chapter 5

How You Will Become a Victim of Politics

In presenting both the “negative” and “natural” sides of the debate on the nature of corporate politics, it is important for individuals to draw their own conclusions about the role of politics in organizational life. As shown in Table 5.1 people entering organizational service for the first time are likely to take one of three distinct positions regarding political behavior. The first approach can be best termed the “naive” attitude regarding politics. Naive individuals view politics as unappealing at the outset and make firm resolution never to engage in any type of behavior that resembles political activity. Their goal is, in effect, to remain above the fray, not allowing politics in any form to influence their conduct.

The second, and exact opposite, approach is undertaken by individuals who enter organizations with the express purpose of using politics and aggressive manipulation to reach the top. These people are “sharks.” While relatively few in number, these people readily embrace political behavior in its most virulent form. Their loyalty is entirely to themselves and their own objectives. Work with them, and one is likely to be used and manipulated; get between them and their goal and their behavior becomes utterly amoral. The only cause these individuals espouse is their own. The “naive” and “shark” positions are equally and unprofitably wrong-minded about politics. Their attitudes underscore the awareness of the third type of organizational actor: the “politically sensible.”

Politically sensible individuals enter organizations with few illusions about how many decisions are made. They understand, either intuitively or through their own experience and mistakes, that politics is simply another side, albeit an unattractive one, of the behavior in which one must engage in order to succeed in modern organizations. While not shunning politics, neither do they embrace its practice. Rather, the politically sensible are apt to state that this behavior is at times necessary because “that is the way the game is played.” It is also important to point out that politically sensible individuals generally do not play politics of a predatory nature, as in the case of sharks who seek to advance their own careers in any manner that is expedient. Politically sensible individuals use politics as a way of making contacts, cutting deals, and gaining power and resources for their departments or projects to further corporate, rather than entirely personal, ends.

Everyone must make up their own minds regarding the efficacy and morality of engaging in corporate politics. Interviewing successful project managers would show it is almost impossible to be successful in organizational systems without a basic understanding of, and willingness to employ, organizational politics. Whatever position one adopts, research has led to some important conclusions about politics. A recent large-scale study of senior and mid-level managers offered a number of interesting conclusions about the use of politics in organizations:

1. While unable to agree whether politics is a natural process, most managers regard politics in a negative manner and view political behavior as unprofitably consuming organizational time and resources.

2. Managers believe political behavior is common to all organizations.

3. The majority of managers believe political behavior is more prevalent among upper managers than those at lower levels in organizations.

4. Political behavior is much more common in certain decision domains, such as structural change or new system implementation, than in other types of organizational activities, such as handling employee grievances [1].

The fourth conclusion is particularly relevant to a discussion of corporate politics. The reason political behavior is more common under certain conditions such as new system introduction is that these types of organizational changes signal the potential for a significant shift in power relationships. Any form of organizational change has the potential to alter the power landscape. The reason, as Hickson and his colleagues have noted, is that one important determinant of power is the notion of centrality [2]. Centrality refers to how involved or central to the main activities of an organization a particular individual or department is. The more central to the organization's mission, the greater the power held by that department. The initiation and implementation of a new project has the potential to remove the power of centrality from departments and transfer it to another location—the project team. As previously noted, if a project is developed under the auspices of one department, other functional areas may view that development with suspicion because it shifts the spotlight from their own activities to a project team sitting outside of their jurisdiction. Any action or change effort initiated by members of an organization that has the potential to alter the nature of current power relationships provides a tremendous impetus for political activity.

Why is the study of politics so important for successful project implementation? The implementation process itself is often highly politicized, as different managers and departments view the development and implementation of a project as a potentially useful base of power. In other words, any shift in the operational status quo, resulting from the introduction of a new project within a corporation, will inevitably affect how operations and activities are conducted. Once there is a threatened shift in status, departments and managers who perceive themselves as losing power because of the project are apt to do whatever is necessary to discourage or subvert its use.

