Comments

I agree that if you want to get ahead nowadays you have to play politics. I also believe that it's wrong, not morally wrong, but wrong because it wastes a lot of time and has nothing to do with your ability to do your job.

Harold Geneen had this advice for aspiring managers:

"If motivating people is your first duty, melding them together into a team is a close second. Teamwork is as essential to the smooth functioning of a corporation as it is to the smooth functioning of any team.

One thing a leader is able to spot, and which he quickly eliminates, is office politics. The basic feature of office politics is an attempt by somebody to control people or information to make himself look good, or to lead a splinter group. Why do people indulge in office politics? Usually it is because they are insecure or ambitious beyond their abilities. The best way to deal with them is to identify them and get rid of them.

I like to talk about leaders, not leeches."

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 9, 2005 12:15 PM

Just purchased this book a few days ago and can't wait to read it. I am currently finishing Ambrose's D-Day, which includes another great political General - Eisenhower. BTW, there is a good interview with David McCullough on Amazon concerning 1776. Seems like Tom gets McCullough's thoughts on history, sometimes it's just good reading. Applicable yes, but great non-fiction is great storytelling!

Posted by Barry McCorkle at June 9, 2005 2:29 PM

Noel, couldn't disagree more. "Nowadays"? My whole point is that G Washington was a master politician, who "wasted" an enormous amount of time attending ro the whims of a fractious Continental Congress. Without that, though, he would not, for instance, have gotten money to pay his troops. At the moment, where I am in 1776, Washington is about to lose New York City. Fact is, militarily he never wanted to defend New York. But Congressional pressure and popular opinion meant, effectively, he had no choice.

I stick by the old one liner, from whom I forget: "Politics is the art of the possible." Getting anything at all done means spending interminable time with people you wouldn't want to go to dinner with. Mike Bloomberg just lost a stadium and likely the Olympics for NYC beacuse he underestimated the clout of a couple of Albany pols.

Politics? Or dictatorship? Washington or Stalin? I'll take the former in both couplets..

Posted by tom peters at June 9, 2005 3:11 PM

1776 - I'm thinking I know who won. Sounds like a great read. I'll go pick it up.

Tom, have you ever read City of God by St. Augustine - or anything else by him? I'm about 20% into it. Very heady, but a really great read - especially if you like that type of lit.

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at June 9, 2005 4:16 PM

I think there is a difference between business and politics, and a difference between a politician and a businessperson. One is more of a diplomat and the other more of a doer.

Part of the problem with big businesses today is that politics has infested them, left, right and center. It's not too surprising when you consider some of them employ enough people to fill a small country and generate more revenue than other countries entire GDP. Nevertheless, regardless of scale, it is the CEO's responsibility to run a business as a business and not like a government. After all, governments don’t generate revenue. They are a very expensive cost that all of us have to carry. By their very design, they tend to be wasteful. When businesses and businesspeople start emulating government, i.e. practicing politics and writing rules and regulations, we end up with a slow moving, bureaucratic beast - the farthest thing from speed and innovation imaginable. In my experience, when politics are allowed to flourish inside a company, the company either fragments or slowly grinds to a halt inviting leaner, nimbler and more business-focused competitors to catch up and overtake them.

Washington was a great man and an excellent politician, not to mention an outstanding Commander-in-Chief. If my memory of history is right, he was also a businessman and a farmer. But he took a different approach to how he ran his business than to how he ran the politics of the day.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 9, 2005 4:31 PM

Hey Tony, I'm Irish. Forty percent of your country came from my country. That's no small potatoes!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 9, 2005 4:42 PM

Noel - and I've [USA] descended from Irish stock - love it that Ireland is #2 in the world in software export and their per capita income has soared in the last 25 years. U2/Bono/Kennedy crime family fan Nyet/Nada/NOT.

Posted by Sean at June 9, 2005 6:23 PM

Me too. Unfortunately, a lot of the politics you see in America came from you know where, but there's no question Ireland has made a remarkable comeback and in my view it was because the politicians got out of the way and let the businesspeople get on with the job.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 9, 2005 6:42 PM

Noel - isn't the irony or even the point here that it takes a political decision to let business get on with the job? And a political decision to go on shaping a vibrant economy. And that business leaders at some level have to lobby politicians and play the politics game to ensure this carries on? And that in business, you have to do the same sort of political work (I use that term deliberately) to get your project supported, to get your business venture funded, to push through your changes? I dislike politics with a vengeance and I'll play it as straight as I can, but I want to get things done and if that means losing a few battles to win the war, so be it.

Posted by Mark JF at June 10, 2005 2:49 AM

It's a necessary evil for a CEO and his team of lobbyists to play the external politics game, a part of big business that keeps the government bureaucrats at bay. I'm not referring to external politics. It's the internal politics that are a waste of time and damaging to a company's ability to perform and compete. My point is that it shouldn't be necessary in business, to the extent that it is, to play the internal political game just to get your job done. And if it is your job to run the business, then in my view it is your responsibility to curtail internal politics (not eliminate them - I appreciate that's not entirely possible) and focus your people hearts and minds instead on the business at hand.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 3:48 AM

I won't budge. I started my career in the Navy "in the field"--Vietnam. Politics! Went to the Pentagon next. Politics! Then to Stanford/academe. Big-time politics! Then to McKinsey. Politics! (Got a month; I'll tell you the "political" story behind In Search of Excellence--up to and including how it was nearly quashed by The Firm's elders, days before publication.) Then my own company. Politics! Some is nastier than the the rest, but all Big Orgs run off politics. (At least that's how I see it.)

Posted by tom peters at June 10, 2005 6:42 AM

See above: Good Gawd, can't believe I left out my two years in the White House. Freudian slip, anyone?

Posted by tom peters at June 10, 2005 6:43 AM

Incidently, finished the book about midnight last night. We won! Most distinguishing factors: (1) Luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (2) Outrageous, unrealistic Determination.

