I call it “the weeds” because it’s a dynamic that grows naturally, without any maintenance. It can be a good thing. In this quadrant, personal influence and informal networks rule. These two dimensions of power can provide us with the tools to navigate the four metaphoric domains. Political activity based on “hard,” formal, or explicit power draws upon role authority, expertise, directives, and reward/control mechanisms. Soft power is implicit, making use of influence, relationships, and norms. The second dimension of the political landscape is the extent to which the source of power is soft (informal) or hard (formal). At the other end of this dimension is the broader context, where politics operates at the organizational level. These can evolve into group-level behaviors. Political dynamics start with the individual player and their political skills. First is the level that political activity takes place. Navigating these domains requires awareness of two important dimensions. Each has different rules for skillful navigation. To address these challenges, we need to chart the political terrain, which includes four metaphoric domains: the weeds, the rocks, the high ground, and the woods. Thus, the first step to feeling comfortable with politics requires that executives are equipped with a reliable map of the political landscape and an understanding of the sources of political capital. However, what they find hard to acknowledge is that such activities can be for the welfare of the organization and its members. Whatever the situation, it is important to understand that the root cause of political activities are often scarce resources (including time pressures), social and structural inequalities, and individual personal motivations.Įxecutives can view political moves as dirty and will try to distance themselves from those activities. It is also occasionally necessary for employees to work behind the scenes to build coalitions of believers in a new vision to convince others. For example, it may be the case that a manager needs to exert a large amount of pressure on a team to get something done by using the power of their position over others. However, political behavior is also likely to be present, but not explicit, until it is too late. They also have a greater impact on organizational outcomes. Studies show that individuals with political skills tend to do better in gaining more personal power as well as managing stress and job demands, than their politically naive counterparts. So what is it? Organizational politics refers to a variety of activities associated with the use of influence tactics to improve personal or organizational interests. While we would be naive if we didn’t acknowledge politics as a potentially destructive force, when deployed effectively it can help the company meet its strategic goals and live up to its values, especially during organizational change. Thus it’s important for leaders to understand the forms it can take and how to use it for the well-being of the organization. According to McGill’s Henry Mintzberg, it’s just another influencing process along with norms, formal authority and expertise. However, the reality is that politics is normal. In short, he became the unintended victim trapped by what the Financial Times called “byzantine organizational politics.”ĭysfunctional politics can sink an organization, and yet most of the executives I teach react with distaste to the idea of being a savvy organizational politician. Even Streiff ended up concluding that it was the political nature of Airbus that prevented it from becoming an integrated company. There were reports of internecine feuding at Airbus: The internal atmosphere was tense jobs were allocated by preferences other than commercial criteria and mistakes such as insufficient cabling were a result of internal conflicts and mistrust. Streiff’s drive to speed up decision-making, overcome bureaucracy, and deliver rapid execution, exposed historic and deep divisions between executives at the consortium. However, for Airbus CEO Christian Streiff, it was just a brief window before his abrupt departure from the European aircraft company that’s part of the EADS consortium, along with DiamlerChrysler and Aerospatiale-Matra. The first 100 days are usually the honeymoon period for any new CEO to make their mark and get others on board.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |