surprises at all costs. This structure works just fine until one person successfully acts without permission and creates a new precedent. Driver 4 is built on the reality of power within the organization. The power structure of an organization may differ from its formal structure. Often, formal structures don’t reflect the personal characteristics of the people filling the formal roles. Furthermore, formal structures are internally oriented – they don’t show the potential impact of outside players. On the other hand, a power structure shows who the real decision-influencers are, both internally and externally.For example, the CEO is the formal head of an organization. In reality, she may wield less power than another person, a more junior executive who may be the founder’s heir. A vice president of an income-producing unit within an organization may have more power than an executive vice president of a staff area. A major customer or supplier may wield more power than an executive inside the company. Even a relatively low-level employee who has some unique but much-needed skill set may wield more power than those much higher in the formal structure. Think how many times a coach has been fired for not getting along with the team’s all-star player.These power bases are dynamic and always shifting. They play a powerful role in influencing political behavior. Recognizing the nature of these power structures leads to Rule 4 of effective political behavior.Rule 4: The Politician must know which external entities, organizational sub-units and individuals who interact with the organization wield power. She must understand where she sits relative to that power structure. She must direct her political activity to that power structure. The concept of politics and power is the focus of Chapter 7.


Driver 5: Politics and CultureThe Politician addresses culture, the last organizational characteristic that impacts political behavior, when answering the question: “Are there subtle things I should be aware of that impact my political behavior?” Culture moderates the way an organization operates and makes it less like what would be expected from its formal structure. For example, an organization may place great value on community service. And although the organization may not have community service requirements in its formal structural policy, employees who participate in philanthropic projects may receive favorable treatment. An organization’s cultural impact can be socially driven (a national culture) or organizationally driven (a culture internal to the organization). Regardless of which is the driving force, the Politician understands cultural influences can moderate an organization’s structure and policies. She is sensitive to the way formal structural dynamics are culturally interpreted to define expected organizational behavior. This leads to Rule 5 of effective political behavior.Rule 5: The Politician must understand her organization’s internal culture and external culture and adapt her political behavior to reflect its cultural norms.A discussion of politics and how culture influences is found in Chapter 8.Driver 6: Politics and Agendas“What do I want to accomplish as a result of my political behavior?” Answering this question causes Driver 6 to surface. Political activity needs an objective. Although the Politician’s agenda must be sensitive to its impact on other people’s agendas, the Politician understands how to set a personal agenda and create a political environment favorable to that agenda. The Politician’s own self-interest should control and direct this agenda. Most important, the Politician doesn’t engage in every issue. She chooses issues based on what’s best for furthering her agenda. This leads to Rule 6 of effective political behavior.Rule 6: The Politician must establish a personal agenda that serves as the objective of her political activity. The politician must control her own agenda, rather than being controlled by the agendas of others. She picks which political issues to engage in based on which ones have the best potential to further her personal agenda.This concept of politics and agendas is the focus of Chapter 9.


Driver 7: Politics and ConstituenciesIn most cases, the assistance of others is needed to either “sell” the Politician’s personal agenda, execute it or neutralize a potential opponent with whom the Politician could not reconcile agendas. Answering the question, “Do I need help in accomplishing what I want to do?”, puts focus on soliciting the active support of people who control the agenda’s decision processes or who can help influence decision makers or whose assistance is needed in accomplishing the agenda. In some instances, it’s impossible to reconcile agendas with another player or gain her support. When this happens, constituency-building is also used to isolate or neutralize the opposing player. However, it must be done in as positive a way as possible, which reduces the potential for future conflicts. Similar to Driver 6, in which the Politician picks her political issues, Driver 7 directs the Politician to pick her political associations. These associations must give her the base she needs to succeed in her short-term political objective. If she can’t build a strong base, the Politician should back away from the issue and pursue another. This leads to Rule 7 of effective political behavior.Rule 7: The Politician picks her political associations. These associations form a constituency of power players and assistance-givers who are needed to achieve the objectives of her personal agenda. The concept of politics and constituencies is discussed in Chapter 10. Driver 8: Politics and CommitmentsWhen the Politician sets an agenda and builds a constituency, she must negotiate and gain commitments from people. To be successful and retain the support of those in her constituency group, the Politician must deliver on those commitments. If she fails to deliver, she will lose credibility. This loss of credibility can evaporate a support base and result in former supporters becoming antagonists. This fact is reflected in the Politician’s answer to the question: “In seeking political help, what kind of commitments should I make?”The Politician only makes commitments that she has a reasonably high probability of being able to meet. Here’s an example. A Politician has proposed a specific project, and she promises the project can be delivered within a certain budget and will result in certain benefits. The cost is acceptable and the benefits are attractive to people she’s recruited into her constituency. To maintain their support, she must deliver on her promises.


Consequently, the Politician avoids committing to something she can’t deliver. While she recognizes she can control certain things in her environment, she realizes there are other things she can’t control. In making her commitments, the Politician ensures she can control enough of the things needed to deliver on her commitments. In negotiating these commitments, she tries to have imposed on her as few constraints as possible, allowing maximum flexibility of action. At the same, the Politician tries to obtain commitments for support that are as tightly constrained as she can negotiate. The commitments for support the Politician receives must meet the needs of her agenda. This sets up Rule 8 of effective political behavior.Rule 8: The politician must not allow her commitments to be constrained. She must maintain control over enough of those aspects of her commitments to gain enough flexibility to act. In return for commitments made, she requests commitments that are as tightly constrained as she can negotiate. A discussion of politics and commitments is in Chapter 11.Driver 9: Politics and PerceptionsOnce commitments are made and support gathered, the Politician is ready to act to accomplish her agenda. Other players will observe her political actions, and they will likely perceive those actions very differently. In an organizational environment, it’s essential for the Politician to understand and manage the reality of her work environment, the progress on her agenda, and the commitments she has made. However, this is not enough. Her answer to the question, “How do I influence what people think about my political behavior?”, reflects the fact that she can’t assume other people, especially those who support her constituency, will correctly interpret her actions. The Politician must be sensitive to the way others see and interpret what she’s doing.For example, the Politician has made a commitment to deliver a project on time and on target. She has successfully managed the effort, but failed to communicate her success. One of her power constituents hears a rumor that the project will be late. Based on this rumor and being unaware of the truth, part of her power base erroneously concludes the project has failed. The Politician is faced with the loss of support. This leads to Rule 9 of effective political behavior.Rule 9: The Politician must manage the reality of her actions and commitments, but she must also actively and aggressively control


the perceptions of everyone in her environment to ensure those perceptions are positive. This concept of politics and perceptions is the focus of Chapter 12.Driver 10: Politics and ChangeWorking through these nine drivers requires effort. The good news is your effort usually produces positive results. Follow them and you’re more likely to be an effective political player. Unfortunately, the political process doesn’t stop here. The Politician can make a big mistake when answering the question: “Can I assume that things will remain the same?” It’s wrong to assume that once you’ve crafted a successful political position, you can maintain that position by continuing to work the same way. The fact is politiacal players come and go, ethical foundations shift, organizational characteristics change, power structures are dynamic, cultures are mutable, agendas fluctuate, constituencies are continually being realigned and new commitments must be made. What a Politician can control changes, and perceptions are volatile. The Politician must place herself in a continuous cycle of re-evaluating and resetting the drivers we’ve identified. This leads to Rule 10 of effective political behavior:Rule 10: The politician must continuously re-evaluate her political premises and continuously reset her political position.The concept of politics and change is the subject of Chapter 13.So, that’s it! Ten rules to successful organizational politics. It’s a lot to grasp in one chapter. Right now you may feel slightly overwhelmed, especially if you lean toward the Maverick or Victim approach. Effective politics is complex, which is probably why so many people botch their attempts to play the game. Like it or not, you’re part of a political organization. Continuing to believe politics is wrong or hiding your head in the sand makes no sense.In the chapters that follow, I will provide case studies, examples and tools you can use to master these ten rules. And, in the end, you’ll have the resources you need to succeed in this emotionally charged and complex environment.


3Meet the PlayersIn the introduction, you briefly met Robert, Marissa and Tyler.

Each is a composite of my clients, and each comes from a very different business background. However, they have a common

problem: Each struggles with the dynamics of organizational politics. Throughout the book, I’ll use these characters to illustrate how the different drivers of political behavior can be recognized and managed. As you observe how they play out their roles, you’ll come to understand how the effective political behavior of the Politician differs from the ineffective behavior of the Maverick or the Victim. Furthermore, you’ll see how politically astute behavior improves their chances of successfully addressing the issues they face. Let’s reintroduce our cast of characters.

Robert An executive in his late 40s, Roberts works in a highly structured corporate environment. He is an executive vice president and heads the organization’s division that provides insurance products to the small business market. Although he has sales offices throughout the country, his divisional offices and administrative

organization are located in New York. The organization’s corporate headquarters are located in its historical home, a small Midwestern city.


Robert is fairly new to this position. Previously, he spent more than 15 years working as a management consultant in one of the major consulting firms. When he left the firm, he was a partner in its insurance practice. He believes his consulting experience has given him a solid understanding of the insurance business. In fact, as a consultant, he had done some work for his new company. That work led to the offer for his current position. For years, the company struggled to break into the small business insurance market. Finally, it acquired a smaller insurance company that specialized in this business. As a consultant, Robert assisted with the acquisition. Afterward, he was selected to run this new business, with the objective of gaining significant market share. During the last six months, Robert has been trying to reorganize the division and build relationships with his field sales force and independent insurance brokers, as well as existing and potential clients. Last week, the company announced a major merger with its largest competitor. Although the announcement characterized the deal as a “merger,” it’s clear the other company is the dominant partner in the merger. Robert had heard some rumblings about the merger but was not part of any of the pre-merger negotiations or discussions. He’s somewhat surprised by the announcement. The company’s new partner is a London-based company with significant operations in the United States and a headquarters in San Diego.Robert’s Problems

Robert continues to be a bit uneasy in his new position. His •staff is still trying to get comfortable with him and trust him personally and professionally. He hasn’t finished integrating operations from the past acquisition. In the midst of this organizational uncertainty, his staff is more wary about the potential impact of this new merger.The market is unsure about what will happen with the •recently announced merger. Customers are questioning if the same products will be offered and at the same rates. They want to know if they’ll still deal with the same people and continue to receive the same service. Competitors are already soliciting Robert’s client base, pitching stability during a time when they say Robert’s company will be in turmoil.Robert knows the reputation of this new merger partner. •The company has a reputation of tough management with a significant emphasis on performance. Robert doesn’t know his counterpart personally, but knows he has risen through the ranks. Unlike Robert, he has built his career


inside the insurance industry, starting as an insurance agent. He’s well respected as a client-oriented executive and has strong relationships with independent brokers who sell his products. Although no specific announcements have been made regarding second-tier management positions, Robert knows his counterpart has a good relationship with the CEO of the merger partner company. This person has been named the chairman and CEO of the merged company.

Marissa Marissa, who is in her late 30s, owns a school for the performing arts. She has always had a passion for the arts. As a child and a teenager, she participated in school and community dance, music and drama programs. She majored in music, and after college she

began to teach music to kids in after-school programs. As her pupil base grew, she was able to open a music school in her basement. Eventually, Marissa began to hire other music teachers, at first on a temporary basis and then as full-time employees. Years ago, she was able to buy a building and turn it into a real school. However, she had more room than she needed and leased part of the building to a friend who ran a dance school. This friend had some personal problems and was unable to keep her dance program going. Marissa arranged a deal with her to take over the dance program and incorporate it into her school. Later, Marissa added a drama program. Although she originally focused on smaller children, she found that as her students became older, they wanted more advanced training. As the years passed, her curricula became broader and more demanding. Her school and its programs have a solid reputation in her community. Based on this reputation, she was able to secure a contract with the school board to actually provide music education in the local grade school. Two years ago, Marissa began a series of music and dance classes for adults. Recently, she’s dealt with two new developments. First, a large national company specializing in adult education has approached her about a possible partnership, and she is considering this possibility. Second, she is in the process of applying for state accreditation to offer an Associate Degree in Performing Arts. Marissa’s Problems

Marissa started her school because she had a passion •for music and the arts. In the beginning, she was able to


satisfy this passion because she focused on teaching and interacting directly with her students on an artistic level. As the years passed, she has gotten further and further away from being involved in the arts. Now, she’s completely absorbed by administration and management. She must deal with everything but the arts, including finances, personnel issues, marketing, space management and many other issues. She hates this. While she’s driven by a vision of creating an institution recognized as the artistic center of her community, she sometimes wonders if her effort is worth it.Her expansions into dance, drama, advanced arts •programs, local school classes and adult education have forced her to interact with very different types of people and organizations. She thought she had it all figured out. However, now she is confronted with two new set of players: the adult education company and the state accreditation regulators. She questions if she’ll be able to deal with them effectively. To complicate things, the state regulator wants Marissa to form an external Board of Trustees for her school. Additionally, the regulator has made some subtle hints that the accreditation process can be “hard” or “easy” depending on some “personal” considerations. Some of Marissa’s more senior instructors, many of whom •are in charge of certain programs, are becoming more demanding. They want more say in the artistic programs the school offers. Although she understands their positions, she doesn’t want to give up control over this area. Recently, this has led to a series of heated discussions. Some of these employees have threatened to leave the school.

Tyler Tyler is a professional in his early 30s. An independent financial planner, he earned his MBA from a prestigious Ivy League school. He started his career by working for one of the major financial planning companies, completed its training program with an outstanding evaluation and received an impressive

set of professional certifications. After working for this company for several years, Tyler faced the career decision of moving into management within the company or branching out on his own and becoming an independent financial planner. Tyler decided to become independent, primarily because he wanted a lifestyle that gave him the flexibility to pursue family and personal


interests. He was able to take a few of his existing clients with him. He set up an office in his home and started his own practice. After some initial success building a client base using his personal contacts, Tyler realized that business was much easier when he had all the expertise and support his former large company gave him. On his own, it became difficult to position himself to give his clients all the support they wanted and needed. He understood if he was going to be successful, he needed help. Tyler addressed this first by moving his office out of his home and into a virtual, communal-type office that provided a professional work environment and gave him access to meeting rooms, administrative staff and other types of office support. He then found a service that could provide him with technical research on financial products, markets and offerings. As he began to go out into his community and network, he met other professionals, such as accountants, attorneys, insurance agents, business brokers, real estate agents and bankers. He developed relationships with some of these professionals and began sharing referrals and subcontracting work assignments to serve the needs of his various clients. This expanding network has significantly bolstered Tyler’s confidence. He now knows he can provide his clients with a broader base of support than he was able to provide as a single resource. As a result, he decided to start two initiatives to expand his practice. First, he began a program to sell his services to companies, not just individuals. When he sells to a company, he automatically gains multiple clients. Second, Tyler expanded his infrastructure. He put together a business plan calling for a 50 percent increase in revenues within one year. Using this plan and putting up his home as collateral, he was able to get a loan. He’s used the cash from this loan to move into a new office that is all his. He has hired two administrative assistants and a sales assistant. Through a contact, he recently met with his first prospective company and delivered his new sales pitch.Tyler’s Problems

Tyler has developed a network of professionals who act as •support resources for him and his clients. However, none of these other professionals is directly “employed” by Tyler. They are independent too. Although they have committed to Tyler as their client, he doesn’t have direct managerial control over them. Despite this, he is dependent on them to support his clients.His new business strategy depends on engaging a •


completely different market base than the one Tyler has previously dealt with.Tyler has committed himself, financially and professionally, •to a program that is very ambitious.Now Tyler must integrate and directly manage lower-level •administrative workers, a task he has not faced before.

The Political PerspectiveHere you have three very different individuals: a corporate executive, a business owner and an independent professional. Clearly, each is faced with management challenges. Too often, solutions crafted solely in terms of management theory fail because they don’t go far enough in factoring in the behavioral aspects of the situation. Robert, Marissa and Tyler have problems they need to address politically. Let’s re-state the problems of Robert, Marissa and Tyler in political terms.Robert’s Political Problems:

Influence the new interpersonal dynamics that will play out •with the new merger.Figure out how to identify and influence the players who •will control the future.Gain the loyalty of his existing employees and protect them •in the merger.Gain the trust of his clients and prospects and protect their •interests in the merger.

Marissa’s Political Problems:Find others to assume the burden of administration.•Help her teaching staff to feel valued.•Fulfill her personal desires.•Influence new players: the adult education company and •state accreditation board.

Tyler’s Political Problems:Influence his “virtual” professional support resources.•Influence a new base of clients.•Make his new plans work, especially with the constraints •he’s imposed on himself.

In the chapters that follow, we’ll examine the business situations


Robert, Marissa and Tyler face and use their difficulties as case studies for developing your political skills. You’ll gain new insights into the positive aspects of political behavior. Plus, your ability to perform as a Politician should increase through these case studies. We’ll explore the drivers and rules of political behavior in more depth. We’ll see how Robert, Marissa and Tyler use their awareness of these drivers and rules to address their problems. We’ll also observe how each can develop his or her ability as a Politician.


4Know Who’s in the Game

Rule 1: The Politician is engaged in a game of influence. The Politician must know who’s in the game, what the relationships are among the players and what the

motivations of these other players are.Believe it or not, organizational politics is a social activity. It may not be as much fun as a party, but it definitely involves interacting with other people. In fact, there would be no need for political activity if the Politician acted in an isolated environment. The whole purpose of political activity is to influence others so they accept the Politician’s point of view.However, political activity is not a way-one street. While the Politician influences others, those same “others” are acting politically to try to influence the Politician. To put this game of influence in the proper perspective, we must first identify who’s in the game. Because each player has her own reasons for playing the game, it’s important to understand the personal motivations of each. Identifying the other players in the game isn’t as simple as it appears on the surface. It actually requires a lot of thought. Many people include too few players in their game circle, considering only those with whom they have frequent contact and/or a direct organizational relationship.


At any given time, the Politician’s game may include players who:May be internal or external to the organization.•May be permanent or transient.•May know they’re in the game or be completely unaware of •the game. May be a natural supporter, resister or neutral party.•

Figure 1 illustrates the scope of a person’s political relationships. As you can see, the diagram shows the players, their organizations and their relationships. It includes the Politician’s own organization and people outside the Politician’s organization. Let’s take a closer look at these various categories of potential political players.

Figure 1: Mapping the Players

YOUPeer 2 Peer 3 Peer nPeer 1

Boss 1 Boss 2 Boss 3

Mgr 1 Mgr 2 Mgr 3

Exec 1 Exec 2

Exec n

CUSTOMER ORG

TARGETPeer Peer

Boss BossProspects

Suppliers

GovernmentAgencies

Regulators

FamilyCommunity

Groups

Professionals(Accountants,

Attorneys, etc.)Bankers, Funders,

Donors

Media

Advertisers ProfessionalGroups

Public InterestGroups

ThePolitician 4


Mapping the PlayersInternal and ExternalPolitical players often make a mistake by assuming their political relationships are limited to people in their immediate circles of daily, ongoing interactions and within their own organizations. In fact, political relationships are much more extensive. As you’ve seen in Figure 1, the Politician’s environment may include a host of internal organizational players, each with entirely different motivations. Political players external to the Politician’s organization have equally diverse desires. Their motivations may be financial, social or professionally driven. These outside players are also influenced by organizational and environmental factors of their own.Permanent and TransientAll political relationships change over time. However, there’s a tendency to establish a network or set of political relationships and assume they’ll continue in their same form. Some remain the same for extended periods of time and can be considered relatively permanent. Most are situational and in a continuous state of flux. These always shifting relationships create the biggest political challenge. The Politician must continuously assess who’s in the game with her at any particular moment and in any particular situation. Furthermore, since many of these relationships are transient, these other players’ motivations are also transient. In addition to a continuous reassessment of “who’s in the game,” the Politician must continuously reassess “why they’re in the game.” Aware and UnawareIn most cases, the Politician and the other players consciously take part in the political game. When faced with a political situation, the Politician identifies the relationships that are key to the game as she sees it. Most of the other players also recognize they’re part of the same game with the Politician.Sometimes, however, other players may not be aware they’re part of the game or they may refuse to play. Players who are unaware are Victims, and those who recognize the game but refuse to play are Mavericks. Still others may see a completely different game based on their points of view. They may or may not recognize the Politician as a player in their game. The Politician needs insight into the degree of each player’s awareness. How the Politician approaches and engages those who are aware of the game can be very different from the way she approaches those who are unaware of the game or unwilling to play.


For those actively aware players, the game is clearly quid-pro-quo, with all of them trying their best to influence each other. For those unaware or disinterested, the game is played as an indirect and subtle “sales” pitch.Supporter or ResisterThe Politician must understand that not all players will be naturally inclined to follow her attempts to influence them. Viewpoints, motivations and self-interests may be in agreement or in conflict. The degree to which each of the other players aligns herself with the Politician makes her either a potential supporter or resister. As the Politician goes through the process of identifying the other players and assessing their motivations, she also should identify them as potential supporters and potential resisters. Her political activity must focus on the alignment of supporters and the neutralization of resisters. I’ll go into detail about this in a later chapter.

The Players in ActionLet’s turn to our players: Robert, Marissa and Tyler. It’s time to work through the process of identifying who’s in their political games.

Robert’s GameRobert finds himself in a very complex political environment, with a dynamic and complicated set of relationships. Prior to the recently announced merger, his relationships included upper management, peers and subordinates in his current company, as well as prospects/clients, independent brokers, competitors

and others outside his company. His game was to gain credibility and trust with all these players. He needed to convince them that he, as a new player, could serve their interests or, in the case of competitors, convince them he could be a formidable player in the market. These relationships were all relatively permanent, and most of the players were aware of the game. However, the newly announced merger has significantly complicated the game. A whole new set of transient players have been introduced, including those in the merger company, as well as new outside players such as regulators and merger consultants. Many of the players from Robert’s existing company will become supporters, some of the new players will become resisters, and most will be neutral. In the long run, as the new merged company takes shape, all these relationships will evolve into permanent relationships, with different alignments of supporters and resisters.


Robert must deal with this evolving political environment and protect his long-term interests. He must be sensitive to the interests of his old, existing relationships. He must deal with transient relationships – some of them very short term – whose motivation is to establish the new company and secure their interests in it. Finally, he must deal with the emerging set of relationships that will form the new company. Figure 2 shows Robert’s very complex political environment.

Figure 2: Robert’s Game

Marissa’s GameFigure 3 illustrates Marissa’s political environment. Her fairly permanent relationships with faculty and administrators are evolving. Externally, she has established relationships with students, parents, the school district and the community. However,

Shareholders Insurance RegulatorsCompetitors

Customers & Prospects Outside

ConsultantsIndependent

Brokers

The Merger OrganizationRobert’s Current Organization

The Future Merged Organization

CEO 1 CEO 2

CEO 2

Mgr. 2Mgr. 1

Robert

President

Mgr. 3

President

Robert’s Counterpart

Mgr. 5Mgr. 4 Mgr. 6

President ???

Business Executive ???


new relationships are emerging. There’s a temporary relationship with the accreditation board and the new players in the national education company. Based on the outcomes of these initiatives, these transient relationships may develop into potentially more permanent relationships that include an external Board of Trustees, new faculty, new students, regulators and players who are part of the national education company. To realize her future dream, Marissa also must further develop her relationship with the local artistic community.

Figure 3: Marissa’s Game

Tyler’s Game Figure 4 depicts Tyler’s political environment. Several things characterize his political relationships. First, he now has relationships with internal staff which he must develop. Second, he has a whole new set of established and emerging relationships with external players. These include other professional service providers, bankers, financial service companies,

certification authorities, clients and prospects. Some of these relationships will be permanent, while some will be very transient. Some involve individuals, while some – such as the financial service providers – bring their own set of organizational players and circumstances. Third, since most of these external relationships are not organizationally driven and they’re not a direct part of Tyler’s practice, their motivations may be different than his own. He must continually assess the basis for these alignments and realize each external player is also assessing why she wants to continue her relationship with him.

Marissa's School

MARISSA

Administration

Faculty Faculty Faculty Faculty

CommunitySchool Board

StateAccretitationRegulators

LocalArtistic

Community

AdjunctFaculty

NationalEducationCompany

AdultStudents

ProfessionSupport(Acct,

Attor'y,Banker)

YoungSchool

Students

Potential Boardof Trustees

Accreditation


Figure 4: Tyler’s Game

Mapping Your Political Relationships Use the political relationship diagrams or maps in this chapter as a template. Create your own diagram and map the players who are part of your political game. Be sure to include those players within your organizational structure and those on the outside. List each player and think about her personal motivation for engaging in your game. Are these permanent or transient relationships? Which of these players would you identify as a potential supporter or resister? How do these factors impact the behavioral dynamic between yourself and each of them?

SummaryThe Politician engages in a game of influence. This game is multi-relational. The first step in the game is to identify the other players. The Politician should initially assess if each player is relatively permanent or transient. If transient, the Politician should further assess why and how long the relationship will last. The Politician also should assess each player’s motivations and the degree to which these motivations and self-interests are aligned with hers. This will help the Politician judge if the players are more likely to be supporters or resisters.


5You Can Be

Political and Ethical

Rule 2: The Politician must create an ethical foundation for his political behavior and act within the constraints of that ethical foundation.

Organizational politics leaves a nasty taste in many people’s mouths. Every time a person acts politically, there’s potential for positive and negative perceptions, which introduce both ethical (positive) or unethical (negative) challenges. This begs the question: Can the Politician engage in political behavior in a way that is ethical, and, if not, what are his alternatives? Power results when one person is able to influence the actions of another. In an organization, power is exercised by the use of political behavior. Since the desire to exert influence over other people is a natural human behavior, power and politics are naturally part of organizational life. Like all human behavior, influence can be exercised ethically or unethically. This chapter explains how you can use power and politics in an ethical way.


On the surface, this seems to be a fairly simple concept. Everyone seems to know when power is being exerted, ethically or unethically. For example, when Mother Theresa used her power to influence members of her organization to help the poor of India, most people considered it ethical political behavior. On the other hand, most people today would consider Hitler’s use of power and political behavior to exterminate millions of Jewish people unethical. Some people may disagree with the judgment of these examples, however, the question remains: On what basis can these actions or any political actions be evaluated from an ethical perspective? What does it mean to be ethical or unethical? To build a framework for evaluating the ethics of organizational power and politics, your starting point must be an understanding of ethics. Many confuse ethics with morality. Morality focuses on conformity of action, while ethics focuses on a definition of “right action.” Your challenge is to gain a philosophical understanding of what “right action” is.

Ethical and Organizational PoliticsMany theories of ethics have been formalized and argued by dozens of philosophers from Socrates to Kant. The differentiating factor in their ethical theories seems to be whether ethics is based on what’s best for the individual or what’s best for an entity greater than the individual. It’s a fundamental debate that’s raged since the days of Socrates. In fact, Socrates really resolved the debate while defending himself against claims that he acted in a way harmful to the state. He argued that since an individual is a citizen of the state anything that harmed the state would harm the individual. Thus, according to Socrates, since no one would knowingly harm himself, no one would knowingly act to harm the state.Let’s accept the wisdom of Socrates. If we assume individuals don’t, for the most part, act against their own self-interests and, if they’re knowledgeable of all the facts, their predisposition to act based on self-interest should be consistent with what’s best for society. The ethical basis of their actions may be interpreted by others as being what’s best for some greater good, but this is a secondary consideration. In reality, the prime driver of behavior is a person’s own self-interest. “Right action” is action based on informed self-interest.

Creating a Personal Ethical FrameworkFor the Politician, the challenge of ethical organizational politics is getting his own self-interest aligned with his organization’s and society’s needs. When this alignment slips, he borders on the edge of unethical action and the possibility of creating negative perceptions.


A sequential, five-step decision path serves as a guide to creating this alignment.

The starting point is self-examination. The 1. Politician must face himself and, in a soul-searching, conscientious way, identify his personal needs and values. Then, he needs to look externally and, in the same earnest way, identify the set of ethical and behavioral principles established by society. The Politician asks himself, “What does society generally expect in this area?” and “Is this consistent with my needs?”Next, the 2. Politician reconciles his personal interests with the community or society he’s working within. He either accepts those norms or actively works to change them. If he can’t reconcile personal needs with societal norms, he should leave the society. The 3. Politician must guarantee the organization is acting within the parameters of ethical social values. If the 4. Politician is connected to other organizations or individuals, either inside or outside his own organization, he must judge if those individuals or organizations are acting based on social norms. If not, he must terminate the relationship to act ethically.Finally, since perceptions are important, the 5. Politician must be sensitive to the beliefs and perceptions of all the other players involved in his game.The end result of this process is:

A clear understanding of who you are and what is •important to you.A clear understanding of what society and your •orgaization stands for and requires from you.An affirmation that you can pursue your self-interest •within the bounds that society and your organization place on you.

The following decision tree can be very helpful. It logically reconciles the interest of the individual with the interests of the organization and society.


Figure 5: Ethical Action Decision Tree

For the Politician to create an ethical foundation for political behavior, self-interest is the first consideration. First, he must consider his needs and personal ethics and decide if these personal considerations are fulfilled by both the society he lives in and the organization he associates with. Then, in the context of organizational dynamics, the Politician makes two major determinations. He makes a conscious (and ethical) determination to associate with a particular society and a particular organization, and he determines the organization is acting within the bounds of

Identify personal needs and values.

Identify societal norms and behavioral

principles.Reconcile personal and societal values.If social values

are not consistent, remain in society and try to change values,

in meantime ...

Does association with the organization fulfill my ethical needs?

Reject societal values.

Can they be reconciled or can I avoid the interaction?

Does the organization function within society’s definition of ethical norms?

Accept societal values and behavioral standards.

Leave society.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No. Leave the organization.

Leave the organization.

Leave the organization.

Would any external organizations or any individuals I must interact with cause me to act

contrary to societal norms or my persaonal ethics?

Does the political action support the long term best interests of the organization?

Is the action perceived as ethical (in the best interest of the organization)?

Change perceptions and engage the action. Refrain from

engaging the action.

Can perceptions be changed?

The action is unethical.

Engage the action.


socially-defined legality and morality. With these determinations made, ethical behavior can be based on self interest as long as it also supports the best long-term interests of the organization and society. At any time, if working with either an organization or members of that organization causes an ethical conflict that can’t be resolved without leaving the organization, the Politician should leave. Although motivated by self-interest, political behavior should not be contrary to the interests of the organization. The Politician needs to make sure he’s perceived as acting in the best interests of the organization. If this long-term view is taken, personal interests, organizational interests and social interests all coalesce. When building a political model, the Politician first must consider his personal needs in deciding whether to associate with an organization. Once he decides to join, work or associate with a particular organization, political behavior becomes ethical when self-interest is consistent with organizational parameters. This ethical behavior tends to be viewed positively. On the other hand, political behavior is unethical when motivated by personal interests that are contrary to the best interests of the organization. Unethical behavior tends to be viewed negatively. As long as the Politician considers self-interest in his decision to engage with a specific organization or a set of organizations, and these organizations and individuals within those organizations don’t act in a way contrary to social norms, the Politician’s behavior can be considered ethical if it’s judged to be what he believes is best for the organization. It’s important to understand that beliefs about what’s best for an organization may differ. Two people, both acting ethically, may have different opinions on what actions benefit the organization. Beliefs that differ from the Politician’s aren’t unethical unless they violate a social norm. Dealing with differing opinions is the essence of political behavior, and there’s nothing inherently unethical about it.

The Players in ActionLet’s revisit Robert, Marissa and Tyler and work through their political situations using the decision tree in Figure 5.

Robert’s Ethical AssessmentRobert’s self-interest is the development of his professional career. He has no ethical conflicts with society and accepts its behavioral norms. He feels his existing company provides a needed social service: insurance protection. Not only is this service not in


conflict with societal values, it’s beneficial. Robert also sees an opportunity to advance his career within the company. Consequently, no ethical conflict exists among society, Robert’s organization and his own self-interests. He was confident that in acting in the best interests of his organization, he would serve both societal and self-interests. However, now he must reassess this in light of the merger. Robert has decided that the new company also has no conflict with societal values, and although there are risks, he sees opportunities to continue his career development with the new company. Plus, no outside entity he’s dealing with presents any ethical conflict. Based on this assessment, Robert decides to continue his relationship with the company. On an ethical basis, Robert’s political behavior should be based on what he believes is best for the merged company. To advance his career, he must remember his own self-interest. At any time, if he feels his self-interest can’t be reconciled with the interest of the company, he should leave. If he chooses to remain with the company, ethically he should act on the basis of company interests. Of course, Robert’s opinion of what’s best for the company is somewhat subjective. However, Robert is ethically bound to determine what’s best for the company as honestly and objectively as possible. In the long run, he bases this ethical foundation on the fact that a successful merger will serve his interests, as well as the interests of both the organization and society.

Marissa’s Ethical AssessmentMarissa’s self-interest is to become a focal point of the local artistic community, using her school as the foundation. There’s no conflict between her self-interest and the interests of society. There’s also no conflict either between her self-interest and the

interests of her school or between the interests of her school and those of society. Working through the decision tree, Marissa’s only ethical conflict is the personal “demands” made by the state regulator for the accreditation body. Even though the best interests of her school may be served by giving in to these demands and getting the accreditation, she must avoid this ethical conflict. Marissa’s ethical foundation is to act in the best interest of her school. However, she cannot be forced into the suggested relationship with the state regulator. Since she’s the owner of the school, she’s free to ethically decide not to engage in this relationship.


If Marissa was an employee and was being forced into this relationship and she couldn’t avoid or reconcile the conflict, her only ethical alternative would be to leave the school.

Tyler’s Ethical AssessmentTyler’s self-interest is to develop a growing, thriving professional practice. Since his practice is based on protecting the financial security of his clients, there’s no conflict between his own interests, the interests of his practice and societal interests. However, if he lived in a communist or socialist society, his interests might be in

conflict with societal interests. Ethically, he would have to leave that society to pursue financially based interests. Because he lives and works in a capitalistic society, no conflict exists. Tyler has many external relationships. His ethical responsibility is to ensure that all of these entities act in a way consistent with societal norms and that they don’t present an ethical risk to Tyler’s practice, his clients and ultimately to his personal self-interest. As long as these relationships don’t present an ethical conflict, Tyler is on solid ethical ground pursuing the interests of his practice. At any time, if any of these relationships do pose some ethical conflict, Tyler must sever the relationship.

Assessing Your Political Ethical Foundation Take another look at the decision tree in Figure 5. Are you on a solid ethical footing? If you’ve identified an ethical conflict, can you reconcile it? If not, are you prepared to exit the situation? If you’re on a solid ethical foundation, your political activity should be directed toward your own self-interest as long as it is also in the best interest of both society and your organization. Firmly plant this ethical foundation in your mind and make it the basis for your political action.

Summary In organizational politics, an individual’s primary behavioral motivation is self-interest. When acting in an organizational context, there are two other relevant interest groups: societal and organizational. The Politician puts himself in an ethical position when he’s reconciled his interests with those of society and the organization. Most organizations and individuals work within societal norms. In most cases, you can avoid being forced to deal with an individual or organization that works outside of societal norms, so rarely is there a real contextual conflict between organizational politics and ethics. In


those rare cases when the Politician’s forced into a situation where the entity he’s engaging is truly unethical (acting outside societal norms), his only ethical choice is to leave the situation. Within this context of societal norms, the Politician’s ethical path depends on whether the organization he’s engaging meets his personal needs and fulfills his primary motivation of self-interest. Assuming he’s made this choice, the Politician’s ethical political behavior becomes the behavior that’s also in the best interests of the organization.


6What Your

Organization Tells You About

PoliticsRule 3: The Politician must adapt her political behavior to the

structural characteristics of the organization. Just how should the Politician act in a political situation? Her

organizational structure helps answer that question. Many things influence the political activity flowing through an organization. Understanding the organization’s underlying structure is the starting point in understanding this flow. The structure sets the context in which political behavior is conducted and how others perceive it. Think of an organization’s structure as the field where organizational politics is played out. It sets the boundaries or constraints, differentiating effective political behavior from ineffective behavior. The Politician must recognize she may be dealing with multiple


organizations. Therefore, she must be adept at dealing with multiple and differing constraints that each organization requires. In other words, she may have to play a variety of political games simultaneously. Let’s look at two organizations as examples. The first is an old, large, well established, highly bureaucratic organization. The second is a newly formed entrepreneurial company with no established bureaucracy. In the first organization, effective political behavior must be conducted within the restrictions of the bureaucratic rules and defined management hierarchy. In the second organization, effective political activity is more free-wheeling, and rigid political behavior is resisted. In either of these organizations, the Politician must know the shape of the playing field. She must understand the structure of each organization and the implications that structure holds for effective political behavior. While the Politician may be part of a non-bureaucratic entrepreneurial organization, she may have a customer who is highly regulated. Because the basic constraints on political behavior in these two organizations are very different, the Politician must act differently as she engages with each. She must be able to play a free-wheeling game in her own organization, yet recognize the more rigid and disciplined game required in her customer’s organization.

What Is an Organization?Before you can understand what organizational structure means, you must understand exactly what “organization” means. The term “organization” covers almost every entity. But just because a group of individuals comes together socially or professionally, the group isn’t necessarily an “organization.” For our purposes, an “organization” has the following characteristics:

It must have a degree of permanence. Although political •activity can be observed even in the occasional coffee klatch, this book focuses on groups that exist over time. Members may periodically change, but the group, as an entity, persists. It must have a defined purpose. That purpose may be •philanthropic, educational, social, political or profitable, but it must have a focused set of goals. It must have limits. These limits may be expressed in terms •of size, geography, scope, etc. The limits may change, but even when undergoing change, an existing rationale can be used to define the organization.


It must have some structure that allows for coordination of •action, most likely called “management.” The management structure is a starting point for understanding the nature of an organization’s political behavior.

Structure and PoliticsFirst, the Politician must recognize that a variety of organizational structures exist. Each structural variation establishes a framework and a set of constraints for political behavior. To understand these possible variations, it helps to view organizations within a spectrum of structures. (See Figure 6 below.) This spectrum includes three different, yet dominant structural types:

Formal structures1. – These have two defining characteristics. First, they put overriding importance on the concept of “goal.” They’re based on the belief that vague goals lead to inefficiency at best and the demise of the organization in the worst-case scenario. Second, their organizational activity is formal. As a result, the organization is fairly rigid, controlled, singularly focused and highly structured.Behavioral structures2. – These structures are in the middle. Their goals aren’t so specific, and their formal structure is less rigid. These structures recognize that people make up organizations and that people’s behavior isn’t always consistent or predictable. In a behavioral structure, goals are complex and less specific. And instead of focusing on formal structure, the organization focuses on the importance of human interaction.Organic structures3. – These structures view organizations as even more complex than the previous models. Organic structures have two main characteristics. First, they are systems comprised of assembled parts that interact and are interdependent. Second, this interdependence is a continually evolving dynamic.

These three dominant types form the spectrum portrayed in Figure 6. On one end are organizations dominated by Formal structures. They differ structurally from organizations on the other end of this spectrum – ones dominated by Organic structures.

Figure 6: Organizational Structure Spectrum

Organic Organizations(informal, loosely structured)

Behavioral Organizations

Formal Organizations(rigid, highly bureaucratic)


The Politician must know where her organization functions along this spectrum. The closer an organization is to the “formal” end of the spectrum, the more constraints there are on political behavior. The closer an organization is to the “organic” end of the spectrum, the fewer the constraints there are on political behavior. To identify where an organization’s structure lies on this spectrum, the Politician must consider the building blocks of structure: complexity, formalization and centralization. Variations in these three components can be used to decompose an organization and better identify the constraints on political behavior.ComplexityComplexity is determined by the degree of diversity within an organization. If there’s more diversity within the organization, it has a higher degree of complexity. Diversity comes in three forms:

Horizontal diversity 1. – This reflects the number of different types of jobs within the organization, the degree of specialization in those jobs or the degree to which division of labor can be identified. The more specialization, job variability or division of labor, the higher the degree of complexity. Since different jobs have different values, vocabularies and work methodologies, communication and coordination are more difficult. Vertical diversity 2. – This refers to the depth of an organization or the number of levels in its hierarchy. Again, the more vertically diversified an organization is, the more complex it is. Spatial diversity 3. – This refers to how geographically dispersed the organization is. An organization is more complex if it operates a large number of geographically dispersed units and these units are far apart.

From a practical political perspective, complexity drives a politician’s span of influence or control. The more complex an organization is, the more rigid are the boundaries dividing organizational sub-units and the more control each sub-unit has over its own function or operational activity. The Politician must be sensitive to these organizational sub-unit boundaries. If she tries to engage in political activity that may affect a sub-unit’s functional control, the sub-unit will aggressively resist her action. The Politician must tread carefully when acting outside her span of influence or control.


FormalizationHow work functions are specified or standardized determines the level of formalization. When a high degree of standardization exists, a higher degree of formalization also exists within an organization. The concept of standardization has several implications:

The higher the degree of standardization, the lower the •degree of discretion a worker has doing her job.Standardization can be written or unwritten. For example, •organizational history or culture is often used to establish unwritten standards for job performance.Standards can be created through social specialization – they •don’t always need to be internally generated. For example, they can be created by adhering to a group social norm or to a professional organization. For example, the AIPCA sets accounting standards.

From a practical political perspective, formalization drives a definition of process. The higher the degree of formalization, the more specificity exists in what are considered acceptable actions. The Politician must understand these “standards of action.” The organizational bureaucracy will resist attempts to engage in political activity contrary to these standards.CentralizationCentralization is determined by how focused or concentrated the decision-making process is. Simply put, the more concentrated the decision-making process is, the higher the degree of centralization.From a practical political perspective, centralization drives a definition of authority. The Politician must be sensitive to the organization’s decision-making processes. She must identify the decision authority or process that controls the area pertinent to her political activity and direct her action toward this authority. Her attempts to circumvent this organizational authority will be resisted.

Implications of StructureFigure 7 adds three scales to the Organizational Structure Spectrum. On one end are highly complex, highly formalized and highly centralized organizations. On the other end are simple, informal and decentralized organizations.


Figure 7: Organizational Components and Structure

In Chapter 5, you learned how ethical conflict can occur when conflict exists among the interests of the individual, the organization and society. It also revealed that individuals act according to their self-interests. Ethically, this self-interest should align with organizational interests. However, the organization’s structure can create conditions that either facilitate this alignment or potentially make it more difficult. In other words, it can create a structural environment that enables free-wheeling political behavior and allows individuals more opportunities to engage in self-directed political behavior, which potentially can be inconsistent with organizational interests. Or, it can create a structural environment that constrains self-directed behavior by maintaining rigid controls over accepted behavior.To understand the relationship between structure and politics, you must individually examine the components of structure (complexity, formalization, centralization) and consider how each might impact the potential freedom of political behavior.

Impact of complexity• – This defines the degree of job diversity within an organization. The more diversity within an organization, the less control management can exert on the organization. In highly complex organizations, a primary concern is that greater opportunity exists for an individual to be motivated to engage in behavior not necessarily consistent with the organization’s interests. In this context, complex organizations present more opportunity for politics to become a free-wheeling activity. However, when diversity introduces more specificity or formalization in roles and

Complexity

Formalization

Centralization

HighlyComplex

RelitivelySimple

HighlyStandardized

RelitivelyInformal

HighlyCentralized

Decentralized

Organic OrganizationsFormal Organizations Behavioral Organizations

Relatively

Organic Organizations

Relatively


responsibilities, complexity can be construed as a limiting factor for free-wheeling political activity.Impact of formalization• – This defines the degree of standardization in an organization. The more standardization within an organization, the less latitude individuals have to engage in activities that vary from organizationally sanctioned behavior. In highly formalized organizations, individuals have less freedom to act with their personal interests as their prime motivator, and less opportunity exists for free-wheeling politics.Impact of centralization• – This defines the degree of concentration in an organization’s decision-making processes. The more centralization within an organization, the less latitude individuals have to engage in activities that vary from the defined organizational objectives. In highly centralized organizations, less opportunity exists for free-wheeling politics.

The Players in ActionIt’s time to look at how Robert, Marissa and Tyler handle organizational structure and political behavior. Earlier in this chapter, Figure 6 presented a spectrum of potential organizational structures. Figure 8 indicates where the organizational structures Robert, Marissa and Tyler function in fall on this same political spectrum.

Figure 8: The Players’ Organizational Structure Spectrum

Robert’s Organizational CharacteristicsRobert is dealing with highly structured organizations. Although some of his external political relationships may be more loosely structured, which he should be aware of, most of the political behavior in his current situation is directed internally. His current company is large, complex and highly

Behavioral Organizations

Organic Organizations(informal, loosely structured)

Formal Organizations(rigid, highly bureaucratic)

Robert’s Environment

Tyler’s Environment

Marissa’s Environment


standardized, with a well-defined, rigid hierarchy that controls decision-making. The new merger company is structured the same way. These rigid structures have prescribed ways of doing things, so Robert must act within these constraints. He won’t be effective if he attempts to act differently. To complicate matters, the new company will adopt new processes. Robert must understand and accept them. His attempts to challenge these processes will result in resistance and even potential organizational backlash.

Marissa’s Organizational CharacteristicsMarissa’s organizational parameters are shifting quickly. In the early days, her school’s structure was very open and informal. However, as the school has grown, more rigidity has been introduced, even though Marissa has made a

conscious effort to modify this rigidity through humanistic behavior. In addition, she’s interacting more often with more rigidly structured organizations, such as the accreditation board, school board and the large national education company. She can’t use free-wheeling behavior when dealing with them. She must understand their processes, procedures, hierarchies and decision-making, and conform to them. Although she’s not as rigidly constrained as Robert, she’s constrained by these organizational characteristics.

Tyler’s Organizational CharacteristicsTyler’s organizational parameters are much more open than either Robert’s or Marissa’s. To provide products to his clients, he deals with rigidity in the structures of licensing authorities and large financial services companies. When dealing with these entities, he must understand their constraints and adhere to them.

In addition, because he’s pursuing large companies as clients, he must adhere to their organizational constraints. However, most of his interactions will be with his small staff, individual clients instead of large company clients and individual professional service providers. These entities are informal, unstructured and open. Tyler is free to interact with them without many, if any, organizational constraints.

Assessing Organizational Political ConstraintsUsing the Relationship Map you prepared at the end of Chapter 4, identify each organization you interact with. These may be your own or outside organizations. Map where each falls on the Organizational


Structure Spectrum. Identify the degree to which each of these organizations constrains political behavior. Where constraints exist, understand the rules that constrain that behavior. Adapt your behavior to those rules.

SummaryOrganizational structure sets the boundaries for conducting political activity. The components of structure – complexity, formalization and centralization – set the basic constraints over the freedom of political behavior. If an organization has a more “formal” structure:

The more rigid its organizational sub-structure is. The •Politician must be more sensitive about violating the functional control of departments or teams in her political behavior. The more formalized its work processes are. The • Politician must be more sensitive about ensuring her political behavior conforms to organizational standards. The more centralized the organization’s decision-making •processes are. The Politician must be more sensitive to the stated authority of organizational decision makers and processes.

The more “formal” the organization, the more careful the Politician must be in following organizational rules. Failure to adhere to these rules can result in organizational resistance or “backlash” aimed at the Politician. In these circumstances of non-adherence, the political player becomes a Maverick and the organization may isolate her or even reject her.Remember, in very “formal” organizations, other players must conform to the same constraints, so it’s easier to predict and anticipate their behaviors. The more “organic” an organization, the freer the Politician is to engage in unrestricted political behavior. The downside is that other players are also freer to act in an unrestricted way. This freedom increases the possibility of political behavior being completely self-directed, ignoring organizational interests, and, consequently, increases the possibility for ethical conflict.