Washington was a lousy (understatement), indecisive (politician) tactical commander--but his serene determination in the face of absurd odds carried the day.

Posted by tom peters at June 10, 2005 6:47 AM

I thought you had a stubborn streak! Well I won't budge too!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 7:14 AM

Noel, fair enough!

Posted by tom peters at June 10, 2005 7:54 AM

Of course business = politics. I don't think that is at all a bad thing. A great leader wins the hearts and minds through political actions (creating and sharing a hope for a better tomorrow, building constituencies, looking for mutual gains, etc) Far better than forcing managerial compliance in my book. I remember one of Peter Block's earliest works called "The Positive Use of Politics". In it he highlighted how to identify and address the needs and wants of different organizational political camps. A lot like the sell stage of WOW! projects. I say, c'mon bosses....make your pitch and try to win my support!

Posted by Mike Neiss at June 10, 2005 9:19 AM

American Heritage Dictionary - "Politics: The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society."

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary - "Politics: the relationships within a group or organization which allow particular people to have power over others."

Never mind work = politics, life = politics!

Posted by Mark JF at June 10, 2005 10:13 AM

The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene is an excellent book about politics, strategy, and deception.

Not playing, or claiming not to play, is a political tactic in itself. It's a bluff. It's selling someone on the worldview that a game doesn't exist, or trying to convince them that you're not part of the game, not a player.

Everyone is a player. And as the saying goes, hate the game, not the player.

From the scientific view, we're born to play politics, as social primates. If you'd like to see human political behavior at its root, I recommend reading Chimpanzee Politics by Frans de Waal.

Posted by Eric at June 10, 2005 10:22 AM

Gentlemen, the point being made here is that it is not in the best interests of a company to allow internal politics to flourish.

Internal politics are an expensive luxury and big businesses can afford, for a time, to wallow in them, but they restrain growth because they waste people's time. In my experience, they eventually come to destroy the business. Small, growing businesses go out of business very quickly when they take their eye off the fundamentals, i.e., their customers, and indulge themselves in jockeying for internal position and winning internal popularity contests.

Michael Smurfit, a very successful Irish businessman who took a small box factory in Dublin and built it into one of the largest paper manufacturing companies in the world, had this to say on the subject:

“There is no time at all for bullshit or posturing . . . (My) people have no time to play politics - they’re all so bloody busy working.”

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 11:00 AM

Noel,

I think we're getting caught up in semantics here. In other words, I think you have a narrow view of politics, while TP and others have a broad view of the word (i.e. Merriam Webster's definition includes this - 5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society).

Under that definition, we ALL "play" politics. We try to manage the complex relations in work/home/public/church/stores/on the road... in life. As Eric said, Smurfit gives the example of a leader whose politics are to downplay politics. It's like saying, "I don't have an agenda, and my purpose in being here is to persuade you of that fact."

Posted by Dustin at June 10, 2005 11:15 AM

Dustin, we can complicate it as much as we like, but it really is very simple:

Do you agree that it is not in the best interests of a company for management to allow internal politics to flourish? If you do not agree, please tell me how jockeying for internal position and seeking to win internal popularity contests benefits the business.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 11:35 AM

How do you "not allow internal politics?" You would have to mandate behavior to the point of dictatorship (as TP pointed out). Are you saying you would rather have a bunch of worker ants than to have self-motivated, success-oriented, individualistic, talented, purpose-driven employees? I'm sure that's not what you meant, but your good intentions would lead down that road.

Something also bugs me about this statement: "If motivating people is your first duty, melding them together into a team is a close second." Melding into a team? That sounds an awful lot like forcing square pegs into round holes. It sounds like leadership trying to shape people, instead of putting people into the best position to succeed based on the shape they already have.

So that is how I do not agree.

Posted by Dustin at June 10, 2005 11:55 AM

Dustin, you discourage internal politics by encouraging a meritocracy and a meritocracy is not dictatorial.

What "melding into a team" means is obtaining an orchestrated performance from a group of individuals by building a genuine spirit of camaraderie among them, as opposed to allowing a bunch of two-faced weasels to manipulate their way into a better position where they can kick others more and be kicked themselves a little less, all at the expense of the business.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 12:50 PM

Noel, you seem to define politics as purely a negative thing. Are there no positive politics?

Cooperation, coalitions, involve politics. You can't have them unless people in the group get along socially to a certain degree. And people don't get along without reciprocity. Mutuality. Symbiosis. Translation: Back-patting, back-scratching, appeasement. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Basic human (primate) social behavior. It's all politics to a degree.

You're talking strictly about the leader squashing squabbles and rivalry. Yes, that's leader's job, and that too is part of the politics. The leader defends the status quo and their own position of power. In order to do that they need to squash those who might be overly ambitious. The alpha-male wants to stay alpha.

The idea of purity, or a 'politics free zone', pure objectivity, neutrality, is a myth. We all love to think of ourselves as impartial, objective, neutral judges of the world and other people. We can try, but unfortunately we will never succeed in the absolute sense. ;-)

Posted by Eric at June 10, 2005 1:13 PM

Eric, you're defining politics as people 'getting along'. This is not politics, this is social interaction. As quoted above, politics is:

"... an attempt by somebody to control people or information to make himself look good, or to lead a splinter group."

I never said the leader should defend the status quo and squash squabbles to protect their own position of power. Please don't put words in my mouth I didn't say (or should I say type words in my post I didn't write!). As for what the alpha male wants to do - that's his problem, once he doesn't do it in my living-room!

And Eric, I don't seek perfection or purity but a sensible balance between the ridiculous and the workable.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 2:26 PM

Rather than trying to "cure" politics I am more concerned about the Core Values of a culture. If people really live a positive set of values then the politics look after themselves (and can actually be positive). I think that the values of a organisation are a much underated management discussion area.

