Acting Politically
Back to main model
Contents
Introduction
Politics as playing dirty
Internal coalitions view of organisational politics
The political process
Functional politics and the use of power
Options for political action
Phases of political action
A slightly different perspective
Introduction
In traditional organisational management, politics has a negative reputation:
Manipulation
Back scratching
Looking after no 1
One upmanship
Game playing
Backstabbing
Covert deals in
smoke-filled rooms
Valuing appearance
over substance
I'm all right Jack
Divisiveness
Non co-operating
Aggressive
Sabotaging
Power plays
Conflict
Machiavellian
Blaming
Hidden agenda
Turf battles
Arse licking
Narcissism
Win-lose
With holding
Negative
Destructiveness
Dysfunctional
However, one of the six guiding principles of IC is power and politics, so once again, there is a
divergence of view between traditional organisational management and IC.
Politics as playing dirty
As a dysfunctional activity, traditional organisational management proposes a drive towards uncooperative behaviour that is a “territorial impulse” through territorial games. Games undermine
productivity, wastes resources, saps people’s energy and cause negative feelings. They can be
countered by increasing self-awareness of your own games, surfacing game playing by others on a
“no blame” basis and to use dialogue to explore behaviours and to transform them into more
constructive ways forward.
The problem with this laudable approach is that in the heat of political games, rational appeals that
overcome emotions is not easy and the total elimination of these activities may not be possible – in
fact there is a structural inevitability that politics will occur. Therefore, there should be an attempt
to deal with power and politics on a “relationship with” basis rather than “relationship over”.
The conventional response
Traditional organisational management suggests 4 responses to power and politics:
1. Omit from biographical accounts of change and from consultants models that translate “best
practice” for others to follow. This results in a lack of evidence of the effect of power and
politics, reducing usefulness for developing practical insights.
2. Deny that power and politics have a legitimate role to play in the dynamics of organisational
change and performance beyond the notion of resistance. As part of “people management”,
resistance can be anticipated, analysed and dealt with rationally. Therefore, resistance is not
amongst the leaders and so they can stand aside from it.
3. Accept its existence and exert influence on leaders’ behaviour as well as the organisation by
discouraging the illegitimate aspects. The exercise of power and use of political strategies
tends to be ignored by those designing and orchestrating the change process and developing
leadership capabilities or managing organisational performance from that perspective and
favouring explanations and approaches founded on rational concepts, tools and techniques.
4. Overcome politics by recognising power and politics as symptoms of organisational
dysfunction. By successfully implementing change, the new processes and behaviours that
follow will overcome these unwanted effects – “do it better and do it right”.
Despite this, most organisations function in spite of the dynamics of power and politics: it is not allconsuming. However IC takes the view that change can happen not despite of power and politics but
because of it.
Back to contents
Internal coalitions view of organisational politics
Overview
Power and politics are a central dynamic of organisational change and performance:

Natural organisational and psychological dynamics mean that organisations are made of
shifting coalitions of diverse and potentially competing interest groups

Each group has its own perspective on what is required to meet the organisation’s current
challenges and emerging issues

Resources are limited, so choices and trade-offs are made between competing demands and
possible ways forward

These choices and trade-offs, coupled with differing interests and perspectives, means that
tensions and conflict are inevitable

Organisational politics are concerned with the ways in which these differences and conflicts
are played out

Differences arising can rarely be wholly resolved through formal statements and processes
and can never be definitive (however well written). They always have to be interpreted and
enacted locally and so there is always scope for this to be done in interest-skewed ways
(whether intentionally or not)

Even if polices and processes are stated unambiguously and interpreted as intended, politics
could be directed towards changing these formally established ends and means, not simply
accommodating them, both in terms of how they are resisted now and how they were
originated in the first place.

Scale and scope of political dynamics increases with greater levels of uncertainty and change
and the further away from agreement people find themselves and so the greater the need
for effective political leadership.

Formal leaders and leadership groups are also party to these dynamics as active participants
rather than objective observers of other people’s actions.
The seeds of political behaviour
Consider these important organisational dynamics in placing power and politics at the centre:



The in-built structural dynamics of organisations
The impact of personal mindsets on organisational interactions and outcomes
The link between politics and meaning making in organisations
In-built structured dynamics
Two fundamental but opposing requirements of all organisational designs:


The need to divide activities and allocate responsibility for carrying these out to specialist
sub-units or individuals
The need to ensure effective co-ordination of those tasks to achieve the organisation’s goals
Understandably, these two requirements are an important part of the value added operation of the
organisation whilst at the same time accounts for underlying inevitable political dynamics, and you
cannot have one without the other. Whether these are destructive or constructive depends on the
different parties’ awareness of the conflict and the ways in which the differences are managed. Let’s
take a sales and service organisation and how the seeds of political behaviour are sown:
An example of the seeds of political behaviour
Business development unit
Company-wide development focus
Emphasis on long-term customer
relationships
Service unit
Single unit management focus
Emphasis on short-term task achievement
Goals based on new business development
and profit growth
Goals based on cost-effective contract
completion, resource productivity & capacity
utilisation
Concerned with identifying and exploiting
external market opportunities
Concerned with sustaining and developing
internal technical capabilities and exploiting
resource capacity
Looking for flexibility and responsiveness to
Looking to optimise performance and cost
satisfy bespoke market / customer needs and through routine-isation of familiar processes,
challenges
standardisation of work etc
Aim to exploit revenue-generating
opportunities - favouring a risk orientation
and novelty
Aim to plug the gaps in resource utilisation favouring a security orientation and a
preference for "sticking to the knitting”
Believe that more can be achieved by the
service provider than is practicable
Believe that less can be achieved than is
possible in practice
Underlying political dynamics can colour people’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviours which are
played out in ways that disable rational consideration. Responses become habitual as perceptions
and interpretations are channelled down increasingly well-trodden paths. Further distortion comes
with emotion, particularly fear and anger, as actions impact adversely on senses of “territory” and
self-worth. And so it continues on a trail of increasing dysfunction as each side believes that they are
in the right and reasonable with it, without necessarily being vindictive or self-seeking.
Added to the organisational dynamics are the personal desires of people to protect their personal
frames of reference (psychological dynamics), and then any attempt to rationally analyse such arational behaviour is unlikely to succeed.
Personal frames of reference
We each try to develop and maintain a personal frame of reference for our lives, which is continually
formed and re-formed through our everyday on-going interactions and experiences. It enables us to
navigate our way through life’s uncertainties and complexities to help preserve our personal
meaning and self-worth, identity and perceived place in the world.
Environmental
Behaviour
Capability
Belief
Identity
Spiritual
Where:
Environment
Behaviour
Capability
Belief
Identity
Spiritual
Preferred (and avoided) physical environment; working
context; nature of relationships; energy levels etc
Habitual (and avoided) behaviours and activities, rituals
and routines
Personal strengths and weaknesses; enabling and
disabling contextual factors
Enabling (and constraining) set of personal beliefs and
sense making frameworks
Self-concept and self-belief etc
Connection to something "bigger"; sense of meaning;
deep personal relationships; fundamental purpose in life
and governing ethos
Making the frame “visible”
This diagram is a little simplistic, but helps to recognise the sort of factors that impact upon our ways
of thinking and behaving at work and in our private lives and the ways in which we respond
psychologically and emotionally to change.

The environment is a surface level. People are habitual so we have ritualistic and habitual
ways of working, drawing us to particular tasks and of ways in doing them and to avoid
others. Some, it’s just us and others, its experience and environment.

Behaviour patterns are also governed by our perceived level of capability, a function of our
strengths and weaknesses and the ways in which we harness and express them. But there
are enabling and constraining factors, such as the strength and extent of our relationships.

Our personal belief set is built over time through experience and sense making past events,
through our inner dialogue and interactions with others. This determines our view of
present issues, events and relationships and channels thoughts on future possibilities

Identity shapes our beliefs, capabilities and behaviour patterns and our environmental
surroundings. Usually, its interwoven with what they do (parent, councillor etc) or their way
of being (so operating principles) or membership of particular groups

Since people see their lives in the instrumental terms of their working life, they can be
uncomfortable with the spiritual side. But people still need a meaning to their life (inside and
outside work) or at least a connection to something greater otherwise they are “empty”.
Creating meaning through contributions at work is a challenge for leaders and traditional
management does this through “shared values” or “vision”; however IC proposes to
encourage this through self-expression and acting politically
Political implications
It is inevitable that mismatches will occur between people’s personal frames of reference and this is
instrumental in creating differences of agenda within organisations as people compete for attention.
In turn, people will coalesce informally (and formally) around these interests to promote them or to
frustrate others or to defend themselves or to change the organisation
For individuals, these are competing demands that have to be handled whilst preserving self-worth,
integrity and identity. The frame of reference is not static – it shapes and is shaped by everyday
relationship interactions. Ultimately, it helps to make sense of the world (and our world view is
unique) and of engaging it whilst preserving our personal and inter personal competence, so
reinforcing existing patterns of behaviour and understanding. We tend to define and try to shape the
challenges we face to suit our view of the world and the self-centred interests that this reflects, and
this means that we are inherent resistors of change.
Since we all act politically all of the time, the important question is whether or not such actions
serves the legitimate needs of others in the organisation and of the organisation as a whole.
Politics and meaning making
How people frame issues in their own minds is critical to the way that they view other people’s
actions and act themselves, which determines how change unfolds and performance develops and
then these provide inputs to the sense making and evaluation processes. Since we place frames
around issues, the process gives meaning at that particular time, examples of which include:



Whether or not it’s seen as urgent and/or important to merit people’s time and attention
What response is appropriate and organisationally acceptable
Whether a particular outcome is considered a success or failure


If failure, whether it is seen as providing a chance to learn and improve or else a reason to
look for someone to blame
Whether or not a particular contribution is through to be valuable and worthy of recognition
Traditional management approaches expect managers to determine the meaning of particular
events, issues and changes and then to decide which interpretations are “right” and “wrong” to:




Validate particular interpretations of emerging events and actions rather than others
Set the context for other people’s actions
Ensure that some ideas and proposals are enacted and others rejected
Decide whether outcomes should be seen as successes or failures and whether these should
be rewarded or criticised
This is achieved using formal tools such as strategies, policies, procedures, code of practice, formally
negotiated agreements, formal presentations, formal appraisals etc. Although these contribute to
the sense making and use-making process, they are not co-created through informal conversations
and so there has not be a framing process and may lead to activities that frustrate formally stated
intentions, even to overturn them.
As people engage in this process, it needs to be done in ways that achieve two things:
1. To frame events that leave their own personal frame intact or to be strengthened further
2. A need for others to value their particular contributions to the world (as judged through
their respective terms of reference)
Back to contents
The political process
The conversational and political model illustrates the important political dimensions of conversation
processes and it shows the outcomes in terms of the underlying political dynamics that might
change.
Process dynamics
In any particular interaction, self-interests of participants might be aligned with each other, totally
unrelated or in conflict and tensions may arise from an structurally embedded conflicts inherent in
the various organisational agenda involved or from the ways in which these are constructed in
people’s minds.
Besides overt conversations with others, people are also in conversation with themselves (thinking)
which is shaped by, and further shapes, their personal frame of reference. Background “cultural
conversations” affects the way that the overt conversation itself, and the interaction as a whole,
develops by channelling perceptions, interpretations and behaviours down well-trodden paths,
reflecting particular sets of taken-for-granted assumptions shared by participants.
This pattern of cultural assumptions includes those relating to the underlying political dynamics that
influence everyday activity in that part of the organisation. Therefore, the integrating tendency of
the cultural dynamics of organisation (the share sense-making process that embeds the patterns)
will also embrace the tendency that splits apart the characteristic political dynamics.
This is a dynamic mix of factors. The conversation may be conducted either above board or s part of
the shadow, unspoken, interaction. Participants may act independently or may collude to further
their own self-interests and / or their part of the organisation and at the expense of others.
Negatively, there is a risk that corruptive practice will colour interactions.
Outcome dynamics
Outcomes arising from this process as seen from each participant’s perspective reflect the extent to
which the result:



