smart management, second edition: using politics in organizations

Smart ManagementUsing Politics in Organisations

David Butcher and Martin Clarke

Second edition

Smart Management

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page i

This page intentionally left blank

Smart ManagementUsing Politics in Organisations

Second edition

David Butcher

and

Martin Clarke

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page iii

© David Butcher and Martin Clarke 2001, 2008

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmittedsave with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of theCopyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licencepermitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP.

Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publicationmay be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors ofthis work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First edition 2001Reprinted four timesSecond edition 2008

Published byPALGRAVE MACMILLANHoundmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010Companies and representatives throughout the world

PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the PalgraveMacmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, UnitedKingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in theEuropean Union and other countries.

ISBN-13: 978–0–230–54226–6ISBN-10: 0–230–54226–3

This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fullymanaged and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturingprocesses are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of thecountry of origin.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 117 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08

Printed and bound in Great Britain byCromwell Press Ltd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page iv

Contents

List of Figures and Tables vii

Acknowledgements viii

Preface ix

List of Abbreviations xii

1 Organisational Politics 1All Change! 5Some of the Significant Drivers of Business Change 5The Nature of the Problem 10Politics is a Dirty Word 13A Powerful Alternative 18In Conclusion 22

2 The Illegitimacy of Politics 25Managerial Mindsets 26Hierarchy and Top-down Control 32The Illegitimacy of Politics 35The Unrealised Value of Politics 45

3 Legitimate Politics 50The Problem of Power 51Politics as the Application of Power 67Managers as Capable Politicians 78

4 The Capable Politician 80Conceptual Understanding 81Self-understanding 88

v

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page v

vi Contents

Awareness 90Interpersonal Skills 94A Model of Political Capability 98Personal Development Implications 103

5 Working with Legitimate Politics 105Understanding What Managers Do 106So Why Do Managers Do What They Do? 109Activity Patterns of Constructive Politicians 114The Complete Constructive Politician 142In Conclusion 148

6 Politics – The Essence of Organisation? 149The Democratisation of Organisational Life 151Education and Political Behaviour 158Individual Action, Politics and the Art of the Possible 162The Beginnings of an Agenda for Personal Action 165

Index 169

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page vi

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

1.1 The theory of planned change 11

2.1 The circularity of the rational mindset 45

4.1 A model of political behaviour 1004.2 The zone of constructive political behaviour 102

5.1 Don – the rational approach 1165.2 Dave – the politically capable manager 1205.3 Gerard – destructive politics 1275.4 Inica – constructive politics 1305.5 Colin – the disempowered 1355.6 Steve – the principled use of power

and stealth 138

Tables

5.1 A continuum of leadership behaviour 108

vii

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page vii

viii

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our colleagues Catherine Bailey, MikeMeldrum and Sally Atkinson, together with the many managerswe have worked with on our executive programmes at CranfieldSchool of Managment for helping us to develop the thinking thathas gone into this book.

Every effort has been made to trace all the copyright holdersbut if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisherswill be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the firstopportunity.

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page viii

Preface

A glance at the titles along the bookshelves, or in the cataloguefrom which you may have selected this book, might leave youwith the impression that over the last few years every funda-mental principle of managing and organising has come under themicroscope. Confronted with an endless array of potentialarrangements for managing customers, suppliers, partners andemployees, you could be forgiven for thinking that managementcan no longer take anything for granted. There is now, more thanever before, a plethora of possibilities for managers to choosefrom in their quest to create and sustain effective organisationsof every kind.

So have these sea changes in the business landscape led tofundamentally different ways of organising and managing? Afterall, we now talk of empowerment and organisational citizenshipas routinely as we might have talked of corporate planning andemployee loyalty twenty years ago. But when we strip away therhetoric, has anything really changed about our notion of organ-isations? Many people think so. Sumantra Ghoshal, a leadingmanagement thinker for many years, put it this way:1

Companies are trying to implement their sophisticated, multidimen-sional third generation strategies, through their de-layered, horizontal,second generation organisations – but they are still trying to do that withfirst generation managers – managers whose personal sense of theirroles and value added, and whose personal skills and competencies,have all been shaped by an earlier, outdated model.

ix

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page ix

Yet this outdated model is one in which hierarchical authoritystructures still greatly influence managerial thought in practice.Just imagine, for example, that you have been away from youroffice for a day, and you have returned to find three e-mails. Oneis from a colleague, one from your team and one from your boss. Each is marked urgent, but there is no other detail. Whichdo you respond to first? You probably won’t ponder the answerfor too long. Or consider how easy it is to challenge establishedprocedures, or question a change inspired by the board withoutthis potentially becoming career limiting. Organisations mayhave become delayered and flattened, but the role of hierarchyand authority still runs deep in managerial minds. In conse-quence, it is often argued that these elements appear to beinevitable in any form of organising. But it is the manner inwhich hierarchy and authority obscure the value of a differentperspective on managing that has prompted us to write this book.

For many years management theorists have discussed theidea that organisations are made up of competing and mutualinterest groups that sometimes come together to produce some-thing worthwhile. In other words, organisations are seldomuniform undertakings of rational, hierarchical co-ordination andaction. Instead, agendas constantly collide and align arounddifferent issues, and managers spend most of their time dealingwith this ‘inconvenience’. It is the stuff of politics, andmanagers, whether we like it or not, are politicians.

Many managers understand this of course. They experience itevery day, but this insight rarely develops in a way that helpsthem understand the centrality of politics to what they do, orhow they can use politics for organisational benefit. Instead,organisational politics are treated as illegitimate or, at best, withsuperficial understanding. In the minds of some, politics are nomore than the result of selfish motives displayed by those whohave little regard for teamwork and shared organisationalresponsibility. These kinds of misconception are naïve and canseriously mislead managers as to the real nature of organisa-tional politics.

x Preface

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page x

The record needs to be put straight. Understood as the processof mediating alternative views, management is politics. It is ourown view that the illegitimacy of organisational politics is one ofthe major reasons why third generation strategies are still beingimplemented with first generation managers. Many managers stillseem to feel uncomfortable about challenging the views of thosein more senior positions. For if politics are perceived as illegiti-mate in organisational terms, then how can alternative views beacceptable? We ourselves believe that concepts such as organisa-tional citizenship and empowerment are more rhetorical than real,and will remain so until managers are able to get to grips with theinevitable pluralism of organisational life. With this uppermost inour minds, we hope that this book challenges your notions oforganising and managing, and allows you to develop new andpractical ways of meeting your own personal goals in the bestinterests of the organisation for which you work.

DAVID BUTCHER AND MARTIN CLARKE

Cranfield School of Management, UK

Note

1. Ghoshal, S. (1997) The individualized corporation: an interview with SumantraGhoshal, European Management Journal, 15(6) 625–32.

Preface xi

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page xi

List of Abbreviations

BULs business unit leaders

CEO chief executive officer

HR human resources

HRM human resource management

IRA Irish Republican Army

IS information systems

IT information technology

MD managing director

MNC multinational corporation

MRP2 manufacturing and resources planning

SAP systems applications and products

VP vice president

xii

97802305_42266_01_prel 17/3/08 16:57 Page xii

C H A P T E R 1

Organisational Politics

We are writers and practitioners in the field of management andorganisation development. Over the last twenty years or so wehave had the opportunity to work, or at least talk, in depth withliterally thousands of managers. These managers have come fromall the continents of the world, from a very broad array of back-grounds and cultures, industries and jobs. Our relationship withthem arises because, by and large, they are all looking for answersto what they consider to be difficult, and sometimes intractable,management problems. The day-to-day, routine problems theysolve with relative ease, drawing on their practical knowledge ofwhat works and what does not work in the managerial world. Yetdespite this depth of experience, they can appear to be confused,disillusioned and disempowered, or alternatively, sometimes unre-alistically confident and buoyant. They almost always seem to belooking for models, tools and techniques to make their managerialand leadership roles easier and more fulfilling. It is not that theyexpect us to provide definitive answers. After all, they are usuallyworldly-wise people who know that organisations are too complexto be reduced to simple recipes for solving all managerial prob-lems. No – it is as though there is a piece of the organisationaljigsaw puzzle missing, something that they are not taking accountof, a core assumption they are making that does not hold.

1

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 1

We run up against this with so many managers we encounterthat it has left us thinking again and again about this ‘missinglink’. Why does the accumulated knowledge of organisationalbest practice and the science of managerial decision-making failthem so consistently? We keep coming back to this question,especially when we find ourselves talking to successful execu-tives who seem to be doing all the right things. The case of Danprovides a representative example.

2 Smart Management

Dan is the local UK Managing Director of a predomi-nately US-based business in a globally branded organ-isation. On the face of it, he felt he was doing rather well.In less than twelve months he had reduced the cost profileand refocused the business towards its most profitablemarkets. In fact the business was making more moneyunder his guidance than it had done in the last four years.Yet despite this, he had received feedback from his USboss that he needed to be more strategic. Dan wasannoyed by this view because he had made severalproposals to the executive board to acquire some comple-mentary e-business companies, but these had been turneddown. He was also receiving feedback from seniormanagement that his staff were concerned about hismanagement style. Here again he was disappointedbecause his annual 360-degree appraisal indicated thatstaff morale was good. His boss also criticised him for notworking more collaboratively with the other businessunits, despite the fact he was always telling his team totalk to these people. Evidently they weren’t. As a result ofall this Dan was confused. If he needed any help at all, hethought, it would come from exposure to some new ideason strategy, getting in touch with the latest thinking …but then again, he reasoned, he had only recently been ona leadership programme at a top US business school.

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 2

This case is not unique; it reflects themes that we encounterevery week in every management situation. Contradictory feed-back, confused strategic focus and poor interpersonal relation-ships are but a few of these. And so we are confronted with abasic question. Why?

To judge from the amount that is written about ‘the changingface of business’, you could be forgiven for thinking that theanswer should be obvious by now. Pick up any journal aimed atpractising managers. There are more new techniques and bestpractice breakthroughs, together with accounts of world-classorganisations that are apparently forging ahead through strategyworkshops, employee engagement programmes, in-house leader-ship development initiatives, or ‘master classes’ at corporateuniversities. There is no shortage of remedies for business prob-lems, all of which are offered against the backdrop of the needfor organisational transformation as the world changes in ever-shorter timeframes.

Globalisation, technological advances and rampant competi-tion, it is argued,1 are the driving forces, and they are clearly veryreal. But is this really resulting in a basic shift in assumptionsabout the essential ingredients of organisation and the fundamen-tals of management? The answer is ‘yes’, in the sense that thesechanges are supposedly clearing away the flotsam of old organisa-tional thinking. We are told that agility, constant innovation,collaboration and chaos are the future. This means that, in theory,managers are turning into flexible knowledge workers whonetwork, build portfolio careers and who achieve a healthywork–life balance. So when they complain that ‘there is no clearbusiness strategy’, ‘I don’t know what I’m supposed to be doing’,‘I’m asked to do contradictory things by different people’, ‘myboss never gives me enough resource’, or ‘I never get to see thekids enough’, it is very tempting to see these problems as simplypart of an inevitable transition towards a different way ofworking. Except for one thing – they are not new complaints.They can certainly be traced as management development andorganisational improvement themes over the past forty years,probably much longer. And so we are left with the inconvenient

Organisational Politics 3

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 3

but intriguing possibility that they are indicative of a more deep-seated organisational dilemma that extends well beyond the moveto new forms of work and organisation.

This is what interests us. Organisations appear to be constantlychanging yet something is clearly staying the same. Something isdistorting or at least filtering the momentum of continual changeon contemporary organisations. That ‘something’ is what we havecome to describe as the rational mindset. It is set deep in the foun-dations of organisational architecture but can be observed in therhetoric that companies use to enforce their vision and values. Itcan be seen in the way that organisational culture changeprogrammes push for unrealistic levels of collaboration, and inhow formal authority is sometimes misused to quash dissensionand conflict. More importantly, it can obscure the role of indiv-idual self-interest and action in actually bringing about change.Or to put it another way altogether, it can suppress the role oforganisational politics as a key component of managerial activity.We believe that it is the long-standing interplay between therational mindset and organisational politics that lies at the heart ofwhat we are seeing. Organisational politics represent the missinglink, and drawing attention to it as central to managerial work isthe aim of this book. More specifically, the book is a practicalguide for managers on how to work with both the organisationalrationality that is expected of them, and the inevitable conflict ofinterest they see between themselves and others, sometimes moresenior and influential than they are, but which it makes littlesense to deny. It is a book about how to use all that is good aboutpolitics, and to do so with skill and a clear conscience.

In this, the first chapter we will set out that proposition for you,the reader, in more detail. We will briefly examine some of theissues facing organisations today and how they are trying to meetthese challenges. This ‘change management focus’ will enable usto explore the endemic nature of the rational mindset, and itsinfluence on companies as they try to readjust to the demands ofthe twenty-first-century business environment. It will then beeasier to see how, in consequence, organisational politics havebeen largely seen as a major block to meeting these challenges.

4 Smart Management

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 4

The rest of the chapter will explore why politics are important anda potentially positive force, and how this book will reframe theuse of power and politics in organisational life as a valuablemissing discipline of effective management.

All Change!There is widespread agreement about how rapidly the world ischanging. A few years ago, one of the leading consultanciesproduced a statement to the effect that by the time someone borntoday reaches the age of twenty-one, everything known in theworld will have doubled. Of course, this wildly intuitive ideacannot be proven, but the sentiment provides an interestinginsight into how people are now thinking about the pace ofchange. Not surprisingly, the ‘business and management’ displaysin airport bookstores bulge with offerings from authors keen toexplain to us how these seismic shifts in the tectonics of businessare affecting corporate strategy. It is not our intention to replicateany of this analysis in detail here, but a summary of the mainconsiderations can be found below. Suffice to say that the signifi-cance of these huge and emerging changes has been, and willcontinue to be, the subject of conversations in boardrooms, cafe-terias, corridors and conferences throughout the business world.


Some of the Significant Drivers of Business ChangeThe Impact of Technological Advances

� E-business: increasing the depth and breadth of accessto markets, and individual customers, enhancing co-ordination with suppliers, the growth of ‘infomediaries’,fragmentation of businesses into smaller entrepreneurialorganisational forms.

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 5

6 Smart Management

� Communication: linking PC and non-PC products,increasing the speed of decision-making and changingwhere work is carried out, enhancing the co-ordinationof dispersed activities.

� Production processes: automation, driving down costsand streamlining processes.

� Biotechnology: creating new markets.

� Reducing the opportunity for long-term competitiveadvantage: the early maturation and saturation of mar-kets, early redundancy of plant and equipment,increasing the need for innovation.

The Drive for Innovation

� The opportunity to achieve mass customisation:explosion of customer choice, the increasing power ofbuyers, customers designing their own products.

� Investment and exploitation in organisational know-ledge: empowering individuals to apply their know-ledge closer to the customer, attracting and retaininginnovative talent, an increased investment in R&D.

� The learning company: establishing looser, more fluidorganisational forms and working environments tofacilitate continual learning and creativity.

The Impact of Globalisation

� Convergence of business practices: disproportionateinfluence of multinational corporations (MNCs) on theworld economy, the impact of government and the trend

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 6

The consensus that has been emerging from these discussionsover the last few years indicates that these changes are influ-encing the nature and experience of all aspects of business andorganisational life. A business paradigm is emerging in whichorganisations have less well-defined boundaries, and are in prac-


towards deregulation, the ‘westernisation’ of businessand business practices, the emergence of global brandsand the powerful economies of China and India, andpotential new economies in South America.

� Easier access to markets and increased competition:the importance of global supply chain managementand logistics, shifting production centres to exploitcheaper labour.

� Developing international mindsets: changing manage-rial work patterns, identifying and developing expa-triate management and international leaders, workingaround time zones, across borders and in virtual teams.

The Concern for Business Ethics

� The socially responsible management of organisations:global warming and the impact of organisations on theenvironment, concern for gender and racial equality,the growth in socially responsible investment.

� The role of organisations in society: the impact of thevalues of MNCs in Third World countries.

� People as an organisation’s greatest asset: the develop-ment of ‘human capital’, the increasing importance ofhuman resource policy, promoting work–life balance.

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 7

tice highly interdependent with other organisations in the supplychain or ‘industry set’. Companies are ‘unbundling’ themselvesfrom unprofitable business legacies and concentrating on lever-aging core competencies that are the source of sustainable compet-itive advantage. Consequently, more than ever, it is said,corporations will rely on the power of inspirational leadership toproduce a unity of purpose among highly employable individualswho can take their intellectual property elsewhere. As this newbusiness paradigm gathers momentum, those employees willbecome ‘citizens’ in organisational communities,2 in which thestrategic value of individual know-how will ensure that people areaccorded the autonomy and respect they desire and deserve.Organisations will therefore place a premium on stimulating inno-vation, and on staff sharing their tacit knowledge in highperforming and collaborative teams. More and more people willhave the opportunity to tele-work, restoring their work–life balance, and companies will be genuinely concerned todevelop people as individuals, not as ‘heads’, ‘hands’ or ‘humanresources’. Familiar scenario building?

Some of these shifts are already with us and some may or maynot transpire in reality. That is in the nature of predictions aboutfuture scenarios. And because the changes are global and all-embracing, they are by definition on an unprecedented scale. It istherefore understandable to argue that they make demands whichmanagers are not used to, and will struggle to understand. Whocan be blamed for feeling confused and displaced in suchcircumstances? Not only that, but if organisations struggle toadjust, surely that too is entirely understandable.

It is a seductive line of reasoning, but at the same time itobscures a key question. Does the novelty and scale of thechanges truly explain the high degrees of uncertainty apparentlyexperienced by managers? After all, some of these shifts havebeen troubling business for some time. Consider, for example,the idea of people finally emerging as an organisation’s ‘greatestasset’. That has been a feature of the business landscape for atleast the last thirty years. Similarly the power of visionary lead-ership and high performing teams has been core curriculum for

8 Smart Management

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 8

management development programmes since the 1970s. Thesame can be said of the need to stimulate organisational innova-tion, or about the importance of reducing working hours.

Clearly, organisations have found these kinds of changesextremely difficult to introduce. Even today, the number oforganisations that reflect these qualities in depth and breadth arefew – too few to describe as a sea change in business attitudesand values. What is more, the many journals that report thebreakthroughs in management practice in these companies areequally liberally sprinkled with studies that reveal rising levelsof employee stress3 fuelled by:

� People’s day-to-day experience of organisational life; inade-quate communication, limited participation, discourteoustreatment, management incompetence, racial and genderdiscrimination, and the use of management fads

� Individual job/role frustrations; role ambiguity, role conflictand work overload

� Reports of organisational injustice in terms of higher executivepay, harsh layoffs, unjustified corporate profits and corporateirresponsibility.