I am wondering in this debate whether it boils down to whether you are good at politics. Some people are good at it and find they can operate effectively.

Others are not - These are the ones you should pay attention too because they are the ones with the real ideas.

I have come across very few political players that were truely WOW! and a lot that were distinctly lacking in the brain department

Posted by PaulH at June 10, 2005 2:46 PM

Paul, I agree though it makes me uncomfortable to place the emphasis on an external thing like "culture" which is a little like asking other people to do your thinking for you. Whatever happened to a personal set of values? We all need a personal code of values to live by - honesty, trust, loyalty and an appetite for hard work (along with a sense of humor) are some I aspire to, but these good old fashioned values are looked upon nowadays as naive, certainly by people in my generation, thirties to forties.

I agree with you about intelligence as well. It used to be the exception that people who were unable to get ahead through their own abilities maneuvered politically to attain their success. But that now is the norm. Any real initiative and talent is seen as a threat to the status quo, fueling an unrelenting cycle of mediocrity.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 3:05 PM

Parachuting in with a random comment: "Meritocracy" sounds great, but what constitutes "merit"? Some of the biggest "political" battles I've seen are over measurement and evaluation. Your idea of merit is "coming in under budget", mine is "Wowing the customer." (Or vice versa.) Never the twain shall meet. (And as much as Millions in performance bonuses are at stake.) The Fannie Mae meltdown was to some extent over this. Fannie was created to foster widespread home ownership. Under Mr Raines, the evaluation of execs was Wall Street-driven; now there's a new boss, and the Evaluations are being shifted significantly to relate to the original mission. (Yeah, Fannie is half public. But same-same is happening at GE; Immelt is shifting performance measures from Operational Excellence to Innovation Excellence.)

Posted by tom peters at June 10, 2005 3:42 PM

Noel said:

"Eric, you're defining politics as people 'getting along'. This is not politics, this is social interaction."

Politics are ultimately about relationships, are they not?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=politics

Going for #6 "The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society."

I think we're defining politics a bit too negatively. Conflict isn't necessariliy bad. People trying to advance their career isn't bad. People taking sides and forming alliances isn't bad.

None of these things are inherently 'bad' but that largely depends on your value system and worldview. I agree these things can be unfair and lead to mediocrity. The Peter Principle is very much in effect in just about any business or company.

I place much more value in investigating these things and finding out why this happens rather than say "That's bad, it should never happen." I know you didn't say that, but I sense a distaste, or attack of politics itself.

Having a set of values is good, but sometimes we need to question those values, and it never hurts to see how our values stack up against the harsh reality of the larger world. Politics, by and large, are natural. This is not good, or bad, it's just a fact of our existence. I'd rather embrace it than deny or reject it. We can try to keep it to a minimum in our workplaces but we can't eradicate it entirely.

As for the alpha-male comment, I was making a point about the natural desire for a hierarchy. Decentralization is good, but in some ways it goes against human nature. And I'd rather harness human nature than fight it. But that's just part of my values. It may not be your values, or it may go against the grain of old-fashioned values.

I see man as just another animal. We can wear suits and carry cell phones all we want, and pretend we're the most superior species in the universe. Doesn't change much. I find to be an ultimately dangerous view that also points to the belief in hierarchies. There is always somebody at the top. It doesn't really matter how they got there, fact is they're there. Say what you will.

Sure, there are lots of people with brilliant ideas who are unwilling or unable to play the political game. Their ideas will thus be buried in the sands of time. Most of those people are lacking serious person skills. How would I know?

I work in a very 'creative' industry, full of ideas--video games. What I find most lacking among artists and creative types is the knowledge of business and marketing, personal skills, salesmanship, and yes, even political ability.

My industry is basically a bunch of super intelligent closet dorks who don't know how to communicate. I hardly see that as a boasting point. So while many people may rise to positions of power by being mediocre and playing politics, part of the problem in my industry is so many people do NOT have those skills at all. Don't get me wrong, there are some people who excel at politics in my industry. It's just something I feel isn't necessarily a bad set of skills to have. Many game developers could stand to develop them a little further, especially in dealing with publishers.

So my worldview, given my industry and as it pertains to business, is inclined towards the belief that politics are in some ways valuable, and are part of being human no matter where you are from, where you live, or where you work.

I apologize if it seems like I was putting words in your mouth. I was just trying to figure out where you're coming from. And now you know where I'm coming from. :)

Posted by Eric at June 10, 2005 4:01 PM

Eric, no. Political relationships are just one kind of relationship, a particularly sneaky and unpleasant kind that should be discouraged in business since it wastes time and has nothing to do with your ability to get your job done.

Re: "sometimes we need to quesiton values" - One only needs to question one's values when one's values are questionable.

Re: "man is just an animal" - We are just animals, but we are at the top of the food chain and that means we are lucky enough to be able to create the world we would like to live in and we would like our children to live in. We can create a vicious back-stabbing world where we are all ruthlessly out for ourselves alone like rats in the galley of a ship, or we can build a world that is honest, cheerful and considerate, a world where we don't rip each other throats out just because we can. When you get to be a certain age, these things become a matter of conscious choice.

As for "There is always somebody at the top. It doesn't matter how they got there." Ever heard of Noriega? Or for that matter, Hitler? Or dare I say, Saddam Hussein, who murdered his way to the top.

On those people with brilliant ideas, but unwilling to play the political game ... rubbish. They go into business for themselves.

If you love business like I love business and want to learn valuable skills that will allow you to become a businessperson, I recommend a couple of books:

1. Managing by Harold Geneen
2. Made in Japan by Akio Morita
3. Losing My Virginity by Richard Branson

If you want to learn about politics, I suggest you read Vaclav Havel, Summer Meditations being a good introduction.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 4:25 PM

Tom, I think the best way to build a meritocracy is to have strong hands-on managers who honestly care about their people and look to bring out the best in them; managers of the opinion that if their people do well then they look good!

Generally speaking, I have found that large businesses that are still being run by the founder do not have the same problems with politics or bureaucratic entrenchment that one finds in large companies managed by 'professionals'. Of course there are exceptions, but in those environments where the founder or founders go to work everyday, talent tends to thrive because the people running the show are only interested in what works and can be sold. Their concern is for the firm's reputation (that is their real reputation, not their press clippings) and not just their own career path. They love their business like their baby!

No handbook can tell anyone how to believe in these things, no mission statement, no catch phrase. You either do or you don't. And if you do and you are running the show people pick up on it. As my wife is fond of saying, people are sensitive creatures and always emulate their surroundings. If they are surrounded by politics, inefficiency and an uncaring attitude towards customers and fellow-workers, then this is what they will emulate. If professionalism, efficiency, courtesy and camaraderie surround them, then this is what they will emulate.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 5:05 PM

Noel,

Political relationships are only the sneaky and unpleasant kind? Don't you think that's an incredibly narrow definition?

Re: "When you get to be a certain age, these things become a matter of conscious choice."

What magical age is that? Regardless of your conscious choices, the rest of the world will go on backstabbing and ripping each others' throats out. That's not a moral justification, or endorsement of any kind. It's just a fact. You can't change human nature.

Look, I'm agreement with you here. We should all be ethical, considerate, even nice if we're capable. But we're outright naive if we expect it of the rest of the world. I'm not willing to take something like that in good faith. There will always be people willing to do things that you won't. It doesn't mean you have to go that route too, but you have to be aware, and willing to adapt to that fact in some way, shape, or form. All the beliefs and convictions in the world don't amount to squat if the other guy is simply stealing your lunch.

Re: "On those people with brilliant ideas, but unwilling to play the political game ... rubbish. They go into business for themselves."

No, most of the ones I know just languish in obscurity and whine about how unfair life is because someone beat them to the punch, or has better self-promotion (read: political) skills than they do. Intelligence and wisdom are not necessarily the same thing. Hard work is not the only prerequisite to being successful in a job, especially at large organizations.

Imagine you have set up the perfect meritocracy. Is it desireable to have people that nobody likes, people who annoy everyone, have horrible habits, maybe even bad work habits, but get the job done well? Is that a net positive? What if they do absolutely fantastic work but drag the rest of the team down? Is that justifiable on merit alone?

Posted by Eric at June 10, 2005 5:57 PM

Noel, you keep talking about a meritocracy, but that seems like such an easy word to leave the meaning unexplored.

Merit based ostensibly upon performance, but performance of what exactly and how is the quality of this performance judged. These are some aspects that are going to be unavoidably subjective and will undoubtedly be subject to some political interpretation.

Vote yes for meritocracy, but not on the issue of its non-political significance.

Posted by Jason Kerr at June 10, 2005 6:45 PM

Eric, we're not discussing Bob Geldof and famine in Africa. We're discussing sleazy political infighting in big companies which to me is not a moral question but one of wasted resources and wasted time.

"The magical age" is the age you grow up, and that varies from person to person. Some people never do.

That the rest of the world will go on back-stabbing and ripping each other's throats out etc., is no excuse for you to do the same. I teach my children that they are to be concerned with their own behavior. If Johnny in the school yard punches other kids in the nose and steals their lunch money, this would not be an excuse for them to go around doing the same thing. Nor should they in any way adapt or "make friendly" with Johnny because he's powerful and has friends. Johnny is bad news. Period. And if he tries to push you around, you stand up to him. Even if you lose, you'll have your dignity which you won't have if you compromise yourself so that he won't damage you or follow through on his threat to rat some lie to the teacher.

Re: "hard work is not the only prerequisite to being successful in a job" - you're right, it's the bare minimum and is a hell of a lot more important to the success of a business than politics.

As for those with brilliant ideas and whining, I don't know what your friends or co-workers are like, but I've never sat around feeling sorry for myself. In my opinion, anyone 'whining' and 'languishing' could use a little rolling up the sleeves and getting to work, whether it's on their own ideas or someone else's. Complaining solves nothing. Nor does compromising on something important. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in, even if it's not "smart" politically and other people won't like you for it.

To your last point, "Is that justifiable on merit alone?" - my answer is a resounding Yes! There's no reason not to tolerate different kinds of people and different points of view, even if we don't agree with them on everything. Though you may not personally like someone, it's still possible to respect them for the work they do. And if someone is good at their job, they certainly deserve respect. We're talking about a job in the real world with a pay check and possibly a family to support, and not some pointless, vote 'em off, popularity contest like Big Brother.

If someone is doing "absolutely fantastic work" but somehow "dragging the rest of the team down", I'd take a very close look at that team. Smells like politics to me.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 6:48 PM

Jason, ditto.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 6:50 PM

Noel,

"Johnny is bad news. Period. And if he tries to push you around, you stand up to him."

Ah, but here is where it gets interesting. How do you choose to stand up to him? If he's bigger and stronger, do you do it alone? Do you form a coalition with the other 'victims'? Wouldn't that be politics?

"I'd take a very close look at that team. Smells like politics to me."

Let me put it straight to you: Would you fire an entire team simply because they didn't get along with a high-performing 'rock-star'? No reconciliation, nothing. Period. They've put their foot down--it's either them or him.

It doesn't really matter if you dislike politics or not, how would you ultimately resolve the situation? Would you truly be willing to fire (or let them quit) over this one hot-dog performer?

Posted by Eric at June 10, 2005 7:06 PM

Eric - you are really on the ball here.

The truth is that people don't stand upto him - they do something far more dangerous - they walk.

You don't have to fire them. Really talented people with seriously good ideas walk out of political organisations by the dozen.

Because they can always work somewhere better!

This age is the age of talent if your organisation is toxic to talent you are doomed. All that is left are the political players - a hollow shell of a company. The problem is that this actually works in the short term. In fact toxic companies can actually OUTPERFORM in the short term because they are full of Alpha male go getters who drive results. The problem is that they run out of steam (ideas, innovation) because that stuff comes from the people who left.

Companies need to learn to foster and support all types of people for long term growth.

The difficulty lies in the fact that people who make it up the ladder tend to conform to certain types and it is difficult for them to build a culture that rewards and supports other types.
For example the typically the Alpha male is one of the worst at understanding and working with other personality types. Consequently the whole reward and promotion system starts to conform to Alpha male norms the company is succcessful for a while (everyone aligns) but it doesn't last.

I think you also have to look at the wider social aspect of this stuff. Work is a major part of our lives. Politics creates stress in people - this has a detrimental impact on society as well as a company.

Posted by PaulH at June 11, 2005 12:58 AM

What I find truly disturbing here (and I am not exaggerating for effect for once!) is that this is supposed to be a blog full of people who really want to make things better – to shake up the world of work. Yet this debate is really bogged down (including myself here). Some (TP included) just seem to accept politics and get on with it. Others are really attacking this. The fact that some people are attacking this suggests that there is a problem with over political orgs.

My challenge is: How do we make these organisations work better? Yes politics exists and we have to work in that framework but how do we make sure that it works positively and allows different people to really show their talent. There is a talent war out their and I get so frustrated when I see talent bogged down and wasted. Companies will die unless they can utilise every last drop of talent that they have.

Observation - It seems to be only MEN posting on this subject! What is the female view?!

Posted by PaulH at June 11, 2005 1:12 AM

Politics are a waste of time and do drive talented people out of companies.

Posted by Cassandra Helm at June 11, 2005 3:00 AM

Eric, you stand up to "Johnny" person to person.

If I have to choose between one person who does his job and does it well and a whole team of people who sit around playing politics all day, I'd choose the person who works. Also, if you ever threaten to quit, for whatever reason and whether or not you have the support of your colleagues, my advice to you is to be sure to have another job lined up. Your employer might very well say, "Go ahead."

What I'm more interested in is Paul's suggestion that we find ways to eliminate internal politics (as much as possible) from our businesses and make our businesses work better.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 11, 2005 3:19 AM

I think part of the issue of this debate(a great debate I think!) is that we are mixing organisational culture with individual action.

From an individual point of view I think it is important to recognise that politics do exist and we have work around, under, over or bash our way through.

The problem comes is that we have reconcile that behaviour with the org culture as a whole. Where over political behaviour drives away talent.

Is it "ok" for you to use politics because you have a noble cause but the rest is wrong? Problem is that when everyone thinks like that the org becomes toxic.

I do think we get hung up on "star performers" who we have put up with no matter what their behaviour is like. My experience of managing people like that is that we spend masses of time, money and effort trying to keep them. Then when they do leave you often find one of the "non entities" in the team steps up and really shines! So that talent was always there!

One of the ideas in my company(not always practiced it has to be said) is that people are rated on their performance and their behaviour to others to meet that performance.(values)

Hi performance + Hi values = big bonus
Low performance + Hi Values = train and encourage
Hi performance + low values = get rid
Low performance + low values = get rid quickly!

The premise being is that skills can be trained and supported. Values and behaviour to others are pretty much fixed.

Posted by PaulH at June 11, 2005 5:18 AM

Politics are certainly no waste of time.

I agree though that merit based governance is best practice.

Politics are a game worth playing artistically and scientifically. At Hilton corporation I never had fantasy about being a top player - that is reserved [politically] for Hilton family.

Here in Santa Fe it is amusing to see Gov. Richardson [a prime national figure - 2008 presidential candidate - lead Hispanic] insist on having 2 chefs [former UN ambassador] and driving 2 Cadillac Escalades per taxpayer dollar.

He is too powerful for now to take down - however his Clintonesque excesses will do the trick to negate his prowess before 2008 - love politics for that.

Posted by Sean at June 11, 2005 5:23 AM

Maybe we want to be a little careful that we're not inadvertently creating a sort of communism in rigidly establishing a fixed set of 'behaviors' which dictate how everybody in the organization is to think and act in order to be perceived to be 'living the values'.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 11, 2005 8:46 AM

Whoaa...is this an all-boys chat..or can a femme get a word in edge-wise? Great thought-provoking discussion. I'd say it all boils down to - anytime you have more than one person the room, you're going to have politics - it's just the nature of the beast (even if we wear suits and use cell phones...). The "good" or "bad" comes down to not only the intent, but the outcome. (Sometimes, good people do bad things to accomplish a good result. Happens all the time in politics...albeit, it's a slippery slope.)

Side note re Ike: He wasn't a particularly effective president, due to the hierarchy mentality - he was used to giving an order and things happening.

Noel - re Guv Bill's "Clintonesque excesses" Hmmm...let's compare and contrast this to spending $17M on Reagan's funeral...$40M on Bush's second inauguration. Granted, the two chefs and such are a bit much...but c'mon. Personally, I'm looking forward to getting the chance to vote for Diane Denish for governor one of these elections.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at June 11, 2005 1:17 PM

Actually Mary, that was Sean's comment. I'm never shocked by the amount political officials are willing to indulge themselves!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 12, 2005 2:32 AM

