>> MIM Speaks
OFFICE POLITICS AFFECTS COMPANY'S BOTTOMLINE
FEB 16, 1997 -
NEW STRAITS TIMES
LAST week, we discussed the disadvantage of viewing office
politics in a negative light.
One reason for this is that in some organisations, jostling
for promotion, more power or higher pay is a way of life.
Even in families, especially rich and large ones, politicking
exists.
Whether we like it or not, no organisation is totally free of
power struggles. Therefore, it may be more useful that we
understand the mechanics of office politics and learn to
master it instead of being manipulated by others skilful in
the game.
In real life, we do find relatively less politicking in truly
world-class organisations.
Such companies are more successful vis-a-vis their rivals
because they are good at channeling staff energies. And this
is reflected in the form of higher profits and happier
workers.
In this article, we would like to define broadly what office
politics is, touch on some of its adverse effects and obvious
symptoms and, in the process, show how rampant office politics
not only weakens a company's capacity to making profits but
also create a work environment that is unpleasant for
employees.
What is office politics?
OFFICE politics evolves mainly around power, control position,
rewards, support from those in power and job security.
The players involved are individuals who can be grouped into
(i) those who hold power and exercise it and (ii) those who
aspire for higher positions, more power and benefits or
protection from being toppled.
What drives these individuals is the desire for personal
success or even vengeance. Because these drives are fuelled by
ambition or selfishness, the tactics used are seldom
gentlemanly.
And in such situations personal goals take precedent over
company goals.
Politicking,aclivities in organisations may refer to any of
the following:
(1) Individuals trying to curry favour with superiors or
others in return for personal benefits. They will resort to
flattery or perform special favours.
On the other hand, the less 'political' colleagues concentrate
their energies on company or departmental goals. But all too
often, their work goes unrecognised and unrewarded.
Management gurus and business schools generally ignore such
organisational inequality. They have yet found a way to deal
with emotions in the work place.
(2) Individuals, like department managers, who compete for
promotion or for a bigger budget for their own department.
In the corporate world, one measures of power is the amount of
money one controls. For example, a sales department is seen to
be the most powerful if its budget is bigger than that of
other departments.
In order to achieve their personal objectives, underhanded
tactics are used. It may be a case of distorting information
to discredit a rival manager.
Take for instance, an innocent remark by Albert the department
manager"John, our divisional manager, needn't have reduced the
price by another two per cent when my customer telephoned him.
He (the customer) had already agreed to buy it at the usual
price."
This remark is carried back to John's ear and deliberately
distorted to cause John to dislike Albert. Albert has, thus,
become a victim of someone else's politicking.
When the time comes for promotion or increment Albert will be
less favoured. His managerial abilities and business acumen
may be the best among the department managers, but John will
be biased against him.
When superiors like John play 'favourites' and reward
subordinates based on personal feelings, it will set in motion
many harmful activities that will weaken the company in the
long run.
(3) Managers fighting for greater control in situations where
roles overlap or where territorial authorities are unclear.
For instance, in-fighting between the managers of the R&D and
Products Department. Because of the nature of organisational
structure, there is always overlapping of roles or unclear
territorial boundaries.
In trading companies, conflict between the Sales and Credit
Control managers is very common. The situation is often
aggravated when the Financial Controller is very powerful and
protective of his own turf.
Even junior store clerks can frustrate sales managers by
deliberately delaying deliveries to customers.
(4) When a general manager's position is threatened, he often
resorts to collusion and the practice of 'divide-and-rule' to
avoid being toppled.
Consider the case of Raymond. As the longtime general manager
of a conglomerate, he now feels threatened by his divisional
managers, many of whom are younger, better qualified and more
dynamic than he is.
In order to secure his position, he must discredit them or
cause them to resign. He deliberately finds fault with those
perceived to be future threats or reduces their power bases by
establishing closer rapport with managers one level below
them.
And when opportunities arise, he finds ways to transfer his
potential rivals to a subsidiary.
Generally speaking when a CEO or general manager feels
threatened and insecure, the 'political' avenues open to him
are numerous. In addition to those mentioned above, another
very commonly used tool is the centralisation of power and
surrounding himself with those loyal to him.
(5) Department managers colluding with one another when
pressure from autocratic and domineering bosses become
unbearable.
This usually happens in family-run corporations where nepotism
is practiced. Individual department managers see the benefit
of 'ganging-up' as this protects them from being singled out
for punitive action or blame.
Consider the case of a furniture factory faced with producing
the required quantity to meet a shipment dateline. The
various departments collude to come up with the quantity by
overlooking quality.
When the customers complain, each department manager keeps
silent and lets the storm blow over.
In the corporate world the practice of I scratch your back,
you scratch mine the exchange of favours or 'IOUs' in order to
protect oneself or one one's department is not uncommon.
Disruptive Conflicts
DISRUPTIVE conflicts as a result of office politics can be
viewed from two broad angles: internal conflicts and external
problems with customers and suppliers.
(1) Internal Conflict Interpersonal rivalries: Most of the
above mentioned politicking activities inevitably lead to much
painful and disruptive emotions in a company.
In fact, when hardworking individuals do not get the
recognition or rewards they deserve the actions they take
against the company is labelled negative power.
A small number of employees (who are frustrated bitter jealous
or seeking revenge) may decide to exercise negative power
sabotage withholding or distorting information so that some
one may be hurt.
Because organisations frown upon interpersonal rivalries the
enmity exists as undercurrents.
(2) Interdepartmental rivalries: Companies rife with such
rivalries waste much employee energy and corporate resource.
Because of suspicion or lack of trust many activities are
duplicated. For instance each Sales Department sets up its
own information gathering unit instead of collaborating.
Unhealthy activities to block another department progress
plots and counter-plots are common.
Just as conflict between individuals releases negative
emotions rivalries among departments leads to factionalism and
frustration.
(3) Conflict Between Corporate & Departmental Goals: Earlier
we saw incidence ganging-up to protect the interest of a
department at the expense of company goals. When quality
standards are sacrificed for quantity, the repercussions are
obvious. Yet the instinct for self-preservation is stronger
and collusion the natural outcome.
External Problems with Customers & Suppliers: When individual
employees and departments get caught up in bitter rivalries
the spill-over adversely affects the firm relationship with
both customers and suppliers.
It is easy for rude employees to offend and drive away loyal
customers. It is equally easy for frustrated individuals to
leak out sensitive information on pricing or requirements to
suppliers.
Worst still sensitive information is sometimes leaked to
rivals. In the longer-run both the public image of such firms
and their profitability suffer.
Two Common Symptoms
ONE of the most obvious symptoms of rampant politics is poor
communications.
With poor communication among individuals and between
departments co-ordination of work and collaboration within the
company becomes almost impossible.
Many CEOs and general managers in such situations try to
improve communication within the company by organising more
meetings dialogues and so on.
Some even employ consultants to run team-building workshops or
courses on effective communications.
Such window-dressing not only waste money and time they send
wrong signals showing that top management IS not serious in
tackling the root cause of the problems.
The second very obvious symptom is low . morale. We all know
that political in-fighting causes much emotional pain and
frustration in individual employees which become translated
quickly into attitudes such as `tidak apa' anti-management and
so on.
Office politics is detrimental to the long-term health of
organisations yet few create work cultures that keep
politicking to a minimal.
Many opportunities exist for managers (both young and old)
with the necessary people-skills to create work cultures where
politicking is minimal to channel abundant employee energy
toward more productive pursuits.
|
