HRGuru

Internal Politics and the Political Power Plays

All successful organizations are successful for different reasons, but dysfunctional organizations are dysfunctional in the same way. In my experience, the main reason for poor organizational performance is not the lack of business knowledge, but rather hostile internal politics.

My experience in organizational life has taught me that the best companies can develop bad internal politics and unproductive work habits which will eventually lead to declining performance. It is true that the larger the organization, the more susceptible it is to the breakdown of communication, the emergence of management silos and misalignment. However, smaller companies also suffer from similar problems. When management tends to focus so much on one management area, e.g., sales, and has no time to manage the internal organization challenges, dysfunction creeps in and takes hold.

I am increasingly amazed how some business leaders, just “don’t get it.” Using a teenage term popularized in the movie of the same name, they are ‘clueless.” In the more appropriate terms of organizational development, this is known as pluralistic ignorance.

Inventor and public speaker Joel Barker, popularizer of the term “paradigm,” quotes research by Thomas Kuhn that showed scientists were physically unable to perceive data that didn’t agree with their pre-established ideas.  They became “stuck” and immobilized to advance new ideas.

We can observe these phenomena in similar fashion within the corporate structure. Recommendations for revising outdated and complex personnel policy, and streamlining recruiting and retention processes to better fit a self-directed and empowered work environment are openly rejected by a small, but extremely influential cadre of “gatekeepers” who perceive the suggestions and recommendations in conflict with their pre-established ideas and ridged adherence to outdated paradigms. Joel Barker called this state, “Paradigm Paralysis” : the inability to see beyond the boundaries of existing problems to make change.

To quote Gandhi: "Be the change you want to see.” The most powerful leaders are almost always the role models for the change they seek. If key managers practice bad politics, no amount of training or coaching will change the management team.  Moreover, it is important to realize that both bad and good behaviors are contagious. It is a proven sociological fact that people will imitate the behavior that appears to be socially acceptable, even if it is not their normal behavior. If you allow some people to get away with bad political behaviors, other people will follow.

Realistically, it is not possible to have a politics-free organization. The desire for power is part of human nature, our business, and our world. Seeking power and politics in any company is neither inherently good nor bad. However, successful leaders know how to leverage politics by setting performance-oriented instead of resources-oriented political goals and rewards. Successful leaders set fair rules for the political game, reward collaborative performance and penalize animosity and negative behavior.

Changing the culture can be facilitated, but requires performance-rewards system reengineering, which will be faced with serious resistance.  It takes substantial time and effort to heal the wounds, to reestablish broken communications and rebuild trust and collaboration.  I am currently working with a very dysfunctional organization. My marching orders are to develop a team based and empowered workforce.  The political enviornment is extreamely hostile.  This condition exists, in part, becasue some managers preceive the empowered workforce as a threat to thier authority ( this organization is very authoritatian: 35 years of tradition unhampered by progress!) and status as "the decision makers".  So the political climate is one of self-preservation. 

I am currious how others are managing this dynamic in thier organizations.

This is a great article, Mark, and you've brought out some key points here.  I've sometimes heard the term "good ol' boy network" to describe the environment that you're describing.  The management in these offices are so fiercely opposed to change that change isn't likely.  They have to see the bottom-line need to change before they'll entertain the idea.  Even then, some actually are stubborn enough to go down with the ship.  Some simply can not change.  However, even in the most hostile environments, you can sometimes find an unexpected ally.  I once worked in an office where the negative politics were rampant.  The owner/founder of the company was an open, positive leader....when you could find him.  The truth is, he was rarely there to lead, and that might as well have equated to no leader at all.  He counted on others to know what was going on and do something about it.  Oddly enough, I found an ally in his wife.  He liked me and my ideas, but aside from shouting a friendly "well done" as he was racing by, did nothing to implement the needed changes.  His wife, who had an office of her own even though she really didn't have a role in the company as such, joined me for lunch often to discuss what changes needed to be made, and the changes got made through that door.  It isn't always the leader who can be reached, but if you make an ally of the person who has the most influence with that person, or "has his ear", it can ease the way to change.  I'm eagerly looking forward to more on this subject, since the office environs are changing whether this kind of boss likes it or not.  The old efficiency expert days are about over, because they don't work.  As the saying goes, a house divided will fall, and negative politics destroy the best companies, as this article well brings out.