7Gaining

Political PowerRule 4: The Politician must know which external entities,

organizational sub-units and individuals who interact with the organization wield power. He must understand where he

sits relative to that power structure, and he must direct his political activity to that power structure. Power! Some crave it, others abuse it, and the Politician knows how to use it. People who wield power should be the primary targets of the Politician’s political activity. Power is the ability to assertively direct another person. While every organization has an inherent power structure, many times an organization’s real power is different than what you might infer from its structure. For example, the organizational chart of a “formal” organization will identify one person as president and another as vice president. You typically assume the person who holds the title of president has more power than the person who holds the title of vice president. However, if the vice president is the son of the company’s founder and a principal stockholder, he may have more power than the president.


Here’s another example. In an “organic” organization, several people who work in a collaborative structure should be equals. However, if one person is a natural leader, all the others may defer to him and look to him for direction.From these examples, you can see how the power structure of an organization may be very different than the organizational structure would suggest. Consequently, to properly understand the political dynamic going on within an organization, the Politician must understand its power structure as well as its organizational structure.To understand an organization’s power structure, you must consider four perspectives:

The formal organizational hierarchy.1.

The position of the organization to its external environment. 2.

The relative importance of the organization’s internal sub-3. units.

The personal characteristics of organizational members.4.

The Formal Organizational HierarchyThe structure of an organization may be very rigid or more fluid and informal. Regardless of the type of structure, people have job assignments, even if they’re informal. And each job has an associated or inferred authority level or positional power level. Within an organization, there are two types of positional power:

Managerial.1.

Functional.2. Additionally, those who have positional power can maneuver and negotiate to create power coalitions.Managerial Positional PowerThe more rigid or formal an organization’s structure, the more formalized and defined is its management hierarchy. Each level of this hierarchy and the people who occupy these positions are granted organizational power applicable to their levels and positions. The Politician must understand these authority levels and properly direct his political behavior to the appropriate level. If he directs his activity toward a lower-level person without the authority to make the decisions the Politician needs, his objective must be using the lower-level target to influence a higher-level authority. In this case, the Politician must target a lower-level person who has a good relationship or influence with the higher-level target. On the other hand, if the Politician directs his behavior to a higher-level


person than needed, he must be cautious to avoid resentment or backlash on the part of the lower-level target when the upper-level authority makes a decision.Functional Positional Power As you know, organizations have different degrees of complexity. Differentiation can be in the form of geography, specialty, function, etc. Each of these differentiating factors results in a certain amount of authority. For example, a business unit responsible for a certain geographic area has authority over the operations within that area, or a business unit responsible for purchasing has authority over the organization’s buying power. The Politician must understand these authorities and target his political action toward the appropriate one. Targeting an area outside this authority – unless this target has either power over it or significant influence with it – will either be ineffective or meet with resistance.Power CoalitionsI’m sure you’ve heard the saying, “Politics makes strange bed fellows.” Within organizations, people can align themselves in ways that create power. When you have one very strong stakeholder who wields enough power to dominate others, that person will drive the organizational decisions. However, if one stakeholder doesn’t have that much power, coalitions often come into play. The political players will continually interact with each other and attempt to influence each other. Their interactions and negotiations eventually will form a sub-set of constituencies with enough power to dominate all the others. Whether a single dominant player or a dominant coalition – it is this force that drives organizational decisions.

Relation to External Environment To some extent, power within an organization is determined by the way an organization chooses to relate to its environment. This interaction comprises two dynamics. First, the organization must choose and establish a scope in which to function. Second, it must position itself to effectively function within this defined scope. These two dynamics, scope setting and positioning, are summarized in the following points:

An organization must limit its scope by focusing on specific •geographies, markets, products, services and practices.The environment continually presents a set of risks to an •organization. An organization must set limits to both focus its scope and •protect itself from environmental risk.


The organization must continually interact with a dynamic •environment. This dynamic and changing environment forces an organization to continually review its scope and reassess its positioning to determine if they should change.

The external environment gives the Politician two things he must consider: First, people who actively interact with the organization’s external environment usually yield more power than those that are internally focused. However, this environment is transient. As environmental challenges shift, power may shift from one organizational unit to another. The Politician must be aware of and adapt to this power shifting. For example, during a merger such as the one Robert is experiencing, the business unit driving the merger would have considerable power; during a government audit, the unit overseeing the audit would have considerable power; and when dealing with a strategic project initiative or major expansion, the unit responsible for that project would have considerable power. Second, when dealing with external organizations, the Politician must be aware of how much power an outside organization has over internal behavior. The nature of this power is based on three factors:

Economic power1. – Many external entities hold economic power over an organization. These may include investors, key customers, key suppliers, bankers and unions, just to name a few.Governmental power2. – Government entities can wield power over an organization in a number of ways. These include regulators, taxing authorities, licensing authorities and financial aid programs.Professional power3. – Organizations deal with a variety of external professional advisors such as accountants, attorneys, consultants, brokers, bankers, etc. Each of these wields varying degrees of influence over the organization.

The Politician must understand the influence each of these external entities has. If he attempts to engage in political activity counter to these power bases, there will be resistance. The Politician must leverage these external power bases to his advantage.

The Importance of Sub-Units All organizational sub-units are not created equal. They’re impacted by a third factor: importance to organizational goals or performance. Organizations have a core function. This is the “bread and butter” of what the organization does and its reason for existence. Because some business units are more closely aligned to an organization’s


primary reason for existing, this affects their inherent political power. Simply put, core sub-units, and those people who work in them, wield more power than peripheral units, and those who work in them. You must understand this distinction between core and peripheral business units to understanding this third factor in determining the organization’s power structure. Power usually resides in the core organizational units. The Politician must recognize the distinction between core and peripheral units and, where and when appropriate, direct political activity toward people in core units rather than people in peripheral units.

Personal Characteristics of Organization MembersFinally, in addition to the organizational factors driving power, some individuals wield power based on personal characteristics. The Politician must consider two factors:

Personal characteristics 1. – Individuals gain influence over others through their leadership ability, intellect, personal magnetism, ambition, talent or use of special skills. The Politician should identify these special people and align with them.Relation to other players 2. – Every organization has a “club,” a group of insiders who have an informal way of exerting considerable influence. In some cases, this is known as “the old boys’ network.” This network may be formed around factors such as longevity, special skills or talents, special external relationships or special interests. The Politician must recognize these networks of power and become a part of them.

Conflicting Power Bases Here’s one final point about power bases. After identifying an organization’s power influencers, the Politician may find some of these influencers in conflict with each other. This puts the Politician in the delicate position of attempting to reconcile his position and relationship with these conflicting power bases. He must avoid unwillingly being caught between the two and becoming a pawn in the political game being played between these two conflicting power bases. In these situations, the Politician has three basic choices:


Choose sides 1. – The Politician can align with one of the opposing power players and gain “protection” from the other player. This has a downside. In all probability, the opposing power player will become an antagonist (resister) to any future action the Politician takes. The Politician can lessen this risk by ensuring he aligns with the more powerful player and a long-term organizational survivor. Avoid choosing sides 2. – The Politician can avoid the conflict and refuse to engage either of the conflicting power players. The downside is appearing indifferent, indecisive and ineffectual to both players. If the Politician makes this choice, he may have difficulty getting either player to support him.Play both sides 3. – If the Politician can pull this off and convince both power players he’s aligning with them, the Politician places himself in a very powerful position by gaining both as supporters. However, there’s a risk of being found out and losing the trust and support of both.

None of these is an optimal choice for the Politician. In fact, this is one of the most difficult political situations for anyone to be in. The Politician must tread carefully and choose carefully. The best course of action is for the Politician to create win/win propositions for both power players without openly aligning with one of them.

The Players in ActionRobert’s Power StructureRobert was locked into the power structure of his existing organization. He was hired by the CEO and had a great deal of influence with him. Robert also had considerable positional and functional power of his own. He controlled a key boundary area by dealing with customers and was part of the company’s core

function. However, the merger is shifting the power structure. The CEO of the merger company is now a significant power player, and Robert does not have a relationship with him. Robert’s counterpart in the merger company does have a good relation with this CEO and seems to be well positioned in the emerging power structure of the new company. Other emerging power players include those directing the merger and customers being solicited by competitors. Political activity that challenges these emerging power players will fail, so Robert must align with them.


Marissa’s Power StructureMarissa’s power base is also shifting. As the head of her school, she holds considerable power herself. In the past, her power was dominant. However, it’s dissipating due to new power influencers, including faculty, trustees, community boards, accreditation bodies and the national education company. She must

align with these new power influencers.

Tyler’s Power StructureTyler’s power structure is much less specific. Due to his recent loan, the banker now wields a significant degree of power over Tyler. As a result, he must align with the banker.

Identifying Your Relevant Power StructuresReview the relationship diagram you prepared at the end of Chapter 4. Identify the degree of power each of these entities has in your political game. Are there power players not shown in the diagram? If so, add them. How can each of these power players affect your political activity? What do you need to do to gain influence with them? What actions would cause them to have a negative reaction to you? Are any of these power players in conflict with each other? How can you avoid becoming a victim of their political game?

SummarySince politics is a game of influence and power wields influence, the Politician must target those people who wield power in his political activities. He must align his political behavior with the power players who have power over him or his target organization. Any action that challenges these power players is dangerous and, most probably, ineffective and harmful. The targeted power player must view the Politician’s political activity as advantageous.


8The Importance

of “Fitting In”Rule 5: The Politician must understand her organization’s

internal culture and external culture and adapt her political behavior to reflect its cultural norms.

Every organization has a culture. It may be highly structured and “corporate,” or it may be loosely structured and “entrepreneurial.” Every organization also shares a set of principles or norms that consciously and subconsciously impact the thinking, behavior and decisions of group members. These form a bond among members, allowing them to communicate and interact with a confidence that their actions will be accepted and supported by other group members. A group or organization’s culture is another significant factor that differentiates it from other groups and organizations.If a group member is requested to act in a certain way, her action must be within the culturally accepted boundaries of the organization. If the requested action falls outside these boundaries, the culture puts pressure on the group member to resist taking the requested action. The Politician must recognize these cultural pressures and adapt her political behavior to conform to them.


National Versus Organizational CulturePeople live as members of both national and organizational cultures, and they’re influenced by both. The interaction between these two cultures can be complex. In a perfect world, these cultures would always be in sync, but the Politician knows this isn’t the case.Most organizations, unless they’re truly multinational, exist primarily within a specific national entity, such as the United States. Therefore, they’re influenced by this single prevailing national culture. However, it is possible for an organization to be in conflict with its prevailing national culture. For example, a company based in the U.S. but owned by the country of China will have natural cultural tensions when handling personnel issues. This dichotomy puts significant stress on the organization and on the people trying to exist within both cultures, thus impacting organizational success. In fact, you can anticipate problems when people are exposed to inconsistent cultural messages. To be successful, there should be consistency between a national culture and an organizational culture. The Politician must be sensitive to cultural pressures and dichotomies where they exist. She must take care to avoid acting in a way that may offend others. For example, a foreign national who grew up in France, a very different culture from America, must adopt American ways of doing business when dealing with a corporation geographically located in the U.S. While it may be acceptable to greet French business colleagues with a kiss on each cheek, a handshake is a more acceptable American business greeting. For the Politician to influence any individual, she must walk the line between the organization’s cultural standards and the individual’s national cultural standards. The Politician must sensitize her political behavior to the constraints defined by both of these cultural forces.To get a better sense of these cultural pressures, let’s define national and organizational cultures more specifically.

Definition of National CultureA national culture dominates a specific geographic entity, usually a specific country or ethnic region. Several characteristics define a national culture, including:

The degree of stratification between classes and the degree to •which members of each class can control their own lives.The degree of stratification between the sexes and the degree to •which members of each sex has control over their own lives.


The degree of affinity between citizens or the degree to •which citizens feel free to act individually versus collectively.The relative value the society places on intrinsic humanistic •principles.The relative orientation of attitude: past, present or future •thinking.The degree to which the society values innovation versus •tradition.The degree to which excellence is valued against conformity •of behavior.The degree to which risk is accepted or avoided.•

Based on these characteristics, you can see how carefully the Politician must tread. A foreign national dealing with an American organization or U.S. citizen should be sensitized to national cultural norms of aggressiveness, performance, individuality, initiative and risk acceptance, with, at least in principle, little differentiation placed on class or sex.

Definition of Organizational CultureOrganizational culture is the prevailing culture that exists within a specific organization. The Politician must assess and sensitize herself to a set of cultural characteristics that may relate to an organization’s formal structure but may also foster very different behaviors. The Politician must consider these prevailing workplace characteristics and adapt behavior to them.

The degree of responsibility, freedom and independence •individuals possess.The degree to which individuals are encouraged to be •aggressive and innovative, as well as risk-seekers.The degree to which aggressive behavior is encouraged.•The degree to which clear objectives and performance •standards are defined.The degree to which units are encouraged to cooperate.•The degree to which adherence to precision, analysis and •detailed work is encouraged.The degree to which the focus is on results rather than • process.


The Players in ActionIt’s time to examine the cultural environment of Robert, Marissa and Tyler and see how culture affects their political environments.

Robert’s CultureRobert’s existing company has U.S. historical roots. It has solid Midwestern values, characterized by a high regard for individuality, high standards of performance and ethics, and a commitment to cooperation and teamwork. There is a significant emphasis placed on family and community involvement.

Because of its culture, Robert’s existing company rewarded behavior consistent with these values. He’s adapted his political behavior to reflect the individuality of others, cooperation and congeniality, and respect for family and community responsibilities. These cultural values are changing because the merger company is European. Culturally, it is much more process driven and not as open to individuality. The merger company values a separation of business from family and community. Involvement in these non-business interests is considered irrelevant to the success of the business. Furthermore, the merger company highly values efficiency and adherence to the “rules.” It perceives Americans as “cowboys” who must be constrained. Although the company’s American operations have tempered these “European” values somewhat, there is still a heavy European influence. Robert must carefully observe how these cultural values play out as the new company forms. During merger activities, he must act with both sets of cultural values in mind. When dealing with the merger company, he must reflect its cultural values, and when dealing with his company, he must reflect its American values. Ultimately, he must determine the culture that will emerge in the new company and adapt his behavior so he is seen to support these new cultural norms.

Marissa’s CultureWhen Marissa started her school, it was steeped in artistic values. Although it was a “teaching” organization, the culture of dance and music formed its core attitudes and the behavior of all school members. Artistic individuality, freedom,

cooperation, mutual support and artistic performance were encouraged. To influence others, artistic persuasion was key. Over the years, this original artistic culture has dissipated. The


culture has become more academic, with less importance placed on artistic individuality and more attention placed on academic standards and academic bureaucracy. Now the school is on the verge of another cultural evolution. It’s becoming more of a business, and its academic attributes are being replaced by business attributes. The culture is now beginning to value business thinking and behavior. Years ago, these “business values” would never have been considered. Now, they’re not only accepted, but encouraged.

Tyler’s CultureAlthough Tyler is independent and relatively free to establish his own cultural norms, there’s still a cultural influence he should be sensitive to and adapt his behavior accordingly. That’s a culture of professionalism. As someone who deals with his client’s financial

security, he must adhere to a culture of competence, conservatism and trust. This must be reflected in his dress, image, demeanor and possibly the décor of his office.Tyler can’t afford to be “laid back” and unprofessional. While a small independent company always has a certain degree of independence, he must always ask the question: “Will these people feel comfortable investing with me?” That answer determines his behavior.

Mapping Your Cultural Environment Use the diagram on the following page to gage the cultural traits of the organization you want to target. This could be your own organization or a relevant external organization.Using this diagram, determine how you must adapt your political behavior to reflect these cultural norms.


Figure No. 9: Cultural Environment Mapping

SummaryYou’ve now learned three organizational attributes that affect acceptable political behavior. Structure defines the rules or constraints within which political behavior must be confined. Power structures define the targets of political behavior. Finally, culture defines the actual behavioral norms that are most effective when you engage in political behavior.