Well, from various definitions to an absolute call to ban politics from the world of business, this is certainly an opinionated topic. One that as the passion or anger rises causes those making comments to strive to be right regardless of the truth. Somewhere in between everyone’s posting lies the truth. Then there are the subtle attacks, posturing towards what has been said and what has been challenged. “If you love business like I love business and want to learn valuable skills…If you want to learn about politics…We're discussing sleazy political infighting…” There is definitely no tolerance for politics in these statements, just a lobbying for the position of the only good politics is no politics. Just to enlighten those reading of my opinion, I totally disagreed with Mr. Peter’s statements on politics in “Re-imagine!” However, I now have a better understanding of politics as a tool and what it can accomplish. What I also understand is that politics is neither good nor bad; the person being political is either good or bad. “With great power comes great responsibility.” What does that quote mean to you? Can you bring to bear all the tools necessary to succeed, to change the world and still remain true to yourself? Can you “be the change you wish to see in the world” and still hold dear your beliefs, your principles that caused you to believe you can make a difference? As long as there are benefits to bad behavior there will be bad behavior. Since mostly men are responding to this post, I ask the men why most of us are unwilling to read books about relationships, especially with women, or even do something as simple as put the toilet seat down? As long as bad behavior is tolerated and those who exhibit bad behavior perceive a benefit to that behavior, why change? When the consequences of choice only affect you, the choice can be made to move on and put your skills and passions to use elsewhere. However, when your choices affect your family by moving everyone to another city or even another country and for possibly less income, then the choice to stand up becomes more difficult. Judgments and labeling are just wrong especially when you have only lived your life in your shoes. So, for those of us who believe in ourselves and others, is it better to spend time trying to completely eliminate politics or should we improve our ability to use the political tool as part of our skill sets to attain positions of power and then with the responsibility that comes with that power, change the world? I think you know where I stand.

Posted by Randy Reynolds at June 12, 2005 9:37 AM

Please forgive Mary - at her age and advanced radical liberalism to the left wing extreme anything non "femme" is confusing. Noel and Sean = 2 Irish lads totally the same it seems. "1776" Costco $17. Read it love it #1 USA best seller today, with China military build up also in the news.

Posted by Sean at June 12, 2005 5:54 PM

Randy, thanks for that. I'm loving this irresistible tendency by those in favor of internal politicking to put words in my mouth I didn’t say and try to change what I did say into an extreme point of view (which to me simply proves the point that these people have a hard time being straightforward). Banish politics completely? I never said that. In fact, I specifically said it wasn’t possible, but that it is part of a manager’s responsibility to discourage internal politics because they are a waste of time, and as Paul has pointed out, they drive talent out of a company.

As for the difficulty of standing up, no one ever said it was easy being an individual and standing up for what you believe in. Sure, it’s more difficult when you’ve got a family and kids, and I am lucky enough to have a wife who has never asked me to compromise my values for the sake of keeping a job. Nevertheless, as a decent human being there are certain lines you don’t cross, regardless of the consequences. And I have seen places where internal politics flourished and places where internal politics were discouraged. My experience of both sides of the debate is what gives me the right to comment.

I’m also loving this idea that we need to read books about relationships, particularly men pompously assuming we don’t know how to treat our women, how to be affectionate and considerate and do the dishes (or in my case, do most of the housework since my wife is absolutely incompetent when it comes to the whole housekeeping side of life!). Well, I didn’t need to read a book. All I had to do was fall in love. That’s my personal life. Relationships at the office are not personal; they’re professional relationships in an adult environment and should be treated as such. You need to read a book only if you were never taught how to behave in the first place.

As for using “the political tool as part of our skill sets to attain positions of power”, Randy, you can’t get a little bit pregnant. The more you compromise, the more your character changes. By the time you reach that “position of power” you will not be the same person that you were when you started out on that path. And you certainly won’t be a better person. You have to decide how you want to live your life, decide whether it’s okay to be dishonest, sneaky, two-faced, and manipulative, compromising yourself and your “values” for a little extra comfort in a job that is in no way secure.

I’m for the straight up, straight-shooter every time.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 13, 2005 3:51 AM

Sean, I don't mind Mary. A person's external political views don't define them for me even if I don't agree. Politics is a small part of life. I am much more interested in the person.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 13, 2005 3:55 AM

Just trying for a bit of levity - have a fun week.

Posted by Sean at June 13, 2005 4:48 AM

Just trying for a bit of levity - have a fun week.

Posted by Sean at June 13, 2005 4:48 AM

Noel, thank you for responding as I expected. Wow, now I have purposed an “extreme point of view” and I am in favor of internal politics. So, since you opened the door, let’s walk in and see what the room is really like. When did I say that I was in favor of internal politics? That must be you putting words into my comments. My perception is that you fervently believe your tenets are right and where they differ, others are wrong. You label those who put across tenets that differ from those you propose; “extreme point of view, (…these people have a hard time being straightforward.)” and that was just in the first paragraph of your response. In the second there was; “decent human being”. Now in the third paragraph and with more passion; “particularly men pompously assuming…, …only if you were never taught how to behave...”. In the fourth paragraph; “…the more your character changes, …certainly won’t be a better person, …okay to be dishonest, sneaky, two-faced, and manipulative.” My personal favorite was “sneaky”. And even the whole last sentence; “I’m for the straight up, straight-shooter every time.”

As for the meat and potatoes of the discussion, what I directly attributed to you was placed in quotation marks. My perception was the theme seemed to lean towards banning internal politics. As for “manager’s responsibility”, in too many companies that is an oxymoron. We can discuss these ideas in a different blog. I have lost jobs where I would not compromise, where I voiced concern over the treatment of those who would not stand up for themselves. I have seen the faces of my family wishing I would have compromised more for the sake of their welfare. Yes, we have to believe in things that may or may not always be true. As for the right to comment, we all have that right because of who we are, not because of what we have done. Experience makes my comments more believable, it does not grant me the right to comment. Now the next paragraph is where our male ego becomes completely engaged in the discussion. We men do not need to read a book on relationships; “Well, I didn’t need to read a book. All I had to do was fall in love.” And in a previous post; “If you love business like I love business…”. I agree that love is really the secret ingredient. However, your/our male ego is saying who is this pompous man to suggest that “we don’t know how to treat our women.” Well, someone has to call men out on our choices, and who better than another man. I guess that the studies showing a majority of women who get divorced never remarry are saying that women are absolutely incompetent in relationships. Now that was pompous and absurd.