It is a catalogue of problems that brings us right back to whatinterests us most. Why are employees still reporting these kindsof issues at a time when such concerns are supposed to beresolved through new organisational forms and workingpatterns? Our answer is the deep-seated influence of a rationalmindset on managerial thinking. It pervades all aspects of organ-isational activity from team working to strategy development. Itis central to what organisations are supposed to be: orderedgroups of people working collaboratively towards a commongoal or strategy.

This same pervasiveness inevitably provides the guidingprinciples for addressing the core task of all contemporaryorganisations: managing organisational change itself, which inturn has a fundamental consequence. Many rationally driven


97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 9

change management processes simultaneously build new diffi-culties into the transformations they are there to facilitate. Forthat reason the well-established conventions of changemanagement provide a very useful way of illustrating what therational mindset means in practice, exposing some of the keyvalues and ideas upon which it is built. Let us briefly focus onthis change management theme to see what it can reveal aboutthe rational mindset.

The Nature of the Problem

In the rational model of management, organisations aresupposed to be places of corporate unity in which all employeeswork with consistent strategies cascaded down through thevarious levels and processes of the organisation. This is acommon sense basis for efficient and effective working. Sowhen change is perceived as necessary, usually by seniormanagement, the outmoded way of working is substituted foranother, more effective one. Conventions of change manage-ment, therefore, have been built on the logic of consistent top-down processes that establish conformity and control in thewider interest of efficiency. Direction is provided from the top(see Figure 1.1) and backed by vision and value statements thatreflect strong judgements about acceptable behaviours which, inturn, implicitly or explicitly discourage dissension from thatvision. Participation and consultation are generally onlypermitted within this framework. Once employees appreciatethe rational logic of collaboratively working towards commongoals, it is believed, they will share their organisational know-ledge in the wider interests of the enterprise.

We caricature the ‘rationality’ of top-down change to illustratea basic point. Even when these principles are overlaid with theimpression that participation and involvement are a central pillarof good practice (as with senior management-led question andanswer sessions, or focus groups), change processes never seem

10 Smart Management

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 10

actually to run this way in reality. More often than not therequired change falters on issues of personal power and self-interest, becoming remoulded and reinterpreted. Yet despite this,and the reality of the wholesale changes facing organisations,these basic principles have formed the centrepiece of changemanagement for many years.

There is a now a burgeoning body of opinion in Europe andthe US, from academics and practitioners alike, that top-downprocesses of change actually undermine the chance of stimu-lating the empowerment and motivation that they seek to instil.4

Study after study reveals employees from the top to the bottomof companies who have become frustrated, stressed and disem-powered by processes of organisational change that are designedto unleash their potential, not diminish it. Despite this evidence,‘thought leaders’ on the new economy still promulgate thenotion that vision and corporate higher purpose provide theessential point of stability and motivational framework, therebyenabling employees to commit themselves to an organisation.Above all, what this ignores is the self-interest and partisanmentality that is not only inherent in organisations, but if seen asdestructive, becomes just that. Unwavering adherence to the


Figure 1.1 The theory of planned change

Perceived need for change(sometimes vision)

Senior management createplan (involving others?)

Organisationalstatus quo

Vision strategyCulture structure

Unveil plan and seek‘buy-in’

Implementation by‘middle’ management

New ways of workingadopted by organisation

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 11

12 Smart Management

principles of rationality, then, is eventually self-defeating. TheDuke of Wellington observed after the battle of Waterloo thatNapoleon tried to advance in the old style, using the old tech-niques, and was defeated by the same defensive response thathad always defeated him. Much the same could be said of thechange strategies of business leaders who continue to tackleorganisational renewal from a rational perspective, without duerecognition of its intrinsic flaws.

It is our belief that this pervasive and deep-seated drive forrationality and unity of purpose always has been, and continuesto be, the major block to organisations in their efforts to adaptsuccessfully to the ever-increasing discontinuities in the funda-mentals of business. These rational principles are usually appliedwith the very best of intentions but without a full recognition ofthe impact they have on the behaviour of organisationalmembers. This is not to do with the value of rationality itself orwith the notion of hierarchy; these two concepts appear funda-mental to all organising. No, the problem lies in the indiscrimi-nate application of these ideas, implicitly underminingalternative viewpoints, and hence the value of constructive self-interest in creating organisational improvements. For example,Motorola, a global company of over 65,000 employees, used tohave a compensation and benefits strategy based on exportingUS ideas to the rest of the corporation, including an incentiveprogramme that awarded Motorola stock for high performance.This meant cascading the principles of the US scheme acrossmany different cultures and legal frameworks. The result was ahugely expensive white elephant. Stock options were not consid-ered as worthwhile incentives in many Motorola operations, andthe company eventually discovered that in the Philippines, forexample, employees valued different benefits like a weekly five-pound bag of rice. This is a simple example, but illustrates thedifficulty of factoring local interests and alternative views into arational and hierarchical mindset.

Our core assumption in writing this book is that personalisedand sectional interests, and the alternative viewpoints that theygenerate, are fundamentally important for the effective working

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 12


of organisations in the future. This understanding is based on thereality that organisations cannot be places of unity. As inMotorola, individuals bring their personal interests and aspira-tions to the workplace with them, and these are not usually easilyreconciled to concerns about shareholder value and economicvalue-add. This plurality of interests is therefore equally as impor-tant and implicit as is rationality in the management of organ-isations. Having come to this recognition, it is axiomatic toacknowledge that organisations are essentially all about politics.In reality, managers are engaged in a ceaseless process of dealingwith these differences, of positioning their own interests inrelation to those of others, including the organisational changeagendas of top executives. And of course, reconciling alternativeviewpoints is what politics are all about.

Most seasoned managers readily acknowledge this becausecoping with competing interests is routine experience for them.It is not a new element in managerial work, but therein lies afundamental problem. The rational organisational mindset hasalways defined plurality of interests in general, and self-interestin particular, as illegitimate. ‘Constructive politics’ is a contra-diction in terms for many managers. As a principle of organ-isation it certainly does not enjoy equal status with rationaldecision-making in being an official or rightful means ofworking through differences. Perhaps the tremendous pace ofchange is only now revealing to us the central nature of politicsin organisations, and the value of constructively using mutualand competing interests for individual and organisationalbenefit. So what holds us back from seeing this, and what do weneed to do to reframe organisational politics so that they can beused for productive purpose?

Politics is a Dirty Word

Perhaps the biggest difficulty in seeing the constructive value oforganisational politics is the reputation they have. The common

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 13

perception of politics is well summarised by Beverly Stone inher book Confronting Company Politics:5

The term company politics refers to all the game-playing, snide, themand us, aggressive, sabotaging, negative, blaming, win–lose, with-holding, non-co-operative behaviour that goes on in hundreds of inter-actions every day in your organisation. Those who indulge in companypolitics do so in order to achieve their personal agenda at the expense ofothers in the organisation. In the process, they demoralise the motivatedand sabotage the company’s success. Given their limited numbers, likeone or two bad apples souring the whole barrel, they are disproportion-ately powerful.

This highly judgemental description is interesting because itembodies many popular assumptions about politics. First, itsuggests that politics are seen to be entirely concerned with div-isive self-interest and personal agendas. The implication here isthat personalised interest cannot be positive and is, by definition,bound to ‘sabotage the company’s success’. Second, it is only afew ‘bad apples’ who ‘indulge’ in politics – ‘politics’, therefore,represent something that certain others visit upon the rest of usrather than something endemic to managing. Furthermore, poli-tics are by definition ‘non-co-operative’, which of course essen-tially runs counter to the idea that political processes areconcerned with respecting differences. With value judgementslike these it is hardly surprising that ‘politics’ has come to beseen as a dirty word.

We can also see in this description the power of the rationalmindset in undermining the potentially positive aspects of polit-ical activity. Many of Beverly Stone’s propositions are clearlybased on the rational values of collaboration, unity andconsensus. The stronger the influence of the rational model, theweaker the proposition for constructive politics becomes.Because the influence of the rational model is generally sodeeply felt in assumptions about the nature of management itself,appreciating the value of alternative approaches can beextremely difficult. Take the following example.

14 Smart Management

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 14

This rational view is reinforced time and time again. Earlier weused the example of top-down change initiatives to reveal theworkings of the rational mindset, but it is crucial to emphasisethat its reach is to be felt in all forms of management and organ-


We encountered a group of managers attending a ‘work-shop’ investigating new approaches to teamwork. Theywere debating the problems of truly getting people toco-operate effectively, believing that conventional teamdevelopment failed to get to grips with the stresses anddemands of increasingly ambiguous job roles andcomplex organisational structures. Interestingly, theyacknowledged that some of the values underlying theidea of teamwork, such as trust and collaboration, wereoften unattainable or took too much effort to create.They went so far as to recognise that individuals havemotives and goals that often conflict with companypolicy, and therefore getting a team to commit exclu-sively to a common goal, without acknowledging theimportance of personal agendas, may be pointless. Thegroup then turned their attention to considering whatshould be done to use teams more effectively. Theirresponses came straight from the pages of the rationaltextbook. They decided that more effort needed to beput into establishing clear goals, roles and strong lead-ership, and that greater priority needed to be given tocreating clear procedures and performance measuresthat closely reflected organisational strategy. By theclose of the workshop, they had created a set of recom-mendations that was largely indistinguishable from thebest practice advice they had believed not to work in thefirst place. They had become trapped in the logic ofrational management.

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 15

isational activities. We see it, for instance, in centralised humanresources (HR) policy that seeks to instil common behaviours, orin appraisal systems based on the notion that people can beassessed on ‘objective’ criteria unsullied by personal views. It isembedded in the language we use to create business strategy –words and phrases such as ‘mission’ and ‘strategic intent’ reflect asense of unity and control. Against the strength of these images itis little wonder that some managers find it hard to see any alterna-tive way of thinking about organisations.

Organisational politics are also sometimes equated with theseamier side of governmental politics. For many, parliamentarypolitics are often focused on adversarial battles and brokenpromises, and the pursuit of power is seen to be an end in itself. These images are just too powerful not to spill over into parallels with organisational life, where formal authority is similarly often seen to be abused for personal gain. This pers-pective is amply demonstrated by the results of a survey under-taken by the authors6 among senior managers from a diverserange of organisations, who had all embarked on substantialchange initiatives.

16 Smart Management

The managers were asked questions about how they intro-duced their changes, what resistance and co-operationthey experienced and how this was managed. Well overhalf the survey reported that key decision-makers andbosses were resistant to the ideas put forward bymanagers. In forty-four per cent of these cases, formalauthority was used to block the ideas, rather than goodlogical argument. Just old-fashioned ‘I’m the boss’, withno further explanation offered. The interpretationsplaced on this resistance from decision-makers by thoseintroducing the change were very revealing. To them, theunderlying causes were to do with personal self-interest

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 16

It is not surprising, therefore, to find managers using wordssuch as ‘secrecy’, ‘lobbying’ and ‘spin’ to describe organisationaland governmental politics alike. Even in the world of businessschools, where such emotive descriptions should be replaced withanalytical enquiry, politics have been viewed as an ‘ugly duck-ling’, ‘a distasteful but persistent phenomenon’ and an ‘irrationalintrusion’.7 Certainly, many academics recognise the pluralisticnature of organisations, but nevertheless, in standard texts onorganisational behaviour, politics usually only warrant a sub-heading in a chapter with a title such as ‘power and conflict’. Castas merely another aspect of organisational life to be considered bythe student of human behaviour, the centrality and role of politicstend to be obscured and marginalised.

All these factors combine to create a negative conception ofpolitical activity in organisations. Inevitably, therefore, our firsttask in this book is to try and recast politics in a more favourablelight. Interestingly, our survey just referred to provided aglimpse of how powerful a constructive political perspective canbe. Six months into the implementation of their changeprogrammes, eighty per cent of the managers reported that theirgreater awareness of personal interest was of direct use in effec-tively managing their boss and other key decision-makers.Furthermore, they felt that their own acceptance of theinevitability of political motives was crucial to the success oftheir change projects. No less than ninety-five per cent saw theneed to manage political behaviour as central to the task ofmanaging change.


reflected in concerns for loss of control, challenge topersonal competence, and loss of face and status.Furthermore, nearly half of those resisting were covert inthis, choosing to be ‘economical with the truth’ abouttheir real concerns.

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 17

A Powerful Alternative

The individuals who took part in our survey were a small sampleof the many managers with whom we have worked over the lasttwenty years. Much of this work has concentrated on enablingthem to take a much more critical perspective of the rationalmodel and of the value of constructive political action. Our workwith them is based on four core ideas, and they form the basisfor this book. These ideas are appropriate at any level ofmanagement, and we have seen them successfully applied inmany different cultures, countries and industries because theyare inseparable from the process of managing itself.

The Centrality of Politics to Organisations and Managing

First, we ask you to think of organisational politics as central toall significant organisational activity. If organisations are morerealistically perceived as collections of competing and mutualinterest groups, then politics, the process through which thesediffering perspectives are reconciled, is the way that change isrealised, strategy formulated and so on. We therefore define poli-tics as those deliberate efforts made by individuals and groups inorganisations to use power in pursuit of their own particular interests.Because vested interests are part and parcel of managing,managers are in effect engaged in a continual process of polit-ical positioning. This involves them influencing in ways that arenot seen as part of the ‘official’ range of managerial activities –lobbying and behind the scenes alliance building, for example.

For those of a rational persuasion it is tempting to see wordslike ‘lobbying’ and ‘positioning’, and interpret them from arational standpoint. Of course, such activities are a necessarypart of management, whatever perspective one uses, but theytake on a different hue when working from a political perspec-tive. For those who understand the centrality of politics toorganising, such activities represent the task of management, asopposed to being something that managers sometimes have to do,reluctantly and even against their better judgement.

18 Smart Management

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 18

Understanding the centrality of politics to managing is thefoundation for recognising personal interests as a way ofunleashing energy and motivation to get objectives achieved.Political activity, far from ‘sabotaging company success’, offersthe opportunity to build on mutual and competing interests forthe long-term benefit of the organisation. This assertion is basedon the simple truism that individuals are much more likely to bemotivated to make things happen when they can see a personalrelevance for doing so. In the rational model of top-downchange, personal relevance is often too far removed to be of realconsequence. Corporate higher purpose has never been sufficientto engage everyone at the same time in an organisation. It is lesslikely still to sustain the motivation and commitment required tomake things happen in fast moving and pressurised organ-isations. Furthermore, well-intentioned ideas that are in opposi-tion to one another can be an asset, not a liability. They cancreate productive conflict that stimulates innovation, ‘thinkingoutside the box’, and so on. Reframed in this way, managingcompeting interests is critical for organisations to be able to rein-vent themselves constantly in the face of furious environmentalchange, as we are for ever told they need to do.

The Principled Use of Power

At first sight, this idea may seem unduly positive or even naïve;there is a fine line between the use and abuse of power, andmanagers are always familiar with the dangers of uncouplingpower and politics from an ethical framework. The single-minded pursuit of power through political means has been withus since Machiavelli, and the idea that managers should seek toextend their personal power in pursuit of vested interests there-fore requires a robust justification on our part.

How, then, can the negative aspects of personal agendas andpotential abuse of power be managed? Can there be effectivepolitical behaviour without it inevitably becoming deceitful andunderhand? The answer to these questions lies in generating a


97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 19

clear understanding of the relationship between power, theability to influence others, and the political process itself. Ironi-cally, given the widespread scepticism about the process ofgovernment on a global scale, it is the principles of democracythat provide a model for us to understand how power can be usedin the long-term interests of others. In the realms of government,politics in theory represent the battle of just causes that reflectfundamental values in society. So long as causes are principledin this way, there is no issue over the legitimacy of the activity ofpolitics itself, even though much of it takes place outside thedebating chamber, in corridors and behind closed doors.

There is an important parallel here with business. Managerswith great visions for their organisations go far beyond arguingtheir case in formal meetings in order to achieve their goals. Thesame ‘behind the scenes’ lobbying and positioning is at work.Their reasons may sometimes be less transparent than politiciansin the world of government, but that in itself need not make themany less principled. However, the process they use does not enjoythe same authenticity in organisational terms as it does in theworld of government. We will explore these issues as we proceedin order to show that once political work is seen as a legitimatemanagerial activity, the problem of personal motives diminishes.

Balancing Individual and Organisational Motives

In the formal institutions of democratic government, the causesand political principles are clear and well articulated. In the daily‘to and fro’ of organisational politics the principles will be moreopaque. Thus one manager’s ‘just cause’ of improving businessperformance may be another’s reduced headcount or forcedredundancy. In such circumstances, who defines what is ‘in thebest interests of the organisation’? After all, it is possible toproduce an organisational justification for almost any kind ofaction, even for the most blatant of self-serving agendas. So,central to the idea of principled political action is the need forindividuals to achieve a balance between self-interest and action

20 Smart Management

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 20

in the interests of others. Constructive politicians need to be ableto create a meaningful justification for their agendas. It must bebuilt on a clear understanding of the key business issues to betackled as they see them, and on how progress with these will beenabled through influential relationships.

For any one of us that is difficult to achieve, and there areconsiderable implications for the development and capabilities ofmanagers. Being able to balance motives in this way is not simplyachieved by the acquisition of new managerial knowledge,concepts and frameworks. It requires a substantial commitment tolearning that enhances personal and interpersonal awareness, soas to be able to understand well one’s own motivations and themotivations of others. It demands a critical perspective on whatreally makes organisations work, so as to see beyond the superfi-cial aspects of the rational model. It implies a reconsideration ofpersonal attitudes to conflict, integrity and the responsible use ofpower. And so, because this may be a personal transition of somemagnitude, we will consider it in depth, showing the reader apractical route to becoming a constructive politician.

The Redefinition of Managerial Work

This transition causes us to question the nature of what managersactually do. In effect, a constructive political mindset redefinesthe basics of day-to-day managerial activity because it focusesattention on the precarious way that the taken-for-granted essen-tials – rules, roles, procedures and accountabilities – are held inplace. For example, in the rational model, decision-making islargely a function of hierarchy. Even in the flattest of companies,managers are given different levels of authority for that verypurpose. However, politically capable managers are much morecritical of rational processes of corporate decision-making. Theyunderstand well that power is not always congruent with formalauthority, and strategic decisions can sometimes be made infor-mally, irrespective of that authority. Politically capable managersare therefore much more aware of the opportunity to make initia-


97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 21

tives happen regardless of accepted ways of working. Thisnecessitates developing a range of influential organisational rela-tionships, up, down, sideways and external to the organisation.Such a network provides them with the base from which to staytuned to emergent issues, lobby for support, test out the value ofdifferent projects, and so forth.

The recognition that organisational strategies and initiativesemerge from negotiations between parties with vested interestshas significant impact on where managers spend their time andenergy. For example, politically capable managers often givepriority to building change from the bottom up, through localinitiatives. Sometimes these initiatives run counter to officialpolicy and are accomplished only through the use of power andpolitical stealth. But in all cases, such initiatives are motivated byindividuals who are prepared to take responsibility to make thingshappen because they can see a personal relevance of doing so.And it implies managerial activity patterns that cut right acrossthe normal focus on consistency, control and collaboration.

