Office Politics

“while some must, of necessity, rule and teach, so others must, of course, learn, submit and obey”

Hierarchies in organisations are smaller at the top. The best pay, best offices, most power and best perks are situated up there. Ambitious people will always try and reach the heady heights of an organisation and some will try and ascend the slippery pole by standing on the heads of those they pass on the way. To an extent some politics in organisations is inevitable, it may be the fastest way to get something done. It could be argued that some politics is even healthy, as it encourages groups to form and compete with one another to deliver the best possible solution.

At the risk of oversimplifying, organisations exist to make money, by employing people to create something worthwhile. Organisations, grow, in every sense of the word, by developing their employees. Consequently the good of the organisation becomes the primary goal, as without the organisation, no one is employed. The focus therefore needs to be the continuation of the organisation. A good CEO, recognises good politics and bad politics and guides the organisation accordingly so that it survives. The acid test of a good CEO is that something of value is passed to the successor.

Why therefore do we frequently find organisations so divided by politics that the continuation of the organisation is threatened?

I’m working in one at the moment. As an external consultant the politics should be of minimal consequence. However in this instance the UK board is divided by different reporting lines, some report to the UK CEO, others to the European Heads. The organisation is set up as a matrix, so some own services that others sell. One particularly large contract, (<40% of UK turnover) is under threat because of poor delivery. An independent outsider, properly empowered, should simply be able to bang heads together and get everyone pulling in the same direction except in this instance the politics is pathologically toxic. One group owns the unhappy client, another owns the resources to service the contract and make the client happy. To be fair this is exacerbated by the reporting structures, but the politics in this organisation is driving it to failure. My project has two sponsors. They won’t talk, they won’t meet and they blame each other for the increasing number of client issues. As a consequence I am getting bruised trying to get the two parties to deliver a successful solution that will ultimately keep them both employed. To be brutal, these people are endangering the livelihoods of everyone currently employed by this company. If I were an employee, I would be very angry. As a consultant, I will continue to get bruised until I fix the issue.

If you are at the top of an organisation, can you recognise and distinguish between good and bad politics, and more appropriately given the current economic climate, do you recognise the impact it will have? More importantly, what are you doing about it?

Surely the main objective for any organisation is to ensure that it continues to leverage its assets and resources to generate income into the future. This is the one thing that will ensure that your staff remain happy and healthy, that you continue to enjoy all the perks of top office and that when you retire or move on, you leave behind a worthwhile legacy.

If you are at the head of a organisation that isn’t doing as well as it should be, reflect on this for a minute and ask yourself if the politics in your organisation is healthy or toxic. If it is toxic, you need to fix it right now. If you would like an independent outsider to help you think it through. Contact me here.