No Noel, you can’t get a little bit pregnant. You choose to become pregnant just as you choose your character. I am not the same person that started this response to your post; however, can you judge me not to be a better person because of this response? Now you are right again in that I have to choose. There really are no excuses; there are the choices we make, good, bad or indifferent. We both made choices on how we lobbied our tenets, our points of view. The responsibility of these choices resides with us. Sadly, regardless of our choices someone can always perceive we are being political.

Posted by Randy Reynolds at June 13, 2005 6:54 AM

Randy, you said: "... should we improve our ability to use the political tool as part of our skill sets to attain positions of power and then with the responsibility that comes with that power, change the world? I think you know where I stand." I find it amusing that you are now trying to wriggle out of being in favor of playing internal politics.

You're not being a bit testy on hearing the "pompous" word, are you? As for the rest of your post, sorry, I have no idea what you're going on about. You are not being clear and I do not have the time or, if I am to be honest, the interest to tease it out of you. In my view, you do have trouble being straightforward.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 13, 2005 7:25 AM

Heaven forbid that I leap in with an irrelevant comment: The third most politically intense activity I've come across is tenured University appointments. The second most intense political activity ... the White House. The first? Pursuit of a Nobel Prize!

We human beings are an amusing lot, except when we're busy killing each other. To "get rid of politics" is to get rid of being human. As to wasted motion, I've wasted far too little in my life--and paid an enormous price. (Albeit reaped benefits, too.)

Posted by tom peters at June 13, 2005 8:34 AM

"Okay, wiseguy. Lemme get this straight. You want us to minimize internal politics in our business and focus everyone instead on satisfying customers? Are you NUTS? That would put every goddamn manager on the goddamn payroll out of a GODDAMN JOB!

Now you listen to me and you listen good ... you're fired!"

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 13, 2005 10:05 AM

Noel, thank you for the comments. I do not feel testy, I feel sad for someone who does not have the ability to disagree without labels or judgment. No wriggling Noel, the question was asked and answered. Maybe it needs to be simplified for you. I am not in “favor” of playing politics. I also do not believe that by abdicating the throne or removing yourself from a situation always makes it better. Sometimes you have to expand your horizons and your skills in order to be the best person, best leader you can be. Your comments; “I have no idea what you're going on about. You are not being clear and I do not have the time or, if I am to be honest, the interest to tease it out of you.”, is just another commentary on your fragile male ego and your fervent belief in your tenets. Is this statement true or false; “I am much more interested in the person.” Or is this just more posturing, more pontification on your part? I wonder if your favorite quote is; “It is not enough that I succeed, all others must fail.”? Noel, I respect Mr. Peters too much to continue off the topic of politics. However, we have given a demonstration of ineffective lobbying. Mr. Peters, if you ever want to “waste” some time in Central Florida, let me know, I would enjoy meeting you.

Posted by Randy Reynolds at June 13, 2005 11:46 AM

Randy, since when I have hidden from anyone in this forum, especially in this thread? I have answered every point made. As for speaking about my "male ego", this is not a label? I'm "just like every other man"?

I'm very glad to hear you are not in favor of office politics because they are nothing to be in favor of. They are a waste of time and have nothing to do with your ability to do your job. I believe it is a manager's responsibility at every level of the organization to limit them and have yet to hear an argument for why this should not be the case. This is the opinion I have put forward again and again. I do not understand why you cannot come out straight and tell me, preferably in a couple of sentences, why this idea is a bad idea.

What is it exactly you're not agreeing with?

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 13, 2005 12:59 PM

Noel, male ego is not a label, just a fact for us. I have read and enjoyed quite a few of your comments and have never known you to hide. So, as tacitly as possible, your labels and judgements that are laced in your comments to those who disagree sometimes runs "good talent" off.

If you believe that politics is just part of who we are as human beings, then wouldn't it be better for a good manager to improve this skill for the good of the company and their co-workers while also limiting the politics as much as they can?

Posted by Randy Reynolds at June 13, 2005 2:49 PM

Randy, speak for yourself.

You're now saying that it is a good idea for a manager to improve their political skills while also limiting politics as much as they can. This is a contradiction. You don't improve a skill unless you intend to use it. You are trying to make out that you do not advocate internal politics while at the same time advocating them, in fact, going as far as to recommend that people improve their ability to play them. You are wriggling again. This is what I accused you of earlier and you flatly denied.

Once again, this is my view: Office politics are a waste of time and have nothing to do with your ability to do your job. I believe it is a manager's responsibility at every level of the organization to limit them.

What is it exactly you are not agreeing with?

It is a straight question. Please provide a straight answer.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 13, 2005 3:50 PM

How much straighter can I be? However, there lies the problem with the illusion of communication. Not everyone believes what you or what I believe Noel. Does that mean they deserve the labeling and judgments you dole out? Maybe it is just your frustration of not understanding what has been said, believe me it is frustrating from this end.

Let me try a different approach. As a schlorship athlete I could have thought that being a power forward I would be wasting my time with dribbling with my left hand. Then a defender picks up on this and overplays me defensively forcing me to my left affectively shutting me down every time we play. While most of my time is spent putting a body on people in the paint I still improve my dribbling skills with my left hand taking away the advantage this defender had gained by forcing me to my left.

If that is not straight enough then do you think that every person believes what you believe? If so then I apologize for what you believe is absolute. If not then how can you stand by watching someone use internal politics to harm the company and more importantly those you work with and all you can say is that I believe politics is a waste of time. I am not labeling you and I do not think you are the martyr type. Remember that I said that politics is neither good or bad, it is the person using politics that is either good or bad.