In Conclusion

These four core ideas will be used as building blocks to develop apractical guide to managing in contemporary organisations. Manybooks are long on advice about how to re-engineer organisationsto ride the waves of change, but short on practical guidance forindividual managers wishing to realise these new ways ofworking. This book, in contrast, has been written with a strongpersonal development focus. We hope it will act as a mirror inwhich managers can examine their own reflections. Together withthe analysis of organisations as both rational and political realmsof activity, there are many case histories, role analyses and anec-dotes culled from real life managerial experiences. They are thereso that the reader can make comparisons with his or her ownmanagerial work and organisational circumstances. Our intentionis that the book will provide a platform from which to developgreater personal influence and managerial effectiveness.

22 Smart Management

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 22

Our aim is to encourage reflection, not only on assumptionsabout managerial work, but also on the wider implications of apolitical mindset for organisational effectiveness. Indeed, towardsthe end of this book, we will suggest that, so far-reaching are theramifications of ‘legitimate’ organisational politics, they promptquestions about the future form of organisations, the nature ofpower relationships within them, and the impact of organisationson society at large. But more of that later.

Politics then, are much, much more than the negative by-product of personal agendas. That said, there are limits to thevalue of organisational politics, principally the need for ration-ality. The two will continue to co-exist. However, the ability tosee through the dysfunctional elements of the rational mindsetcan be a great emancipation for managers. One writer in the fieldof leadership studies has gone so far as to describe organisationalpolitics as a ‘democratic asset’ representing the capacity ofindividuals to influence the way they are governed.8 It is thisview with which we wholeheartedly agree. Constructive politicalactivity provides opportunities to make things happen in a waythat enhances personal freedom, choice and autonomy. And, ofcourse, organisational effectiveness.

Notes

1. See: Federgruen, A., Heching, A., Schonberger, R. et al. (1999) Commentary on theOrganization Science Special Issue on Complexity, Organization Science, 10(3) 373–6.Gratton, L. and Ghoshal, S. (2003) Managing personal human capital: new ethos for the‘volunteer’ employee, European Management Journal, 21(1) 1–10.Sparrow, P. and Cooper, C. (1998) New organizational forms: the strategic relevance offuture psychological contract scenarios, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,14(4) 356–71.

2. Handy, C. (1997) Unimagined futures, in, F. Hesslebein, M. Goldsmith and R. Beckhard,(eds) The Organization of the Future, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 377–83.

3. Andersson, L. (1996) Employee cynicism: an examination using a contract violationframework, Human Relations, 49(11) 1395–417.

4. See: Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. and Spector, B. (1990) Why change programs don’t producechange, Harvard Business Review, November–December.Argyris, C. (1998) Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes, Harvard BusinessReview, May–June.Child, J. (2005) Organization, Contemporary Principles and Practice, BlackwellPublishing, Oxford.


97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 23

5. Stone, B. (1997) Confronting Company Politics, Macmillan – now Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke.

6. Butcher, D. and Clarke, M. (1999) Politics – the missing discipline of management,Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(1) 9–12.

7. See: Buchanan, D. and Badham, R. (1999) Change, Power and Politics: Winning theTurf Game, Sage, London.

8. Novicevic, M. and Harvey, M. (2004) The political role of corporate human resourcemanagement in strategic global leadership development, Leadership Quarterly, 15,569–88.

24 Smart Management

97802305_42266_02_cha01 17/3/08 16:58 Page 24

C H A P T E R 2

The Illegitimacy of Politics

This chapter will explore in more detail why politics is such adominant organisational feature. We will begin by exploring thedifferent mindsets that managers form about the world in whichthey work. These make an important contribution to the waymanagers interpret their organisational roles, and our purpose, ofcourse, will be to highlight the significance of the politicalmindset. We will show how this both fits and jars with the ‘offi-cial’ mindset – that of rational hierarchy.

The idea of mindsets will help us examine why managerscome to see political action as illegitimate. This will include anexploration of some of the inherent contradictions of the rationalmodel, and how these contradictions can hinder top manage-ment’s attempts to ‘de-corporatise’ organisations. It will alsoexamine how some of the more significant downsides of this hier-archical mindset create an environment in which political activityis seen as negative. These negative consequences arise from adrive for an unrealistic level of organisational co-ordination, andsometimes from well-intentioned but vague notions of the need fortrust and openness. Each creates strong negative judgementsabout the role of personal interest in managerial action. Forexample, the idea of corporate unity, reflected in mission andvalue statements, is deeply embedded in most organisations. Yet,

25

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 25

26 Smart Management

in reality, corporate unity is a myth – it does not exist preciselybecause of the inevitability of political self-interest. Such strongorganisational assumptions make it difficult for managers to seethe constructive value of political action.

In this chapter we will reframe the political mindset by exam-ining its constructive contribution in helping managers makemore of a difference to their organisations, one that they mightotherwise see to be beyond their influence. For example, asmanagers come to view their organisations as collections ofcompeting interest groups, they also see the relevance of indiv-idual power and self-determination. They achieve more becausethey are not limited to the official mindset of rational top-downcontrol. Analysing what really happens in organisations byusing a political mindset allows managers to take a much morecritical approach to their work, to challenge assumptions,initiate change and, above all, get results.

Managerial Mindsets

We saw in the first chapter that political action is entirelyendemic to managerial life; it is the very essence of whatmanagers do, but is often seen as peripheral. It is more likely tobe viewed as an aberration than as a means for getting results.Why, then, should there be such a tension between the reality ofpolitical activity and how managers feel about it? To under-stand this tension it is first necessary to understand howmanagers come to see in particular ways the organisations inwhich they work.

Organisations today are complex and serve a multiplicity ofpurposes. In consequence, there are many different ways inwhich managers can view their work. For example, an organ-isation can be seen as a means of providing employment,creating wealth for shareholders, supplying important services tolocal communities, or as the context for individual identityformation and fulfilment. These different purposes evolve over

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 26

time into what are often known as ‘mindsets’. It is a complexprocess that sometimes runs through society as a whole,contributed to by business leaders and high profile opinion-makers, the media, educational and professional institutions andmany other influences. Once an organisational mindset has takenroot it is reinforced through everyday behaviour and thelanguage used to describe organisational experiences.

In simple terms a mindset is a particular way of thinkingabout day-to-day experience which makes it hard to understandhow other perspectives could have equal or greater merit. Wecan have a strong mindset about the nature of the organisationsin which we work, as we obviously do about family life,professional practice or participation in sport. The mindsetencourages us to define implicitly what is appropriate and inap-propriate in each of these circumstances. In the context ofmanagement it serves the purpose of helping us to decide whatis considered to be best practice, and to understand the essen-tial nature of organisations. And as one would expect, thestronger the mindset, the more deeply it influences howmanagers view their roles because it is a means of both inter-preting and evaluating the world.

There is rarely only one mindset associated with a particularinstitution or realm of social activity. For example, there aremany associated with the family, particularly when we makecomparisons across cultures. Organisations are no exception tothis, and it is possible to recognise a number of generic mind-sets, each of which exerts influence for some people. Take, forexample, the economist’s view of businesses, often strikinglyportrayed in media news bulletins during economic downturns.Companies are seen to have little independence to act becauseinterest and exchange rates, market forces, or regulatory actionhave an overwhelming impact. In the extreme, organisationsbecome like black boxes where what goes on inside does notreally matter – the contribution of management to any one firmbecomes, therefore, largely irrelevant. Choice is constrained bylaws of global economic relationships or some other immutablefactor. It is a mindset that can influence how individual

The Illegitimacy of Politics 27

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 27

28 Smart Management

managers see their degree of choice, including decisions aboutwhether to close a business. It is captured in the example of amanager we know who worked eighty hours each weekbecause he believed that there were simply not enough well-qualified corporate lawyers to do his type of work. He expectedto be caught in this situation indefinitely until the labourmarket changed.

A contrasting view of organisations is presented in the idea thatthey must constantly adapt and change to different influences.Managers are constantly assailed with the ‘change or perish’message. In this somewhat Darwinian ‘living organism’ mindset,it is the most adaptable organisations that are likely to survive. It isthe home of the ‘learning organisation’ in which tacit andembedded organisational knowledge becomes the lifeblood ofsuccess. Arie de Geus captures this view in the bestseller TheLiving Company.1 This ex-Shell executive compares the evolutionof successful companies, such as the Sumitomo Corporation andthe Swedish company Stora, to the evolution of birds and animals,which survive through timely adaptation to their environment.

This particular mindset has had considerable impact on thework of many company training and development departments.A good example is to be found in Diageo, the world’s biggestdrinks producer, where business goals are expressed in terms ofa destination or journey rather than a vision or strategy. Its in-house leadership development programme includes the top teamacting as faculty, setting a tone of openness and commitment ‘ina story telling atmosphere’.2 Managers completing theprogramme act as trainers for later participants. In this mindseteach person makes a small difference to the organisation’s adapt-ability, but the organisation has an independent life of its own.

There are other well-established mindsets that influencemanagerial thinking. For example, it is common to hearmanagers describing organisations in language borrowed fromanthropologists. Their workplaces are mini-societies, organ-isational ‘cultures’ that then influence the way the inhabitantslook at the world.3 From a very different view again organ-isations have sometimes been seen as oppressive instruments

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 28


which dominate their employees, trapping and alienating themwithin soul-destroying jobs. Indeed, because organisations aremany things at once there are a host of possible mindsets thatmay influence management thinking, some more dominant andpervasive than others.

Having said that, such richness of imagery is not evident inevery organisational circumstance. In fact what is most inter-esting about organisational mindsets from our point of view is theconsistent appearance of two in particular – the rational corporatepyramid and the ‘alternative’ world of organisational politics.

Despite the increasing sophistication of organisational forms,the basic archetype of top-down authority structures – therational economic model of organisations – still prevails. Implicitin the rational model is the need for top-down co-ordination,control and power. Strategy is aligned with structures andcorporate values. Organisational problems are approached logi-cally and analytically and these managerial attributes are essen-tial if organisational goals are to be achieved efficiently andeffectively. Over five hundred years of successful commercialactivity have been built on this pyramid model of organisation.

However, as many management theorists have pointed out,top level managers recognise the limitations of this classicmodel,4 particularly in terms of flexibility and speed ofresponse in rapidly changing business environments. Yetalthough structures have flattened, tilted sideways towardsmatrix models, and employees have become more empowered,organisations still need some form of hierarchical control.Managers still need to determine direction, allocate resourcesand monitor performance and thus the hierarchical mindsetremains very real.

The political mindset appears to dominate managementthinking in equal measure but is more often than not a conceptwith negative connotations. One of the reasons for this is thatthe hierarchical model suppresses the inevitable partisaninterests of organisational life. As we saw in Chapter 1, thisconflict of interests is particularly evident in the arena of changemanagement.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 29

30 Smart Management

Politics and rationality were surely the order of the day in CashCo. On the face of it they are strange bedfellows and, in theirpurest forms, mutually exclusive. In the rational model thereneeds to be unity of purpose, common goals and interests toensure efficiency. In the political mindset common goals are diffi-cult to identify, and there will always be conflicting interests and

Cash Co. embarked on a culture change programme inthe mid-1990s, attempting to move the company towardsa greater market and customer-led strategy. In the past ithad a reputation for technical excellence, a strongproduct focus and an efficient command and controlstructure. The new strategy involved the creation ofmultidisciplinary teams focused on specific customers orgroups of customers. These became the cornerstones ofthe new approach. Organisational values were alignedaround a common set of principles that promoted respectfor the individual and team working. Country directorshad to become ‘coaches’, and to support their teamsrather than manage them. They were expected toempower them with greater levels of autonomy andmove ‘from knowing all to learning continuously’. Yetfor the most part, while the structure had changed, direc-tive behaviour prevailed. For some established countrymanagers the reorganisation had struck hard at theirindividual job motivation and identity, and it seemed tothem to diminish the value that they brought to theorganisation. So through a process of covert resistancethey publicly accepted but privately rejected the newstructure and within a year many elements of the newmodel were falling into disrepute. The advocates of thechange programme saw these tactics as disingenuousand unprincipled.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 30


ambitions. Each mindset undermines the ‘logic’ of the other. Aswe will see later in this chapter, each contains different linguisticconventions and different patterns of motivation and incentives.Yet it is the clash of these two models that represents everydayexperience for management.

Take the case of Bob. While he was away from theoffice on business for a week (or perhaps because hewas away) his boss laid plans to reorganise substantiallythe credit function in which he worked, leaving him‘out in the cold’. Realising what had happened, Bobbegan a process of lobbying and alliance building toprovide an alternative structure for the future of thedepartment. In his plan he was able to demonstrateimproved progress towards a key organisational goal.He succeeded in reversing the decision, and manoeuvredhimself into a position where he was managing some ofthe peers who had supported his boss’s plan. In onesense he was reinforcing the rational mindset byrestructuring towards a common organisational goal,while subverting the same top-down model through theuse of political action.

What then, are the implications for managers if their thinkingis dominated by these two mindsets? There are three that are ofspecial importance. First, as we noted previously, hierarchy iswidely acknowledged to be a problematic mechanism of co-ordination and control in the contemporary business environ-ment. Ironically, therefore, adherence to the rational mindsetgets in the way of effective management. Second, the valuesembedded in hierarchical control tend to surround ‘organ-isational politics’ with strong negative connotations. As in theworld of government, ‘politicians’ can have a somewhat disrep-

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 31

32 Smart Management

utable image. The result is that managers are caught betweenlegitimacy and reality, a confusing and unwelcome dilemma tobe faced with. Finally, and in consequence, the intrinsic value ofa political frame of reference remains largely unrecognised as avaluable alternative means through which managers can achieveresults. This has ever-increasing significance in the context oftoday’s business environment.

These key implications are discussed in depth for theremainder of the chapter. In this way we hope to show the readerthe difficulty of moving beyond the rational mindset, and thedramatic potential of embracing the political dimension oforganisations.

Hierarchy and Top-down Control

In order to be able to respond quickly to rapidly changingmarket conditions, organisations need to be able to makedecisions closer to customers. Hierarchical decision-making istoo slow and cumbersome for these conditions. Hierarchy is ofcourse still an organising principle, but it is equally a fact oforganisational life that business-critical knowledge is as likelyto be held by front-line staff as by senior management. RicherSounds, for example, a UK hi-fi retailer with one of the highestsales per square metre of any retailer in the world, recognisesthis by rewarding all staff suggestions regardless of their useful-ness, and each employee submits around twenty suggestions a year.

Successful companies are those that are able to identify andleverage this tacit or taken-for-granted knowledge. It has neces-sitated substantial delayering, alignment around key processes,dramatic increases in horizontal co-ordination and teamworking, and the need to balance properly input from thecorporate centre with local line autonomy. Management theoristsargue that all this places a new requirement on managerial roles.Top level executives need to move from their traditional role of

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 32


resource allocation to become institutional leaders, creating andembedding a sense of organisational raison d’être. The role ofsenior managers also changes. They cease being administrativecontrollers and become supportive coaches of independent front-line business units. In turn the role of managers within businessunits changes from operational implementation to innovativeentrepreneurship.5

Businesses such as 3M, BP and Virgin have long been tryingto work according to these principles, and have become famouswithin the world of management for their approach to organ-ising. But a wealth of detailed research within many organisa-tions that have attempted to make these fundamental shiftssuggests very patchy success. Put simply, they are very difficultto achieve. There is often little impact made on the hierarchicalstatus quo, and that leaves managers particularly vulnerable. Forinstead of helping to create organisations that combine nimble-ness with all the traditional virtues of scale and breadth, theyfind themselves caught in many paradoxes and double binds,becalmed in an ambiguous middle ground between corporatecontrol and local opportunity. They can become ‘damned if theydo and damned if they don’t’, and end up pleasing nobody, as thecase of Khalil shows.

Khalil found himself in this position when he waspromoted to the position of Sales and MarketingManager for a market sector in an electronics company.The division had not been performing well, morale waslow, and there were a number of staff vacancies. Ontaking up his new appointment he found that he wasrequired by head office to grow market share, whilelocal management wanted to increase sales revenue. Inthe market for which he was responsible these twodemands were almost mutually exclusive, and initiallyhe felt he had been presented with ‘mission impossible’.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 33

34 Smart Management

It is a situation mirrored in many organisations. Khalil wasprepared to work with covert political motives, but how many inhis situation would have done the same? The persistent accept-ance of the hierarchical imperative by many managers wouldhave left them with no way out, unable to see the kind of solu-tion that Khalil identified.

Even where you might least expect to find it, as, for instance,in knowledge-intensive industries like consultancies or univer-sities, the rational mindset is alive and well. For example, theposition of partner in many large consultancy firms is still consid-ered to be the forum for most organisational decision-making,even though there is substantial pressure for knowledge-drivenorganisations to structure around empowerment and autonomy.Significantly, many writers in the field of knowledge manage-ment are still bemoaning the slow transformation of these typesof organisation, rather than being able to hold them up as exem-plars to the rest of the world. Empowerment remains very ‘mana-gerial’; control and authority are still the focus of attention ratherthan leadership and the exploitation of diverse interests.

Of course the pervasive nature of the rational mindset doesnot imply that each and every aspect of hierarchical manage-ment is problematic in today’s business environment. It is in the

After a great deal of agonising Khalil decided that theonly way he could avoid being the ‘meat in the sand-wich’ (as he called it) was by deft political manoeu-vring. So he set out to explore the needs of each keystakeholder, and with the help of his team, was able tocome up with a solution that met each party’s require-ments. But there was a large personal cost becauseresolving the conflicting demands took up a lot ofKhalil’s time, and he had to take a number of personalrisks along the way.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 34


nature of organisations to reflect an element of hierarchy.Different groups of people clearly have varying levels ofcontribution to make to their organisation, and it is self-evidentthat only certain individuals are able to make strategic contrib-utions, because most are necessarily engaged in short-termactivities. More fundamentally, some high level co-ordination isessential if the potential value of any large-scale organisation isto be realised, and without question, big organisations willremain a feature of the global economic landscape. Hierarchy,therefore, is not going to disappear, and we are not advocatingits elimination. What matters is its dysfunctional impact onmanagers and their effectiveness, even when they know it is adeeply flawed principle of organising.

The Illegitimacy of Politics

How does the rational mindset serve to undermine the value ofa political frame of reference, creating for managers like Boband Khalil the dilemma of whether to accept the reality oforganisations when that reality is not legitimate? There are fourfactors in particular that combine to create negative perceptionsof political behaviour, at times with overwhelming efficiency.These are the myth of corporate unity, the impact of humanresource philosophy, the power of organisational language, andthe ease with which in an organisational context we can deludeourselves about what is happening. Let us take a closer look ateach to see how they can conspire against us in our efforts tomanage organisations.

The Myth of Corporate Unity

A major contributing influence on the perceived illegitimacy ofpolitical action is the ideal of corporate unity. This is an organ-isational fundamental from the perspective of a rational mindset.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 35

It implies that organisations simply do not have a raison d’être ifthey do not have unity of purpose. Mission statements, visionand value creeds all serve to bind organisational memberstogether, to draw the boundaries between them and the rest of theworld. Unity of purpose creates alignment between strategy andaction – it shapes the behaviours of people so that they work forthe common good. It all seems logical enough. However, thedysfunctional consequence of this drive for unity lies in theimplicit denial of either the existence, or the value, of alternativeagendas in the same organisation.

Imagine the impact of a corporate briefing couched in thefollowing terms:

We understand that this company is a loose federation of competinginterest groups through which we negotiate to move forward towards acommon strategy, if we can come up with one. So if you don’t like thelook of what is being proposed feel free to challenge these ideas andoffer some alternatives. Bear in mind that you may well get some oppo-sition, so it will almost certainly be important to lobby the right peopleif you want to get heard. Your best bet is to create some alliances andcoalitions to help you because we don’t have a formal arbitrationprocess for doing this.

The power of the drive for unity renders this hard to take seriously. Yet to many managers, the coming together of theinterests of organisational opinion-makers through self-styledalliances and coalitions is exactly the way strategy is form-ulated. Indeed given the inevitable differences between powerfulorganisational factions and individuals, how else could it bedevised? Yet obvious as this question may seem, how admissiblewould it be in most organisations?

The beguiling logic of the unity ideal is most apparent at thelevel of corporate goals. It is also the place where it is mostexposed, particularly to the outside world. Does the ultimaterationale for unity of purpose in publicly owned companies lie inshareholder value and the maximisation of share price? It is apowerful idea, so much so that if you ask any employee in a

36 Smart Management

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 36


major US-based corporation what its current stock price is, theywill almost certainly be able to tell you. The undeniable logic ofa company’s financial success focuses everyone’s mind, but indoing so can subordinate other fundamental goals, such as thedesire to behave in a socially responsible way with respect toemployees, the environment, the community, or developingcountries. These are not inevitably in opposition to the achieve-ment of financial goals but in reality often are, especially whenprofits are thin. Such ‘stakeholder claims’ reveal the strongconflict of interests within an organisation, sometimes exposedthrough media coverage, and played out through internal politicalaction, which is to do with everything except unity of purpose.Yet while those differences cannot always be hidden, the drivefor unity ensures that they can be denied, glossed over or given apositive spin. The ‘seamless’ top team presents a picture ofharmony that may well be challenged from outside the business,but if you are a manager on the inside – well, that’s different. It isnot ‘right’ to blow the whistle on the myth of unity.

Human Resource Management Ethos

The unity ideal has been reflected in many initiatives that areassociated with human resource management (HRM). Manycommentators have noted that the mission of HRM is itself oftenunclear,6 but broadly speaking HRM strives to shape organ-isations by creating empowered workers, trusting employmentrelationships, a unified culture, and greater workforce commit-ment, or as one cynical business guru puts it, a bunch of happycampers. These ideals are born of a strong people-centred trad-ition in which organisations are seen as places where people candevelop themselves and realise their personal potential. It repres-ents a set of values that places a strong emphasis on collabora-tion, teamwork and openness.

This may be a compelling mission in its own right, and one thatis a natural adjunct to the notion of unity. It does not seek toignore, so much as suppress the political realities of organ-

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 37

38 Smart Management

isations. However, there is an additional twist. The HRM missiondoes not sit easily alongside the immediacy of stock prices andshareholder value. Despite attempts to shift the outlook of theinvestment community to take a wider view of ‘human capital’,the power of the marketplace in a competitive global economyinevitably results in people being considered as extensions ofcapital assets. In times of downturn it is people, ‘our greatestasset’, who are downsized to preserve security for thoseremaining. Such actions naturally foster cynicism about organ-isational values emphasising the importance of employees, andHRM processes can become seen as subtle methods of control.Corporate unity is still the aim, but the method is (even) moreinsidious. Similarly induction programmes, psychometric tests toselect and promote employees, and competency frameworks cancome to be viewed as methods to enforce conformity in attitudeand behaviour. The management theorist Hugh Willmott likensthis to the double speak of Orwell’s 1984.7 Take the example of amanager who attended an in-house development programmedesigned to help him understand his business’s new strategicdirection. In his words, ‘it was indoctrination; the implicitmessage was do things this way or get out’. In this instance thebusiness lost an opportunity to engage a thinking manager in thestrategy-making process, and the dysfunctional consequence ofthe drive for conformity was demotivation.

The discrediting of political differences through the mecha-nism of HRM values is particularly well illustrated in the movetowards greater team working. As organisations seek to increasehorizontal co-ordination in order to leverage cross-functionalsynergies, there has been a dramatic explosion in team develop-ment, and ‘team player’ is a key item in most competencyframeworks. Encouraged by the HRM drive for collaborativeworking, management often holds embedded values about idealteams that stress openness, trust and selfless motivation. Yet thediversity of individual motives in organisations has alwaysmade genuine teamwork extremely hard to achieve, so whyshould that have changed? Quite aside from the improbablenotion of selfless motivation, there are many reasons why indiv-

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 38


idual and partisan organisational agendas take precedence overthe high ideals of unitary goals. Yet managers are continuallyencouraged to lead high performing teams and to be teamplayers themselves. Unsurprisingly, when they perceive theyhave been ‘let down’ by others pursuing different agendas andpriorities, it tends to confirm the view that self-interest is ille-gitimate. It is anti-team.

In one charity we know, this HRM drive for teamworking has become so strong that it is a fundamentalprinciple in the organisation that no one should evendiscuss his or her individual interests. This commitmentto the charitable cause is supposed to be total. On thesurface, at least, all self-interest is denied. One of thecharity’s senior managers, Marie-Claire, was keen to re-position the work of her internal service function to addmore value to the organisation. In doing so she needed tochallenge a significant number of unspoken organ-isational practices, but for some time was frustrated ather lack of progress. She found herself coming upagainst many dead ends. Following a discussion with anexternal executive coach she recognised that she had nottaken account of the real interests of those to whom shehad been talking. But faced with the complete refusal toacknowledge self-interest, how could she do so? Encour-aged by her coach, Marie-Claire listened much harder towhat her colleagues said – not the actual words used, butthe meanings behind them – and found that she was ableto discuss their individual interests ‘in code’, as shedescribed it. In the end she succeeded in implementingher plan and as a result worked herself into a positionwhere she was chairing an influential committee on thefuture of the charity.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 39

40 Smart Management

This is not to say that conformity and collaboration have novalue in themselves. Of course sometimes they do. But the over-riding dominance of the HRM message, as Marie-Claire discov-ered, undermines the constructive value of politics, conflict,dissension and self-interest as worthwhile in organisationalterms. The HRM push for alignment of values and behaviourscan imply that anything other than complete commitment to, andidentification with, organisational goals is problematic.

The Power of Language

The third factor which influences the perceived illegitimacy ofpolitical action is the way language is used to promote unity oforganisational purpose. Language, of course, is a fundamentalpart of the process through which we create the organisationalmindsets, and through well-crafted communication, managersare able to influence employee perceptions that lead to theacceptance of one meaning rather than another. An interestingexample is provided by management researchers who havestudied the images that senior management use in writing annualreports.8 Implicit in these were assumptions of corporate unity;employees being described as working hard for the company,loyal and dedicated to it, and overcoming challenges faced bythe entire organisation in difficult business circumstances.

The power of language to define our perceptions is no moreevident than in the language of organisational change. It can befound embedded in all types of corporate briefings, inductionand education processes, as well as change management semi-nars. Words carry implicit meanings beyond their face value andcan provide a rich subtext of additional understanding for therecipient.9 Working from within a rational mindset, words havethe effect of creating a sense of logic, order and structure, rein-forcing the notion that change can be planned, directed and, mostimportant of all, driven through the hierarchy.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 40


Take, for example, words and phrases such as:

� business case � smooth transition

� top-down � strategic intent

� staged transformation � facilitated process

� cascading the vision � planned modification

� corporate initiative

These are frequently found in the organisational commu-nications that explain and support change initiatives.Used in this context they tend to imply direction, control,certainty and rationality. These implicit messages rein-force the idea that change can be managed on the basis oftop-down control.

The HRM message of trust and collaboration also hasa high profile in the language of change. Consider thefollowing:

� empowerment � cross-collaboration

� co-operation � trust

� core values � teamwork

� openness � unlocking potential

� development

These are also frequently associated with changemanagement. But in contrast they imply a positive,humanistic enlightened perspective, that change is liber-ating and beneficial for employees. Taken together theseideas of enlightenment and control provide a compellingrationale for change that further legitimates the hierar-chical mindset from which it is derived.

Not surprisingly, against the force of this language it isdifficult for managers to entertain thoughts of open

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 41

42 Smart Management

Few managers wish to curtail good quality debate aboutimportant organisational issues, but the language of rationalmanagement can be sufficiently powerful for that to be theeffect. Potential challenge can become driven underground andtransformed into the language of subversion, thereby reinforcingthe organisational unacceptability of political behaviour. Sostrong is this definition of illegitimacy in some managerialcontexts, that one very senior member of an international finan-cial services organisation we know attempts to censor thelanguage of those around him. He refuses to have the ‘P’ worduttered in his presence, and not surprisingly, his more juniorcolleagues comply.

dissension and confrontation on anything other thanminor issues. The language of political activity appears toquestion motives, to ask why, to challenge. Words thatdescribe political activity have thus been attributed nega-tive meanings, even if the motives behind them areintended to be in the best long-term interests of theorganisation. Contrast the words and phrases below withthose just considered:

� stealth � irreverence

� covert action � lobbying

� positioning � corridor talk

� degrading the status quo � power base

� personal networking

All these have come to embody the illegitimacy of polit-ical processes. The inference is that the subversion oforganisational objectives does not constitute appropriatemanagerial action.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 42


Self-delusion and the Moral High Ground

Many social commentators have noted that organisations play asignificant role in defining an individual manager’s self-identity.Moreover, as other arenas that help secure stable identities in ourwider society decay, such as the church and community, the self-identity derived from jobs and work increases. At the same time,it is only human to be selective when interpreting feedback aboutour own work performance in an effort to protect our feelings ofself-worth. Unfortunately, this complex set of factors creates thecircumstances in which we may delude ourselves about the polit-ical nature of organisations in order to preserve our own identity.Let us take the example of managerial career advancement toshow how this can happen.

From within the rational mindset, organisations are implicitmeritocracies in which we progress as a direct consequence ofeffective personal contribution. This in turn assumes others (inparticular the boss) to be working objectively on our behalf toensure that this contribution gets due organisational recognition.So when we are passed over for promotion how do we deal withthese ‘injustices’ of managerial decision-making? To acceptnon-rational explanations of organisational career planningprocesses would require an appreciation of their political nature.This is potentially disorienting if you are committed to organ-isational rationality, and it is understandable that somemanagers insist on maintaining an apolitical interpretation ofthe circumstances surrounding them. In fact, so great is thepsychological security derived from implicit rational values,that researchers have shown managers to be capable ofengaging in apparently co-operative work practices, whileunaware that they are ignoring their own (obvious) efforts toprofit at the expense of others.10 David Buchanan, a leadingauthor in the field of organisational politics, suggests that theneed for individuals to rationalise their political action, in both apublic and private sense, is a key internal logic for those under-taking political activity.11

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 43

44 Smart Management

In the same way managers are able to construe negative poli-tics as something that is done to them and not something they doto others. Consider Philip, a manager on a business school devel-opment programme. With obvious disdain in his voice, he intro-duced himself to his fellow participants at the outset of theprogramme by explaining that he did not get involved in politics,and refused to have anything to do with those in his businesswho were political. He did not allow them to interact with histeam and he gave them no more information than he had to. Ashe spoke, his fellow participants broke into smiles, quickly to bereplaced by open amusement, as they quickly saw his views andactions were inherently political. Philip, it seemed, was the oneperson in the room unaware of the implications of what he wassaying. As his colleagues explained to him later, in taking themoral high ground he had set out to exempt himself from theunacceptability of organisational politics, but had succeeded indoing so only in his own eyes.

The Combined Effect

The reader can probably see by now the potency of the combinedeffect of this drive for unity, the HRM ethos, the reinforcing roleof language, and the very human need to protect the self-image.Together these conditions create a circularity of thinking that isdifficult to penetrate, or even to question. In consequence it canbe difficult to see the potential value of the alternative mindset –that of constructive politics (see Figure 2.1).

But the dubious virtuosity of this circle can be broken. Farfrom frustrating organisational activity, the political perspectivecan create greater autonomy and freedom for managers andgreater organisational effectiveness than strict adherence torationality ever could. However, as we have tried to show, thisconstructive interpretation of organisational politics is often lostto managers. It is this that we now turn to, for it is the third of thefundamental implications we identified that follow from thedominance of the rational and political mindsets.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 44


The Unrealised Value of Politics

Our analysis leads to the natural conclusion that the potentialvalue of a political mindset is still to be actualised in manyorganisations. Yet political activity defined as constructive ismore than achievable. It is very different to its negative coun-terpart in several fundamental ways, as we will set out toexplain in the next chapter. Compared with the obviousmanoeuvring driven by pure self-interest, constructive politicalactivity is far more skilful. To begin to see why, let us take anin-depth look at how real political fluency was achieved by amanager who had never sought to question the rational perspec-tive that guided his thinking.

Dieter attended a business school developmentprogramme that had a profound effect on him. He hadbeen feeling frustrated and disempowered in his job as

Figure 2.1 The circularity of the rational mindset

Intolerance for self-/partisan interests

Politics seen as illegitimate

Reinforces undesirability of ‘negative’ self-interest

Desire for unity

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 45

46 Smart Management

Engineering Manager at Hi-tech Co. A recent reorganisa-tion into a business unit structure had moved him fromcontrolling a significant number of engineering staff, toan organisation-wide role where he had to achieve resultsthrough personal influence rather than by direct authority.According to his sponsor for the programme, ‘Dieter hadencountered significant resistance to his efforts to pushforward on site’, and it was hoped that the programme‘would challenge Dieter and give him some under-standing of the game’. An interesting choice of language,you might think, for a sponsor of executive development.

As a result of the programme two key learning pointsemerged. First, Dieter’s own style needed to change if hewas to be able to exert greater influence in the plant. Hehimself described this style as ‘I’m right’, ‘insensitive toothers’ and ‘argumentative’. Second, he saw that if he weregoing to restructure the engineering role at Hi-tech Co, hewould have to accept and work with the very differentagendas of the key business unit leaders (BULs), ratherthan arguing through the logic of his own viewpoint.

On returning to work Dieter set about managing hisinfluence with much greater political fluency. He dealtwith the BULs as individuals, asking questions aroundtheir agendas and business drivers. He established himselfon several influential committees with the specific inten-tion of building key relationships, and in order to have aforum for making presentations on engineering value andbusiness benefit. He benchmarked the performance of theengineering function, both internally and externally withcompetitors, and collected customer satisfaction data asevidence that the current approach could be improved.Using this to propose some changes, he then worked withthe different agendas and varying levels of acceptance andresistance among the BULs, eventually obtaining agree-

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 46


ment for one business unit to act as a prototype for hisnew arrangements. This in turn allowed him to embark ona much broader assessment of required engineeringcompetencies, which generated further data to support hisreorganisation of the engineering function, as well asimprove training and resourcing activities. Approximatelya year after his development programme Dieter was giventhe go ahead to implement his ideas.

Reflecting on his progress at that point Dieter wasstruck by several key insights which really underlinewhy a political perspective can be so positive inachieving results:

� First, he was able to make things happen himselfwithout relying on formal authority. However, thismeant he had to invest considerable amounts of histime in managing upwards and sideways. In effectDieter had come to de-emphasise the significance ofhierarchy and superior–subordinate relationshipsbecause he realised how much he could influence these.

� He was able to see how it was possible to influencemore of the future for himself and was able to engagein organisational relationships with less concern forhis own security. As he saw it, things were more likelyto change if he took responsibility for influencing thatchange. His experience had provided him with greaterfeelings of personal control and self-satisfaction.

� He recognised that the competing agendas he hadencountered among the BULs actually presentedopportunities to achieve what he believed was rightfor the organisation, and for him. Having recognisedthe inevitability of these competing interests he hadbeen able to harness the different perspectives to chal-lenge the status quo.

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 47

From the outset Dieter had seen what was required from arational business perspective. But for him to bring this about, achallenge to his own organisational mindset had been necessary.In effect Dieter had been able to take a more critical perspectiveof what was happening around him in Hi-tech Co. By adopting apositive approach to the inevitability of politics, he had theconfidence to work in, what was for him, a very novel way. Mostimportantly, he could see that he had a choice. In the words ofthe management theorist Nick Perry:12

What defines the idea of politics is the conviction that there is always analternative; its voluntaristic premise is that social life can be other thanit is. The clash of interests, opinion, debate and compromise is the verystuff of political practice.

In accomplishing this shift of mindset, Dieter implicitly recog-nised that political activity is open to many different interpreta-tions according to different situations. This realisation hadrequired him to avoid negative interpretations of his actions bybeing open about his agenda of improving organisational effec-tiveness. He had appreciated the influence of the rationalmindset on the BULs by producing logical evidence and harddata to support his views, and piloted his solution in good projectmanagement fashion. Yet while doing this he had been lobbyingkey stakeholders and surfacing unspoken agendas.

All that said, it is not our intention to suggest that a construc-tive political perspective should triumph conclusively overrational management, or that it is, in itself, unproblematic. Wecannot dispense with hierarchy, and while the political mindsetrealises the possibility and relevance of individual power inachieving results, there is a critical question as to how this powershould be used in the interests of an organisation, without it beingdiverted substantially towards self-serving ends. In the rationalmindset power is congruent with authority and seniority of posi-tion and, in theory, is not abused. In practice, of course, it is, butin emphasising the importance of individual self-determination,there is a risk that we swap one contentious use of power for

48 Smart Management

97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 48

another. Furthermore, power is not evenly distributed and organi-sations are not level playing fields. Power is invested to differingdegrees in different roles, and no amount of self-determination orrecognition of competing interests will completely remove theinequalities of organisational power distribution. It is to thenature of power that we now turn in the next chapter, its princi-pled use, and the balance that is necessary for any manager tostrike between organisational and personal interest.

Notes

1. De Geus, A. (2002) The Living Company: Habits for Survival in a Turbulent BusinessEnvironment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

2. Johnson, R. (2007) Home brew, People Management, 28 June, 38–40.3. Johnson, J. and Scholes, K. (2002) Exploring Corporate Strategy, Financial

Times/Prentice Hall, London.4. Child, J. and McGrath, R. (2001) Organizations unfettered; organizational form in an

information-intensive economy, Academy of Management Journal, 44(6) 1135–48.5. Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1997) The myth of the generic manager: new personal

competencies for new management roles, California Management Review, 40(1)92–116.

