I Wish I'd Known That Earlier in My Career

The Power of Positive Workplace Politics

Jane Horan

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9780470829714
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Personal Development
• Subtopic: Careers

The must-read guide to understanding corporate politics in order to get ahead

Designed to provide the reader with an understanding of corporate politics from a positive perspective, I Wish I'd Known That Earlier in My Career uses case studies to teach the essentials of organizational dynamics, power networks, and the decision-making processes and dilemmas involved in business. Examining corporate politics and the barriers many managers face in their efforts to reach the top, the book works to build awareness and strategies for business and career success.

Taking a refreshing new approach to workplace politics, the book presents new ways to think about embracing opportunities in order to achieve personal and organization-wide career satisfaction. Rather than encouraging employees to move on and start their own businesses, it instead details how to move up within their current companies by learning to understand power bases and conversation more thoroughly.

• Combines individual case studies and real life situations with helpful tips and techniques designed to help overcome corporate challenges
• Each chapter tells a story that illustrates a constructive concept that can be easily learned and applied in the real world
• Covers topics including: political savvy, the benefits of self-promotion, performance management, sexual harassment, and other organizational challenges

Essential reading for anyone looking to move forward in their professional life, I Wish I'd Known That Earlier in My Career provides genuinely helpful advice in a highly accessible, easily applicable way.

CHAPTER 1

The How and Why of Positive Politics

What do the politically savvy know and what is it exactly that they do? Mention the word “politics” in any setting and everyone cringes. Yet there are two sides to being politically savvy: the negative—the overly political operator, preoccupied with self; and the positive—the overly political leader, focused on the organization or group. Walk the hallways at work and hear the choir sing “He/She is so political” and take note. We all think we know what this means, but do we? It is used frequently, but almost never with a defined meaning. Others believe politics is analogous to pornography; you know it when you see it! The truth of the matter is you can be overly political and be out for the good of the group, yet most of us view politicians as being out only for themselves.

Who comes to mind when you think “politics”? Hillary Clinton, George Bush, Angela Merkel, Hu Jin Tao, Barack Obama? If we examine presidential politics, we hear and see the ugly side of politics. Certainly everyone has an opinion about these leaders, yet how interesting that Merkel and Clinton are belittled for what they wear, how they look or speak. They’re labeled for outward appearances; matronly, frumpy or fat. Sarah Palin is interesting for the opposite reason, looking more attractive than not, appealing to a non-traditional demographic group, and able to gather national attention as an “underdog” politician.

For men, the same applies. As one wag said many years ago, “The US will never elect a bald president.” While men do not have to watch their looks as much as women do, it would be silly to think that looks, dress, and deportment do not play a large role for them too. It’s easy to see how politics weaves in and out of the boardrooms, and is often divisive and negative. Yet people still enter into public service, and many more want to lead organizations.

If we profile successful CEOs, aren’t they all political? Yes. Political savvy is a critical leadership skill—not one learned at a business school course but, rather, through trial, error, failures and mistakes. Some men learn this intuitively. Unfortunately, many women don’t. Yet, ironically, it is the women who are often more intuitive. Understanding and accepting politics is the first step in knowing what is needed to be part of the organization.

DEFINING POLITICS

Politics is a fact of organizational life and needs to be put into proper perspective. Yet creating a clear and succinct definition of politics is not easy. Politics fundamentally is about power, power bases, power sources, power shifts and power dynamics. Henry Mintzberg, a professor of Management at McGill University, looks at politics as “Individual or group behavior that is informal, typically divisive, and in a technical sense, illegitimate, not sanctioned by formal authority, nor certified expertise.”1

Brandon and Seldman (2004) have taken a slightly different view, seeing politics as the art or science of “informal, unofficial, and sometimes behind-the-scenes efforts to sell ideas, influence an organization, increase power or achieve other targeted objectives.” This definition is spot on.