Posted by Randy Reynolds at June 13, 2005 5:41 PM

Probably still not straight forward enough for you, though I have enjoyed the banter.

Posted by Randy Reynolds at June 13, 2005 5:42 PM

When good people fail to pursue power for the greater good, then they are guilty of evil's assumption and consumption of thrones and authority.

Noel, I have also worked in environments that were highly politically charged, and those that weren't. Honestly, the main difference was not whether or not management eliminated or discouraged politics. The main difference was in hiring exceptional people and encouraging them toward team goals. Were there politics at both companies? Yes. If there were no politics, then no one would seek a pay raise or promotion. Trust me, people sought that at both companies. In the latter, the politics lent to (though were not completely exclusive to) the greater good. That is the difference.

Posted by Dustin at June 13, 2005 9:31 PM

Absolutely Randy. What would life be without a little banter?

Dustin, out of curiosity, which environment did you enjoy more?

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 14, 2005 12:15 AM

I suspect that part of politics is the playfulness of it - in other words research has shown that the caring, listening, upbeat M.D. almost never gets sued - even though they do make mistakes. The [perceived] arrogance, lack of emotional intelligence, abrupt, time-to-hit-the-tennis-court M.D. is known as Ms./Mr. Malpractice - continual problems, excess baggage, detriment. Why is there a Sir Mick and no Sir Keith? Because Mick is smooth and playful - Keith grates. Politics in the UK.

And in the career-place luckily some moms [and/or] dads instilled kindness and manners in most of us - and that pays huge dividends politically as we navigate playfully in office politic circles. This mortal thing is too short even at 100 years [40 years in 1776] - might as well make it as heavenly as possible in career and personal pursuits and the art and science of politics is key to making the most of it - that is the best my simple reasoning can come up with.

Posted by Sean at June 14, 2005 7:33 AM

I don't know Sean. I've known plenty of polite, playful and gregarious characters who were absolutely inept when it came to office politics - there was practically blood on the carpet they were back-stabbed so many times!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 14, 2005 8:41 AM

Tough love baby! I have realtor relatives in California who sold the 1st big wave of Japanese interests in the 1980's - Japanese political and business savvy was wanting - the took such a bath - bought high and sold low. Family is polite but business is business / politics are politics / got to feed the babies / and perhaps the bible is the ultimate business manual? Dustin may agree! The Chinese are next.

Posted by Sean at June 14, 2005 12:13 PM

Noel, of course I enjoyed the latter company environment more. That's not the point. The point is that destructive agendas were avoided not by a mandate, but by creating an environment where team goals were elevated. Politics were still being played, but they benefited the team and ultimately the company.

Sean, I would agree that the Bible has an incredible amount of business wisdom within. Of course, it is more than just a business manual, but someone could take the truth found in the Bible and apply it to business and become successful without even being a "believer." Sadly, the would miss out on the greater benefits of that book (for what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?), but don't get me preaching here.

Posted by Dustin at June 14, 2005 12:31 PM

Dustin, in my view it is a big part of the point. When people enjoy a work environment, they work better than when they don't enjoy it and are just 'doing time'.

I think what you have experienced in the company you preferred was in fact good management. The emphasis was taken off of office politics and placed instead on motivating the team to get the job done.

If you disagree with me and believe that it was in fact, the practice of office politics that contributed to the better work environment, I'd be interested to know how in your opinion the practice of internal politics benefitted the company and why the more politically charged job was not in your view the better place to work.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 14, 2005 2:06 PM

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Noel, what I'm saying is that politics were involved in both companies. The "better" company was able to focus those politics for the betterment of the company. Basically they said, "If you want to get ahead in this company and in life, then do what you can to help us achieve these goals." So, those who were politically saavy used that influence to help achieve company goals. And yes, it was good management. The company was sold to a much larger corporation. Many of the employees (esp. middle management) that made the jump to the new company are now in very high positions. So good management and excellent hiring.

Earlier you mentioned a meritocracy. Such an environment would not be a political vacuum. You don't eliminate the game, you just change the rules.

Posted by Dustin at June 14, 2005 2:19 PM

I agree Dustin on the beauty of Bible teachings for worldly and heavenly endeavors - including business and politics.

I think Noel, the 1776 and other business of politics and office affairs depends on where you currently are at - in other words I'm playful about it because I'm making it win-win somehow - especially the last 2 years.

However, I know the tough love part about losing too - been there in career and personal matters maybe too often - maybe not though - hope/pray/meditate to be a faster learner to keep pace with the light speed universe!

How about the velocity of money/politic[?] mantra - the faster it moves [smartly] the more one benefits. In that high speed and discomfort are natural cycles to adopt - it seems though only the brave go there to reap their favored rewards.

Posted by Sean at June 14, 2005 2:26 PM

I think Noel has an interesting question here! How many examples can people quote where politics was beneficial to the company?

C'mon be honest! I am not talking about powering a particular pet project through - I am talking about a political atmosphere.

Most politics is based on fear and insecurity - how can that possibly be a good atmosphere to work in ?

Posted by PaulH at June 14, 2005 2:27 PM

The word politics must be interpreted in a much wider sense, not just in the negative sense of the word. There is bad politics, there is good politics and there is politics. Politics is about engaging with people to negotiate for scares resources to achieve an objective. That's how I interpret politics and I agree with Tom that if one is going to succeed, one has to be skillful at politics. It is inevitable

Posted by Roland Vachet at June 17, 2005 3:50 PM

Office politics in a business are a waste of time and damage a company's ability to perform and compete. Negotiation is a business skill; political maneuvering is not. You need to be skillful at politics when you are striving to survive in a political environment (like for example, the court of Chairman Mao!) or when your natural abilites are so weak that you cannot get ahead by any other means.

That's how I interpret politics.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 17, 2005 4:54 PM