6. Watson, T. (2004) HRM and critical social science analysis, Journal of ManagementStudies, 41(3) 447–67.

7. Willmott, H. (1993) Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture inmodern organizations, Journal of Management Studies, 30(4) 515–52.Willmott, H. (2003) Renewing strength: corporate culture revisited, M@n@gment, 6(3)73–87.

8. Gowler, D. and Legge, K. (1986) Images of employees in company reports – docompany chairmen view their most valuable assets as valuable? Personnel Review,15(5) 9–18.

9. Butcher, D. and Atkinson, S. (2001) Stealth, secrecy and subversion: the language ofchange, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(6) 554–69.

10. Jackall, R. (1988) Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

11. Buchanan, D. (1999) The logic of political action: an experiment with the epistemologyof the particular, British Journal of Management, 10, S73–S88.

12. Perry, N. (1998) Indecent exposures: theorizing whistleblowing, Organisation Studies,19(2) 235–58.


97802305_42266_03_cha02 17/3/08 16:59 Page 49

C H A P T E R 3

Legitimate Politics

There is no opting out. Like it or not, politics play a central rolein all organisations. Being a politician is part of the job formanagement. Our key objective now is to help the reader toappreciate the logic of constructive organisational politics,since without that starting point, no manager is likely to bemotivated to enhance his or her own political skill. Emancipa-tion from the myth of rationality is the goal, but that is muchmore difficult to achieve so long as politics are seen as illegiti-mate or, at best, a necessary organisational evil. Seasonedmanagers are often ambivalent towards politics once theyaccept that so many organisational decisions are driven bypartisan interest, and that the idea of a meritocracy is more ofan ideal than a reality. But ambivalence is no recipe for crystal-clear thinking, and will always be insufficient to generate anappetite for true political competence. Nothing short of aconstructive political mindset will suffice. However, we canhardly expect you, the reader, to reach beyond the intellectualcuriosity that has allowed us to keep your attention so farwithout offering a watertight rationale for thinking of politicsas legitimate organisational activity. With this in mind, we willlook in this chapter at the way in which power is thought aboutand used in organisations, and how this relates to the motiva-

50

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 50

Legitimate Politics 51

tions of managers. The reason for this is that motives are theonly final way of distinguishing legitimate politics from theirless acceptable counterpart.

We define politics as those deliberate efforts made by indiv-iduals and groups in organisations to use power in pursuit oftheir own particular interests. It must follow that whatever isseen as an acceptable interest will give us some strong cluesabout how to develop the idea of legitimate politics. We willbegin by asking the question ‘What is meant by power?’ It iscrucial to provide a clear answer to this because, despite theobvious use of organisational power that all managers witnessday by day, it is an elusive concept. We will then try to thread acourse through the difficult problems of the use and misuse ofpower, and of means that do not justify ends. In the process ofthis we will draw parallels with the principles of democraticpolitical systems to help create the logic for legitimising organ-isational politics. One notable similarity we will consider ishow many of the vexed issues surrounding organisational politics seem to be a microcosm of the difficulties people see inupholding the principles of democratic government. Incontrast, however, while many managers may struggle with theidea of legitimising organisational politics, few argue that theprinciples of political democracy should be abandoned. We willtry to show the reader that there is much to be gained fromtransferring some of the cherished principles of democraticgovernment to organisational settings and that failure to do sorepresents flawed thinking, which only makes the task ofmanaging more difficult.

The Problem of Power

We describe power as problematic for two reasons. First, as somany of the management and organisational thinkers to studythe subject have found, it is difficult to define organisationalpower. This is surprising in some respects because on the face

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 51

of it, there often appears to be little doubt about who ispowerful and why they are able to wield their power. However,on closer inspection, there is complexity and contradictionsurrounding the concept of organisational power, which inreality has a direct impact on any attempt to use it in themanagement process. Second, the potential and actual use ofpower raises moral dilemmas for managers that are a source ofconfusion and, in some circumstances, deep anxiety. Powerdraws our attention to the issues of personal responsibility thatlie at the heart of management, and to the question of howmuch individual executives should contribute to the organisa-tions that employ them. We will set out to unravel the problem-atic face of power in the discussion that follows.

The Definition of Power

The definition of power commonly used by organisation theo-rists is straightforward enough, and rarely quarrelled over. Poweris described as the capacity of individuals and groups to impresstheir own preferences upon others, to exert their will in such away that those people do things they might not otherwise do. Sofar so good. But like most universal definitions, this glosses overa number of important distinctions and conceptual puzzles thathave a bearing on the clarity of our analysis. In particular thereare three questions that require our attention in order to grasp theessential characteristics of power:

� First, if you possess power, does that mean you can actuallyuse it to influence others?

� Second, does power have to be perceived in order that we cansay it is being exercised?

� Third, how central to any organisational process is power, orto put it differently, when do we not exercise power over oneanother?

52 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 52

Stay with us – these are not just theoretical, abstract questions.They have direct, everyday consequences for managers. Wewill address each of these questions in turn, although the aim isnot to provide final answers. That is not possible anyway sincethe questions represent the different aspects of power that makeit the complex phenomenon we know it to be. Our aim is todraw attention to the dangers of oversimplifying the idea ofpower, and so too the importance of recognising from a mana-gerial point of view what is actually happening in the exercise of power.

Does Having Possession of Power Mean You Can Use It?

It accords with common sense and is our everyday experience oforganisations to think of power as a possession of a particularperson or group. When we say that certain people have more‘organisational clout’ or ‘stripes’ than others, we simply meanthat as individuals, they have greater power to get thingsmoving, or to arrest them. Much the same is meant when aparticular person is described as ‘very persuasive’. We areimpressed by their ability to put together an argument, thebreadth and depth of their intellect, their enthusiasm or theirnatural charm. What lies behind this view of somebody is theidea of he or she owning something that enables them to influ-ence us if they choose to do so.

In the above examples there is in fact an important distinctionbetween what are known as ‘situational’ sources of power (forexample, hierarchical position), and ‘personal’ sources (such aspersonality traits). Both appear to be thought of and talked aboutas though they are directly attached to certain individuals andgroups. We will examine each more closely before answeringour question.

Management and organisation theorists have studied thesesources of power in depth and as a result much is now knownabout them.1 There are several types to be found in both the situ-ational and personal categories.


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 53

Primary situational sources of power include:

� Formal authority which stems from hierarchy. Traditionallyknown as ‘legitimate power’ it derives its lawful status fromthe core social value of rational economic organisation, inwhich the tasks of control and co-ordination intrins-ically create a pyramid structure. Sociologists have shownhow this value has come to assume great significance for twentieth-century society, fundamentally determining the‘natural’ shape of organisations in the process.2 Hierarchicalposition, or as it is often known, ‘position power’, is directlyassociated with ‘the right to manage’, and as we described inthe previous chapter, expectations of conformity appear to be adeeply embedded mindset. We should note, however, that thisvery same authority structure also gives position power topeople at non-managerial levels in the hierarchy. Sometimesreferred to as ‘gatekeepers’, those occupying certain lowerechelon roles can impede managerial initiatives by pointingout that they are being asked to do something which is nottheir job, or which runs contrary to the rules. The right to ‘playit by the book’ can be used to counter the right to manage eventhough as power bases they are of the same rootstock –rational organisation.

� Control over the flow of information. This is the old idea that‘information is power’. Despite the liberating effects of infor-mation technology, it appears to be alive and well for thesimple reason that there are always good organisationalreasons to manage information flow. ‘Classified information’is not just a formal way of recognising restricted access: itrefers just as much to what people unofficially choose to with-hold from others. People ‘in the know’ have a tendency to‘privatise’ information, especially when they have gone out oftheir way to acquire it. It is also well known that groups andindividuals at the corporate centre tend to be powerful becauseof their proximity to key information sources. Physical close-ness can be an important factor even in today’s world where‘geography does not matter’.

54 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 54

� The significance of an individual or group to the organisation. It issaid that ‘nobody is indispensable’ but in practice they may be,at least in the short term, because others are dependent onthem. Theorists have studied the dependencies between therange of key areas of activity within organisations and foundthat when one unit is in a position to reduce uncertainty forothers, it enjoys a powerful position. A universally recognisedexample is the role played by finance functions that, incontrolling spend, influence certainty of work for other partsof an organisation. There is always relief when the budget isapproved. Significance, not surprisingly, is frequently associ-ated with the ability to control ‘hard’ resources – money and headcount.

� Control over ‘hard’ rewards. Career progression, remuneration,continued employment and autonomy of operation are allobvious tangible rewards, and those who decide the fortunesof others are naturally seen as powerful individuals. Rewardsmust be valued by the beneficiaries if they are to function inthis way, and we know from motivation theory that there areno universals in this respect. The reader may be wondering atthis point why we have excluded the less tangible rewards ofpraise and recognition. It is because these are so closelybound up with the credibility of the person giving them that itis more useful to think of such person-specific factors aspersonal sources of power. We will refer to them again later inthis discussion.

It is important to recognise that these situational sources ofpower are clearly distinct from one another. In other words,while one source may provide managers with access to another(for example, the authority which comes with position mayimply control over hard rewards), those sources are nonethelessindependent. So, for instance, although senior executives canusually wield a degree of authority within their own organisa-tional patch, they may have limited access to critical informationoutside that area. Whether or not they have inside track to keyorganisational decision-making processes may determine their


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 55

ability to influence their own staff more than the authority ofoffice. It must follow that when one person enjoys access to allthe main sources of situational power, there is real scope fororganisational influence.

Situational sources of power are specific capacities of individ-uals to influence, in the sense that those sources are awarded,gifted or acquired, and so are temporarily ‘owned’. Personalsources of power, by contrast, are readily recognisable as indiv-idual capabilities. They are much more obviously permanentpersonal possessions. This appears to hold true the more thesecapacities to influence are thought of as personality traits ofindividuals. Since there are many personal attributes that maygive their owners a special ability to influence others, there havebeen numerous attempts to classify them. These are the maincategories:

� Referent power. This is the ability to influence based on whatothers see as desirable personality traits. These personal dispo-sitions are a point of reference for others; they provide thecontent for role modelling. Examples include integrity,emotional intelligence, ambition, drive, confidence andresilience. Leadership, it is often said, embodies these veryqualities, and the true source of the leader’s power is admira-tion. Personal attributes of this nature have a very strong asso-ciation with inner psychological structure and are often takento be innate to the individual. However, as with all personalitytraits, it is observed behaviour that provides the referencepoint for others. The traits themselves must be inferred. Sincedesirable behaviour can be copied, this opens the way for us tothink of traits as qualities that can be learnt.

� Expertise. When we believe that someone has knowledge andskills that are superior to our own, and we are willing to letthem guide us, they exercise expert power. In organisationalcontexts this source of personal power is often associated withprofessional and highly specialised work, and those whopossess expertise have often invested time and energy inacquiring it. Two features in particular of an expert body of

56 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 56

knowledge determine its potency. To be usable it has to beboth credible and inaccessible to those the expert wishes toinfluence. Specialist managers and consultants, for example,are often unable to make their point stick because one of thoseconditions has not been met. Frequently it is a credibilityproblem. To compound matters, because expert knowledge isso strongly identified with individuals, other people may makeno separation between the knowledge and the person. It ispersonal credibility that is at stake.

� Social competence. There is little doubt that skills such as theability to read the motives of others, present ideas engagingly,diffuse conflict, conduct interviews, behave in a collaborativefashion, or be good at small talk are an important means ofinfluencing. These are not expert skills and possessing themdoes not depend on knowing something that most other peopledo not (although it might feel like that when we are in situ-ations where we feel least at ease). Take the example of givingpraise or recognition to someone – the ‘soft’ rewards.Anybody can give recognition. You do not have to be amanager to commend the efforts of others, so it is not the sameas being in the position to use the power of ‘hard’ reward. Butto praise effectively it is necessary to sound sincere, to time itwell, be specific, deal with negative reactions like disbelief orembarrassment, and to be sure not to overuse it. Once learnt,the skill of giving praise becomes a very personal source ofpower. The spotlight is not only on the recipient. It is on youtoo – it is you giving praise. But like most social skills it isdifficult to learn and so may be in short supply. That is part ofthe power that comes with skill. Socially skilful managerscompare favourably with their less able colleagues.

� Success. We say that ‘everyone loves a winner’, that ‘successbreeds success’. But behind the clichés is more than a germ oftruth. The value society puts on success ensures that thesuccessful are powerful. Success denotes achievement, pros-perity, victory, and social acceptance. It is associated withresults, and to coin another phrase, you can’t argue with those.


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 57

Usually we attribute it to the efforts of particular individualsand groups rather than explain it as the product of collectiveeffort, the result of contributions too intertwined to unravel.Even when success is the result of good fortune we sometimescontrive to personalise it. Some people are lucky just as someare losers, we say. Broadly, though, the more success appears tobe a direct consequence of deliberate effort, the more it will bea source of personal power. Initiative takers know this well –success with one venture lends credibility to the next.

As with the situational sources of power discussed earlier, it isimportant to think of personal sources as being independent ofone another, even though there may be obvious connectionsbetween them. Social competence, for instance, may seem tofollow naturally from being a role model, but this is not neces-sarily the case. Personality may shine through in well-meantbehaviour despite a lack of social skills. People often makeallowances for the social ineptness of their leaders because theyidentify with their underlying personal qualities. But we recog-nise those qualities because of the way leaders behave, in otherwords, because of ‘surface indicators’. Social skills, too, areevident primarily in behaviour, but behaviour that has often beensystematically practised with the aim of producing ‘managedperformance’. Quite simply, not all behaviour is skilful but itmay nevertheless be influential. Look at it the other way around.Social skill may prevent us from seeing the self-centred or evenmalign intentions of others because we are drawn by the plausi-bility of what they say and the way they say it.

In the preceding discussion we have described the primarysources of situational and personal power that appear to enableindividuals and groups to influence others. Let us now return tothe question of whether possession of power means it can beused. At first glance the answer seems so obvious that the ques-tion should be dismissed as trivial. But as we will now show, oncloser inspection there are some significant complications andexceptions which mean that possession of power is not on itsown sufficient to be able to influence others.

58 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 58

It is true of course to say that a person can accumulate oneor more sources of power. We can also say that several sourcesmay be used to supplement one another, so that referent powermay be used in parallel with position power, expert powerwith the power of social competence, and so on. But evenwhere one person is able to bring several sources of power tobear, the scope to influence is restricted by circumstances, inparticular the constraints imposed by the power base of otherpeople, the domain of usability, and whether the power basesare perceived positively or negatively. We will look at each ofthese limits.

The old aphorism about the corrupting nature of absolutepower lures us towards an essentially false premise. Power is notabsolute. It is relative to that of others, unevenly distributedcertainly, but never to the extent that there is no availablecounter influence process. Take expert power. Expertise can bedisarmed or discredited through skilful challenge, marginalisedby the success of organisational DIY, removed by authority, ormet with yet more expertise. Authority is an even more revealingexample. In the delayered and decentralised context of contem-porary organisations it can be countered by every other source ofpower, which is of course why a greater understanding of poli-tics is so important. Most sources of power can be challenged ‘inkind’. Authority can be disputed by authority, success may beeclipsed by success. Control over information flow works bothways. Corporate centres, for example, need information fromgeographically distant operating units, which themselves scanthe horizon for the early warning signals of impending organisa-tional change. In both directions information is normally filteredand sometimes suspiciously sanitised. The underlying point hereis that although power is a capacity of individuals and groups,that capacity cannot in reality be used in isolation from the samecapacity in others. It is particularly unwise to suppose power tobe a capacity of particular people if ‘particular’ means ‘only afew’. It is more useful to think of power as so widely distributedthat it becomes a matter of practical enquiry as to who can influ-ence whom.


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 59

Usable power is also confined to certain domains of applica-tion. Authority is appropriate only when the right to manage isrecognised, expertise gains acceptance only where it is valued,success can be used to influence only where there is a commonmeasure of achievement, and so on. This appears to be trueeven of referent power. Role modelling operates best within alimited sphere of established interpersonal relationships, whichis why one of the tough decisions for senior executives is thejudgement of how much time to devote to ‘walking the talk’ intheir organisation. Mere reputation as visionary leader maypromote curiosity but not often attraction. In fact reputationmay work against the power of role modelling because whenthere is a lot to live up to, shortcomings are amplified. Powermay also be unusable in practice in situations because ofconvention. Pulling rank in public, offering rewards as bribes,being indiscreet with information, relying on the ignorance ofothers to impress with expertise (using technical jargon being agood example) are illustrations of how to transgress the rulesabout the responsible exercise of power. Perceptions, in otherwords, can intervene heavily. In addition, although sources ofpower are independent, they do interact. Managers who havebecome role models, for instance, may find it difficult to useposition power because others see it as unnecessary or inappro-priate. Using authority diminishes the relationship. In effect thedomain of position power is reduced, sometimes to the extent ofbecoming merely symbolic.

A further limit to the application of power is the tendency ofthose being influenced to perceive each power base positively ornegatively according to its social acceptability. In other words,the different power bases vary in social worth. That can have theeffect of reducing the scope to use certain of them in practice.So, for instance, while the exercise of ‘hard’ reward power isusually perceived as positive, the actual or suspected with-holding of information gets a poor reception. Indispensabilityenjoys mixed fortunes in this respect, and the worth of expertpower also often appears to hang in the balance. Attitudestowards authority, it is often said, have shifted markedly in a

60 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 60

negative direction during the latter part of the twentieth century.By contrast, in the same period, the virtues of referent powerhave been increasingly extolled as leadership has climbed theorganisational agenda. Broad as these social evaluations are,they impact on the ability of individuals to exercise power. It isfurther demonstration of the need for caution in assuming powerto be simply a direct possession of certain individuals or groupsthat enables them to influence others.

Does Power Need To Be Perceived To Be Exercised?

In the preceding discussion we considered how power is prob-lematic if we give simple answers to the question of who inorganisations has it, and who does not. We now look at a secondissue that needs unravelling in order to define power in a waywhich reflects practical reality for managers. This is the ques-tion of how much the perceptions of those involved play anactive part in the exercise of power. Does it make sense to saythat we can influence others without realising it, or that we canbe influenced to do things we might not otherwise do withoutknowing what is happening? The answer is yes, but only if weaccept that ‘potential’ awareness is sufficient for our definitionof power. If I inadvertently discover I am being influenced, forexample, or it is pointed out to me, then I can choose whether ornot I continue to comply. I might also be unaware of the extentof my power until I witness its effects. It is therefore a questionthat alerts us to the possibility of power in organisationsexisting and being applied without the awareness of either theuser or the target of influence. Power is used literally in igno-rance. In the context of an organisational mindset that seeks toredefine politics as legitimate, this possibility has great signifi-cance. Ignorance may be bliss but it is no recipe for politicalcompetence.

Clearly there are many situations in which all concerned knowthat power is being exercised, and our earlier discussion high-lighted the role of perception in moderating its application.


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 61

62 Smart Management

However, there are many exceptions to this, which lead to thecompelling conclusion that power is independent of awareness.