UNOFFICIAL AND BEHIND THE SCENES

Heading back to the US to attend a meeting at Disney in Burbank, I learned a valuable lesson in political savvy: the impact of behind-the-scenes lobbying. Disney executives used to travel frequently from Tokyo to Burbank, so much so that the United Airlines Tokyo–Los Angeles flight resembled a Disney boardroom. The mid-afternoon flight buzzed with laptops, video presentations, pointer pens and laughter.

Just before the plane took off, a well-groomed gentleman wearing the requisite khaki pants and light-blue oxford button-down shirt, asked if I would mind changing seats with him so that he could spend the long flight strategizing with his boss for their meetings in Burbank. I obliged.

I was then seated next to a man with a full beard, a long ponytail cascading down his back and silver amulets hanging off the lobe of his left ear. He was not a typical “suit.” At his sandaled feet was a stack of coffee-table books, enough to stock a small book shop. Sizing him up, I thought he was either a professor or an anthropologist: he couldn’t possibly be a businessman.

First impressions can be wrong. He introduced himself: I was sitting next to a senior executive with an entertainment company, Frank. He had been working in Bhutan when he received a personal summons from his boss, the CEO, to return to discuss budgets and projects.

On that 12-hour plane ride, I learned more about executive teams and how decisions are made than I ever learned in graduate school. An ordinary flight turned into a college course on the role of power networks and how organizations work.

I couldn’t imagine what that meeting with this CEO would be like. Highly creative, he was said to have the attention span of a gnat and little patience for any pauses in presentations. With executives like this, you need to be a good stump speaker. I have watched many fall from grace over poor presentations or being ill prepared.

Frank seemed unconcerned, though, seeing the meeting as a formality since his boss already knew “all the pieces.” That being the case, I ventured, why bother going back for a formality?

During the course of the conversation, however, it became clear that for Frank, formality was, as he put it, “a serious agenda—if you don’t care, then why should the others?” Frank had been doing this for more than 20 years.

Although the preparation and conversation may take place ahead of time, the meeting is (to use Frank’s words) “a ceremony in the most ancient and venerable sense.” To Frank and other executives, “being present symbolizes commitment and commitment builds trust.”

Frank told me how he had been on the phone with the CEO and others to lay out plans for projects. During the calls, he had felt resistance and challenges on deadlines and budgets. Frank was affable and bright, and had a good relationship with his boss and the project team. He ensured that all parties concerned understood the project clearly and framed their arguments, for or against, around the same values. The CEO knew the project in detail and agreed with the strategy. “By the time we get to the meetings, everyone’s on board. I’m flying back to show my face.” As Frank indicated, and I certainly came to know, this was “culture-building and a signature of commitment.” For Frank and other executives, these decisions are complex, interconnected and have a long-term impact on the company.

There’s an important lesson here: while slick presentation is important, time spent before the presentation is invaluable for building momentum, understanding, and acceptance that is needed long before the meeting starts. While many managers think this is manipulation or gamesmanship—it’s not.

Rarely is one meeting enough to discuss all the elements of a complex project, business strategy, or acquisition properly. Discussing ideas before the formal meeting has multiple benefits; from building stakeholders, understanding resistance and, ultimately, resulting in more innovative solutions or ideas.

This pre-meeting discussion allows thinking time. Thinking time is a precious commodity that we rarely have time for. The idea then becomes embedded in the collective thought process, enabling collaborative decision making to take place more easily.

Ultimately, as Frank put it, you want everyone at the meeting “to visualize and conceptualize the project naturally and spontaneously, not just as a bullet point on a chart.” In his view, “meetings are for going over numbers and details but for a leader to be effective, particularly in meetings, they need a concrete image of the project. This takes time and multiple points of access” such that “by the time you’re at the meeting, the image is formed and the decisions are modeled.”

Did it help, I asked, being connected to the CEO, or any CEO for that matter?

