dispatches from the new world of work

Master "It" You Must!

Some folks, especially in big organizations, ceaselessly bitch & moan about "organizational politics." "Wipe them out," they petulantly insist; "we must get on with things." A lovely sentiment—but it reveals a frightening lack of comprehension of the human animal. (And even close ancestors, like the apes.)

One cure to "ceaseless politics," it is sometimes said, is a ... Transcendent Cause ... that brings one and all together in service to a greater goal. To which I can only reply, "In your dreams."

Yesterday we celebrated the 62nd anniversary of D-Day. Surely D-Day was the sort of cause and occasion to transcend politics! I repeat, "In Your dreams." To remind myself of the ubiquity of politics-among-humans, I occasionally re-read David Irving's magisterial The War Between the Generals: Inside the Allied High Command. For your reading enjoyment, here, from the back cover of the book, are a few choice words among the chief participants:

"A man of great mediocrity."—General George Patton about General Omar Bradley ...... "A third-rate general. He never did anything or won any battle that any other general could not have won as well or better."—General Omar Bradley about Sir Bernard Montgomery ...... "If you want to end the war in any reasonable time, you will have to remove Ike's hand from the control of the land battle."—Sir Bernard Montgomery about General Dwight Eisenhower ...... "One thing that might help win this war is to get someone to shoot King."—General Dwight Eisenhower about Admiral & Chief of Naval Operations Ernest King ...... "Eisenhower, though supposed to be running the land war, is on the golf links at Rhiems—entirely detached and taking practically no part in running the war."—Sir Alan Brooke, British commander of the armed forces ...... "If the unhelpful British attitude continues, then I shall go home."—General Dwight Eisenhower.

I happen to believe there is a clear message here. Sure we should try to eliminate blatant back-stabbing (though that's precisely what these generals did to one another—even up to the point of complaining back-channel to Roosevelt & Churchill), but for those who would accomplish great ends, mastery (MASTERY!) of politics is an inescapable must.

Jill Ker Conway was an extremely effective leader of Smith College (and the first woman president of Smith). She explained that, despite her passion for the job, the decision to take it was excruciatingly difficult. One primary factor that tipped the scales toward acceptance was that she had greatly enjoyed the political to-and-fro that marked her tenure as Provost at the University of Toronto, where she was when the Smith offer materialized. Knowing that she was walking into a political fray of the first order, she needed to assess her readiness.

(FYI, the politics of Nobel-level science—eyes on the prize and all that—is as down and dirty as it gets. Except, perhaps, for what goes on—around the globe—when the time to choose a new Pope arises. Surely those are sad blows to the "noble sentiment" purists.)

So would-be achievers, hone your political skills! I'm not encouraging you to become a shit, but I am encouraging you to learn not only to live with, but to love the messiness of interactions among your fellow human beings. I, for one, love it—and it hasn't hurt my career to do so. And, self-servingly, I don't think I've become a creep in the process.

Tom Peters posted this on 06/07/06.

Comments

Some people are really good at the politics thing and some are not. How do those who are not, and want to get better at it, learn?

Posted by Kurt at June 7, 2006 2:19 PM

I don't think that is something easily taught, though it can't hurt to try. No matter how many singing lessons I took I'd still never be more than a mediocre singer. Some have it, some don't, just like athletic or musical skills.

I used to be an administrator of a fairly large organization (well, three of them, in sequence). I'm glad I did it. I'm even happier I'm NOT doing it now. Finally realized that wasn't my best thing, I probably wouldn't get a lot better at it, and I could find a different job where I'd be much happier and more useful to the world.

Posted by Dan Lester at June 7, 2006 4:10 PM

One other thought on the generals...a few years ago I learned a very valuable lesson from a subordinate who retired from US Army after 30 years, the last 11 as a Sgt Major (and thus reporting to generals and full colonels). He also served two tours in 'Nam as a medic.

I came back from an administrative fussing about the stupid decision that had been made, one that hurt us and was opposite of our strong recommendation.

He taught me by this comment: "I've seen a lot of generals make a lot of dumb decisions, and this one didn't even get anyone killed."

Well, duuuhhh...yeah...in the big picture the bad decision didn't REALLY matter after all.

dan

Posted by Dan Lester at June 7, 2006 4:25 PM

Dan, your comment deserves better than I'll give here. If we can't teach political savvy (same argument re leadership), we can at least do some consciousness raising. Techies in particular (mainsprings of our future) have an aversion to politics that kills many a worthwhile project. Maybe we could at least expose such folks to some sort of "sensitivity trainin." "Coaches" might help too, if we could get the price point down.