One such exception stems from what is known as the‘embedded’ nature of power, the shorthand used by the theoriststo describe hidden properties of situational sources of influence.Authority is a good example. When the power embedded inorganisational structures is sufficiently accepted as the naturalorder of things, then awareness is dimmed and people may reactless than knowingly. Not only are people influenced withouttheir awareness, but those wielding the power do so withoutrealising it (rather like ‘not knowing your own strength’). Takethe case of a manager who wants to generate some new ideasabout how to solve a long-running issue. She may say to one ofher team something like: ‘Maybe we should have a fresh look atthe problem. Have you thought of trying this?’ The next thingshe knows is that ‘this’ has been put in place. Her effort togenerate some creative thinking has been interpreted as a directrequest for action. Neither she nor her team member has fullyunderstood the taken-for-granted nature of her position power,which in effect appears to have been exercised unintentionally.She set out to downplay the relevance of authority to the situ-ation, preferring to adopt a coaching style. In contrast, her teammember has unquestioningly assumed that the right to give adirective has been exercised. The manager may then set out torepair the situation by questioning how this happened.However, it is only once authority has been questioned retro-spectively (in theory by either party) that the embeddedness isrevealed and awareness restored. It follows that either person inour example may become aware of the embedded power of thesituation and choose not to reveal this to the other. In thatcircumstance the ‘innocent’ party is more open still to influencewithout their knowledge.

This example reveals the process through which power can beemployed without the awareness of either party being necessary,and in principle these circumstances may arise in relation to eachsituational source of power described earlier. The control overinformation flow and hard rewards may therefore become so

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 62


assumed that it is unwittingly exercised and unquestioninglyaccepted. But the idea of embeddedness can also apply topersonal sources of power. Referent power, or social compe-tence, for instance, can become so taken for granted that, ineffect, they go unnoticed in relationships. Sometimes people donot appreciate the force of their own personalities, and from avantage point external to a relationship, those they influence mayappear to be held spellbound by strength of character, easilyswayed by silver-tongued manipulation. The awareness of‘outsiders’, in other words, can be greater than that of ‘insiders’who are immersed in a relationship. This is a key point becauseit again draws our attention to the idea that only potential aware-ness is necessary for power to be exercised.

Power is also deliberately concealed in organisations so thatit can be exercised without the knowledge of the target of influ-ence. Conversations take place behind closed office doors, onjourneys, over a drink – anywhere that makes transparencyimpossible. Inaccessible committees, for example, settle budg-eting and resource levels, withhold promotions and bonuses,and block career opportunities. The people they are makingdecisions about may never know just how much they havegained or lost. In addition, the decision-makers may success-fully introduce hidden personal agendas by skilful manipula-tion of these discussions. We are often told, for instance, ofmeetings in which senior managers present well-reasoned argu-ments for not promoting a rising managerial star on the basisthat he or she ‘is not ready for it yet’. The outcome is a‘rational’ decision not to promote, but those who took part areleft with the suspicion that the real agenda was age, sex orethnic discrimination, personal threat, or vindictiveness. Incircumstances like these the power being wielded is obscuredby the private nature of both the discussion and the motives.However, this opaqueness in no way lessens its impact – quitethe reverse since there is no means of mounting any challenge.In our example it is clear that the ultimate target – the fast trackexecutive – has been influenced without his or her perceptionof power being applied.

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 63

When Do We Not Exercise Power?

The third question which helps us to understand the nature ofpower focuses on the kind of managerial actions that should beassociated with the use of power, and those which should not.This question arises because it is possible to define almost anysocial interaction as an influence process, and hence any behav-iour as an attempt to exercise power. However, this is not helpfulsince ultimately it makes the concept of power redundant.Nevertheless, there is some clarification necessary.

Even the most ordinary circumstances encountered in the dailyroutines of organisations can be seen as complex situations ofpotential and actual influence processes. Suppose, for instance,you are scheduled to make a presentation in a managementmeeting today. What decisions will you have already taken?Several regarding the presentation content, format and deliverystyle. Some further ones about how to answer certain questions.Perhaps more still about what to wear, when to arrive, or howmuch to engage in conversation with anyone beforehand. As youmove through the presentation itself you will have to adjust toyour audience’s reactions. Should you answer a certain questionnow, later or ignore it altogether? How about revealing more on aparticular point than you had planned, shortening what you intendto say, or lightening the atmosphere with some humour? And howshould you respond to reactions after you leave the meeting? Playthings down, open up a further discussion, challenge an impliedcriticism, ensure that everyone knows it went well? There will belayers of questions, all of which could be said to represent oppor-tunities for you to enhance or exercise your power in the role ofpresenter. Irrespective of whether your power comes fromauthority, expertise, social competence or any other of the varioussituational and personal sources discussed earlier, we are leftpuzzling over where the use of that power begins and ends.

The theorists are divided about this. At one extreme there arethose who argue that we are caught up in pervasive power struc-tures which influence and shape our thinking and behaviour,even in the most mundane aspects of our lives. All social interac-tion potentially involves the exercise of power.3 At the other end

64 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 64

of the spectrum power is seen as just one of many ways ofunderstanding relationships and social processes. Co-operation,trust, exchange and selflessness (such as serving a worthy cause)are examples of concepts that have been extensively employedby social theorists from a range of disciplines to grasp the natureof society. Power, therefore, may be irrelevant as a way ofexplaining behaviour in many circumstances.

Evidently there is no simple answer to the question of whatmakes the exercise of power a distinctive process. The divergentpositions just mentioned arise to some extent because theoristshave very different agendas with regard to the constitution of thesocial world in the first place, which leads them to very differentconclusions. However, many take the view that power is exer-cised on what is known as an ‘episodic’ basis, which means thatit is observable in particular situations, at particular points intime, being deployed by certain individuals. This does notpreclude circumstances where the use of power escapes detec-tion, since as we have already noted, so long as it can potentiallybe perceived, we can say it is being exercised.

The value of thinking about the exercise of power in episodicterms, then, lies in being able to pinpoint circumstances wherethis occurs, and to distinguish power usage from other kinds ofsocial processes that arise in organisations. There is direct signif-icance in this from a managerial point of view. The ability torecognise where opportunities exist to use power is a very prac-tical capability. On the other hand, associating each and everyaspect of organisational life with power can lead to unnecessaryexpenditure of energy, or worse, destructive scepticism, evenparanoia. Processes such as building trust and co-operationbecome even more troublesome than they already are because itis difficult to see them as worthy motives in their own right. It istherefore a key managerial competence to be able to identify thedifference between the exercise of power as a key feature ofcertain organisational processes, and power as the defining char-acteristic of all processes. This brings us again to a point wehave sought to emphasise strongly in this chapter. Awareness isan essential to effective use of power for managers.


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 65

66 Smart Management

Power: A Summary

Situational Sources of Power

� Formal authority: the ‘legitimate power’ derived frommanagerial positions.

� Control of information: leveraging access and dissem-ination of formal or informal information.

� Significance of individuals or groups to an organ-isation: the ability to reduce uncertainty for others.

� Control over hard rewards: rewards valued by thebeneficiary, for example career progression, remuner-ation and so on.

Personal Sources of Power

� Referent (leadership/role model): personality traitsthat provide observed behaviour that is seen as desir-able by others, for example integrity, confidence,resilience and so on.

� Expertise: knowledge which is both credible yet inac-cessible to those being influenced.

� Social competence: high order social skills such asreading others’ motives, diffusing conflict and so on.

� Success: the influence that comes with achievement,victory and so on that appears to be a direct conse-quence of deliberate effort.

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 66

Politics as the Application of Power

The aim of the preceding discussion was to answer the question‘What is power?’ We stressed the need to recognise that,although it appears self-evident that certain individuals andgroups possess power, each available source of power has alimited domain of application. We then considered how it isoften possible in organisations for power to be exercisedwithout the awareness of those being influenced. Finally, wealso looked at the question of whether power and its use canprovide us with an all-encompassing explanation for organ-isational processes and relationships. We decided that it couldnot. Instead we suggested it is important to be able to recognisewhen it is appropriate to think in terms of power and in whatcircumstances that would be misleading. All of this leads to theconclusion that if managers are to use power in organisationseffectively, they require a sophisticated level of awareness ofwhat it is and what it can do. This is key to developing a polit-ical mindset.

Recapping the line of thinking advanced in the first two chap-ters, it will be recalled that organisational politics are inevitablebecause organisations inherently contain individuals and groupswith different and competing interests. That is, after all, what wemean by politics – the process of dynamic tension throughwhich competing agendas are resolved. But, as we have said,political activity still tends to exist within a managerial vacuum,even though authority has been overshadowed in contemporaryorganisations as the primary means of focusing effort. The polit-ical mindset is very real but lacks the means of acquiring organ-isational legitimacy. There is no framework for managerial workbased on constructive politics in the sense that there is oneintrinsic to rational hierarchy. Or is there?

What we intend to do now is to look at the issues that areraised by thinking of the managerial task as essentially political,and address the question of how a political frame of referencecould be incorporated officially into organisations. To do this we


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 67

will consider the motives that lie behind the exercise of power inorganisations, and the problem of whether or not managerialmeans (power) justify the ends (individual and group agendas).Our discussion will take us into the realm of political theorybecause it is from there that some of the justification for legit-imising organisational politics may come. As the reader will see,there are several parallels that can be drawn between theprocesses of democratic government and the management oforganisations, particularly those forms of organisation that arerapidly evolving in today’s business environment.

Motives Are Everything

What lies at the heart of the ambivalence that managers so oftendisplay towards organisational politics? For even once they areable to break out of the rational mindset and see its limitations,when they accept the inevitability of competing agendas, the ideaof politics as an organising principle causes disquiet. But why?

The most compelling answer is also the simplest. Basicmotives. Why do executives play the numbers games, withholdinformation, ringfence resources, cultivate certain relationships,or engage in any number of unofficial activities that lead tomistrust and disapproval? It is their motives that are at issue. Wehave questions about their actions that demand some answers.For whom are they doing it? Who will benefit? Above all, whatis the organisational justification for their actions? Even if weare not still caught in the mindset of authority, rationaleconomic organisation and corporate unity, it is easy to drawsceptical conclusions.

Justifiable motives are at the heart of all political activity, notjust the controversial variety found in organisations. Think ofthe doubt that so often surrounds the motives of governmentsand their elected members. We question whether their mani-festos are genuine before we submit our choice at the ballotbox. How much of what they say is merely a vote-chasingtactic, an election promise to be forgotten or broken once power

68 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 68

is assured? We accuse them of scoring party political pointsagainst the opposition rather than addressing the issues ofgovernment. The media regularly expose abuses of high officeon our behalf, and we are then confronted with the spectacle of‘disgraced’ individuals clinging to power, sometimes webelieve, at any cost. More fundamentally, we worry that main-stream parties in countries considered as major economicpowers appear to be converging on the middle ground,encroaching on each other’s traditional political territory, andlosing sight of their core values in the process. It all points to awidespread mistrust and scepticism about the role of politicians,which some commentators now say is a global phenomenon,and fundamentally demonstrates the importance people attachto the worthiness of motives. A deserving and just cause in theservice of others is a much easier motive to identify with thanone of self-seeking ambition.

A question about the human condition that has long fascinatedphilosophers and social scientists is how these diametricallyopposed motives go hand in hand. Can you have one without theother, or if you prefer, are they but opposite sides of the samecoin? It is hard for most of us to understand how either pure self-ishness or selflessness is possible, whether it be as a psycholog-ical state or as a basis for society itself. We know that both kindsof motives are inherent in most of us, and that the relationshipbetween them is critical to understanding ourselves, and to beinga competent member of any social group. Indeed, people who donot possess this balance, being at either limit, are very noticeablemembers of society. Excessive egotists and do-gooders aremarginalised, and at the extreme, both dispositions are recog-nised clinical conditions. Yet if balance of selfless and selfishmotives is key to psychological maturity and social effectiveness,it can also be elusive. At times we see it neither in ourselves norin others.

Understanding and being able to achieve this balance is essen-tial to political proficiency in organisations, as is the ability torecognise it in others. This is because clarity about motives isnecessary to distinguish between politics that in some sense


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 69

70 Smart Management

serve the organisation, and the politics of personal gain or pettyinterpersonal rivalry. The political mindset as a legitimate mana-gerial framework is only made possible through this distinction.Without it politics remain discredited by the ‘official’ model ofrationality. Unlike the world of government, where politics areinstitutionalised as the mechanism of government, there is nosuch baseline in organisations. In other words, putting to positiveuse the inherently political nature of organisations turns on theidea that managers are sometimes motivated by worthy causes;furthermore, that these sometimes conflict, and that just as withthe politics of government, this is fundamentally good, not bad.

The Question of Means and Ends

Once a manager goes beyond the rational framework for actionand heads for the political arena, the issue of means and endsconstantly presents itself. Do the aims justify the methods ofachieving them? It is a question that does not arise to nearly thesame extent within the rational mindset. Lines of (hierarchical)communication, corporate goal-setting processes, commonmeasurement systems, or statutory decision-making proceduresare rational organisational means that managers rarely need tojustify using to achieve rational organisational ends. They aremore likely to have to explain when they do not use them. Insharp contrast, behind-the-scenes lobbying, pursuing hiddenagendas, massaging the figures, or fixing the decision before themeeting fall within the twilight zone of acceptability. We havedeliberately used words like ‘massaging’ and ‘fixing’ to heightenthe effect. Unless you adopt a ‘purist’ rational mindset positionand rule all such methods out of court, it is not easy to decidewhat is justified and what is not. The only other way of simpli-fying the judgement is to take the ‘anything goes’ line, whichraises too many ethical and moral problems to be acceptable tomost managers.

The issue of justifiable means therefore presents a realdilemma. However, it is fully resolvable from within a political

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 70


mindset because the means are acceptable as essential to themanagerial role. Remember that it is only from the perspectiveof the rational mindset that they are defined as illegitimate. Themore that core political processes, such as taking opposing posi-tions, lobbying, or building support through alliances, are seenas the way of getting results in the absence of corporate unity,the more the political mindset acquires legitimacy. In thatrespect the justifiable means problem diminishes, although itdoes not disappear altogether. The methods can still be abused,and it remains entirely possible to cross the boundary into anethical and moral hinterland. Where does being economicalwith the truth (not telling people everything) become bare-facedlying, or revealing harmful information turn into treachery, forexample? When does calling in favours start to look more likemoral blackmail, or cultivating a relationship seem closer toruthless manipulation? Much depends on individual profession-alism and personal codes of acceptable behaviour. Butdiscussing the acceptability of means with close confidants isalso crucial in order to compensate for flaws in individualjudgement. However, in the last analysis, staying the right sideof the boundary depends on clarity of motive and understandingof how to use power wisely.

Politics and the Concept of Democracy

Having discussed the centrality of motives within the politicalmindset we will now consider the essential nature of politicsitself. We do this in order to demonstrate how a well-informedunderstanding of politics might be used to usher in the politicalmindset. So far we have talked about politics as the processthrough which both governments and organisations function,although its legitimacy is assured only in the former. In fact,within political theory the concept of politics is fundamentallylinked to that of democracy, and we must look at both to under-stand the full consequences and possibilities of managingorganisations from the vantage point of a political mindset. It

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 71

would be wrong simply to equate politics with democracybecause historically there have been political systems that havenot rested on the democratic ideal. They still exist, but fewwould disagree with the observation that there has been astriking convergence globally around the core principles ofdemocracy in the past fifty years. This is because democracyhas come to be equated in many respects with the concept of the‘good’ society, and throughout the history of political thoughtthe central question has always been ‘What is a good society,and how is it achieved?’

The democratic ideal is about equal personal freedom to delib-erate the aims of a society. The philosopher John Stuart Millspoke of citizens’ deliberation as being the spine of democracy,although not its entire structure. A democratic system has there-fore to assure citizens of the opportunity to participate in thatdeliberation through an equitable process of representation, and tohold these representatives accountable through elections. Repre-sentatives then (only) have the role of choosing the means toachieve those aims. The reasoned consideration of moral alterna-tives, or ‘debate’, is the method of deliberation, and it is a deepassumption about the nature of advanced society that there willbe conflict of aims.

Of course the ideals of democracy do not map exactly on to thereality of government. Far from it. There is always dissatisfactionabout the system of representation. Some argue that the divisionsin contemporary society lead to a power-sharing stalemate charac-teristic of the ‘hung’ parliament. The media are frequently accusedof influencing election results, and there is the ever-presenttension surrounding the power of professional administrators andcivil servants to manipulate government. These are but a few ofthe enduring imperfections. Of special interest to us is the issue ofmeans because it is here that we encounter the realities of debateand the exercise of power. How much in practice do the estab-lished means conform to the democratic ideal? For example, in theprocess of representation, not all debate is public. Transparency isnot always a strong feature of the relationships between politiciansand powerful lobby groups, institutional leaders or other high

72 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 72

profile opinion-makers. It is not even evident in the relationshipsbetween politicians in either the same or opposing parties. Orconsider the fact that political parties are themselves organisations.Like all organisations, certain members shape policy more thanothers, resulting at times in the leadership using its power to forcedissident individuals to follow the party line. These ‘renegades’are expected to vote against their own convictions, and thereforein contradiction with their representational mandate. Or again,what of the career politician who has cultivated and then put to usemany friendships on the way to high office? Some would say thatit is difficult to reconcile this with moral conviction.

Inclusion of the electorate’s views through participation is simi-larly mediated by a number of factors. Policy decisions may notreflect electoral preferences for many reasons: tactical andstrategic decisions by politicians, self-interested behaviour,compromises and broken promises. The electoral system, too, mayimpair this process. For example, in ‘first past the post’ systems,the winning party may not enjoy genuinely wide support, asevidenced in the UK by New Labour’s 2005 re-election.

Similar issues arise with accountability. Political accounta-bility is an unreliable mechanism at best as elections becomemore and more subject to media influence, and the distinctionsbetween governing and campaigning become more blurred.Accountability is at best a by-product of prospective voting,since whatever power voters have over a government comesabout by virtue of that government’s expectations of how itsperformance will affect its chances of success at the next elec-tion. The only way voters can make a reasoned decision is byassessing whether the opposition would have done worse orbetter – a hypothetical and a complex estimation subject to allkinds of influences that weaken the process of accountability.

But do these practices (means) really jeopardise the principlesof democracy? One of the great challenges of modern govern-ment is translating the ideals into workable processes withoutcompromising their essential qualities, and it is politics which lieat the heart of this process of translation. Let us examine thisidea in more detail.


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 73

Governmental politics are fundamentally a reflection of theneed to resolve a distinct source of ‘democratic stress’ betweenthe drive for collective unity and the productive exploitation ofdifferences. Politicians address this tension using what, in actu-ality, are elaborate informal organisational processes. These existfor the very reason that the formal mechanisms of democracycan be neither rationally enacted nor optimally designed.

