>> MIM Speaks
TOP MANAGEMENT CAN HELP KEEP OFFICE POLITICS TO A MINIMAL
FEB 23, 1997 -
NEW STRAITS TIMES
OFFICE politics and good communication in a company are like
fire and water.
The two exist separately: where you find one, you don't find
the other. In a company with politicking activities you will
not find open and frank communication.
Instead, you will encounter interpersonal enmities and hatred,
unhealthy collusions and interdepartmental conflicts. How can
anyone speak out openly and frankly in such a situation?
Consider the case of Bakar Abdullah. As a fresh university
graduate, he joined a large local bank. Six months later he
tendered his resignation.
Basically, Bakar's complaint was that as a management trainee,
he felt frustrated that the very thought of going to work
every morning either caused a headache or stomach ache. There
was no friendly work environment and no cooperation among the
staff.
Whenever he approached colleagues for help, he got remarks
like, "You are a graduate and more senior than us we can't
teach you anything."
When Bakar approached the assistant manager, he found him so
stressed up with his own workload that he told Bakar to find
his own solutions. As for the manager, he was always in his
room and left the staff to themselves.
Left to their own devices the staff grouped themselves into
three major factions, each running down the other and bullying
the new recruits by loading all the dirty and menial tasks on
them.
Bakar was not spared the bullying. He was even labelled a
"playboy" for refusing to join any of the three factions. He
also found that the manager had three "favourites", one of
whom was a senior female accounts clerk related to him.
Bakar decided to throw in the towel because he made up his
mind that he should not rot there. He decided it was better to
get out before he got used to the unhealthy work culture.
`Truth the heart of good managent'
HAROLD Geneen, the former CEO of ITT, wrote in his book
Managing (1984) that "in order to safeguard the policy of open
and honest communications, it seemed to me that office
politicking could not be tolerated in any shape or form.
"I announced this in unmistakable terms. If anyone tried to
line up other managers to back his pet project in return for
his later vote, or it anyone tried to force a man junior to
him to give anything other than his honest opinion, he did so
in peril of losing his job. it was dishonest.
"Trust went to the very heart of good management. Decisions
had to be based upon an honest examinationef the facts and
...."
To be sure, whether an organisation or department is rife with
politics or not, depends entirely on the CEO, general manager
or departmental head. Harold Geneen's simple rule was a stern
warning against office politics.
Unless employees get a very clean signal that politicking in
any shape or form will not be tolerated, many will try their
luck to use tactics such as: (i) doing favours; (ii) forming
alliances or collusions; and, (iii) withholding information or
skills to make themselves indispensable and so on.
It would be rather naive on the part of CEOs, general managers
or departmental heads to remark that they can't rid their
firms or department of the destructive forces of trading
favours, collision or factionalism and the distortion of
information and so on.
Rule No. 2 in discouraging office politicking is the practice
of meritocracy. If bosess or departmental heads show no
favoritism, but reward or give recognition to their staff
based on their Performance and contributions toward achieving
department objectives or corporate goals, the energies and
brain powers of the employees will be diverted from
unproductive politicking activities, and automatically
chanelled to more productive ones.
But in reality it would be surprising to find organisations or
departments where the above two rules are practised. It is
much more common to find organisations where the following
politicking manoeuvres are used by individuals seeking power,
protection, favours and the like.
They will use one or all by the following tactics to achieve
their personal motives:
1. Doing Favours: When a subordinate provides services for his
superior, it is a case of currying favour. When a superior
does it, it is simply doing a favour.
But in both cases, the "doer" expects something in return.
There is an unspoken indebtedness or obligation to return the
favour.
But we must be careful not to assume that all "favours" are
bad. There is a general rule that can easily ascertain whether
the favours performed are conducive or destructive to an
organisation.
For instance, favours are sometimes performed to improve
rapport in interdepartmental relationships.
Because they improve cooperation between individuals and
departments, these activities are conducive.
They are destructive when favours are exchanged to satisfy
personal goals at the expense of corporate goals.
2. Alliances or Collusions: An insecure individual may seek
alliances with as many superiors as possible for
self-preservation.
In other situations, a departmental manager many collude with
others to discredit a rival and force him out of the company.
Generally speaking, alliances or collusions, in the context of
office politics, consumes energies that could better be used
to achieve a competitive edge over rival companies.
Because alliances or collusions mean taking sides with one
faction and antagonising other camps, it is suprising that
many managers condone such situations knowing fully well the
destructive effects they have on the company.
3. Making Oneself Indispensable: This is a common tactic used
to hold onto one's position.
If the individual is a manager he will surround himself with
"yes men" loyal to him. Or he will handle information in such
a manner that confusion or doubt is created and he has to be
consulted or his services required to put things right.
In reality, no one is indispensable in an organisation. It is
short-sightedness on the part of individuals to think that
making oneself indispensable is a good strategy.
This fallacy should be even more obvious when technologies and
the way business are run today are changing so rapidly.
But where organisations are concerned, it must be recognised
that "man is a political animal" as observed by Aristotle more
than 2,000 years ago, and that, organisational politic can at
best be kept to a minimal depending on the skill of the CEO,
general managers or departmental heads.
Effective managers and management trainees such as Bakar
Abdullah must strike a balance between rational management
techniques and people management skills.
In the final analysis, people-skills, namely interpersonal and
politicking skills are just as important as conceptual and
technical skills.
|