Posted by tom peters at June 7, 2006 5:04 PM

Great topic and one that needs more coverage. To get progress and to achieve change in healthcare I found politics was disproportionately powerful over evidence base. I think positive politics is a great strategy and I have never really understood why it gets negative press. It does not mean you have to â€˜suck upâ€™ or â€˜brown noseâ€™ to the boss and in fact the tactics of working out the politics is great fun. High ethical standards and politics are achievable at the same time.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 7, 2006 5:17 PM

Trevor, I agree (no surprise). Politics is "the art of getting things done"--and it start in families! (In our "Wow Project" training, we used to use a landmark book on community organizing (Saul Alinsky) as text.)

Posted by tom peters at June 7, 2006 7:21 PM

I'M A STUDENT FROM THE COLLEGE (UNIVERSITY MAJOR DE SAN MARCOS FROM PERU) I READ YOUR BOOK " gestionar con imaginacion" traduction in spanish I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND
I 'D COMUCATE WITH YOU SOON IF YOU PERMIT THIS
IF YOU WOULD ANSWER SOME CUESTION THAT I HAVE ABOUT THE BOOK
I HOPE TO BE ACEPTED FOR YOUR ANSWER I DONT KNOW A LOT ABOUT ENGLISH BUT THANKS FOR ALL TAKE CARE

Posted by Cesar Arambulo at June 7, 2006 10:41 PM

I have worked in companies that have been extremly political (in a bad way) I have worked in companies (same industry, same size) that have not been so political. I do feel that people have given up trying to improve the culture of organisations and just view bad politics as always there.

To a large extent I agree with Trevor - "High ethical standards and politics are achievable at the same time." I would take it one stage further that strong values are a great way to destroy destructive politics. I work with people now who I would trust to make the right decisions for me in my absense even to the detriment of their own areas. To get to that culture the department had to put in a lot of work on trust, hiring the right people (in some cases firing the wrong people for behaving in a political manner) and what kind of a culture we wanted. You have a choice.

The other danger point is that highly talented and intelligent people (I work in IT and as Tom pointed out Techies do not like politics) simply walk away from toxic political situations. The organistation loses. I actually think the techies attitude is very healthy. They really look down on political, egotistical, posturing idiots.

Tom you have long advocated hiring wierd and different. If you want to do that and get the best out of them you have to do something about the culture that you bring them into.

Posted by PaulH at June 8, 2006 12:51 AM

Thanks Paul and thanks Tom - I had the pleasure (I think) of working with Dave a real weirdo many years ago who's brief case was a plastic Tesco supermarket shopping bag, he dressed in a t-shirt and tracksuit for all meetings. He cycled to all meetings in the town we worked. He chained his bike to radiators in corridors (on one occasion the Chief Executive had his bike removed). The culture of NHS was not â€˜preparedâ€™ for his arrival and it did not change whilst he was with us - although the fact I remember it 15 years after tells me something about his impact. Like many of his type Dave did not stay around. He quickly got fed up with institutional and conformist (boring) systems of the NHS and he got out almost as quickly as he came in. He just couldn't survive in the politics and got out. I like the idea of having weirdos in the organisation because the chances are they will make an impact while they are around and they will get out of their own accord if the culture does not change to suit them. You never have to â€˜get rid of such peopleâ€™ â€“ they make the decision themselves. That is the nature of the weirdo. They challenge our fundamental assumptions and the way we do things. In something as big as the NHS it is impossible for one or two weirdos to change the culture. Maybe we need a few weirdo Chief Executives in the NHS organisation.

How about a new interpretation of www? - We Welcome Weirdos :-) â€“ A wonderful mission statement methinks- how many companies would sign up to it? My guess â€“ 2% and that is probably way too high.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 8, 2006 5:09 AM

Politics are inevitable - as greed prompts it. The minute greed ceases to exists, politics will end. The odds of that happening are slim to none...and slim just got on a train and left town.

Like you said, Trev. You don't have to be a suck-up. Like networking, you either understand politics...or you don't. :)

Hope all is well across the pond.

Posted by tango5 at June 9, 2006 7:48 AM

Everything is wonderful across the lake tango - after all ....England are about to win the world cup :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 9, 2006 10:24 AM

Well said and well put. It's not so much that "politics" is bad, its the self serving motives of bad politics that is bad.

In oil and gas it seem to me that the majority of the companies have erected huge walls and barriers to anything and everything that challenges them. All in the name of benefiting themselves.

And just as President Ronald Reagan said, and I would encourage Mr. Peters to tell the bureaucrats in oil and gas, to "tear down this wall".

Posted by Paul Cox at June 17, 2006 1:38 PM