For example, the imperative for unity is evident in bothmanaging the support of political interest groups external andinternal to parliaments. The voluntary nature of this support andparticipation is critical in the way leaders attempt to build theirmandates. Not only are vested interests expected, but there is ananticipated difference between the degree of public and privatesupport provided for different causes, and thus that some politi-cians may well pursue a covert strategy. Studies of political lead-ership on both sides of the Atlantic therefore emphasise amindset that sees conflict as a necessary and pervasive aspect ofpolitical life.4 While differences can create schisms that mayharden into intractable positions, they are also often seen as ahealthy stimulus that can make a positive contribution. In orderto maintain enthusiasm among immediate followers, leadersneed to be able to encourage differences but keep the ensuingtensions ‘within bounds’. Approaches to managing this diversityin cabinet settings can include developing relationships with keyfactions, encouraging interdependence and empowermentamongst cabinet colleagues, preparing the ground before meet-ings, and rewarding allies. In order to raise the support needed topass legislation, leaders must ‘trick, woo and cajole their way toa following’.5

Our point is that these aspects of the political process ingovernment represent the accumulated experience of puttingprinciples into practice – ‘“operationalising” the concept ofdemocracy’ in management-speak. Put another way, they areinformal mechanisms that complement the formal procedures ofgovernment, and that have become institutionalised throughwidespread use. In the spirit of the ideal they will always besubject to challenge, and the political process of democratic

74 Smart Management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 74

government will therefore continue to evolve. But for all prac-tical purposes the means of democratic politics have long agogained acceptability.

The Organisational Parallel

We are not arguing that organisations must behave like govern-ments if political means are to shed the stigma of illegitimacy.Nor are we suggesting that organisations need to adopt inentirety the principles of democracy. It is difficult to imaginehow the formal system of representative government, dedicatedto carrying out the will of all constituent members, would be aviable model for organisations of any kind. But there is a parallelbetween the two, especially when we take account of theinformal mechanisms of government, a correspondence whichpotentially lends great weight to political means being givenlegitimacy in both contexts, not just one.

Essentially the parallel lies in the multi-interest character ofboth democratic government and organisations. Competinginterests and power sharing is in the nature of good gover-nance, but is a contradiction within the rational model oforganisation. But organisations can no longer be effectivelymanaged as centrally planned hierarchies, and the movementtowards smaller business units, internal entrepreneurial inde-pendence, widespread empowerment and participation, as wellas both internal and external networks of collaborative relation-ships, ensures a multiplicity of interests. In consequence, theidea that organisations are composed of ‘stakeholders’ hasaroused much interest, partly because it places managers in therole of serving their ‘constituents’ to the best of their profes-sional ability – owners, employees, customers, suppliers andcommunity alike. To be sure, businesses still insist that theyattend to the creation of shareholder value above all else, but aswe noted previously, it is an inescapable fact that managementfaces mounting pressure to reconcile this goal with that ofdischarging ‘social responsibility’.


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 75

76 Smart Management

This transformation of corporate life has led management theo-rists to speak of the democratisation of organisations.6 Someargue that organisations are now so fragmented, and containwithin their boundaries so many different interests, that it wouldbe better to think of them as ‘corporate communities’. Increas-ingly, organisation theorists describe phenomena which have noplace within the rational model – leadership at every organisa-tional level, ‘hot’ groups and ‘pockets of good practice’ that drivetheir own agendas with missionary zeal and adopt a siegementality towards their ‘host’ organisation, and the eclipse oforganisational structure in favour of critical relationships struckbetween individuals. They warn that top management can nolonger be sole owners of strategy making, that this process mustbe just as much influenced by knowledgeable, authority-averseemployees who will go and work somewhere else if they do notget a hearing. In fact the role of top management, it seems, isgradually becoming one of grand social design, achieved throughmediation of strong interests which exist both within and beyondtheir organisations.

It follows that business leaders need to and, indeed, appear toembrace behaviours that not only include debate, lobbying andcoalition-building, but also more contentious activities such asinformation management, covert action and an ability to ‘trick,woo and cajole support’. In other words, if some level of cohe-sion around core organisational values is to be achieved, polit-ical behaviours need to become as integral to businessleadership as open dialogue and debate about differences. Aswith the leadership of political institutions, responsible polit-ical behaviour can only be predicated on the assumption thatbusiness leaders possess civic virtue. And to our knowledge,there is no evidence to suggest that managers are any less moti-vated by just causes, any less willing to forego self-servingends, nor any less prepared to distinguish between ethical andunethical means than elected politicians.7 The increasingrequirement for leaders to work in this way provides the basisfor an emerging model of work organisation. At its core is apicture of organisational life in which the principles of democ-

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 76

racy determine the legitimacy of managerial actions ratherthan authority alone.

Seen from within the context of this paradigm shift, it is notsurprising that the informal processes of democratic governmentare also deeply embedded in organisations. They perform thesame function of making the formal principles workable.However, it is not yet clear how far the principles of democracycan be transposed to organisations, and those that are implicit indevolved power structures are usually superimposed on the oldprinciples of rational organisation. The tension between them,most apparent in times of crisis when authority tends to reassertitself, leads to confusion and cynicism. This further obscures thefunctional role of the informal political processes, and the parallelthey have with the same (more accepted) processes in democraticgovernment. But a parallel there is.

Comparison of Common Perceptions aboutGovernmental and Organisational Politics

Governmental Politics Organisational Politics

� Perceived as legitimate � Largely perceived as illegitimate

� Strongly linked to � Limited acceptance of governmental democracy link to organisational and the management of democracy and diverse stakeholders management of diverse

interests

� Conflict of aims expected � Conflict of aims not and encouraged easily tolerated

� Legitimacy of covert � Covert debate debate considered illegitimate


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 77

Managers as Capable Politicians

This resemblance between the politics of democratic govern-ment and politics in organisations has grown, as organisationsthemselves have become more community-like, as they haveevolved into complex arrangements of co-operating andcompeting interest groups. Just as with all significant shifts inthe structure of society, the changes are imperceptible year byyear, organisation by organisation. They are much easier to seein the advanced stages of a social transformation of this magni-tude, and until that point is reached the old order appears toprevail. The efforts to maintain corporate unity that wedescribed in the previous chapter amply illustrate this, and thereluctance to see politics as a legitimate dimension of manage-rial work indicates that there is still great tension between therational and political mindsets.

Managers who have a clear perspective on this gradualdisplacement of one mindset by another have a huge advantage.They avoid the bewilderment and suspicion that naturallyaccompany a lack of understanding of sea change in organ-isations. They recognise the need to work with a politicalmindset while taking into account that this is still questionablein the eyes of others. They will understand something of the truenature of power in organisations, and distinguish betweenconstructive and destructive politics, or more exactly, selflessand selfish motives. Likewise they will be able to see the differ-ence between ethical and unethical means of achieving politicalgoals. And in terms of threading their way through the day-to-

78 Smart Management

� A positive process in � A negative process systems of formal that frustrates representation efficient hierarchical

management

97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 78

day practicalities of working with a political mindset, they willrecognise the value of heavy personal investment in developingcapabilities beyond those of conventional management compe-tency frameworks.

This involves acquiring an enhanced awareness of the agendasand relationships that drive the political process of organisations,and a heightened sense of responsibility about how to use powerin the service of vested interests. It requires the development ofan interpersonal skill set that makes it possible to manage rela-tionships and information according to political rather thanrational criteria alone. Furthermore, because this implies a verydifferent emphasis of time and effort compared with the conven-tions of the managerial role, there is also a need to acquire a newfocus of core activities. In effect, managers must be able torevise and embellish their positions so that political activities aresuperimposed on, or supersede, official job descriptions and rolerequirements. We address these capabilities of being a politicallyeffective manager, and the redefinition of managerial work, inthe next two chapters.

Notes

1. See: Berger, P. and Luckman, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise,The Sociology of Knowledge, Allen Lane, London.Pfeffer, J. (1992) Management with Power, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

2. Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society, vols 1 and 2, G. Roth and C. Wittich (eds)University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

3. Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,1972–1977, Harvester, Brighton.

4. See: Kaarbo, J. and Hermann, M. (1998) Leadership styles of prime ministers: howindividual differences affect the foreign policymaking process, Leadership Quarterly,9(3) 243–63.Skowronek, S. (1993) The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams toGeorge Bush, Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.

5. DeGregorio, C. (1997) Networks of Champions, University of Michigan Press, AnneArbor, MI.

6. Cloke, K. and Goldsmith, J. (2002) The End of Management and the Rise of Organisa-tional Democracy, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

7. Butcher, D. and Clarke, M. (2006) Political leadership in democracies – some lessonsfor business? Management Decision, 44(8) 985–1001.


97802305_42266_04_cha03 17/3/08 16:59 Page 79

C H A P T E R 4

The Capable Politician

When most of us become managers we discover that it is aharder role to fulfil than we expected. We come to realise why itwas so easy to criticise those already in that position. All thosemistakes that we observed other managers making, vowingnever to be like that ourselves, suddenly seem more reasonablecourses of action. Clarity evaporates before our eyes, and webegin casting around for ground rules to regain some control.That is when we find out that only some of what needs to belearned can be taught – so much has to be acquired throughexperience. While prescriptions abound, it turns out that they canonly be applied generally. What works well in one circumstancefails in another. For management is complex, and we cannot stepeffortlessly into it as though born to succeed, remainingundaunted by how different it is from anything we have donebefore. Not most of us, anyway. Usually it is anything but aseamless transition from one position to the next, and our confid-ence takes a battering.

What a dismaying prospect, then, to contemplate doing it allover again. Yet the difference between rational management andconstructive politics involves just that – relearning the managerialrole. In fact it is harder the second time around. Not only do youhave to unlearn the official model of management, but you have

80

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 80

The Capable Politician 81

to develop in yourself capabilities of dubious acceptability. Forcapable politicians have an understanding and skills which cannotsimply be bolted on to rational management practices. Of coursethey usually operate within a rational organisational context, butconstructive politicians have learned to roll with this, applyingtheir capabilities in such a way that official management practicesare not unduly threatened or compromised.

In this chapter we will try to capture the essence of thesecapabilities. We begin by considering the conceptual under-standing you require to be politically effective, by which wemean your intellectual grasp of the political character of organ-isations. Next we address the more personal understandingneeded to maintain balance between self- and other-centredmotives, reach great clarity about your own organisationalagenda, and develop a healthy scepticism about rational organ-isation. Awareness of the business environment and the politicalconfiguration of your organisation will then be our focus,followed by an examination of the interpersonal skills necessaryto be politically competent in your key organisational relation-ships. We will then draw these ideas together into a conceptualmodel for thinking about different types of political behaviour,and encourage you to consider your own approach using thisframework. Finally, we will look at the personal developmentimplications of displacing the rational mindset in favour of thepolitical, in other words, what it is that you ask of yourselfwhen you embark on this journey.

Conceptual Understanding

Organisations have been closely studied for over a century, yettheorists doubt that we are close to a comprehensive under-standing of them. As the discussion of mindsets in Chapter 2showed, there are many ways of conceptualising organisations,and the notion of ‘mindset’ itself reveals their complexity.Managerial behaviour is guided by more than one mindset within

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 81

the same organisation, each leading to a particular view of whatan organisation is and what it is not. Within the rational mindset,then, the boundaries of the organisation are well defined, andcontrol and co-ordination occur within the confines of thoseborders through the mechanism of hierarchy. In contrast, thepolitical mindset provides us with a view of organisations, not somuch aligned around unity as driven by a negotiation of stake-holder interests, some of which are outside the borders. In fact,sometimes it is not that obvious where the boundaries fall. Fromthe perspective of both mindsets, organisations are understood interms of a host of familiar concepts like hierarchy, structure,customers, goals, strategies, teams, processes, or markets. Theserepresent the universal linguistic apparatus for management, andthey give the illusion of capturing the essentials of what is meantby ‘organisation’. But each signifies something very different,depending on the mindset of the user.

We will look at several elements of conceptual understandingnecessary to work effectively within a political mindset.

Power and Politics

Let us start with the fundamentals. As we saw in the previouschapter, an understanding of the multifaceted nature of power isessential to political competence. Without this perspective it isnot possible to think much beyond organisations as rationalentities, governed by hierarchical authority. You must be able torecognise the complexity of the influence process, separatingclearly what you might want it to be from what it actually is inpractice. In other words, you need to guard against rationalmindset values clouding your ability to see clearly the truenature of organisational power. This comes in part throughdeepening comprehension of the mechanisms managers use toinfluence one another, and of how limited formal authority is inthis regard. The concept of power must be uppermost in yourmind when you contemplate how you achieve anything as a manager.

82 Smart Management

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 82

Similarly, unless you understand how power relates toachieving high political ideals, you will always be hampered bythe rational mindset view of these concepts. After all, without thisinsight, what would you make of the idea that effective manage-ment essentially concerns the principled use of power in serviceof personal agendas? As likely as not the words would jarbecause the ideas behind them would seem nonsensical, threat-ening even. For if caught within a cynical view of politics, youwill struggle to recognise deserving organisational causes, distin-guish means from ends, or self- from other-centred motives. Toyou, an organisation will remain conceptualised as a unifiedentity, rather than a system of pluralistic interests in which thereis inherent value. You will fail to appreciate clearly the role ofdemocracy and the fundamental applicability of certain of itsprinciples to the realm of management.

Relationships

You also need a true grasp of relationships to be an accom-plished politician. By this we mean that it is essential to under-stand the concept of a relationship in an organisational context.That is because so much of the influence process is realisedthrough the medium of the relationships which exist betweenindividual managers, played out in various organisationalsettings, some public, some private. Unless the specific char-acter and significance of these relationships is clear, you willfind it difficult either to build them or to recognise when theyare at work.

In theory, within the rational model, relationships are rolebased, that is to say, they follow from the organisational require-ment for individuals to interact on account of the workflowdesign. When two roles correspond in this way the relationshippresupposes a set of shared expectations about how each personwill act, founded on their respective accountabilities and respon-sibilities. It never works that way in practice, of course, becausewe cannot design organisations with the precision needed to


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 83

eliminate all role conflict or ambiguity. But much more impor-tantly, people do not relate to one another only on the basis ofrole, a crucial point if we are to understand the nature of relation-ships from a political perspective.

If you have a clear picture of your organisation as a politicalsystem, then you will see with ease that mutual interest forms thebasis of important relationships. To be sure, mutual interest isnot the only source of relationships beyond role expectation –friendship or romance, for example, both come into play inorganisations – but it is the one that effective politicians regardas essential to their task. Other sources of relationships may beof help, but are not necessary, not even role correspondencewithin organisational structures. That is why politicians seek outpowerful individuals who may share their agenda even whenthere is no official organisational reason to bring them together.Conceptual clarity about the basis for effective organisationalrelationships guides their actions.

In this sense politicians know that only some relationshipstruly matter, for it is in the nature of managerial relationshipsthat most remain superficial, often based on weak role associa-tions. They realise that it is not an end in itself to develop allrelationships, partly because some are more politically valuablethan others, but equally because it is not in the nature of relation-ships for each and every one to be personally significant. Theymay know many people, but they have not the time or mentalenergy for a large number of high quality relationships in anysphere of their lives. The politician also knows that effectiverelationships have an emergent quality to them. In other words,relationships change over time as a consequence of sharedexperience, and need to be maintained, otherwise they tend todecay. Central to their understanding about how effective rela-tionships are built is the role of trust. They know this to be aproduct of each separate relationship. Put another way, theyrealise that trust does not occur simply because two trustworthyindividuals choose to work together. The corollary of this is thatpoliticians do not expect to be trusted by those with whom theyhave only a superficial relationship.

84 Smart Management

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 84

Conceptual understanding of trust is especially important inpolitical relationships. Because it is surrounded by many value-driven sentiments, trust can be a source of great distraction fromthe realities of management. For example, organisations often setout unrealistically to create ‘high trust cultures’ on the assump-tion that trust must be good, no matter what it costs. To add tothe confusion, trust takes several forms, depending on the type ofrelationship it exists within. It most certainly is not a unitaryconcept.1 What is meant by trust in a romantic relationship, forexample, is not what it denotes in a professional relationship. Inthe latter it is more likely to be based on perceptions of rolecompetence. In contrast, the basis for trust in political relation-ships is primarily respect for worthy causes, whether these arecomplementary or competing, and integrity with regard to meansand ends. Politicians consequently understand that it is approp-riate to trust their adversaries provided those individuals are wellintentioned in a political sense. They know that if they them-selves let self-seeking motives take precedence, or if they crossthe line of acceptability with regard to means, then, as with allforms of trust, breaking it is catastrophic to any relationship. Inother words, they understand that trust and mistrust are notsimple opposites.

Political Mechanisms

Insight into the nature of relationships must be accompanied by afirm appreciation of how political mechanisms operate in anorganisational context, specifically lobbying, using stealth, andappearing to conform to formal organisational requirements.

Lobbying is the process of selling and gathering support foryour cause. As with governmental politics, much lobbying inorganisations is done in private, through relationships, ratherthan a public forum. Conceptual clarity about organisationaldecision-making mechanisms is critical to understanding thesignificance of lobbying, otherwise you will mistake board meet-ings, company conferences, executive briefings, team problem-


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 85

solving workshops and many other situations where managersformally come together for something they are not. Managerialdecision-making, in other words, is often a drawn-out processthat characteristically occurs out of the public gaze, with only a small element visible in meetings apparently called for that purpose. Lobbying is key to influencing the outcome ofthose decisions.

Stealth is necessary in organisational politics because withoutit you may reveal your purposes before it is wise to do so. Aswith all forms of competition, formal or informal, there isnothing to be gained by showing your hand until it no longermatters to do so. But stealth seems akin to deception, trickeryand even lying unless it is well understood, and for this reasonis difficult to employ effectively without absolute certaintyabout its role in the political process. Skilful politicians think ofit as a natural component of the process and therefore exper-ience none of the discomfort encountered by their rationalmanager counterparts.

Capable politicians also know that formal organisationalrequirements must be met, not ignored, or worse, complainedabout. Drawing attention to a personal agenda by failing tocarry out ‘the day job’ is nothing short of politically naïve. Aclear view of which formal requirements should take prece-dence is essential to ensuring that political activity is notsimply eclipsed by the effort that would be needed to satisfy allthe routine demands on a manager’s time. Meeting quantifiedperformance targets and deadlines will take priority becauseeffective politicians understand well the role of measurement,its uses and its abuses.

Pockets of Alternative Practice

The idea of a worthwhile political agenda that might arise fromanywhere within an organisation leads to the possibility thatindividual managers may set out to build pockets of alternative

86 Smart Management

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 86

practice around themselves, with or without permission.2 It is anatural extension of their commitment to creating organisationalchange, which will not necessarily be confined merely trying topersuade others that they have something worthwhile to say. Farfrom it. In fact the more ambitious their cause, the more likelythose managers are to create initiatives, however local andmodest, which involve time, money and people. Conceptuallythis represents a radical political alternative to top-down organi-sational change, for if senior management lack the vision tosponsor isolated local initiatives, then from within the rationalmindset they are, by definition, ‘illegal’.