Values Values Innovation Tradition

Values Values Aggression Cooperation

Values Values Performance Process

Values Values Personal Organizational Interests Interests

Values Values Independence Conformity


9Satisfying Your Personal Needs

Rule 6: The Politician must establish a personal agenda that serves as the objective of his political activity. The Politician must control his own agenda, rather than being controlled by

the agendas of others. He picks which political issues to engage in based on which ones have the best potential to further his personal agenda.The best-laid plans require action. So far, you’ve learned how the Politician identifies who’s playing the game with him and how he sets an ethical foundation for his political behavior. You’ve also seen how organizational structure, power and culture impact his political environment. With this foundation in place, the Politician must now determine what political actions he needs to take, and those actions must be directed toward an objective.

The Political AgendaJust how does the Politician define his political objectives? First, he must understand his environment, which has been our focus up to this point. However, understanding this environment is only the beginning. The Politician must use this understanding to guide political action. Furthermore, and most importantly, to be most


effective, the Politician must carefully direct his political action, not randomly act just for the sake of acting. Directed or targeted political action accomplishes a specific objective or set of objectives. These objectives should be long-term and grounded in the Politician’s view of where he wants his environment, his career and his life to be in the future. Based on this long-term view, the Politician sets an overriding strategy and then short-term goals to move him toward his ultimate objective. Let’s use the game of chess as an analogy. Capturing your opponent’s king is your ultimate objective. Your overriding strategy may be to control the center of the board and place continued pressure on your opponent’s king. Your short-term tactics are to eliminate your opponent’s defending pieces that control the middle squares. You specifically move your chess pieces so the game progresses according to your strategic direction. Setting a political agenda involves identifying your long-term personal objectives and then determining which short-term political issues you should engage in to reach your objectives. First, the Politician must focus on clearly identifying his ultimate personal objectives and establishing a strategy to achieve them. Then he chooses the short-term tactics that will lead him to achieve his objectives. Based on this, he must also formulate and engage in political actions that will allow him to achieve his short-term tactical milestones, which will ultimately lead to his long-term objectives. His political agenda defines what he needs to accomplish from start to finish.

Mechanics of Setting an AgendaWhen establishing a political agenda, you should approach the process carefully and seriously. Like a chess master, you should ensure your agenda’s ultimate objectives, long-term strategies, short-term targets and political actions are well thought out and continuously assessed and refined. See how the Politician uses the following six-step process to set his political agenda.

The 1. Politician sets his focus and affirms that his political activity is grounded in his own self-interest. Even if he thinks he’s motivated by a “higher” purpose (e.g. philanthropic pursuits, social good, etc.), he must accept that pursuing these objectives fulfills an internal need. He must honestly recognize that he’s set his objectives based on his own subjective view of the world and his place in it. The interests of others are of secondary importance.


Although the Politician needs to be aware of the interests and motivations of others and play to these as he exerts his influence, these other interests and motivations are not his primary driver. His own interest drives his action. The Politician must recognize that he, and he alone, sets the agenda. He must resolve to use his political activity to serve his personal self-interest. The 2. Politician visualizes what he wants his life to be like at some distant point in the future. His future vision should be broad and comprehensive. Many people mistakenly paint their visions too narrowly and without detail.In addition, the Politician realizes life choices involve tradeoffs. This concept is essential. He must recognize that to achieve one thing, other things must be sacrificed. He confronts the choices, understands the tradeoffs, balances the various aspects of life and accepts what must be sacrificed to fit this vision. As in any game, the Politician must be willing to concede or compromise on certain fronts in order to achieve his final balanced life vision. It’s a waste of his time and effort to direct political action toward issues that must be conceded. Therefore, the Politician doesn’t allow himself to engage in tangential issues. With a commitment to self-interest and a vision of his future 3. life, the Politician is now ready to set an overriding strategy built around long-term objectives. These objectives may be single-treaded (one objective) or multi-treaded (multiple objectives). For example, a life vision of a secure, leisurely, fulfilling retirement may result in these strategic objectives: a) creating a financial base that will generate $1 million dollars in retirement assets; b) finding hobbies to enjoy during retirement; and c) developing an outside interest to give life meaning during retirement. This strategy sets the context for tactical choices and political action. The 4. Politician then chooses the tactical issues he must develop, identifies his political needs and sets his tactical targets. These issues or political targets are short-term. He selects them based on their importance in relationship to his strategic objectives and to the degree they support or oppose his political environment. The Politician factors in the probability of success and actively pursues the short-term political issues or targets that deliver his desired result. Continually confronted with countermoves, demands, 5.


pressures and potential resistance from other players and external forces, the Politician can lose focus. Usually this loss of focus occurs when the Politician is maneuvered into being involved in another player’s issues. He should only engage in another player’s political agenda if it also benefits his agenda. The Politician loses if he allows others to influence him to participate in an activity that absorbs his time, energy or resources so that he’s unable to pursue his own agenda. The 6. Politician can’t be blind to change. Once he sets his agenda, he must realize it’s not set “in concrete,” but malleable. He must continuously reassess his agenda and reset the political issues and targets he’s decided to pursue. At the same time, he doesn’t change his choice of short-term targets “on the fly.” Rather, he alters them if a considered change in life vision, strategy or probability of success warrants it. It’s a balancing act. While the Politician aggressively pursues his agenda, once established, he needs to be sensitized to change and willing to reassess and reset his agenda based on any valid change that impacts it.

Offensive Agendas and Defensive AgendasThe steps I’ve just outlined assume the Politician is the initiator and primary mover in his political game. In other words, the game waits for the Politician to set his agenda before anyone else makes a move. In reality, the game never stops, it’s on-going. While the Politician formulates his agenda and definines what actions he needs to take, other players are also in action mode. They’re doing things that may be beneficial or detrimental to the Politician’s agenda. Consequently, the Politician must recognize that he can’t identify the short-term actions in his agenda without taking the actions of others into consideration. Each time another player acts, the Politician must immediately assess these actions and determine whether or not they present any obstacles to his agenda. If the Politician detects obstacles, his short-term actions must counter or neutralize the obstacles. Like a basketball player, the Politician must include both offensive and defensive actions in his agenda or playbook.

The Players in Action Let’s examine the process Robert, Marissa and Tyler go through to set their political agendas.


Robert’s AgendaRobert wants to build his career, so he accepts self-interest as his key motivation. He’s defined his long-term life vision: becoming CEO of a major corporate entity. He understands this entails making certain concessions in family interests, social interests and outside interests. He’s accepted these tradeoffs and is

comfortable focusing on his career. Robert’s strategy was to obtain a key corporate position and maintain that position, knowing it would give him a clear path to the top spot. His decision to leave consulting and take his current position was a required tactical step in his strategy. He was well positioned to pursue his life vision until the merger caused him to re-evaluate his tactical moves. Prior to the merger, his tactics included securing his reputation as a line-of-business executive by successfully enhancing his company’s position in the small business market. His intent was to leverage this success in order to take the next step up, either in his existing company or in another one. The merger now forces a change in tactics, but not vision or strategy. His short-term tactics now must focus on surviving the merger and securing a strong enough position in the merged company so that he can take the next step on his career path. He recognizes the new company will be a larger player in the insurance market. This will enhance his career if he can obtain a solid position. However, if he’s laid off, his career will be seriously damaged. Robert realizes he may have to concede managerial control over the small business operation and accept a different role that still positions him well for future career moves. He understands his current political position is very fluid, so he commits himself to frequent reassessment. He remains open to the possibility that losing his job may irreparably damage his ability to execute his strategy. It may cause him to set a new strategy or even reassess his life vision.

Marissa’s AgendaMarissa’s life vision is to be the focal point of her town’s artistic community. She accepts her own self-interest in pursing this life vision. She has set a long-term strategy to develop her school’s reputation and position in the community, and to use it as an anchor

to build her own artistic reputation and position in the community. Tactically, expanding the school’s scope and community engagement


is the focus of Marissa’s short-term political activity. However, she recognizes she’s at a crossroad in tactical choices. Continuing to focus all of her political activity internally, on the school, will not allow her to leverage the school externally and help her gain the community position her vision calls for. Marissa must shift the focus of her strategy from developing her school to leveraging it in the community. With that strategy shift, she can now set short-term tactics. She can cede a certain amount of control over the school’s internal operations and focus more on community relationships, enhancing both the school’s reputation and her personal position in the community. As she shifts tactics, Marissa knows she must actively reassess her agenda and be open to any relevant changes.

Tyler’s AgendaTyler is also motivated by self-interest. In fact, it was the primary motivator for leaving his corporate job and starting his own practice. His life vision is a flexible and independent lifestyle that’s focused on family and personal interests. Tyler’s strategy is to build his practice so it generates

the income needed to achieve his life vision. Tactically, he’s decided to expand into new markets, new facilities, new external relationships and new internal staff.

Set Your Political AgendaTo set your political agenda, follow this six-step process:

Commit to act in your own self-interest. Do you consciously 1. act this way and are you honest about it? If not, whose interests are driving you? How can you change that?Define your long-term life vision. What do you want your 2. life to look like in five years or in 10 years? Based on that vision, what aspects of your life are most important to you? What aspects of life are you willing to de-emphasize? What are the consequences if you de-emphasize certain aspects of life? Can you accept the consequences? If not, you need to re-evaluate your life vision.Define your long-term strategy. You must adapt to reach 3. your life vision. What are the specific long-term objectives you must meet in order to reach it? Be specific when setting these objectives. Tactically define what you must do in the next six months 4.


and the next year to achieve your strategic objectives. Identify what issues you must take on to meet these short-term targets. Identify which issues aren’t important to you. How do you avoid engaging in these non-essential issues? Regarding relevant issues, is the probability of your success high or low? If low, what can you do to raise the probability of success or to replace that issue with one having a higher probability of success?Review the relationship diagram you prepared at the end 5. of Chapter 4. Which other players have influence over you? As best you can, define their political agendas. Are these agendas beneficial to you? (Will they help you achieve your agenda?) Or are their agendas not beneficial to you? (Will they keep you from achieving your agenda?) What do you need to do to focus on setting your agenda? How can you avoid being sidetracked when setting your political agenda? Determine if any of these players have initiated action that can hurt your agenda. Define what defensive actions you must take to counter these obstacles. Based on how fluid your political environment is, set an 6. on-going timeframe for assessing your agenda, say every three months. What changes in your life can cause a change in your life vision? What change in your life or political environment can cause a change in strategy? Are you open to these changes?

Summary The six-step process ensures the Politician has a solid context for identifying needed political action. These actions are grounded in a vision of a future life, a strategy that unfolds over the long-term, and tactical issues and targets that move the Politician toward his ultimate vision. There’s efficiency of action. The Politician doesn’t mindlessly engage every issue or pursue every target. He chooses short-term targets based on their importance to his long-term strategy and their probability of success. He recognizes that his future vision, strategy and choice of short-term milestones involve tradeoffs. This means accepting there are certain things he must give up or not pursue. He consciously decides to avoid these. Finally, the Politician continuously reassesses his assumptions, his agenda and the political climate. He resets his agenda as required. He’s always open to any change that impacts his life assumptions and agenda.


10You Need Help,

So Don’t Go It Alone

Rule 7: The Politician picks her political associations. These associations form a constituency of power players and assistance-givers who are needed to achieve the objectives of

her personal agenda. Like many games, playing politics can be a team sport. You’ll usually have supporters who want your political agenda to be successful, and opponents who’ll want your political agenda to fail.In the last chapter, we learned that an effective Politician doesn’t waste time or energy targeting irrelevant issues. It’s equally important that the Politician doesn’t waste time or energy trying to gain the support of people who aren’t essential to her success. However, the effective Politician must gain and maintain the support of those who have power to help her achieve her agenda, especially her short-term political issues. The most effective way of securing and keeping the support of power players is to build a constituency, or a team of supporters.


Understanding a ConstituencyIn the context of political behavior, a constituency is a group of supporters who have enough combined influence to allow the Politician to successfully pursue her agenda. This definition has a set of implications that must be understood.

Remember, a person’s primary motivation is always self-•interest. The process of identifying and aligning with supporters involves recognizing and aligning mutual self-interests. The Politician assesses how her agenda, especially how her short-term issues, can affect the other players in her game. The Politician must recognize the importance of the other players and support their interests and agendas accordingly. One strategy the Politician might use to galvanize support is a value statement reflecting the interests of these other players. The • Politician also must identify those players whose self-interests are contrary to her political agenda. Then, she must determine if these political resisters can be converted or persuaded to redefine their interests to better align with her own. Some can’t be persuaded to realign their positions, but they might be persuaded to stay neutral on certain issues and avoid becoming active resisters. She should determine if there’s a quid-pro-quo or tradeoff that can be made to either change or neutralize a potential resister’s position. For those players who continue to be resisters, she should try to identify their potential countermoves and plan defensive actions against them. The • Politician must map the relative positions of both supporters and resisters in relationship to the power players who control the issues of importance to the Politician’s agenda. Of course, this means the Politician also must identify the relevant power players. These power players must be in control of the particular issue being pursued, and they must be dominant. The Politician must not ignore other potential power players who can counter the support of an inappropriately targeted power player. The Politician manipulates the relationships among these players to gain support and move her agenda forward, while she neutralizes the effect of resisters. Mapping the relationships among the Politician, her potential supporters, potential resisters, and power players puts the pieces of the political game in place. Finally, the • Politician must recognize that gaining the


approval of power players is not a one-time process. She recognizes that she must maintain their support. To gain initial support, the Politician usually makes certain commitments (see the next chapter). To maintain support she must deliver on these commitments.

Putting Constituencies into ActionBuilding a constituency sets the stage for action. The Politician now must marshal her constituency, as a group, to exert the appropriate pressure on the power players. The thrust of this pressure shows the power player that giving in to this pressure is in her best interest. In other words, the power player must be convinced that giving in is more beneficial to her own self-interests than resisting the constituency’s pressure. For this political action to be effective, follow these guidelines:

The • Politician leverages her constituency only when she feels it is strong enough to succeed. If she tries to use the constituency prematurely, the power players and resisters will become aware of the emerging constituency and be better able to drive away the constituency while it’s still too weak to make countermoves.If the • Politician determines she can’t build a constituency of sufficient strength, she should back away from the issue. Pursuing issues without the necessary strength exposes the Politician and her supporters to the negative perceptions of failure, as well as countermoves by resisters. If the • Politician does build a constituency of strength, she should give resisters the option to withdraw. If forced into a corner, resisters will fight. Even if the Politician wins this fight, it can eventually hurt her. If given no choice, resistors can weaken the Politician’s ability to act on future issues, even if she wins this round. Once she secures a strong constituency, the • Politician orchestrates coordinated, focused pressure on the power player. This pressure uses a combined argument based on the power player’s self-interest, which motivate her to give in to the constituency’s pressure.The • Politician has a secondary constituency in place to ensure that all promised or implied commitments made to both supporters and power players are kept.


The Players in Action Robert’s ConstituencyRobert’s political environment has shifted. Before the merger, the power players Robert needed to influence were the CEO and executive officers of his current company. They were the power players with control over Robert’s agenda of career advancement. Due to the merger, this power base has shifted to the recently

named CEO of the new company, who happens to be the current CEO of the merger company. Robert and any existing constituency he may have built in the past have no influence over this new power player. The players who have influence with this new CEO are those he had a long-term relationship with in the merger company. This includes Robert’s counterpart in the merger company. Since Robert’s ultimate goal is to achieve a high-level (CEO) corporate position, he’s revised his short-term target to survival and securing a good position in the new company. Robert has identified the players in the merger company (including his counterpart) as potential resisters. Given their influence with the CEO, it’s unlikely he can build a constituency of sufficient strength to overcome their influence. A better option is recognizing he needs their support to influence the new CEO and achieve his short-term target of survival and a good position in the new company. He must align his self-interests with these needed constituency players. Rather than challenge them (especially his counterpart), Robert promises his support and offers to help these other players succeed in the new company structure.