“I had the ability to call [him] but my access to him was used carefully, not wasted,” Frank said. “We had a working relationship based on empathic casualness and openness.” It was not about power or status. “My access is predicated on what I have to say,” Frank said.

More than anything, he added, “It is important to cultivate a culture of thought around a project, have meaningful contact with decision-makers prior to making decisions. With that, there needs to be space for structured dialogue, dissent that is productive, not destructive, within the group in any organization—whether at my work or anyplace else.”

For me, the penny dropped.

Thinking back to Seldman’s definition of politics, coalition building and lobbying behind the scenes is necessary, positive and smart. Lobbying behind the scenes influences reluctant team members while promoting and furthering the cause of others, hopefully for the good of the organization. Using political tactics for the good of the organization is not about sabotage or unethical behavior. It makes sense. Organizations are made up of people with different perspectives, agendas and interests. (For Frank, too, it was important to take account of “the humanity of corporate culture . . . the specific person-ness of each person in the chain.”)

The important point is to focus on the interests of the consumers and ensure their needs are being met. Some managers find it challenging to balance the cost and time in building coalitions, lobbying support and their day job. It is a skill, and luckily one that can be learned.

Being savvy is about understanding the unwritten rules about how organizations work, to sell ideas and for career growth. Being a savvy and successful lobbyist requires a thorough understanding of the organizational culture. Culture plays a significant role in politics and determines what skills are necessary, and when and how to use them.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMBRACE POLITICS

There’s a wealth of research and books on corporate politics for the politically challenged, the cynical and the naive. Jeffrey Pfeffer, Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford University Graduate School of Business, has researched and written extensively on power inside organizations. Two former professors, Lee Bohman and Terrence Deal, discuss politics and links to deception within organizations.2 In the UK, Baddeley and James (1990) look at the dynamics of political management and publish books on political skills for managers. Along with Seldman and Brandon, these authors reiterate the importance of embracing the political side of organizations with ethics and integrity, as well as the need to challenge deception and negative political behavior.

When we think about deception, Enron and WorldCom may come to mind, along with the downfall of Wall Street banks at the end of 2008. Bohman and Deal (2008) highlight the demise of Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. (KKR), which was in no small way a study in greed and self-serving politics. KKR’s managing partners were masters of the leveraged buy-out (LBO), a management practice in vogue in the 1980s. Its LBO of RJR Nabisco is a classic case of misused politics for the good of a few. The US$25-billion deal spurred a book and a movie, Barbarians at the Gate. Time magazine called it a “Game of Greed” and it is still one of the most read books on buy-outs.3

In 2008, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers collapsed, leaving a global trail of devastation. While much has been written about the fall of these two giants from a financial perspective—particularly the exposure to mortgage-backed assets in the subprime mortgage crisis—it’s also easy to pinpoint politics. The New York Daily News (see Fishman 2008) chronicled the relationships and fiefdoms within the investment banking community, highlighting self-serving politics, siloed thinking, and scapegoats. Some believe that Lehman CEO Richard Fuld was sacrificed so others could be saved. When Fuld reached out for help from Hank Paulson, former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs and then US Secretary of the Treasury, his requests fell on deaf ears. As one commentator put it: “Paulson—for reasons Fuld doesn’t yet understand—participated in making him a scapegoat” (Chapman 2010). For many involved with the near-collapse of the banks in September 2008, questions still remain as to why Lehman and Bear Stearns fell.

Chapman, Jagger (2010) and others affirm that Lehman’s fate was determined by Fuld’s rivals, Paulson included: “Fuld and his allies can’t help but blame Paulson, whom he’d trusted and, until the end, viewed as an ally and even a friend.”4

The banks themselves were hardly blameless, suffering from outrageous errors in judgment and egos in overdrive. But Fuld had a paucity of savvy skills. Throughout his tenure at Lehman, he never managed to build bridges and connections with Wall Street’s power elite and he has been vilifi...