Unfortunately, the "good ol' boy network" is alive and well in many organizations.  If you really want some profound insight into this, read Sex and Power by Deborah Tannen. It should be required reading for any manager. (male or female) 

We need to focus on building a culture of collaboration as part of the management strategy. The process of building a healthy organization starts by creating cohesive teams at all levels (top, middle and line managers). Leverage executive-coaching programs and action-learning teams to solve problems and develop strategies. Learning together helps people to work better together.To cure the organization from bad politics, senior management can choose from the following recommendations:

• The CEO must recognize the criticality of the political problem ( this is the hard part) and its impact on the business performance. He / she must commit to change and be its leading champion.

The CEO must use adequate scorecards and open employee-feedback surveys to assess the health and performance of the management team, and to identify performance roadblocks. 360 degree feedback assessments work well here.

• For valid differences of opinions, consider mediation and arbitration. If that does not work, replace difficult and uncooperative managers and or employees. (Here the problem is that most managers know who the "gatekeepers" are, but recognize that they are the ones who tell him / her everything going on - even if it is contrived!   Can you say - self preservation!

Management must gather the team together and be honest and direct about bad political behaviors and should be willing to back threats with actions. Management should consider company-wide team building workshops, educate teams on professional ethics and train them on people skills, communication, negotiation and conflict resolution. Communicate, educate and build consensus on strategy, direction and performance targets.  Once a strategy is agreed upon, design a performance system to motivate and control - include both incentives and penalties. The new system must be aligned with objectives and designed to reward collaboration and penalize silos. Use collaboration tools (Information and communication technologies) between geographically dispersed business units and teams.

Most organization struggle with the question "where do we start?"   To make change, managers desperately need a starting point, and a vision of the future whereby realistic goals can be directed to accomplish the mission in front of the organization.  If management does not embrace a change initiative and move forward to eliminate the obstacles of indifference, they will invariably continue down the path of insanity…. doing the same thing over and over ...and expecting a different result.”

I have a bias here, becasue this is my training and education.  I work with dysfunctional organizations to establish a sense of order to the kaos!  However, training is like locks and keys  Not all training fits every need.  Generally a detailed period of observation and analysis is required before developing a productive remedy. 

Unfortunately , attrition may be an unfavroable outcome.  However, if properly conducted the individuals who elect to leave may  very well take some of the problems with them.  And let us not lose sight of why this approach may be required: to remove the undesirable political behaviors that serve to hamper the healthy growth of the organization.

We practice in this discipline because it is not an exact science.  I really don't think any one solution works for every situation in every organization.  But, if it was easy, anyone could do this....right?

Ouch! Please do not disregard Psychology as a science, otherwise I wasted time learning Multivariate statistics. Psychology is still a young science, and progress is being made everyday on how to measure and identify these constructs. It is not an exact science, however knowing where a majority is going to be is a great tool (measures of central tendency). There are outliers, and there lies the individual cases. However, discounting Psychology as a science discounts other sciences as well. No science is exactly perfect. Otherwise no one would ever suffer side effects from medications, however some do and science, at best, accounts for majorities of populations.

Each company may require something different, however certain constants exist. If these constants didn't exist then consulting trainers who travel around presenting their training seminars would always be ineffective, right?

Sorry, Sarah but I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this one

Thanks for clarifying.  I'm really learning alot about the theory behind the practice, and it's awesome!  Great thread, guys!

Excellent replies! When I get home from conference I'm going to dig through my research and post up alot of new topics to consider. Mark Jung is very interesting, and I find behaviorist like Skinner very applicable. I will make sure to find some topics that are on the bleeding edge of research as well.

IOPsychologist says ...

Excellent replies! When I get home from conference I'm going to dig through my research and post up alot of new topics to consider. Mark Jung is very interesting, and I find behaviorist like Skinner very applicable. I will make sure to find some topics that are on the bleeding edge of research as well.

I know I'm looking forward to them!

marklipe says ...

 

A leader must develop and use psychology to redefine their own behavior, which influences employees to do the same. This has a positive effect on the minds of the employees. He or she  must not think of themselves above others. He / she  should work and be ready to learn like all other employees do. Working as a team increases every individuals efficiency too.

i agree with mark. a leader must set the example for others to emulate

sarah.i understand what you are trying to bring out that in a team if you are prepared to take on the toughest task, you will emerge as a natural leader. but when i talk about setting an example, it also includes other areas like punctuality, integrity, loyalty to the organisation,efficiency, energy, communication skills,humane approach towards all and above all the team spirit etc. a leader must be able to set example in all areas.

sarah, another point i think is important in motivating a team to accept the change for higher productivity is the passion in the leader to be able to follow through the idea till it perculates to the lowest level of functionaries in the same spirit as the leader feels about the idea. what is your take on this??