Marissa’s ConstituencyMarissa’s agenda is to become a focal point for the local arts community. To make progress, she must relinquish some control over the daily operations of her school while gaining stature in the community. The power players she must now influence are

local community leaders, especially those focused on the arts. To accomplish this, she also can leverage the support of the national education company. Marissa may want to restructure her constituency to include these new players. She may offer them a preferred business relationship or even a partnership with her school. Then she can use their influence


on internal school issues, such as the emerging power of the faculty. She also can use these power players to influence community leaders, especially using their economic influence as a leverage point. And finally, she can use their influence with accreditation authorities to neutralize the unethical demands being made by the regulator assigned to review her accreditation proposal.

Tyler’s ConstituencyTyler’s long-term agenda is based on a lifestyle of independence and outside interests. His short-term target is to build his practice so it’s successful enough to support this future. The constituency he must build is a network of other independent service providers and clients who can influence the key power player in

his new situation, the bank. He needs the bank’s financial support to build his practice.

Identifying Your Political ConstituencyReview the maps of relationships and power players you’ve created in your political game. Based on these maps, now follow these steps:

Examine each of the short-term issues/targets you identified •as part of your agenda-building process. Identify the targeted power players you need to influence to attain that issue or meet that target. Whose support do you need to influence these power players?Determine if the self-interests of needed supporters align •with your issues and targets. What’s your value statement to gain their support? Can you build a constituency of strength? Who are the resisters? Can your constituency effectively isolate or neutralize them? If you don’t have a constituency of strength, how do you •back away from your issue? If you do have a constituency of strength, what back-away option can you give resisters?Assuming you have a constituency of strength, what is •your value statement to the power player? How do you orchestrate coordinated, focused pressure using this value statement?What is your plan to maintain or develop additional •constituency players to deliver on the value statements made to your supporters and power players?


Summary As a game of influence, politics requires coordinated action with other players. Just as the Politician doesn’t waste political action on non-essential issues, she doesn’t waste political action on non-essential players. The Politician identifies the power players she must target and actively builds a support base strong enough to influence these power players. Building effective constituencies and then leveraging them effectively is based on the self-interests of both supporters and power players. The Politician does not act until her constituency has sufficient strength. If a constituency that’s strong enough can’t be built, the Politician backs away. If a constituency that’s strong enough can be built, the Politician orchestrates coordinated and focused pressure on the power players and allows resisters escape options. Finally, the Politician secures a support base that allows for all self-interests to be met.


11Don’t Get

“Boxed-In”Politics and Commitments

Rule 8: The Politician must not allow his commitments to be constrained. He must maintain control over enough of those aspects of his commitments to gain enough flexibility to act.

In return for commitments made, he requests commitments that are as tightly constrained as he can negotiate.In the world of organizational politics, it’s important to play to the right crowd. The Politician must serve the self-interests of the players who have the power to support his agenda. Crafting and then offering them value propositions in exchange for needed support is part of negotiation. This is the core of the political process. At this point, you’ve completed all the preliminary work involved in organizational politics. Negotiation is the next step. The Politician must set the environment for direct political action. In the “give and take” of negotiation, the Politician must make commitments to ensure he maintains credibility and on-going support. He also must have confidence that he can deliver on the commitments he’s made.


Elements of Managerial Flexibility The Politician must maintain control over enough of the elements of his commitments so they can be met, regardless of the situation. Any commitment can be defined by three fundamental elements: resources, time and scope. The politician must understand these three elements, how they’re related and how they can be manipulated when crafting any commitment.

Resources• are the physical items needed to meet a commitment. These include people, capital, raw materials, land, machinery or similar physical assets.Time• refers to timeframes or targeted dates when commitments must be met.Scope• involves the “specifications” or detailed descriptions of what needs to be delivered.

For example, a builder makes a commitment to build a house. The resources would include physical assets such as land, capital, building supplies and craftspeople to construct the house. All of these would be taken into consideration when determining the house price. Time would be the date when the house is to be completed. Scope would be defined by the architectural plans showing the details of the house. Like a builder committing to a house project, the Politician formulates his political commitments using these three elements.Here’s an essential thing to keep in mind when making commitments. The more specific the commitment is in terms of resources, time and scope, the more constrained the person making the commitment becomes. This makes it more difficult to meet the commitment. When crafting a commitment, you want to leave as many of these three elements as open-ended as possible. If all three elements are open, your commitment is very minimal. On the other hand, if all three elements are narrowly defined, your commitment becomes very constrained. Let’s use three house-building scenarios to more clearly demonstrate this concept.

Scenario 1 –• The builder commits to construct a house with no specific price, timeframe or design terms. All these are left to the builder’s discretion. In the absence of constraints on any of these three elements, the builder will have complete flexibility in meeting his commitment.Scenario 2 –• The builder commits to construct a house using a specific set of plans. This does constrain his flexibility


somewhat. However, if there is no constraint on either price or timeframe, the commitment is still relatively easy to meet. If either of these other two elements is also constrained – say the timeframe for completion is six months – the builder still has the flexibility to throw unlimited resources into the effort. Consequently, he still has a degree of managerial flexibility over his commitment. Scenario 3 –• The builder commits to construct a house using a specific set of plans within a specific timeframe and for a specific price. He now has considerably less flexibility of action. In fact, he’s seriously constrained. Unless he’s built a significant degree of cushion into these commitments, he’s going to find himself in a very difficult position as he tries to deliver.

Dynamics of Commitment ManagementManaging commitments successfully involves five stages:

Preparation.1.

Initial offers.2.

Negotiation.3.

Final commitments.4.

Follow-through.5. The overriding principle that guides the Politician through these five stages is maintaining control of the process. While he wants his commitments to be as minimally constrained as possible, he wants commitments from opposing players to be as tightly constrained as possible. To maintain control, the Politician must keep as many options open as possible throughout these five stages. These options allow him to understand the tradeoffs being proposed as commitments are offered and accepted by both the Politician and the opposing players. To understand how the Politician consciously progresses through this process, let’s examine each of the five stages individually. Stage 1 – PreparationPreparation begins with the creation of the agenda. Based on this agenda, the Politician must clearly identify what he requires from either a constituency player or power player, or anyone involved in the negotiation. He then establishes a set of optional commitments he can ask for and a set of optional commitments he can make in return.


The • Politician identifies a series of alternative “support” commitment options he can ask for from his negotiating partner. Each of these must ensure at least the minimal level of support the Politician needs to achieve his agenda. These options represent a spectrum – from the least constrained support commitment to the most tightly constrained support commitment.Once the • Politician has prepared his requirements, he puts himself in a position to target the negotiation player. He identifies what’s important to the player and a series of potential commitments he can offer this player, again spanning from minimally constrained to more tightly constrained levels. The Politician then determines the constraints on his flexibility. Under no circumstances should he accept a commitment that tightly constrains all three elements (resources, time and scope). Any of these potential commitments should allow him enough flexibility to ensure delivery.

Stage 2 – Initial Offers With preparation complete, the Politician is now in a position to approach the targeted player. Initially, he should ask for the most extensive commitment (the most tightly constrained), while he offers the most minimally constrained commitment in return. He should confidently make this initial offer, emphasizing the importance of what he’s offering (even though the Politician defines it as minimal), while minimizing the significance of what he’s asking for. Assuming the targeted player is also a Politician, he will recognize this as an opening for negotiation. In all probability, the targeted player will make a counter-offer, asking for a more tightly constrained commitment, while offering a more loosely constrained commitment.Stage 3 – Negotiation Now the two players, the Politician and the targeted player, begin a dance of “give-and-take.” This book is not specifically about negotiation techniques, a subject of many other books. However, the Politician must be an effective negotiator who works on honing these techniques:

Negotiate based on the options identified in Stage 1. Each •succeeding offer should entail placing additional constraints on commitments made OR easing constraints on the commitments being requested. Don’t concede too much at any one time.


Negotiate from strength. Don’t be afraid to look like you’re •willing to walk away from the negotiation.For every concession made, ensure the other party makes a •reciprocal concession of at least equal significance.Do not, under any circumstances, make an offer that doesn’t •meet the minimal need defined by the agenda or that exceeds your ability to deliver.

Stage 4 – Final CommitmentsThe negotiations will conclude with a set of mutual commitments. If the Politician has handled the negotiation correctly, he has agreed to deliver a commitment somewhere on his minimally to tightly constrained continuum. This commitment should include constraints on either one or two of the three elements – resources, time or scope – but never all three! This minimally open-ended element allows the Politician the needed flexibility to move forward.Stage 5 – Follow-ThroughWith the commitments made, now comes follow-through. The Politician has secured the needed support of the targeted player and now leverages that support to progress his agenda. The Politician manages the delivery of his commitments by assuring he can manipulate the open element(s). At any point, if either the targeted player or the Politician gets off track in delivering on their commitments, the negotiation starts again. However, the person who didn’t meet his commitment has lost some credibility and is now in a weaker negotiating position. The Politician must avoid this weaker position.

The Players in ActionNow it’s time to see how Robert, Marissa and Tyler can build flexibility into their negotiations.

Robert’s CommitmentsAs we learned in previous chapters, Robert must target players in the merger company who have a good relationship with the new CEO, especially his counterpart. As the merger strategy unfolds, it’s clear someone will have the responsibility of actually overseeing the merger of the small business units of the

two companies. This responsibility will most likely be given to Robert’s counterpart. This player’s future success will be based on his ability to


successfully bring these two organizations together. To succeed, he will need the support of Robert’s organization, so this is the basis for negotiation. Robert can offer his support to his counterpart as he works on the merger and thus gain influence with the new CEO. This support will help Robert secure a good position in the new company. Robert must enter discussions with his counterpart based on a set of potential support options he can offer and a corresponding set of commitments he can ask for in return. Step by step, Robert will increase the constraints he accepts on his commitment as he gets concessions from his counterpart on the support he will receive. In accepting a final commitment, Robert will ensure he has not fully constrained himself, leaving at least one open-ended element (resources, time or scope). This may be the scope of the responsibility he accepts, the timeframe for delivering his task or the specificity of the task he’s committing to.

Marissa’s CommitmentsMarissa needs the support of the national education company to enhance the reputation of her school and to share some of the burden in dealing with the school’s internal operations and with the accreditation authorities. The value proposition she

can offer the national education company is partnership interests in her school. She crafted the series of commitments she’s willing to make using the three elements: resources (potential dollar value of the partnership); scope (nature of the partnership in terms of what she will continue to control and what the national company will control); and timeframe (targeted timeline to implement the partnership or meet certain financial goals). Marissa also has defined the continuum of what she wants from this targeted player. She negotiates until she gets acceptable support from the company, while she makes a commitment acceptable to her in terms of value and flexibility of action.

Tyler’s CommitmentsTyler needs the support of the banker to fund his expansion plans. Unfortunately, he has already finished loan negotiations with this player. In making this deal, he has put himself in a difficult place. Tyler illustrates the impact of poorly prepared political action. He has made a commitment that is fully


constrained in all three elements. His resources are constrained by the loan’s dollar amount he must pay back. His scope is constrained by defining a 50 percent increase in business he needs to be able to repay the loan. His time is constrained by the date of repayment, specifically within one year. Unfortunately, Tyler hasn’t left himself much flexibility. He may find his commitment difficult to meet, and any renegotiation with the bank will place him in a vulnerable position.

Structuring Your CommitmentsUsing your political agenda from Chapter 9 and the constituency players you identified in Chapter 10, complete the following exercise:

Define a continuum of commitments you can potentially •make. Arrange these from a minimally constrained option to a more fully constrained option. Ensure that even your constrained option leaves you flexibility in one of the elements (resources, time or scope).Define a continuum of commitments that you can request •from your targeted player. Arrange these from a tightly constrained commitment to a minimally constrained commitment. Ensure your minimally constrained request still meets your agenda.Prepare your initial offering to this other player. This offer •should include your minimally constrained commitment to the player, with a request for his tightly constrained commitment.Prepare your negotiation strategy. Remember to give and •receive concessions of reciprocal value, but make concessions wisely. Never agree to a commitment that will constrain you on all three elements, and never accept a commitment that won’t meet your agenda.Manipulate the open-ended elements to meet your commitment. •

Summary Gaining the support of constituency supporters and power players is a process of negotiation. This process goes through five stages: preparation, initial offers, negotiation, final commitments and follow-through. Throughout these stages, the Politician must be flexible. He must identify options that don’t constrain three fundamental elements of the commitment: resources, time and scope. At the same time, he must try to get commitments that tightly constrain these three elements.


12Reality and the

“Spin Doctor”Rule 9: The Politician must manage the reality of her actions

and commitments, but she must also actively and aggressively control the perceptions of everyone in her environment to ensure those perceptions are positive. By now you’re thinking, “Organizational politics is really self-serving.” You’re absolutely right! Organizational politics is played on a field of self-interest. Anyone who thinks otherwise is doomed to being a Victim. It’s important to realize there’s a world of difference between self- interest, the basis for the previous eight drivers, and selfishness. However, the Politician must also pay attention to how others react. If she doesn’t, she can be seen in a very negative light. While she must be sure her behavior reflects all the organizational characteristics, rules and constraints, she can’t be indifferent to the impact her behavior has on other players in her political environment. The Politician realizes she must continually solicit the support of those she needs to succeed. She must ensure that supporters and power players continue to see the value in giving her their support.


Therefore, the Politician engages in perception management. She continually presents the value of her actions and their results in terms that appeal to the interests of those she needs to influence.

Reality and PerceptionThe dictionary defines reality as what exists objectively and in fact. It defines perception as awareness of something through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing. In many cases, when the subject is a physical object, these two concepts merge. For example, a tree exists in physical reality; two people see it and perceive it as a tree. However, imagine the difference if one of them had never before seen a tree, or if one of them was blind and could only perceive a tree from the sound of the wind blowing through its branches. While the tree would still exist in objective reality, the perceptions of that tree might differ considerably for the two people experiencing it. The Politician must continuously “sell” the value of her actions to other players. However, value is very subjective. The Politician’s actions have results. She perceives these results and accepts them as her reality. Other players may perceive these results very differently, and their reality of the results may be very different from hers.To achieve her agenda, the Politician acts to adapt reality as she perceives it. However, she also manages the perceptions of those around her. She must create in each of them a perception of reality that seems beneficial to them. Remember our discussion of ethics in Chapter 5?

Others will perceive the • Politician’s actions as positive if they perceive those actions result in benefiting them.Others will accept the • Politician’s actions as ethical if they perceive those actions are motivated by and result in benefiting some larger entity (e.g. society or the organization).Others will view the • Politician’s actions as unethical or negative if they perceive those actions are motivated by or result in benefiting the Politician. This is especially true if they perceive a negative impact on themselves or those other organizations.

The Politician cannot successfully sustain the support of those she needs unless she manages to maintain a positive perception of her actions. She must not be perceived as blatantly acting in her own self-interests, even though this is her ultimate and primary motivation.


Determinants of PerceptionsPerceptions and the realities they form are very subjective. This is because people perceive things through a unique set of filters. The Politician must understand these filters and create perceptions in the context of the filters unique to the person or people she’s trying to influence. These filters are based on four key factors:

Individual demographics and personalities1. – Each person possesses different personal characteristics that impact the way she perceives things. These attributes include age, gender, race, cultural heritage, marital status, innate intelligence and personality. For example, teenagers perceive things differently than their parents or grandparents; aggressive extroverts perceive, and are perceived, differently than passive introverts.Personal history and experience2. – A person’s life experiences provide a different set of filters. Things like level of education, where you’ve lived, work experiences, family and personal relationships, military experience, and many other experiential factors influence perceptions. For example, a high-school dropout perceives things differently than someone with a Ph.D.; a person who lives in New York perceives life’s issues differently than those who live in rural Kansas; a war veteran’s perceptions are different than a civilian’s perceptions.Core values and beliefs3. – People have different internal beliefs that affect the way they perceive things. Religion, political attitudes and life priorities all shape perceptions. For example, a Christian perceives life differently than a Buddhist; a conservative perceives issues differently than a liberal; a career-focused person perceives work differently than a family-focused person.Herd mentality4. – People are strongly influenced by those around them. This factor of mass influence impacts perceptions. Things like trends, fads, fashions, media messages, advertising, status symbols and role models create a mass sense of reality. People are strongly influenced to perceive things in a manner consistent with this mass view. For example, one strong social trend values ecology, so people are influenced to perceive things based on how they impact the environment.


