Politics At Work
We had an interesting discussion in my Software Design class on Friday. We were discussing the role and necessity of “politics” in the workplace. I have to admit, politics really has a negative connotation for me, and I think it does for most people. Before class I’d have probably defined it something like “attempting to make yourself look better than others, often at their expense.” However, we were discussing it under more positive terms (some might disagree if there is such a thing).
Basically my instructor wanted us to realize that “politics” is essential in everything you do, particularly in business. He said anytime you adapt, or change the way you interact, with one person you’re essentially participating in politics. If you had asked me before class what I thought of “office politics” I probably would have become pretty emphatic in my disgust. However, I’d never thought of it in the terms we were discussing.
There was one student in particular who voiced his opinion that people should be apolitical. In other words they should speak and communicate exactly the same with their CEO as they would with their friends or spouse. The more he talked the more I could see the flaws and ultimate stupidity of that idea. It’s actually a paradox of sorts. To be apolitical you are essentially requiring everyone else to be political, or in other words adapt to you. Is it fair that one person should require everyone else to adapt to them? Also, what happens if two apolitical people are required to work together, or worse a group of apolitical people. The chances of them all having compatible interaction (or API as my instructor described it) is absurd. Even if they were able to work together, their effectiveness would be severely limited if they wouldn’t adapt to one another.
So how have a seen this in my work? I’ve seen it more than I realized. I’ve had quite a few students work for me in tech support roles over the last few years. When I first got this job and interviewed students I always looked for the one with the most technical and troubleshooting skills. I’d sit a computer in front of them and ask them to do a number of things and see if and how they did it. Not anymore, now I sit them down and just talk to them for a while. Naturally the discussion still revolves around the job but instead of looking for technical or troubleshooting skills, I’m looking for communication skills. I want someone who can communicate easily and effectively and can adapt their communication skills to the different people they’ll encounter. I think interviews have an inherent awkwardness to them and if someone can make me feel more comfortable, or even make me laugh (with them not at them 
), I’ll hire them over anyone else in a heartbeat.
This is because I’ve noticed a trend over the years. I noticed when people called the help desk for support, they weren’t asking for the most technical student, they wanted the student who communicated the best and could actually carry on a conversation with them. I quickly realized that technical skills really weren’t that important, at least with the student job. Since most help desk calls are usually similar to previous calls, I learned I could teach a student all the technical skills they’d need in a few months. I also noticed, as a Supervisor, I got along better with the students that had good communication skills. The result of having adaptable communication skills translates into being a more effective in the workplace.
So what did I learn from all of this? I need to be more adaptable. I mentioned I like it when I interview someone and they make the interview feel comfortable. Well…as the interviewer I think most of that responsibility should rest upon me, not them. That’s just a small example, though. Overall I think I just need to be a little more proactive and adaptable when I’m working with others. Basically I think it boils down to whether or not I’m trying to make the people I work with feel comfortable around me. For the most part I think I do a pretty good job of that, but I’m sure I can improve.
April 1st, 2003 at 11:44 am
Excellent entry with profound insights. I have never thought of office politics in a favorable light either. Much like you, I think of someone trying to get ahead in the workplace by either butt-kissing or stabbing someone else in the back. I don’t tend to like people who do either of those. Yet, in today’s business place, it can almost be considered naive to think that you can get ahead by simply performing well in your job. You need to play the politics game. When I think of politics, without the “office” prefix, I tend to think of a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours world. I think that is essentially what you are driving at in your entry. We need to be flexible, able to bend, and willing to adapt at work, both with people and policies. I’m sure there is some Chinese proverb to summarize this nicely. Something like, “The fleible reed does not break in the typhoon,” or something like that. In any case, I haven’t thought of office politics as a possitive thing before. Thanks, Jeff.
April 22nd, 2003 at 9:20 am
I’ve been studying this same theme in some of my organizational behavior classes and although we often think of the negative connotation, there’s a more encompassing idea of it that seems to be the norm in OB. The naiveness that Dave was talking about is often what we like to think of as being ideal. The bottom line is that you have to sell yourself. The negative connotation of office politics only comes from the unethical applications of it.
So my big question is this Jeff… Was I hired because you were laughing at me, or with me?