>> MIM Speaks
HEALTHY `OFFICE POLITICS' GOOD FOR FIRMS
FEB 09, 1997 -
NEW STRAITS TIMES
OFFICE politics? Most of us tend to view politicking as a
dirty word. In reality, it may be unwise to view it as
completely negative.
It is the same with money. Is it really the root of all evil?
It is true that for most of us the term "office politics"
evokes images of dirty tactics people use when trying to
out-manoeuvre each other for more power or win support of the
boss or for personal reasons.
Basically, inter-personal rivalry is the result of many
competing for one vacant position of power or for resources
that are limited. In a sense, it is a zero-sum game: that is,
winner takes all.
Conflict of interest may also be fueled by personal vengeance
or jealousy.
Owing to these factors, and many other invisible, selfish
motives, no one is surprised that office political
in-fightings end up with many casualties.
But how many of us instinctively react unfavourably to
politicking even though the competition may not be dirty? Many
of us may have formed negative impressions based on hear-say
from those who have failed to get the promotion which they may
not have deserved. A case of sour grapes?
It appears that an unfavourable impression of office politics
benefits the schemers more than the good guys. For one, it
discourages the good guys from engaging in the "competition."
They may say things such as, "If it involves currying the
boss's favour, or doing something against my personal
principles, you can count me out."
But such a view, especially by young graduates full of
potential, does not contribute to the long term
competitiveness of an organisation because all good managers
must have a healthy desire for power. The fact of
organisational life is that, without power, a manager is a
toothless tiger and ineffective in getting things done.
Because organisations, large or small, are political systems,
managers lacking power or who are not skillful in exercising
their power bases, will be ineffective in achieving corporate
or departmental goals through the workers under their
leadership.
It matters not whether we are talking about a profit-motivated
firm, a social club or a welfare organisation: unless power is
exercised correctly there will be chaos, indiscipline and most
disruptive of all, a power struggle. The result?
ineffectiveness, monetary losses and emotional pain.
Good organisations, little politicking
To assume that office politics is rampant in the corporate
world is not totally correct. It is safer to assume that some
organisations are good because the CEO and his top management
are professional objective and practise less favouritism.
They discourage infighting, minimise personal rivalries and
conflicts of interests. As a result, the energies of the
employees, instead of being wasted in internal conflicts, are
channelled to achieve common corporate goals and objectives.
Companies such as Toyota Motors Corpora tion, Singapore
Airlines and Hewlett-Packard are good examples. Through the
cooperative efforts of employees, they consistently achieve
healthy profits each year and stay ahead of their rivals.
* Good managers discourage politicking
Good CEOs, general managers or departmental heads discourage
office politics because they are fully aware of the harmful
effects (often long term). Like corruption, office politics
makes a few people happy, but the majority upset and
frustrated.
One of the most glaring symptoms of an organisation rife with
office politics is low worker morale. We all know that if a
manager practises favouritism (the most common
politicking-tool) it will demoralise workers and reduce
productivity.
As a general rule of thumb, low morale reflects the manager's
lack of skill in exercising power and (worse still) a blind
spot in them of politickings's harmful effects.
* Office politicking is not rampant
Managing an organisation or getting things done through people
is impossible without hierarchies of power and the delegation
of authority down the chains of command. Rampant office
politicking reduces a company's competitive edge its rivals.
The law of natural selection or the survival of the fittest
see to it that companies practising favouritism or nepotism
have less survival opportunities.
We can generalise that the greater the competition m the
market place, the lesser is the amount of unhealthy or dirty
politics. The survival of the company comes first and
incompetent sycophants or favour-giving managers who are more
concerned with personal motives will naturally be replaced.
As the pace of competition increases in Malaysia, competent,
skilful executives will be in greater demand than just power
driven executives.
* Making that paradigm shift
IT would be a pity if graduates, executives and Junior
managers stand on the sidelines and be mere spectators because
of false perceptions like:
1. "Office politics is not my cup of tea."
Whether we like it or not, as long as there is a group of
people with different interests wanting certain resources
(which are often limited) there will be "politicking".
Most of the time, even at homes, rivalry (among siblings) is
not harmful. In the corporate world, human desire for
achievement, position and power forces us into politicking.
2. "I lack politicking skills, therefore I am doomed."
There may be some confusion here as to what constitutes
politicking skills. Is it lowering our self-esteem to curry
our superior's favour in exchange for personal gains or to
ensure that a new project can only be implemented successfully
if we can gain the superior's support?
Is it the inability to flatter others, especially our bosses?
Or are we confusing politicking skills with interpersonal
skills?
Office politics need not be dirty if you have good
interpersonal skills and power bases such as expert and
personal power. We have also seen earlier that good companies
and good managers or bosses discourage dirty politics if they
have the future wellbeing of their companies or departments at
heart.
The use of dirty tactics is rather similar to the use of
coercive power. Both may achieve short-term results. But very
often the longer term consequences are detrimental.
For instance, coercive power gets compliance but not
commitment; and once in a while, finds a spanner in the
machinery. Dirty tactics destroy trust and creates suspicions,
leading to plots and counter-plots causing unhealthy
bottom-lines as well as sleepless nights for those involved.
* Organisations are both rational and emotional
Rational companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Matsushita,
Artwright or P.K. Electronics tend to be more successful and
competitive than their rivals. Such companies normally
discourage dirty politicking tactics.
Healthy competition for a vacant post is encouraged and the
one chosen is the one best suited and qualified. Instead of
favouritism or nepotism good companies prefer meritocracy.
Profit-motivated companies tend to rely on meritocracy as it
increases survival chances in the long run. It is because of
the need to prevent individuals from becoming totally
"corrupt" that organisations have a board of directors
overseeing the CEO or managing director.
Generally speaking, dirty office politics is more rampant in
companies where power and control is in the hands of one
person. In such situations, corporate decisions are less
rational and more emotional as the personality of the person
wielding power is imposed into the organisation.
|