As you can see, these four factors create a very complex set of filters. Despite this complexity, the Politician must be sensitive to how her filters differ from those of the people she’s trying to influence.

Managing Reality and PerceptionsIt’s not enough for the Politician to manage what she thinks is reality, she must also manage the perceptions of others and the realities they create. One of the biggest mistakes political players make is assuming other players will see (and appreciate) reality the same way they do. Most times the Politician puts concentration on successfully managing commitments in order to meet the needs of supporters. However, if she fails to manage her supporter’s perceptions, she leaves herself vulnerable. Her supporters may lack awareness of the value she offers, and she may not be able to manage the negative perceptions created by her resisters. In the absence of positive perceptions, the Politician will not only fail in achieving her current agenda, but she may not be able to get the future support she needs.Ultimately, a Politician may fail or only partially succeed in meeting her commitments. However, if she can positively manage the perception that she’s delivered real value to those she must influence, she may still succeed in achieving her agenda and set the stage for future support.Perception management follows a simple three-step process:

The 1. Politician manages reality the way she perceives it. Keep in mind that the purpose of political action is to achieve the Politician’s own agenda. Consequently, the Politician manages her political actions to achieve these objectives as she perceives them. It’s her reality.The 2. Politician aligns with the person she’s trying to influence and identifies that person’s filters. She recasts the reality of what’s been done to reflect value in terms of these filters.The 3. Politician actively, aggressively and continuously communicates individually customized, positive perceptions to every individual she needs to influence.

The Politician acts so she delivers to herself a reality consistent with her agenda. However, she crafts and sells individual perceptions that are customized to pass through the filters of other players, creating a reality of positive benefits that meet their personal needs.


The Players in ActionLet’s see how Robert, Marissa and Tyler need to manage their realities and the perceptions of others.

Robert’s Management of Realities and PerceptionsRobert needs to secure a position in the new company so he can progress in his career. To do this, he needs to influence, among others, his counterpart and, through him, the new CEO. To succeed, he must make commitments and build perceptions of these commitments, including:

His assistance in the merger is valuable. •He’s a team player. •He’s committed to making the merger a success. •He’s committed to giving his allegiance to these new players. •He’s fully committed to supporting the objectives of the new •company.

Robert has sought merger-related responsibilities. He manages these successfully to show his value and leverages this value into a new position. At the same time, he aggressively sells the value of what he’s done and shows how it benefits and enhances the personal success of other players in the future company.

Marissa’s Management of Realities and PerceptionsMarissa wants to use her school as a leverage to secure her position and reputation in the local arts community. Her political targets include the local arts community and the new company decision makers whose assistance she needs to take her school to the

next level. She is responsible for managing the success of her school. However, she must sell this success to the new company in terms of the economic value of a partnership. To the local arts community, she must create a perception of the artistic value of having the resources of her school at their disposal, as well as her school’s association with the new company and what support it can bring to local artists.


Tyler’s Management of Realities and PerceptionsTyler wants to build a lifestyle that gives him personal freedom. To do this, he needs to expand his practice. His political targets are other professionals and the banker. Although he is managing the direction of his practice so he can eventually free himself of full-

time involvement in its operations, he sells his commitment and dedication to growing his practice and the value of its expansion to his political targets. As he takes action, Tyler continuously sells the value of the growing firm to these other players. To the other professionals, he concentrates on opportunities for increased business. To the banker, he sells the value of being able to service his debt and use other banking products.

Building Your Reality Using the following steps, examine each political issue you need to accomplish as part of your agenda.

Clearly define what you need to accomplish. Form an action •plan that will allow you to keep your agenda on track. Act!Define how your filters of perception differ from each of •those you need to influence. Recast the value of what you need to accomplish so it passes through these other filters and creates perceptions of value in terms of the personal interests of these other players.Identify what you need to do to communicate and sell these •customized value perceptions.

Summary Once the Politician sets her agenda, makes commitments and garners support, she initiates action. The objective of her action is to accomplish the objectives of her agenda from her own perspective. However, the Politician recognizes how she perceives the value of what she’s accomplishing may differ from the way others perceive it. They may not perceive it as valuable to them. In this case, she recasts the value of what she’s doing so that it appeals to the way others perceive it. Then she actively, aggressively and continuously sells these customized perceptions of value.


13Nothing Stays

the SameRule 10: The Politician must continuously re-evaluate his

political premises and continuously reset his political position.

Change is often the one constant you can count on in organizational politics. The Politician must recognize what is changing and how it’s changing, and then adapt his political activity to reflect these changes. Despite this seemingly obvious statement, change can be easy to overlook or forget. Many people spend considerable time and effort crafting their political positions, lock them in and then try to maintain them long after their effectiveness has waned. An effective Politician continuously assesses and adapts to change.

The Drivers and ChangeThe nine drivers we’ve discussed to this point are dynamic. Individuals and organizations exit and enter the Politician’s game, disrupting and changing relationships. Ethical assumptions are challenged. While the professed ethics of all players may not change significantly in principle, their behavior can cause others to question their true behavioral ethics and the degree to which they can be trusted.


Organizational structures change and evolve causing changes in organizational rules, processes and constraints. All of these require changes in behavior. People gain and lose power constantly. Power shifts not only affect these power players but everyone in their spheres of influence. The informal norms of acceptable behavior (the culture) are malleable and fluid. Acceptable behavior at one point in time may no longer be suitable. Evolving cultural norms may require new forms of behavior. The Politician’s personal life also may change. His dreams and life goals evolve, sometimes dramatically. Even if his long-term aspirations remain the same, current life situations change, which may require rethinking strategies and engaging new short-term issues. Shifting agendas for both the Politician and other players he interacts with cause shifts in constituencies. And with these shifting constituencies come shifting commitments and variations in the Politician’s flexibility of action. All of these changes require different actions, and these actions are perceived differently. As a result, the Politician must continually evaluate each of these nine drivers and identify the changes that may be taking place in each.

The Cycle of ChangeThe ultimate result of all the drivers we’ve discussed is political action, which is the focus of Driver 9. The eight preceding drivers, step by step, set the context and environment for that final action. There’s logic in the sequence of these nine drivers. Each impacts the one following it in one way or another. Let’s take a closer look at their sequential impact.

Relationships –1. Relationships need to be defined in order to identify the relevant players. The Politician must identify them so he can assess their ethics, structure, power and culture. Furthermore, he must understand these relevant players, their relationships with each other and their motivations so he can choose the appropriate political targets, build constituencies, make commitments and manage perceptions.Ethics –2. Once the players have been identified, the process of evaluating ethics determines whether the Politician is going to play the game or leave it. If he decides to play, he may choose to exclude some other players. If he decides not to play, the game ends there. The Politician moves on to some other game and restarts the process. If he chooses to go forward and exclude some players, his decision changes everything that follows.


Structure –3. Structure places constraints on behavior and the way political action is taken. As organizational rules and processes change, so do these constraints. This impacts the Politician’s needed actions as he sets agendas, behaves acceptably in building constituencies, and negotiates and frames commitments.Power –4. Power structures impact how the Politician identifies political targets, forms constituencies, makes needed commitments and manages perceptions.Culture –5. Like structure, cultures place constraints on behavior and like structures. Any change in culture changes all that follows.Agenda –6. The way the Politician frames his agenda impacts everything that follows. It defines whose support he needs, the supporters he needs to solicit, the commitments he needs to make, the milestones he must reach, and the perceptions he must manage.Constituencies –7. The composition of the Politician’s constituency determines the need for commitments and perception management.Commitments –8. Commitments set the framework for how the Politician must manage perceptions.Perceptions –9. Finally, as the Politician takes action, its results and consequences must be assessed. If needed, the Politician must adjust his action to make sure it accomplishes his objective and is perceived positively.

These nine drivers can be divided into four groups:Context1. – The drivers of relationships, ethics, power and culture set the Politician’s context for action. They define the parameters, boundaries, constraints and conditions in which political action takes place.Action Definition2. – Setting the Politician’s agenda defines the objectives, strategy and tactics to direct the action.Staging Actions3. – The constituencies and commitments drivers set the environment, giving the action the Politician takes the highest probability for success.Direct Action4. – This is the actual political activity required to achieve the Politician’s agenda.

Each driver builds on the previous ones and impacts all the ones that follow. Each must be reviewed individually. When the Politician


detects change, he must not only assess the impact of that change on that driver, but also on all the succeeding drivers. Figure 10 represents this flow.

Figure 10: Driver Review Cycle

The Review Cycle – Detailed QuestionsThe Politician must sense the volatility he faces with each driver. Based on that volatility, he should set a specific timeframe to review each one. The higher the degree of volatility, the more frequent the reviews should be. Regardless of volatility, the Politician should conduct a full assessment at least every six months. When he detects some change, the impact of that change on all the following drivers must be assessed following the assessment cycle shown in Figure 10. The following questions provide a guide for you to determine if something of consequence has shifted. In fact, it’s a good idea to keep this list in front of you. It will help make you constantly aware of the factors that should trigger a reassessment. A good Politician periodically asks himself these questions:

CONTEXT

DIRECT ACTION

STAGING ACTIONS

ACTION DEFINITION

Changes to ETHICS?

Changes to STRUCTURE?

Changes to RELATIONSHIPS?

Changes to POWER? Changes to

CULTURE?

Changes to AGENDAS?

Changes to CONSTITUENCIES?

Changes to COMMITMENTS?

Changes to PERCEPTIONS?


Driver 1: Relationships Has my position, job or responsibilities in the organization •changed?Has the position, job or responsibilities of any other •organizational player changed?Has the position, job or responsibilities of any external •player changed?Have any players exited the game?•Have any new players entered the game?•Have relationships among any of the players shifted?•Has my relationship with any of the other players shifted?•Can I detect any changes in motivation in any of the other •players?

Driver 2: EthicsHas there been any shift in societal norms?•Have any of the stated ethical principles of any of the •organizational or individual players in my game shifted?Have my ethical principles changed?•Have my self-interests changed?•Has any issue caused me to think there is a difference in •ethical principles in my society, my organization or in me personally?Is there any individual player whose ethics I feel may cause •some conflict?Have I detected any player’s behavior that is contrary to his •stated principles and that would put those principles in doubt?

Driver 3: StructureHave any of the organizations in my game changed the way •they operate? Are decision-making processes still the same? Are their processes, procedures and organizational rules still the same?Have any of the organizations in my game changed their •organizational objectives, mission, focus or purpose? Have there been any mergers, acquisitions, changes of •ownership or management that affect the organizations in my game?


Have any of these organizations done any internal •restructuring?

Driver 4: Power:Have any of the organizations in my game experienced •any internal or external shifts that have caused a change in responsibility and authority?Have there been any informal shifts in power structures?•Do the power players I identified still wield power or are •other players now overpowering them?Even if all power structures remain, are there any indications •that some players may be gaining power and others losing it?

Driver 5: CultureHas there been a change in any accepted norms of behavior •constraining any of the players in my game?Has there been any shift in group structures, interpersonal •dynamics, communication patterns or social behaviors affecting any of the players in my game?

Driver 6: AgendaHave my life goals changed?•Do I still think I need to achieve the same objectives to meet •my life goals?Has there been any shift in my life causing a shift in my •short-term milestones?Do I still need to target the same short-term issues to achieve •my short-term milestones?Has any player initiated action that presents new obstacles •to my agenda, thus requiring defensive moves on my part?

Driver 7: ConstituenciesAre the power players I have targeted still appropriate?•Are prior supporters still supporters and resisters still resisters?•Is my constituency still strong enough?•Are the motivations of my supporters and targeted power •players still the same?Do the value propositions I presented to these players still •have sufficient value to attract them?


Is my constituency acting in a coordinated way to help move •my agenda forward?

Driver 8: CommitmentsAm I meeting my commitments?•Do I need to make new commitments?•Are my supporters and targeted power players meeting their •commitments?Have the factors changed that affect my ability to deliver on •my commitments?Am I getting pressure to over-commit?•Do I have to enter into any new negotiations or renegotiations?•

Driver 9: PerceptionsAm I acting?•Are my actions moving my agenda forward as anticipated?•Do other players in my game view my actions positively?•Am I communicating the effects of my actions in a context •that appeals to other players and effectively manages how they view my actions?Do I need to adjust or adapt my actions?•Do I need to manage perceptions more effectively?•

The Players in ActionAll three of our players find themselves in dynamic environments that require frequent reassessments. Let’s find out how Robert, Marissa and Tyler regularly assess their political environments.

Robert’s Changing EnvironmentRobert faces continued and significant change in his political environment. The vortex of this change points directly at the relationship driver. As the merger proceeds, the players and the relationships among them continually shift. Each shift in these relationships impacts all the other drivers. With each shift in

relationships, Robert must reassess all of these drivers.


Marissa’s Changing EnvironmentMarissa has some relationships that are fairly permanent. However, new relationships are being introduced into her environment. Like Robert, Marissa must assess all the other drivers as these new relationships take form. However, Marissa is also shifting her agenda. Although her life goals are

the same, she’s changing her focus to external relationships and her position in the community, as opposed to her present focus on the school’s internal operations. As her new short-term targets are defined, she must reassess the commitments, constituencies and perceptions drivers in the context of her evolving agenda.

Tyler’s Changing EnvironmentTyler has set a new direction for his practice and, therefore, he’s established a new political position. At least for a while, Drivers 1-8 are fairly stable for Tyler. He should focus on a continuous reassessment of the effects of his action, or Driver 9, perceptions. Tyler must continually assess if his actions are having

the desired effect and if they’re managing the perceptions he desires. If necessary, Tyler must readjust his actions. If he finds his actions fall short of his commitments, he may have to return to the commitment driver and reassess from that point. In other words, if Tyler can’t make his loan payments, he should reassess the extent of his commitment to growing his business so he can eventually have financially security. In addition, Tyler should periodically do a full reassessment of all drivers.

Your Reassessment ProgramIdentify which driver presents the greatest degree of •volatility in your political environment.Keep your focus on this area. When you detect change, •assess the impact on all the drivers that follow it and adjust your political position as required.Set a timeframe for periodic full reassessments. Adjust this •timeframe if you detect more volatility.

Summary Political environments are dynamic. The Politician understands the process of working through all the drivers is continuous. The assessments and determinations made for each of the nine drivers must be reassessed periodically. The frequency of these


reassessments should be driven by the degree of volatility the Politician faces in each driver. The Politician understands there’s a logical flow to the drivers. When he detects a change in any one of them, the change impacts all the drivers that follow. This sequence is: relationships, ethics, structure, power, culture, agenda, constituencies, commitments and perceptions.


14You’re the

Politician NowYou have the playbook and you’ve stepped through

the plays needed to become a full-fledged Politician. You’ve learned about the ten drivers of effective political

behavior: relationships, ethics, structure, power, culture, agendas, constituencies, commitments, perceptions and change. Each driver raised a question about political behavior and each question was answered in terms of a rule. In addition, you’ve had a chance to look at politics through the eyes of three business professionals and think as a Politician. As you put these concepts into practice, you will begin to act as a Politician. Hopefully, you’ve resolved to avoid becoming a political Maverick or political Victim. Now it’s time to review these drivers, the questions each poses, the resulting rules of effective political behavior and the steps required to effectively apply each of these rules as you craft your political persona.

Summarizing the DriversDriver 1: RelationshipsAnswer the question: “Who’s playing this political game with me?”


Rule 1: The Politician is engaged in a game of influence. The Politician must know who’s in the game, what the relationships are among the players and what the motivations of these other players are.