Consider a situation in which a city planning department has contracted to install an MIS with the technical ability to perform a wide variety of tasks, including infrastructure tracking and repair, tasks originally handled by the city engineering department. As a result of the new MIS the city planners have the capacity to track and schedule road and bridge repair themselves. Under this scenario, one would expect the city engineers to do everything they can to either halt use of the MIS or severely limit it in such a way that it will not interfere with activities they view as their responsibility. For example, they might push through a procedural resolution requiring all infrastructure repair planning be done through their office, despite the existence of the MIS. The conclusion is inescapable: with responsibility comes power. If the computer system reallocates operational responsibilities, it thereby redefines the power structure. Few changes are as threatening to organizational members as a redivision of power. Hence, those with a vested interest in the old system will actively resist efforts to introduce new or innovative changes.

Political Games

The number of political games played within organizations are legion. Some are entirely predatory and others are relatively benign. This chapter, indeed this book, is in no way intended to advocate employing predatory political practices as a means to advancing selfish or egocentric ends. Nevertheless, as firm believers in the adage, “Forewarned is forearmed,” we offer the following analysis of political practices so that project managers can: (1) learn to recognize political games when they are the target, and (2) develop and employ political tools as appropriate in furthering their project's legitimate ends.

Harrison [3] developed a set of political principles he labeled the political manager's tool kit. His list is broad and offers a fine framework for a more in-depth discussion of various political tactics. He cites a set of ten activities that are political in nature and can work to a manager's advantage if employed prudently. Not all of the tactics are savory, nor are they all recommended for use. Nevertheless, as a starting point for understanding the types of political games prevalent in modern organizations, each offers a clear window for examining the political realm (see Table 5.2). The ten political tools are:

1.   Gaining support from a higher power source or sources

2.   Alliance or coalition building

3.   Controlling a critical resource

4.   Controlling the decision process

5.   Controlling the committee process

6.   Use of positional authority

7.   Use of the scientific element

8.   Deceit and deception

9.   Information

10. Miscellaneous games.

Gaining support from a higher power source or sources. All projects proceed more smoothly if they can attract the sponsorship of a powerful champion. Rather than passively waiting and hoping a champion will appear and aid the project, smart politics suggests project managers should go out and actively enlist support. Some of the methods used to gain support include the sponsorship game, lobbying, and co-optation. Sponsorship refers to any attempts that a junior manager makes to get a senior manager to “sign on” and mentor the project. Lobbying is often seen as the visible manifestation of such attempts. A project manager may work to advertise his project in any organizational circles he can find, using such publicity as a jumping off point for directly approaching a senior manager. Co-optation is the project manager's practice of employing allies in the search for a champion. Rather than act alone, a smart politician will cast a wide net, using other managers and additional contacts to single out and approach potential top management supporters.

Alliance or coalition building. Alliance or coalition building is a favorite tactic of canny political actors and one of the most common forms of political behavior in organizations. Smart politicians recognize that the wider their circle of allies, “friends,” and contacts, the greater their potential source of support in times of need. Indeed, bargaining, which forms the basis for much of political behavior, is enhanced by a large coalition. One common method for developing alliances include giving and accepting of IOUs. Many times it is in a manager's best interest to perform a favor for another; not for immediate gain but in order to be able to call in a marker in the future if it should be necessary. Likewise, canny politicians learn the art of negotiation and dealmaking as natural byproducts of their profession.

Other forms of alliance building include “treaties” of mutual support and defense and establishing common causes. It is axiomatic that clever politicians couch their approach and request for support in terms of appeals to the higher good. This approach has many benefits, perhaps the most obvious of which is that, if done properly, it reframes the issue at hand as one of mutual interest rather than self-interest. In other words, if a politician can convince others that it is in their best interest to perform some task he personally desires, the politician benefits doubly: (1) through getting others to help fight his battles, while (2) not having to owe favors in return. As an illustration of this principle, a large business school recently undertook a major revision of their curriculum in order to weed out old, nonessential courses and update the teaching approach. The head of one department, facing severe cuts, managed to convince the heads of two other departments that the revision would damage their prerogatives as well. Although untrue, the politician was thus able to enlist the active and vocal support of other members of the college and ultimately minimize potential damage to his own department.

Controlling a critical resource. The ability to control a critical resource is key to developing a base of power. In the days of the Old West, rival cattle barons often fought each other over water and land grazing rights, the two critical resources to support their livelihood. The implication was, and is, clear: “If I can control your access to a resource that is critical to your operations, I win.” In project management situations, one of the most obvious sources of power disequilibrium is the control that managers have over the work of their subordinates, often requiring project managers to negotiate for services they need performed. Other critical resources that project managers seek, but which are in short supply, include money, expertise, and relevant and timely information.

