Can you afford to ignore office politics?

By JULIE MIDDLETON

What does the phrase "office politics" conjure up in your mind? Probably a shapeless mass of ideas around power, control and jockeying for position, with words such as "manipulative", "sneaky", and "covert" attached. The connotations are negative, the definition elusive.

But most of us are all too clear about the impact of workplace political mischief.

Seven out of 10 managers in a recent and in-depth British study by Linda Holbeche said that they had experienced the negative effects of office politicking - but viewed it as an inescapable fact of life.

The same study, which involved 120 middle and senior managers engaged in surveys and focus groups, found that nearly half of them believed that office-based political maneuvering had increased over the last three years. Just seven per cent thought it had waned.

So what is office politics?

Holbeche's study, Politics in Organisations, (Roffey Park Institute, 2002) asked interviewees to suggest definitions. Proof how hard that was came with their vague agreement that politics "involves influencing other people and is an interplay of forces".

Most commonly, the interviewees labelled office politicking as covert, manipulative actions to benefit oneself at the expense of others.

The study suggests that for many executives, office politics is about profile-raising; selectively releasing information; scapegoating to avoid blame; creating coalitions strong enough to override others; networking; compromising; and manipulating. Whether these things were "good" or "bad" depended on their intent: Politicking leading to a gain for the individual and the company would be more likely to be seen as "good", says Holbeche.

"Bad politics occurs when individuals are seen to succeed at the expense of others, and this is held to be damaging to the organisation's interests."

Example: One of her subjects related how his boss kept giving himself the fat deals - the ones attracting equally fat bonuses - leaving the small fry for others. It seemed there was nothing he could do as this boss was matey with the divisional manager.

So he engaged in his own politicking: concealing the true size of his deals until they were near closure, making it too late for the boss to hijack them.

"My deal started at $1,152,000 and then it became $1,727,000. Just before I was about to close the deal - good grief! It was $5.7m a year."

Who engages in office politics?

Everyone at every level does it, according to Holbeche's guinea pigs. Senior management were most active, according to 43 per cent, with just 11 per cent fingering middle managers.

This is probably because senior managers have to scrap for resources and supremacy, says Holbeche.

Women were more likely to admit to politicking, and were more likely to report being selectively supportive of others, being selective with information, and inducing a competitive environment. Men were more concerned about profile-raising and exploiting others' emotions.

Where are you more likely to come across office politics?

A total of 87 per cent of respondents felt that political behaviour was more likely in large companies - those with more than 250 staff. Sixty-nine per cent felt that multi-level structures lent themselves to politics.

People felt that corporate culture set the tone; if politicking was the order of the day then everyone did it or felt they had to.

So how do people learn to do it?

The majority in the survey (42 per cent) learned from observation, instinctively (27 per cent), and through "bitter experience" (24 per cent). Just seven per cent claimed not to have learned anything about political behaviour from their environment.

What impact does it have on individuals?

Seventy per cent of those surveyed agreed with the statement "I have suffered as a result of organisational politics", while only 11 per cent disagreed.

"The war stories told ... still had an emotional resonance to them," reports Holbeche, "even though the incidents described may have happened a considerable time ago."

Some admitted that politics had benefited them: 45 per cent agreed that they had gained power and influence as a result of organisational politics. Others took a pragmatic view, saying that politics was just a fact of life. "Decisions have been made that have had a detrimental impact on me," says one. But I don't look at that in isolation: I look at work and my career and say, two times out of 10 it's going to go against me. That's life.

"As long as eight out of 10 times I can make it go in the direction I want, then that's fine."

However, political maneuvering had caused such stress to some that they had abandoned corporate life "to set up their own companies where they were keen to ensure that political behaviour was kept to the minimum."

And when is it more likely to happen?

People surveyed ranked the situations in which they believed politicking became more prevalent, including at times of change; when there is competition for a limited number of opportunities; during restructurings; at times of conflict; and when people feel powerless to influence through formal channels.

What impact does politics have on organisations?

Destructive, according to many. Holbeche lists negative impact on morale, increased competition and conflict, discouragement of knowledge-sharing, lack of trust, the exclusion of key people from decision-making, reduced faith in top management, reduced productivity, loss of talent, and prevention of the reward of talent.

People worried that colleagues playing politics took their eyes off the ball, and risked making less robust decisions.

Do people enjoy playing politics?

Ambivalence rules here. More than half of Holbeche's subjects - 54 per cent - said they didn't enjoy behaving politically at work. But 49 per cent of people said that office politics was necessary to get things done.

Self-reporting has its limitations, though: "Interestingly," says Holbeche, "while all participants could recognise political behaviour in others, most were inclined to explain away their own political behaviour as influencing in the organisation's interest."

Is there any way of avoiding getting involved?

Probably not, according to Holbeche. "Like it or not, most participants in the research saw politics as here to stay."

Sixty-five per cent - and slightly more men than women - agreed that political behaviour was naturally human. Nor should you ignore politics and hope it goes away: Holbeche says that doing a good job is no longer enough at work. "A key ingredient of success is building political acumen," she says.

Can you be a CEO without playing politics?

"Our findings show that to reach the top of an organisation, you have to master office politics," says Holbeche. "This is probably because senior managers are often engaged in battles for internal resources and supremacy among their peers, so only the strong can survive."

Holbeche's focus groups, however, agreed that when that CEO's behaviour is overtly and highly political, such behaviour is legitimised further down the line.

"I have been working in an IT company for the past four years which has been growing very, very fast," says one subject.

"Probably the most political of the managers has just become the CEO. He really is the "information is power" king. You can't get any information out of him, you can't get anything approved; he doesn't share. The company is fast recruiting people who, I am sure, will aspire to his example".



Are you foxy, or just a donkey?

British management academics Simon Baddeley (University of Birmingham) and Kim James (Cranfield University) came up with animal metaphors to encode the ways in which people get political in the office.

* Foxes are cunning and clever, quick to exploit weakness in allies and opponents.

* Donkeys are emotionally illiterate and lousy personal communicators.

* Sheep are the innocents - loyal but politically clueless. They don't build networks at the office.

* Owls are politically astute, can cope with being disliked, and are not defensive. They use coalitions but are aware of other people's concerns.

"These are not fixed traits," says Baddeley.

"Someone who can be wise in one situation can as easily be innocent, inept or clever in another."

How people react, he says, depends on what they read into a situation and then carry into it.