Step 1 ActivitiesUsing Figure 1 as an example, map and diagram the players •engaged in your political game. (You’ll find Figure 1 in Chapter 4, page 44.) After completing your map and diagram, list each player. •Think through her personal motivations for engaging you. Define each of these relationships as permanent or transient, •and as a potential supporter or resister. Define how these factors impact the behavioral dynamic •between you and each player.

Driver 2: EthicsAnswer the question: “Can I be a politician and still be ethical?”Rule 2: The Politician must create an ethical foundation for her political behavior and act within the constraints of that ethical foundation.

Step 2 ActivitiesUsing Figure 5 as an example, work through the ethical •decision tree. (You’ll find Figure 5 in Chapter 5, page 54.)Identify any ethical conflict. •Either reconcile this conflict or exit the situation.•You’re now positioned to act ethically with personal self-•interest as your motivator.

Driver 3: StructureAnswer the question: “Is politics the same in every organization?”Rule 3: The Politician must adapt her political behavior to the structural characteristics of the organization.

Step 3 ActivitiesIdentify each of the organizational entities you are •interacting with, both internally and externally.Using Figures 6 and 7 as examples, map the structural •characteristics of these organizational entities. (You’ll find Figures 6 and 7 in Chapter 6, pages 61 and 64.)Define how these characteristics constrain political behavior. •Adapt your behavior to those constraints. •


Driver 4: PowerAnswer the question: “Who should be the focus of my political activities?”Rule 4: The Politician must know which external entities, organizational sub-units and individuals who interact with the organization wield power. She must understand where she sits relative to that power structure, and she must direct her political activity to that power structure.

Step 4 ActivitiesUsing your relationship diagram from Step 1, identify the •degree of power each entity in your political game has. Define how each of these power players can affect your •political activity.Initiate activities to gain personal influence with them.•Avoid activities that cause them to react negatively to you. •Determine if any of these power players are in conflict with •each other.Avoid activities that make you a victim of their political •conflict.

Driver 5: CultureAnswer the question: “Are there subtle things I should be aware of that impact my political behavior?”Rule 5: The Politician must understand her organization’s internal culture and external culture and adapt her political behavior to reflect its cultural norms.

Step 5 ActivitiesUsing Figure 9, map the cultural traits of the organization •you are targeting, whether it’s your own organization or a relevant external organization. (You’ll find Figure 9 in Chapter 8, page 82.) Adapt your political behavior to reflect these cultural traits.•

Driver 6: AgendasAnswer the question: “What do I want to accomplish as a result of my political behavior?”Rule 6: The Politician must establish a personal agenda that serves as the objective of her political activity. The Politician must control her own agenda, rather than being controlled by the agendas of others. She picks which political issues to engage in based on which ones have the best potential to further her personal agenda.


Step 6 ActivitiesUse the following eight-step process to set your political agenda.

Commit to action based on your own self-interests. •Define your long-term life vision. •Define your long-term strategy to reach this life vision. •Define what tactics you must use in the next six months and •in the next year to achieve your strategic objectives. Define what you must do to keep focused on your agenda •and avoid being side-tracked while setting your political agenda or the agendas of others.Determine if others have taken action detrimental to your •agenda and determine what defensive actions you must take to counter these obstacles. Set an on-going timeframe, say every three months, to •reassess your agenda. Base this timeframe on how fluid your political environment is.Define what can change in your life to cause a change •in your life vision or what can change in your political environment to cause a change in strategy. Remain open to these changes.

Driver 7: ConstituenciesAnswer the question: “Do I need help accomplishing what I want to do?”Rule 7: The Politician picks her political associations. These associations form a constituency of power players and assistance-givers who are needed to achieve the objectives of her personal agenda.

Step 7 ActivitiesTake each of the short-term issue/targets you identified as •part of your agenda-building process, and identify the power player you must target and influence to attain that issue. Identify whose support you need to influence those power •players.Determine whether the self-interests of these needed •supporters align with your issue. State a specific value proposition to gain their support. •Determine if you can build a constituency of strength. •Identify who the resisters are. Determine if your


constituency can effectively isolate or neutralize them.If you don’t have a constituency of strength, diplomatically •back away from your issue. If you do have a constituency of strength, give your resisters •an acceptable back-away option.Define your constituency’s value proposition for the power •player.Orchestrate coordinated, focused pressure using this value •proposition.Seek additional constituency players to deliver on the value •propositions made to supporters and power players.

Driver 8: CommitmentsAnswer the question: “In seeking political help, what kind of commitments should I make?”Rule 8: The Politician must not allow her commitments to be constrained. She must maintain control over enough of those aspects of her commitments to gain enough flexibility to act. In return for commitments made, she requests commitments that are as tightly constrained as she can negotiate.

Step 8 ActivitiesDetermine a continuum of optional commitments you •can potentially make. Arrange these from a minimally constrained option to a fully constrained option. Ensure that even your constrained option leaves flexibility in one of the elements: resources, time or scope.Determine a continuum of commitments you can request •from the targeted player. Arrange these from tightly constrained commitments to minimally constrained commitments. Ensure your minimally constrained commitments still meet your agenda’s needs.Prepare your initial offering to this targeted player. It should •offer her your minimally constrained commitment, with a request for her tightly constrained commitment in return.Prepare your negotiation strategy, giving and receiving •concessions of reciprocal value. Move toward offering commitments that are more tightly constrained, while requesting commitments that are more loosely constrained. Make concessions wisely. Never agree to a commitment that will constrain you on all three elements, and never accept a


commitment that won’t meet your agenda’s needs.Manipulate the open-ended elements to meet your •commitment.

Driver 9: PerceptionsAnswer the question: “How do I influence what people think about my political behavior?”Rule 9: The Politician must manage the reality of her actions and commitments, but she must also actively and aggressively control perceptions of everyone in her environment to ensure those perceptions are positive.

Step 9 ActivitiesTake each political issue you must accomplish as part of your agenda and apply the following:

Initiate action to achieve your agenda. Manage the situation. •Create the reality you need to keep your agenda on track.Define how your filters of perception differ from each of •those you need to influence. Recast the value of what you’re accomplishing to pass through these other filters. Create customized perceptions of value that align with the personal interests of each player.Establish and initiate a process of communication with each •player that actively, aggressively and continuously sells these customized value perceptions.

Driver 10: Change Answer the question: “Can I assume that things will remain the same?”Rule 10: The Politician must continuously re-evaluate her political premises and continuously reset her political position.

Step 10 ActivitiesIdentify which of the preceding nine drivers presents the •greatest degree of volatility to your political environment.Focus on this area. If you detect change, assess the impact on •all the drivers that follow it in the sequence shown in Figure 10. Adjust your political position as required. (You’ll find Figure 10 in Chapter 13, page 114.)Set a timeframe to do periodic full reassessments of all the •drivers. Adjust this timeframe if you detect more volatility.


15Farewell

to the PlayersYou now understand how the Politician thinks about

organizational politics, assesses his political environment, identifies appropriate political actions and ensures the

execution of those political actions. Before you put these concepts into practice, let’s visit Robert, Marissa and Tyler one last time to see how they’ve applied these same concepts.

Farewell to RobertRobert recognizes he’s in a very dynamic political environment. His goal is to rise to the top in his corporate managerial career. Although he was well positioned before the merger, it’s now put everything in play. Robert has established his political position by

working through the ten drivers. He began by mapping the evolving relationships in his political game and then divided them into four groups. First, there are the external relationships he deals with, primarily clients and perspective clients. He evaluated their motivations and recognized they need to be shown that they can trust his company to give them great service as the merger proceeds.


The second group is comprised of his current employees. He determined they want assurances their jobs will be protected in any fallout from the merger. Third, there are the players in the merger partner company who are also concerned about their futures in the merged organization. Finally, there is the emerging cast of players in the new merged company whose interests will ensure the success of the merger. With the players in his game identified, Robert evaluated the ethical dynamic of the situation to determine if he wanted to stay in the game. He concluded there were no ethical conflicts in the situation and the merged company could meet his needs. He decided to stay and ethically act in the best interests of the merged company because this would also serve his interests. Robert assessed the structures of his current company and the merger partner, as well as the emerging structure of the new company. He recognized all three were formal organizations with highly standardized rules and procedures. He understood he had to constrain his behavior to act within these rules and procedures. At the same time, Robert assessed the evolving power structure. With the identification of the new CEO, he recognized that power had shifted to the key players in the partner company. He knew it was highly likely the cultural characteristics of the partner company would influence the emerging culture of the new company. This would mean a shift to cultural norms of conformance to rules and high standards of performance and work ethic. Robert made a commitment to adapt his behavior so that he appears to be a hard-working, driven, team player acting in the best interests of the organization. With these contextual determinations set, Robert was ready to define a new agenda. His long-term life goal to become CEO of a major corporate entity hadn’t changed. However, he needed to re-evaluate his strategy and short-term targets in light of the merger. Robert reworked his agenda. In the short-term, he determined he may have to give up complete control of the small business division of the current company in order to secure a position in the new company that will allow him to advance his career. His new agenda reflects the fact that to achieve a long-term goal sometimes the best way forward is a step to the side or even a step back. Robert realizes he’s willing to give up something now to achieve a greater goal in the future. Furthermore, he realizes that he must become a player in the new company to protect the interests of his existing employees and clients.


So, Robert’s short-term political agenda is to maneuver into a significant role in the new company without “fighting” to retain his current position. Given the new power structure, he understands this fight would be difficult to win. With his new agenda set, Robert identified the new CEO as the key power player who can give him the job he needs. While he doesn’t have a relationship with this new CEO, he recognized that his counterpart and other players in the partner company do have this relationship. Robert knew he needed these individuals’ support. He crafted a value proposition showing how he can help them succeed and then pledged them his support. He conceded any challenge to their career aspirations, a challenge he knew he couldn’t sustain anyway. In return, he asked for their support in securing a good post-merger position, perhaps being second in command to one of their high-level executive positions. To secure their support, Robert committed to certain deliverables to make the merger a success. Those deliverables have value to the personal agendas of the other players. He negotiated these commitments, making sure he built into them enough flexibility of action to ensure he can meet them. In return, he received commitments from the other players that they would help him advance his agenda and secure a good position. He now acts on his commitments and maneuvers into a good position in the new company. At the same time, he ensures his actions have the right effect – that he’s gaining credibility and stature with this group of supporters. He makes sure they develop positive perceptions of him and his value to them. Finally, Robert recognizes he’s in a highly volatile political environment. He commits to frequently reassess all his conclusions and determinations.

Farewell to MarissaMarissa’s passion is the arts. She’s built a life focused on the arts and a school dedicated to developing artistic talent. She’s at a pivot point in her business and in her life. Her desire to build a life around the arts hasn’t changed, but she now needs to shift

her focus from the internal – her school – to the external – the arts community. Marissa has mapped the relationships she’s dealing with. She’s seen, on the one hand, the set of older established relationships with her school staff. On the other hand, she’s recognized there are new emerging relationships she needs to leverage as she moves forward.


In her ethical assessment, Marissa has identified an issue with the accreditation official. While it’s not an issue that would cause her to leave the game, she must neutralize it at the very least. Organizationally, Marissa has recognized that she must function on two fronts: internally in her school and externally in the community. Looking internally, she understands that the structure and culture of her school are changing. It’s becoming more formal and business- oriented. She realizes she must change her internal behavior from artistic and creative to administrative and business-like. Externally, because of her multiple relationships, she knows she must adapt her behavior to each. When interacting with the new company or governmental agencies, she must adapt to their rules and behavioral norms. When dealing with the art community, she can rely on her natural behavior as an open, free-wheeling artistic personality. The power base Marissa must focus on is also shifting. As the head of her school, she continues to hold considerable power internally. However, this is dissipating somewhat as the school’s faculty emerges as a force. Additionally, as she positions herself to focus more externally, she recognizes she may have to give up some of this power to the national education company and a new board. She also recognizes the power community leaders have over her plans to become an important player in the community. She must target these new power players. With these assessments of her political environment, Marissa is ready to set her agenda. Her life vision of being a focal point of the artistic community hasn’t changed, but her strategy must shift. Although her school is established, she needs to grow it and rely on other resources to manage that growth. At the same time, her focus must shift to the external arts community. In the short-term, Marissa sets agenda targets of concluding a deal with the national education company, and giving it the responsibility of administering the school. She decides this will leave her with the social position as the school’s artistic leader, which she can leverage with the local arts community. She also gives the national education company power to deal with the accreditation authority, thus deflecting the ethical issue presented by the accreditation official. If Marissa meets these targets, she can plan others focused on her relationship with the local arts community. With her agenda set, she begins moving her agenda forward. She’s identified the power players she must influence in the new national education company, as well as whose support she needs to influence them. Marissa then plans how she will use the new company’s players


to influence other power players such as the school’s faculty, the new board and members of the accreditation authority. She crafts an attractive value proposition and negotiats commitments she can deliver, while getting commitments that allow her to pursue her agenda targets. She then acts to put the dynamic in place that will reposition her and her new role in the school and community. Marissa carefully observes the result of her action and takes any steps necessary to ensure they achieve what they were intended to achieve.

Farewell to TylerTyler is on a track to achieve an independent lifestyle. His objective in establishing his private practice is to eventually provide that kind of a lifestyle to himself and his family. He’s assessed his relationships and has seen he has an interesting set of interactions.While Tyler has a small internal staff, most of his

key relationships are external. They consist of clients, the financial service companies whose products he offers to his clients, the other independent professionals whose service he uses and the banker who’s financing the expansion of his practice. The motivations of these players vary. The financial service companies want business. The professionals want referrals. The banker wants his loan repaid. All these motivations can be satisfied if Tyler grows his business as planned. From an ethical perspective, Tyler doesn’t have any issues. His self-interest is in sync with societal interests and with the interests of all these other players. However, he does recognize that he must continually assess his independent professional partners to ensure they maintain high standards of ethical behavior. From a structural perspective, Tyler recognizes that, when dealing with the financial service companies and the bank, his behavior must conform to the rules inherent in their formal structures. However, at the core of his business, his behavior is constrained only by a culture of professionalism. He’s at the core of the power structure within his firm. However, by taking out a loan, he’s placed the banker in a very significant power position. In the short-term, the focus of his political activity must be satisfying the banker.Tyler has thought through his agenda. Although his life vision is an independent lifestyle focused on family and personal interests, he’s accepted that he must forego these interests in the short-term, so he can focus on the necessary growth of his practice.


Tyler must build a support constituency of independent professionals and existing clients so he can solicit new clients and ultimately repay his outstanding loan, thus satisfying the banker. On the negative side, he’s made a tactical mistake by negotiating a very constrained commitment with the banker. He must work himself out of this position. In future negotiations, he must leave himself more flexibility to act. On the positive side, he’s made acceptable value propositions to the other independent professionals to work cooperatively with him. Now, Tyler aggressively acts to build new business. At the same time, he manages the perceptions of all the other players and assures them he’s satisfying their needs. This is especially important with the banker, who needs to know Tyler’s business plan is on target and the loan agreement will be met.

Farewell to You – The New PoliticianLike Robert, Marissa and Tyler, you’ve worked through the ten drivers of effective political behavior. In doing this, you’ve created your own political position. Congratulations on becoming an effective Politician, one who understands how to succeed in the world of organizational politics.

Michael J. Marinaccio, Ph.D.Dr. Marinaccio is a founding principal and trustee of The Organization for Entrepreneurial Development, a not-for-profit committed to helping small-

and medium-sized businesses address and resolve their individual business problems. In addition, he is president of Zephyr Consulting Group, an

independent business advisory firm; a principal of EPIC Results, Inc, a training company; and a fellow of The Institute for Independent Business. Before his association with these organizations, Dr. Marinaccio had more than 30 years of experience as a military officer, senior executive, management consultant,

coach and teacher. He has worked with and experienced organizational politics within a full range of organizational entities across local, regional, national and

international venues.

Dr. Marinaccio has B.S., M.B.A. and Ph.D. degrees in management and finance. He serves as an adjunct professor at several New York-based colleges, teaching courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Academically, he has

researched and written about the dynamic of organizational politics.

surviving organizational politics pdf printable

Documents