Controlling the decision process. A subtle but effective political tactic involves the capacity to control organizational decision processes. There are two variations on this tactic. In the first, the canny political manager will work to control the selection of options to a final “short list” to ensure his preferences are included while stacking the deck with other, unacceptable options. Consider, for example, a project manager seeking to have another technical expert assigned to the project team. He may approach upper management with a short list of alternates, knowing in advance that other commitments will prevent some of the undesirable alternatives from being selected. Nevertheless, for appearance's sake, the manager has given the impression of having no hidden agenda or particular preference, while actually working carefully to ensure his preferred choice is selected.

Another method for controlling the decision process involves controlling the decision criteria themselves. In this scenario, politicians understand a decision must be made which, although they may have no power to do so, they would like to personally influence. In controlling the decision criteria, the politician may seek to constrain the boundaries of the decision to limit the information search and “force” a committee or upper manager to arrive at a decision the politician is actively pushing. In one case, for example, a manager has a vested financial interest in a multimillion-dollar purchase of personal computers for a large corporate office. In an effort to influence the selection, competition among three top contenders was set in terms of carefully selected performance criteria, knowing that these were the few areas in which his choice was demonstrably better. Not surprisingly, his choice won.

Controlling the committee process. We like to think most important decisions are made by objective committees in which the logic of consensus operates. Many times nothing could be further from the truth. That sounds harsh but it must be put into its proper context. Committees, first and foremost, are composed of individuals with their own likes and dislikes, biases, and personal agendas. They sometimes function in ways that do not maximize the organization's return but rather protect their own power. Committees, and meetings in general, are often a sore point for project managers who find themselves spending large amounts of time in rounds of discussions that seem to generate little positive return. Nevertheless, meeting skills are critical because they are still the standard for significant decision-making in most organizations.

Politicians understand committees serve a purpose but they also seek to find ways to influence the committee's oversight or to ensure that the committee arrives at the same decision the manager has already reached. There are several ways to influence committee decision-making. The most important, and often overlooked, is by “allowing” the committee to make the decision in the first place. Why wait until the meeting and pin your hopes on a favorable outcome if you have the opportunity to influence each committee member prior to the meeting? Alternatively, it makes perfect sense to work toward getting the “right” people on the committee in the first place. For example, a particularly successful academic routinely intercedes to salt important committees with his allies, knowing he will need their support at appropriate times. It makes more sense to manage the decision through controlling the committee process.

Other methods for controlling the committee process include approaches that manipulate the agenda or committee membership. For example, a senior manager was known for an autocratic style until being warned to become more “team-oriented” in decision-making. The solution? Find four staff members that he knew he could always count on to do his bidding and consistently staff committees with these individuals. The illusion of team decision-making masked the manipulation of the committee through careful staffing.

Finally, beware of the truly manipulative politicians who seek to control committees by altering meeting minutes after the fact. Though this tactic is somewhat rare, it can be highly damaging. Few of us actually read minutes of old meetings we have attended. Politicians know this and sometimes make subtle alterations to the intended meaning of group decisions if given the opportunity. In one case, a manager who had been altering meeting minutes for years was finally caught. He had discovered he was the only one who kept copies of the minutes and when, in the course of his job, he made mistakes, he would alter the minutes to seemingly pass the blame on to other managers. Admittedly, this example is an extreme case but nevertheless offers a particularly ruthless example of the use and misuse of information.

Use of positional authority. While not a formal political tactic, positional authority gives managers an important base of power and influence. It is not typically considered a “political” approach because positional authority, by definition, relies on legitimate power for control; hence, there is little need to engage in the sorts of influential activities political realities necessitate. On a larger scale, however, one could argue that having some specific base of authority gives project managers a component of status vis-à-vis functional managers and other important stakeholders, enabling them to negotiate and operate on more equal footing. In many corporations, for example, project managers have relatively little status or authority, being named to their position on an ad hoc or “availability” basis. Is it any wonder they are forced to work through influence and similar “powerless” approaches to further their project's goals? Contrast this situation to organizations that are project-based (e.g., Boeing or Fluor Daniel). These firms quite literally live and die by project management. Consequently, the title of “project manager” carries with it enough status and positional authority to make it easy for these people to negotiate with peers and punish or reward their subordinates.