Is seen as organisationally productive
Is in line with the individual’s own frame of reference, and
Takes account of the personal interests and agendas of other key players
As a leader, acting politically requires that all 3 constituencies are pursued:



The organisation as an entity, its purpose, ethos and strategy
The leader, their frame of reference and perceived work agenda that flows from this
Relevant others involved in the interaction, their personal frames of reference and selfaligned agendas.
Back to contents
Functional politics and the use of power
Politics is a natural dynamic of organisations through which different self-interest and organisational
agendas are played out and where the managers can choose whether to engage with it or not.
Where the political process is effective, organisations have vitality and energy that enables
differences to be dealt with efficiently and beneficially to the organisation; where it is not, it can lead
to degenerative conflict and dysfunctional (defensive, parochial and corrupt) behaviour.
This negativity is usually apparent where differences are dealt with in a self-serving way where the
interests of others and well-being of the organisation are ignored. Power can be used to modify the
knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of key stakeholders in relation to important issues and events.
The nature of power
The term “power” has negative intonations for managers. They want influence, but not control.
Power is a mix of situational, personal and operating factors that enable managers to influence as a
process of modifying people’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviours to achieve desired outcomes. As
an essential condition, it can be used more expansively and constructively. Power cannot be avoided
– it is an essential part of achieving things within organisations; all people exercise power or are
subject to it. It can be used positively if used ethically but it can also be used negatively
The basis of power in organisations
Managers need to understand the basis of their power and to develop an awareness of the power
that others able to draw upon in particular situations. There are four interrelated aspects of power:
Instrumental power
Refers to those attributes of a person’s capability and behaviour that most directly modifies
knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of others; typically, this includes:







Formal position of authority (position power), conveying the right to decide and act within
defined limits and carry out the organisation’s legitimate activities
Control of limited resources and access to information valued by others (resource power)
Someone’s personal knowledge and expertise relevant to current tasks (expert power)
Relationship networks that someone has with other key people in the organisation (network
power), enabling them to leverage the position power, resource power or expert power
Physical or psychological dominance (coercive power) through which someone or a group
can force another to comply with their wishes
Impact of role modelling on others’ behaviour and the emergence of meaning (symbolic
power) and discussed in reframing communication and thinking culturally
An ability to establish empathy and rapport when interacting with others (communication
power), which generates richer, more powerful conversations.
Coercive power has no ethical role in enhancing organisations, but its existence must be recognised.
It can be covert (bullying) or covert (fear and dependency).
Power can support the organisation’s formally adopted objectives or it can oppose them – negative
power – and this can lead to dysfunctional behaviour. Since change is the informal coalescing of
people around viewpoints that oppose currently accepted wisdom or formally recognised policies
and practices, proposed changes can be propelled into the formal arenas of the organisation and so
acquire legitimacy. Actively building coalitions to support changes beneficial to the organisation is
“acting politically”, and this is valid whether or not using formal “legitimate” power structures.
Inner power
An individual’s internal power base enables them to apply more overt forms of instrumental power
with more potency – an important perspective for the leader’s own ability to influence others. This
uses the leader’s frame of reference as so it is belief-, identity- and spirit-based, and concerns:





Belief about how the world works
The values used to screen emerging events, incidents and the behaviours of others
How a person feels about what is going on and how they react
Whether or not the person has a positive sense of who they are (identity) and so are able to
use instrumental power more self-confidently, authentically and authoritatively and how
their underlying character shows through in relationships with others
Sense of purpose in life and personal ethos (spirit) to give personal meaning and a feeling of
contributing to a greater good and going beyond the mere delivery of today’s tasks
Attention to the sources of inner power helps magnify or unblock a leader’s own ability to influence
other’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviours and provides a key focus for performance-enhancing
discussions with others about their own impact and contribution.
Relational power
Power can be exercised in relationship with other people, affecting the discussion as follows:




Instrumental powers are comparative – someone is “more than” someone else
Power depends on how the intended recipient perceives, interprets and evaluates it
Some power bases are interrelated and using one may limit the potency of another
Power relationships affect the dynamics of the conversations and interactions through which
the power is exercised, particularly position and coercive power. It is determined “in the
moment” by those taking part and this “assessment” is significantly affected by the takenfor-granted assumptions that tend to channel everyday interactions in the organisation
The ways in which people perceive and interpret the behaviours of an individual through their own
and others’ interactions with them will affect their own beliefs about that individual, affecting things
such as reputation, felt trustworthiness and interpersonal charisma.
Embedded power
Power embedded in the structures, processes, ideology, language and other aspects of the
organisation that define formal rules and behavioural norms. For example, formal delegations of
authority and reporting systems provide privileged access to information, limit the decision making
ability of some people in relation to that enjoyed by others and emphasise the centrality or
otherwise of certain individuals and departments. Informal custom and practice has a similar effect.
Other examples include dress code, office arrangements, types of language, discussion topics.
Attempts are made to break this power, such as making terms politically correct, but that can
impose its own power structure by defining what is acceptable to those making the rules and so
sanctioning against those whose language fails to match up to the new orthodoxy.
“Containers” of embedded power are themselves cultural artefacts that have emerged from
previous sense making and use-making conversations. Sometimes, senior managers deliberately
seek to embed certain power differentials, such as by controlling levels of financial delegation,
adopting recruitment criteria. However informal coalitions theory suggests that where this occurs,
competing power networks would be likely to arise informally in reaction to this.
Back to contents
Options for political action
The main theories of organisational management support different intervention strategies for
political action and these are summarised in a model.
Back to contents
Phases of political action
There are five identifiable phases for political action:





Awareness
Entry
Engagement
Withdrawal
Consolidation
Change is a continuous process that is interspersed with management initiatives; it is hidden in
conversation, messy and informal. Since acting politically is part of this process, the phases of
political action are not clearly compartmentalised as there is a patchwork of issues requiring action.
Some areas will exist in a formalised, legitimate area, others will be in the shadow-side.
Changing the organisation involves interrupting the main patterns of conversation sustaining the
status quo and stimulating other conversations that focus on and develop alternative maps of
reality. Interventions are not one-off and outcomes emerge from the accumulated effect of many
distinct interactions through the progressive development of coalitions for support for new ways of
thinking and acting.
Awareness
Political awareness is of paramount importance:




Be aware of the underlying political dynamics of the organisation to validate the informal
coalitions approach to “acting politically” as a core part of effective leadership
Effective political action is built on an awareness of our own motivations, habitual behaviour
and vulnerabilities, distilled into our frame of reference providing the perceptual filter
through which we judge all significant actions and events
Power and politics are about interaction: awareness of the interests driving other people’s
behaviour, the stances they could take on particular issues and the tactics usually employed
Awareness of the current situation to decide if, when and how to act
Self-awareness
Effective and ethical political actions spring from:




A clear understanding of what we stand for – personal purpose and ethos – and the
organisation-enhancing agenda that flows from this
Awareness of and access to our personal sources of power
Recognition of our personal vulnerabilities and habitual defence mechanisms
Awareness of how we are seen by others – the nature and impact of our reputation
Awareness of others
In identifying and understanding other people’s interests, the leader is more likely to manage
political reactions otherwise the ability to implement proposals is undermined. By considering the
political aspect as soon as proposals are formulated, advocates of a particular position developing a
proposal can perceive and interpret the situation through their personal frame of reference and
attempt to shape the outcome accordingly and once others become aware of this, they will do
likewise: politics cannot be put onto the backburner.
Raising the awareness of the impact of key stakeholders involves “mapping the territory” within
specific events unfolding, so providing a base for interacting with them to shift their perceptions and
influence the actions that flow from these:



The power that people have to influence activities and outcomes, for better or worse
Their inclusion to become actively involved in the issue
The likelihood that their positions can be changed
Become aware of the formal and informal interrelationships of key players, their personal agendas
that influence actions and the political tactics that they tend to use to achieve desired outcomes.
Situational awareness
Interactions do not take place in a vacuum so remain alert to the broader political context within
which current interactions take place – existing conversational patterns and deeply embedded
assumptions sustaining them, to shifting power relationships, the risks and threats likely to affect
people’s responses to issues and events and be sensitive to moves that others might make.
Entry
The decision to choose whether or not to intervene and if so how: not all political activity is worthy
of a leader’s intervention. Under informal coalitions, the leader seeks to push on half-open doors
rather than a universal roll-out and sometimes the leader has to intervene in any case, however
where there is a choice, the leader needs to preserve political credibility rather than be drawn into
fights where the leader has no power. There are 3 situations where the leader should intervene:



To manage the on-going, structural tensions arising from natural dynamics in organisations
To deal with negative politicking that is undermining organisational capability or leading ot
other dysfunctional effects
To bring about organisationally beneficial changes to existing policies and ways of working
In considering “how”, the strategy should consider the issue and complexity of relationships involved
by constructing a core story encapsulating the main themes, one that appeals to a wide constituency
even though they may initially approach the issue from competing perspectives.
First, identify a compelling issue-specific outcome where people with diverse interests coalesce into
a temporary yet active coalition to make connections with other stories that have resonance with
their own constituencies and with members of broader relationship networks. This enables them to
maintain political credibility as well as possibly drawing others into the coalition. This story needs to
address the self-interest of key players as well as being beneficial for the organisation as a whole.
Critical questions to ask:


Is this issue organisationally significant?
Dies the proposed way forward resonate with people?



If not, how can we create options to address the issues and find resonance with a sufficiently
large group of people to overcome inertia and establish momentum?
How do competing agendas and alternative viewpoints play into this situation?
What can we do to embrace these and to build bridges to link the various agendas?
Second, timing of the political act is important – either to bide time or to press on – and its
importance is either the successful outcome of the issue or the political cost of getting there. Based
on situational awareness, this can only be judged at the time and usually takes the form of “planned
opportunism” – think through in advance but be ad lib in execution.
Engagement
Engagement is the active building of coalitions of support for ideas and changes that are
organisationally beneficial and personally meaningful for people, as seeded during the entry phase.
Focus on building momentum behind the issue, idea or change agenda, possibly by enabling it to
emerge from shadow side conversations to become a formal proposition. It may be about gaining
buy-in for change that has already been formally adopted, in which case pay attention to
psychological and emotional impacts of change if people are to be engaged fully. 3 critical factors:



The content of the story
The connections that can be made between key players within the developing coalition
The context within which the specific idea or change agenda is being put forward
The story content mapped out at the entry stage needs to be progressively developed and used to
inform everyday interactions as one-to-one intimate conversations – psychologically safe. As well as
planned opportunism, there needs to be “flexible rigidity” in developing story content – rigid in
advocacy of the essential elements and flexible in response to emerging ideas and issues.
Connections between people need to be encouraged, so questions to be asked:





Who are the natural advocates of the desired position?
Who has credibility with whom?
Who listens to whom?
Who are the key influencers?
Who are the people who act as natural connectors between different parts of the relevant
informal networks?
Role modelling by leaders is critical – the quality of the relationships forged and the extent to which
organisational infrastructure enables people to perform organisationally beneficial and personally
competent ways.
Withdrawal
Since coalitions are issue-specific, they are transient, so withdrawal in ways that preserves the
relationships established is important and it provides the opportunity for reflection and learning.
Since acting politically requires that relationships are established, it is important to maintain them
for future use. However some coalitions may have been marriages of convenience, so alternatively,
it may be about leaving on good, rather than bad, terms by taking time to acknowledge the
contribution made by the other party. However the dynamic of staff changes, particularly premature
promotion of the leader, can wreck this.
Consolidation
To sustain the power to influence change in the future, leaders have to be seen to achieve results as
well as to actually achieve them. 2 thing need to be done:


Ensure that the substance of the change agenda and the means of its delivery resonate with
people’s own views of what is required
Orchestrate the way that other people perceive, interpret and evaluate the contribution that
they themselves have made to its successful achievement – impression management
To respond positively to change, the leader must have credibility in both people’s eyes and also the
organisation as a whole, senior management in particular. From an informal coalitions perspective,
gaining a reputation for consistently helping the organisation to deliver its purpose and ethos in
ways that resonate with people’s own values and aspiration is an important part of acting politically.
Primarily, this depends on how this is framed in people’s minds, so leaders pay attention to the ways
in which results are formally reported back into the organisation and to remain alert to stories
circulating about the event in informal conversations. Formal results aren’t enough – outcomes have
no meaning until framed in a particular, socially constructed, way. The more powerful a story is in
terms of the sense it makes to people and the power of its advocacy the more likely it is to shape
people’s understanding.
To make a difference, leaders have a continuing impact on their organisation’s performance and
development and to ensure that their reputation and credibility continues to rise alongside the
delivery of tangible results. This needs active involvement in sense making by helping to shape
myths and stories around successes and failures. Note: this doesn’t involve falsifying what happened
nor taking undue credit.


Credibility is undermined if the success of the change does not match up to the rhetoric.
A parallel exists between:
 The way in which acting politically enables outcomes to be achieved which otherwise
would not be possible
 How lateral thinking enables new ideas to be generated which lateral patterns of
thought would have perverted from emerging.
Note: lateral ideas always appear obvious after the event or logical sense in retrospect even though
it would have been impossible to have reached the point by applying logic at the outset. Similarly,
the same applies where organisational changes have been brought about skilful use of political
action.
Actions and their outcomes must make sense to people in rational terms to be praiseworthy and
valid, so need to be rationally coherent, goal orientated, authoritative, and particularly to those
judgements of the leader’s ability, are critical to those whose judgements of the leader’s ability are
constructed.
Primary strategies used during each phase
Any or all four strategies identified in political options could feature in each of the five phases set
out above. However some strategies lend themselves more directly to particular phases than to
others:
Phase
Awareness
Primary
strategy
Everyday
conversations &
interactions
Main
focus
Self-reflection,
feedback from
others, disclosure
to others
Entry
Engagement
Providing vision &
embracing
paradox
Agenda setting
Withdrawal
Consolidation
Building coalitions
& providing vision
Everyday
conversations &
interactions
Everyday
sensemaking
conversations &
interactions
Results delivery
Relationship
strengthening &
reflective practice
Impression
management
Back to contents
A slightly different perspective
It’s said that more than half of workers (56%) said being involved in office politics is at least
somewhat necessary to get ahead in their career. Of 400 polled by a staffing agency, 15%
said playing the politics game was very important in advancing their career while 41% said it
was somewhat helpful, 42% said office politics didn’t make any difference. Two percent
were clueless.
There is some degree of politics at play in virtually every organization and the savviest
professionals practice workplace diplomacy. They remain attuned to political undercurrents
but don’t allow themselves to get pulled into situations that could compromise their
working relationships or reputation.”
This can be achieved as follows (but it looks similar to the above!):


Build a broad support. Don’t overlook those at the grassroots level. Gain the respect
and trust of all your colleagues. Share credit for successes and deliver on your
promises. You never know whose endorsement or vote of confidence could benefit
your career in the future.
Avoid smear campaigns. Gossiping or outright mudslinging is only guaranteed to
damage one person’s credibility: yours. When you’re upset or frustrated, wait until




after you’ve calmed down to express your concerns. Be direct but tactful. Focus on
facts rather than feelings.
Stay true to your values. There are those who’ll do anything to “win” — and we all
know who they are. But character and credibility count. You don’t need to play
underhanded games to rise through the ranks.
Connect with your constituencies. Smart candidates tailor their message and
approach to the audience. Apply the same tactic to your co-workers. Observe their
unique work styles, priorities and communication preferences — and be willing to
adapt your approach.
Play by the rules. Seemingly minor slip-ups can have big implications on the
campaign trail and at work. Avoid sticky situations by paying close attention to office
protocol. If you make a misstep, make amends quickly.
Dodge controversy. This is a big election year and water cooler chitchat will
inevitably veer toward the polarizing topic of politics. Proceed with caution (or
politely bow out completely). Getting into heated debates about non-work issues
can generate unnecessary ill will.
Back to contents