Human Nature and the Political Processes that Evolve

You will find the world of work looks decidedly different once you have these human nature truths internalized. First, you'll remember not to turn your back on the politics of self-interests and the fact that people are internally wired to look out for themselves. Next, you will realize that subordinates require safeguards to tell it straight to bosses whose judgments affect their security and rewards. And, third, you'll understand that teamwork starts at the top—with bosses and subordinates looking out for one another, searching for ways to enhance one another's personal well being and success.

With subjectivity acknowledged, one immediately sees that all organizational events are open to interpretation, with personal motives and self-interested biases determining how they are experienced and what they are called. Thus, organization politics are the dynamics that unfold when people with different perceptions and motives discuss what is happening and the specific actions required. Faced squarely, there is no corruption—just a difference in interpretation driven by differing self-interested motives.

Corruption takes place when one or more individuals take the negotiation underground, seeking to decide matters in a way that benefits the organization while also benefiting themselves. In the case of bosses, this may merely involve making a decision without seeking sufficient advice and counsel from those responsible for implementation and whose expertise and experience qualify their views as relevant considerations. In the case of subordinates, this may constitute selective spinning and withholding of essential facts in the service of giving the person who decides their rewards what they want that person to think and know. In either instance it entails people seeking self-beneficial rewards at the expense of the open and honest interactive process that produces the best organization result.

When people feel their viewpoints are excluded from a decision made in their domains of responsibility and expertise, they are likely to experience political processes unfair to the extent that they believe the situation justifies rectifying manipulation. This is precisely the consequent dynamic created in a one-sided accountable, hierarchical relationship and why, for an antidote, we advocate two-sided accountability. We seek relationships where people are not afraid to speak their minds or hear what's on other people's minds because, at the end of the day, they know who has the authority to decide the matter and that person knows he or she will eventually be called upon to stand accountable for the result. Standing accountable causes decision makers to listen carefully to what others believe best and to provide the supports necessary for people to candidly deliver their views. Of course, all honest expression comes with a self-interest motive and bias, and decision makers need to learn enough about other people to bracket those interests and make decisions that are not just good for themselves and the organization, but good for others on the team. When you think about it, this is the heart of teamwork.