Use of the scientific element. This political tactic means having the expertise to be knowledgeable on various technical components of the project management process, including the planning and control processes. As noted, an important source of power lies in being perceived as an expert by other organizational and project team members. Developing a reputation as an expert is another method for enhancing authority, although from personal rather than positional power.

Deceit and deception. Some might cynically note no discussion of politics is complete without making mention of its darker side: the overt or (more often) covert manipulation of others in a self-serving manner.

The use of deceit and deception is a political tactic played most often by predatory managers. It is important, however, for other project managers to recognize some of the signals of these games to prepare for their effects and consider reasonable alternative responses.

One of the most common forms of deceit and deception is the surprise tactic—the enlistment of an ally and then a sudden move against that person when they least expect it. Other tactics include hidden objectives and agendas and chameleon-like changeability. Deceitful politics breeds shifty actors adept at refusing to allow themselves to be pinned down to any position. They avoid direct conflict because it could create bad feelings and open hostility, preferring to work behind the scenes to gain advantage and eliminate opposition.

Deceitful political actors offer an unsettling message. Unlike many other political tactics, benign or malicious, which are readily identifiable, deception and deceit are, by definition, very difficult to detect prior to implementation. This tactic is much harder to anticipate and defend against because it forces project managers to be somewhat guarded of whom they take into their confidence. This should not be interpreted as an injunction to never trust anyone within the organization. Clearly, project managers need their support group and allies in order to implement their projects. We must be aware, however, of those who operate in essentially unprincipled ways and of the impact they can have on us and our careers. The good news is that there are relatively few Machievellian managers who practice this sort of tactic. The bad news is that once having come across one, it is best to keep a wide distance from them in the future.

Information. Those who have information have an advantage over others who need that information to more effectively do their jobs. In playing information politics, probably the most common approach is withholding information that could either reflect badly on individuals or projects. More malicious examples of information politics include the deliberate distortion of information. As information technology becomes more prevalent across organizations, however, this political tactic is increasingly rare. With a number of new sources of almost any form of information available to managers, there is little advantage in distorting information that can easily be cross-checked through another source.

Miscellaneous games. James Clavell's novel, Shogun, offers some wonderful examples of political maneuvering. Set in feudal Japan, a principle character, Toranaga, had been isolated by the ruling council of regents and condemned. He realized he stood no chance in defying and fighting a united council so he began a series of tactics bent on dividing, one by one, the regents from each other. His policy of divide and rule is a well-known political ploy, used to slowly eliminate the power of a coalition. In a project management example, a manager with a large chemical manufacturing firm was faced with the potential canceling of her project by an oversight group that included representatives from accounting, production, and R&D. She knew she stood virtually no chance of changing the minds of the committee as a whole, so she began working behind the scenes, person by person, trying to convince each one to allow the project to continue. Her favorite tactic was to play on the natural animosities that often exist between members of different departments, in this case R&D and production. She was successful in driving a wedge between the representatives and thereby hamstringing the oversight committee.

Other tactics are well-known: threats of whistle-blowing and appeals for unity in the face of external threats—“We are all in the same lifeboat”—are examples of the range of options in the political manager's toolbox. An in-depth understanding of the choices available to use or be wary of can serve to help project managers better grasp the nature of power and politics in their organizations. And most of us will gravitate toward benign politics, played with the best interests of the organization and the project at hand.

Summary

Politics is a process few managers, even those who are adept at it, enjoy. Interviews and conversations with a variety of managers across a diverse collection of public and private organizations make clear that using politics, even in the “sensible” manner suggested in this chapter, is often a distasteful process. We do not like having to cut deals, to negotiate for resources needed to develop our projects, and to constantly mollify departmental heads who are suspicious of the motives behind a developing project, or any other system that threatens their base of power. Nevertheless, the realities of modern organizations are such that successful managers must learn to use the political process for their own purposes. This chapter laid out some of the major issues in organizational politics, its definitions and causes, and suggested some guidelines for effectively managing project implementation within the political context of organizations. It also offered some practical views on the nature and importance of political behavior in modern organizations.