Bouncing Back

It's true... every human endeavor ever undertaken will, at some point, include the element of "politics." Some organizations will demonstrate very little of this behavior among its member population, while other organizations will seem to exist primarily as a forum for the political machinations of its members.

What do I mean by office politics? Broadly speaking, I define politics within an organization as any action that an employee takes for the purpose of advancing their own personal cause in lieu of advancing the broader cause of the organization. An employee's personal cause may vary from actions designed to impress the boss (thus increasing the employee's income and benefits) to organizational gossip designed to make one employee feel better at the expense of another.



If it's true that all organizations embody the common traits of humananity (both the good and the bad), then what factors determine the actual level of politics within a specific company or organization? It's been my experience that the level of politics in an organization will be determined primarily and directly by the tolerance of or preference for political behaviors by members of senior management.

T o better illustrate senior management's role in establishing an organization's environment, let's look at a worst case scenario of office politics. In this example, the Big Boss himself will have reached his current senior level of authority through the careful use of office politics. The position of the Big Boss is defined as the highest level position still involved in daily operational decisions of the company. This Big Boss may have pandered to the right people, taken credit for other people's successes, embellished and exaggerated his successes while shifting blame for his failures onto others, and carefully worked to destroy the reputations of talented individuals that might have competed with him. Now, having won the battle of appearances, he will have all the power he could want.

In our example, the Big Boss has not achieved his position through his skill, talents, people skills, or as a result of assembling a great team. This Big Boss has no core strengths to sustain his continued success. Yet this Big Boss will likely flourish for several years to come. In lieu of successful practices, he will craft his organization around a group of hand-picked subordinates who understand that, no matter what their job descriptions say, their primary job is to make the Big Boss look smart and powerful. These key subordinates will be richly rewarded for acting in a manner intended to prop up the Big Boss.

Now bear in mind, even in this worst case scenario, there will necessarily be some level of organization-oriented goals that will be fulfilled. But these organizational goals will be prioritized only to the minimum extent necessary to keep outside stakeholders (shareholders, employees, community) happy. In the end, this will be a completely dysfunctional organization built on office politics, but which still looks reasonably successful to the outside world.

The key to understanding our worst case example above, as well as all lesser variations of office politics, is to understand the completely rational behavior of the organization's individual employees that collectively leads to such a situation. Here's the key concept to consider:

"People will move in the direction in which they are rewarded."

If you think about it, we all know that humans are rational beings who each make hundreds of decisions per day based on what makes the most sense to them at the moment. In its simplest form, scientists have specified that human behavior is normally intended to either move a person toward pleasure or away from pain.

So how does this manifest within an office environment? In a company where the leader is smart, talented, charismatic and goal-oriented (an entrepreneurial leader), that leader will reward behaviors which support the financial, sales, production, or marketing goals of the organization. In a group where the leader is political, greedy, and unethical (a political leader), that leader will reward behaviors which fulfill his personal goals of greed and power.

Continued in Part 2...