Conceptual clarity about pockets of alternative practice iscritical to their organisational success. Setting out to build a‘pocket’, the capable politician will understand that, in theearly stages, it can only include a small number of like-mindedindividuals who share a strong commitment to the initiative.3

Identification with the alternative agenda must be the drivingforce, secrecy and a ‘siege mentality’ uppermost in the mindsof those involved, and genuine teamwork based on the desirefor high standards of thinking and achievement the norm.Similarly, politically astute leaders of pockets know theimportance of managing the boundaries closely. A sharp focuson what information is released is necessary until such time asthe pocket can protect itself organisationally through thepower of its own success. Even then it is key to understandthat a pocket can be threatened by senior management appro-priation of its achievements, often by attempting to use thesuccess as a source of organisational learning. With that inmind pocket leaders understand the importance of recruiting asenior management sponsor who will help protect the pocketin its infancy, and smooth its passage into the position oforganisational influence if and when that time comes. Aboveall, effective politicians know that the vibrant activitycontained within a pocket can, in due course, help to shift anorganisation’s centre of gravity. They know too how easily anorganisation can extinguish that potential. Such is the natureof political endeavour.


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 87

Self-understanding

Just as conceptual understanding is key to resolving confusion ofthinking that comes from the overlay of the political mindset onrational organisation, so self-understanding is critical to unravel-ling the confusion of motives and values experienced in thosecircumstances. For discovering the appropriate balance betweenself- and other-centred motives is not easily achieved, nor is achange in attitude towards the fundamentals of rational organ-isation such as authority, order and control.

Balanced Motives

Good politicians are motivated by worthwhile endeavour,defined as working for the betterment of others. Unlike ingovernment, where political agendas are based on alternativesocial value systems, conflicting agendas in organisations arederived from the stakeholder concept. It is the ambitions oforganisational politicians that determine how far-reaching theiragendas are for the organisation. Clearly the more limited andlocal the agenda, the more those directly involved are likely tobe key stakeholders. Nevertheless, even in clandestine pocketsof practice, leaders must be motivated to work on behalf of theirteams, rather than themselves, as the minimum condition forconstructive politics. As we will see in the next chapter, takingresponsibility for working towards some better common good iscentral to the motivation of politically able managers.

Ambition and a sense of responsibility, then, are the key moti-vations to pursue a political agenda. Everything else that wemight think of as ‘motivational’ for managers is subservient tothese. ‘Negative’ motives like lack of confidence, risk-aversion,or fear of disapproval are overcome through commitment to aworthy cause, while ‘positive’ drives such as intellectual stimu-lation or desire for self-determination ultimately tend to be by-products of political endeavour. Yet this certainty of purpose isonly possible when managers understand well their own ambi-

88 Smart Management

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 88

tion and sense of responsibility. If this is lacking, then it is theirvery human and entirely legitimate concerns for job security,good bonuses, rapid career moves, or other self-centred motivesthat guide their actions. They get caught up in moral dilemmas,issues of personal integrity and feelings of guilt, and riskcompromising their credibility as able politicians.

Whether it is the act of pursuing a worthy cause that createsthis necessary self-understanding for each of us, or whether it isinsight into our own motivation that makes constructive politicspossible, is immaterial. It is almost certainly both. Political capa-bility depends on our understanding of where to draw the linebetween self- and other-centred motives. To put it another way,constructive organisational politicians are very clear about howselfless they are prepared to be. The simplest possible startingpoint is to ask yourself what you want to achieve in your presentmanagerial role. If the answers you give are mainly along thelines of ‘getting promoted’, ‘keeping your nose clean’, ‘makinga name for yourself’, or ‘meeting this year’s revenue target’,then you have probably yet to alight on your worthy cause, andwhile ambition may be driving you, your sense of responsibilityfor the betterment of others may need some clarification.

Managers with Attitude

Values about rational organisation run deep. From within thatmindset we do not just believe authority, order and control arenatural organisational phenomena; we consider that they areinherently positive. And of course they are – up to a point. Thatpoint is the limit of their usefulness in the context of contempo-rary organisational forms we discussed earlier. Yet for the politicalmindset to flourish, a critical perspective on the values thatunderpin rational organisation must come into play. But how?

The answer is a healthy scepticism about what is possiblethrough so-called formal organisation. It means adopting an atti-tude of irreverance towards the principles of rationality. Scornand disdain, however, would be unworthy sentiments. A good


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 89

analogy is in the way that children, as they develop, discover theirparents to be flawed role models of adulthood. But difficult asthis insight may be for some young people to reconcile with theimage they hold of their parents, it does not follow that they loserespect for them, or for the institution of parenthood. Irreverenceand respect can coexist, but in that circumstance respect is nolonger unconditional and unquestioning. It is, instead, founded onbalanced judgement rather than received values alone.

Such maturity of perspective about the values of rational organ-isation is essential for political competence, but is hard won. Itclearly requires more than being prepared to adopt an anti-formalorganisation stance and engaging in subterfuge. Radicalism is notthe answer in organisational contexts because revolutionaries areeasily marginalised, patronised, and dismissed as incompetents.After all, it is always easier to take an extreme position and vilifyyour rivals, than it is to maintain a strong position whilehonouring those who oppose you. Constructive politicians do notattack authority and corporatism but use their irreverence toquestion and challenge from a position of benevolence towardsthose caught in the rational mindset.

Awareness

In Chapter 3 we often suggested that the effective use of powerdepended on high levels of awareness. In that discussion wewere referring to the need to be able to recognise the powerbases of other people, the domain of usability of power andwhen it is being exercised. Able politicians, in other words, havea keen knowledge of their organisational situation. They knowwho is influential with whom, where and how decisions aremade, and what those decisions concern. This knowledge theyobtain by actively seeking it, particularly through the politicalrelationship-building process we described earlier. Awareness,then, involves much more than simply being alert when in thecompany of people you believe to be key organisational players.

90 Smart Management

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 90

It refers to an active and continuous search for knowledge aboutthe agendas of other people and their effectiveness as politicians,how your organisation functions in decision-making terms andwhat the important issues are that it faces.

Stakeholder Knowledge

‘Who are my most important stakeholders and what are theiragendas?’ These are the key questions for capable politiciansintent on gathering knowledge about who will support and whowill oppose their efforts, and can only be answered throughextensive personal interaction with stakeholders themselves.Third-party perceptions are insufficient to create this knowledgebecause they are usually contaminated by those individuals’agendas. To some extent it is a matter of trial and error to deter-mine who has an interest in what you wish to achieve, and it isimportant to distinguish between those who are interested andthose who, from a rational mindset perspective, ought to be inter-ested. Bosses are the best example of where this differentiationneeds to be sharpest. The knowledge you build will be indispen-sable to deciding which stakeholders you need to give priority to,for you cannot devote high levels of attention to them all. Youhave to choose.

Your stakeholder analysis needs to establish knowledge of theagendas of those within your political field of vision, and themotives that lie behind them. It is, of course, these motives thattell you about the balance of self- and other-centred interests, andhow stakeholders resolve the means–ends dilemma. To put itanother way, you need to create for yourself knowledge of theirambitions and sense of responsibility. In addition, you must alsobe able to assess their levels of awareness. If you lack any of thisknowledge you will be unable to judge successfully the integrityand political astuteness of your stakeholders, and you riskrevealing your own agenda to someone who lacks one or both ofthese capabilities. This kind of knowledge is therefore essential tominimising the risk in trust building.


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 91

Organisational Knowledge

What kind of awareness about an organisation is essential to thecapable politician? Primarily knowledge of who makes keydecisions and about the decision-making processes. If majordecisions affecting you are made by individuals too organ-isationally distant to create a relationship with, then knowingwho they are is important to reaching them indirectly wherepossible, through your stakeholders. Decision-making processesinvolving several people may sometimes be similarly influencedvia your stakeholders if you are not included yourself, but youfirst need to know how these work. They are of two kinds –public and private. The first relates to formal processes,consisting of mechanisms such as boards, executive committeesand management teams. Of course these are not usually public ina transparent sense, since the processes are conducted behindclosed doors. But they have known (or at least knowable) termsof reference, membership, and decision-making criteria, all ofwhich may affect how you should attempt to make a case, eitherthrough direct or indirect representation.

The private form consists of agreements made between indiv-iduals in the decision-making process who have politicalalliances, and sometimes personal relationships. Some of theseagreements are reached literally in private, and some areimplicit in the interpersonal dynamics of committees andmanagement team meetings. Awareness of the understandingsand relationships between contributors to organisationaldecisions is essential to positioning your own agenda. Lackingthat knowledge you will be unable to work effectively withhidden opposition, or capitalise on a high level of tacit support.Worse still, you may reduce your credibility by appearing naïve.Once again it is relationships with your stakeholders that are themost likely sources of this knowledge, together with oppor-tunistic observation of the relationships between key organ-isational decision-makers.

92 Smart Management

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 92


Knowledge of the Business Environment

Awareness of what is happening in the outside world is critical toknowing the key issues faced by your organisation. It is know-ledge that can be acquired both internally and externally, butthere is an important difference depending on which source youuse. Knowledge originating internally is gained by talking tothose who primarily interface with the environment, and to keydecision-makers. Using established relationships is less signifi-cant than finding occasions on which to ask questions, and ifthose do not arise routinely you have to create them. Alterna-tively, read what these sources write. Whatever method you useto gain the knowledge, it is essential to guessing or learning thenature of forthcoming decisions that may affect you.

However, internal sources may be wrong, biased or com-placent, and changes in the environment will go undetected orignored. Supplementing your knowledge through externalsources is therefore a good use of energy and time, but needs tobe highly focused. Aside from making maximum use of formalmechanisms such as market research or regular customer andsupplier interfaces, the key here is systematically to createchances to gain knowledge. These may include anything fromattending public seminars, conferences and management devel-opment events, to sitting on a professional committee orcontributing to an industry-specific forum such as an advisorybody. Again, reading is an efficient means of raising your aware-ness of trends and shifts in the environment, but published mate-rial is not a substitute for detailed and intimate knowledge ofwhat is happening in customer, supplier and competitor compa-nies, government departments, public agencies, regulatorybodies, or any other relevant organisations.

In addition to confirming your awareness of critical issues foryour organisation, then, the fact that your sources are externalmay make it easier for you to introduce that knowledge.Presented skilfully, so as not to threaten those individuals whoserole is to anticipate developments in the business environment,this has the benefit of developing your credibility internally. It

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 93

94 Smart Management

is knowledge that can only be gained through dedicated effort,but it marks out capable politicians. By one means or anotherthey come to know the important questions to be addressed intheir organisations.

Interpersonal Skills

Politicians require the same interpersonal skills in relating toothers as all managers. However, because of the necessaryemphasis on influencing through relationships, there is a needfor certain ones to be especially well honed. These are the skillsof presenting persuasively, challenging productively and readingothers accurately. They are more correctly described as skill setsbecause each consists of several core interpersonal skillscombined in a specific way. Productive challenge, for example,involves assertive statements, open and probing questions, aswell as careful listening.

Persuasive Presentation

The ability to win support for your agenda is determined byyour skill in presenting a good argument. Obvious? Of courseit is. But less apparent to some managers is the limited poten-tial of their well-written reports and business cases to impressinfluential decision-makers. Your drafting (or writing) skills, toborrow an expression from the world of government politics,may be second to none, but unless you present your report orbusiness case in person, you severely limit your chances ofsuccess. By ‘presenting’ we mean far more than addressing anaudience with the support of visual aids. In fact this may notfeature in your efforts to win support until late in the process, if at all. After all, lobbying, especially of the impromptu‘corridor conversation’ kind, hardly lends itself to the format offormal speeches.

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 94

In seeking to influence others in favour of their worthy cause,capable politicians use a complex skill set. It involves intro-ducing ideas through suggestion, selective blending ofsupporting information and making logical connections. Thismust build towards demonstrating deep commitment and enthu-siasm, and at some point usually requires direct disclosure ofpersonal motives. The presentation style should be one ofcollaboration, win–win, in other words, and demonstrate a will-ingness to concede where appropriate. This last point is criticalto success since effective influence is rarely possible withoutyou giving something to the person you wish to influence,impress or inspire. Above all, your language and use of voiceneed to convey respect for the view of the other, and the possi-bility that it conflicts with your own. This is central to the prin-ciple of constructive politics.

Productive Challenge

The most economical way to challenge other people is to tellthem you disagree with or disapprove of them. You do not needto exercise much skill, it takes little time, and they know whereyou stand. However, it is usually ineffective with influentialdecision-makers, and has a long-term negative effect on yourrelationship with them. Challenge is critical to dislodging theorganisational status quo, to influencing attitudes, beliefs andhabits, and in pursuing a political agenda is often a valuablecomplementary process to persuasive presentation. But to beproductive more is required than head-to-head provocation.

A far more effective process of challenge is to use what inter-personal skill experts refer to as ‘causal analysis’. It is a methodof using questions to cause others to analyse their assumptions,views or behaviour, and is essentially educational in naturebecause it implies personal changes, willingly undertaken. To besuccessful it must be used in conjunction with very activelistening, because the answer to one question should determinethe content and format of the next. Since serial questioning will


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 95

sound like an interrogation, no matter how benign or well inten-tioned, there is also a need to inject assertive statements into theprocess, together with a demonstration of empathy for the otherperson’s thought processes. In addition, a touch of humour and alittle self-deprecation by the challenger can have a dispropor-tionately positive effect. But it requires great skill and carefultiming, especially when challenging those who are partiallyaware of what you are trying to do. It is actually easier to usewith the highly aware because they are more likely to appreciatethe value of the process and apply it themselves.

Accurate Reading of Others

Every action of capable politicians needs to be underpinned byaccurate reading of the motives of others. This is presupposed bypersuasive presentation and productive challenge, but occursindependently of those processes. It should be continuous, bothactive and passive, direct and oblique, but always unobtrusive. Aswe have said, motives are everything, the basis for all thriving polit-ical alliances, and they are the final criterion for judging yourstanding in relation to each of your stakeholders. Since they havea range of selfish and other-centred aims, and varying degrees ofwillingness to reveal these, you cannot afford to be anything lessthan constantly vigilant. Those who are other-centred and openmay be guileless at times, but they are not problematic. Neither areself-centred individuals who are easy to read because they (can)do little to disguise their motives. It is the poker faced whom youhave to work much harder with in order to judge them well, other-wise you may err in either of two wrong directions. First you maymisread reticence about revealing intentions as a sign of self-centredness, and second, statements of other-centredness mayappear sincere when they are not.

Accurate reading requires constant sifting for informationcontained in what others say and then do or do not do. Because itdoes not only depend on data from conversations in which youare a direct participant, reading can often be informed by passive

96 Smart Management

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 96

observation alone. It is key to compare words to subsequentactions because of the rich information this linkage containsabout intentions, although it is not of course final proof of eitherself- or other-centredness. Reliable reading also requires that youunderstand well your own tendencies to be either cynical or seethe best in people, since both can distort your conclusions aboutthe motives of others.


Constructive Politics: An Overview of Key Capabilities

Conceptual Understanding� Power and politics: evaluating the complexity of the

influence process and the role of motives.

� Relationships: evaluating the different barriers toorganisational relationships.

� Political mechanisms: recognising the value of lobbying,stealth and the adherence to formal procedure.

� Pockets of good practice: appreciating the value ofestablishing worthwhile local agendas to stimulateorganisational change.

Self-understanding� Balanced motives: clarity about personal and organisa-

tional motivations.

� Managerial irreverence: a healthy scepticism about thelimits to what is possible in formal organisations.

Awareness� Stakeholder knowledge: knowing the agendas and

motivations of key players.

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 97

A Model of Political Capability

Some while ago, Simon Baddeley and Kim Turnbull James devel-oped a model of political behaviour based on their experience ofworking with managers in local government in the UK.4 Thismodel has been instructive for us in conceptualising differenttypes of political behaviour, and we have developed their ideashere to summarise some of the key capabilities discussed in thischapter into an easily understandable framework.

The framework comprises two key dimensions. First, that ofawareness: the ability to read interpersonal and business situ-ations well; understanding others’ motivations, reading thesubtext of what they say; having a sound knowledge of the busi-ness environment; and understanding both public and privateapproaches to organisational decision-making. The second dimen-sion highlights the centrality of motives in political activity. Is anindividual’s political activity guided by a concern for working

98 Smart Management

� Organisational knowledge: knowing who makes keydecisions and how they are made.

� Business environment knowledge: knowing the crit-ical organisational issues.

Interpersonal Skills� Persuasive presentation: developing collaborative

outcomes through personal enthusiasm, suggestion,logical connections and the disclosure of motives.

� Productive challenge: causing others to analyse their assumptions.

� Reading others: a continual observation and evalua-tion of the motives and actions of others.

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 98

with the best of organisational motives or focused on self-serving outcomes? The framework thus produces four dimen-sions of political activity, each with its own modus operandi (seeFigure 4.1).

The bottom right-hand quadrant describes the naïve politicianwho holds a strong rational mindset, and although genuinelytrying to do their best for the organisation, unwittingly falls foulof others’ agendas. Often ‘burned’ by such activity, some individ-uals adopt behaviours reflected in the bottom left-hand quadrantwhere looking after themselves at the expense of others becomesa major preoccupation. However, in working with a low aware-ness of interpersonal and business issues, own goals become justthat, self-defeating behaviour, and over time those adopting suchan orientation find themselves with diminishing influence. Mostmanagers readily recognise the manipulative behaviour of theclever politician in the top left-hand quadrant. Such individualssaturate large amounts of management time as others attempt toguess and second-guess their deliberately concealed intentions.Nevertheless, such behaviour does reflect the desire to takeresponsibility, to make things happen; it’s just that such action isprimarily guided by self-interest and can ultimately lead to divi-sive point-scoring. In the top right-hand quadrant, individuals aremotivated by a real concern for others’ outcomes and, informedby a thorough understanding of wider interests and relevant busi-ness imperatives, such people are often highly influential.However, being overly focused on the success of others can resultin a failure to satisfy their own personal objectives.

All such models are of course an oversimplification; there aremany more shades of political activity than the four caricaturesdescribed here. Reality is always more complicated. For example,it is probably fair to say that most of us inhabit all four of theseboxes at different times and in different circumstances. Despiteour best endeavours we cannot be aware of everything that goeson in our organisations. In effect, each of us demonstrates a rangeof behaviours and motivations that over a period of time forms astyle of working. On this basis we invite you to consider theshape of your own range of political behaviour and to map this to


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 99

Low awarene

High awarenSe

lf-c

entr

ed m

otiv

es

Figure 4.1 A model of political behaviour

Characteristics:

Wants to be seen as powerful Well-masked charming veneer Checks gossip/rumours Uses coalition, knows how the informal processes work Manipulates situations to appear never to make mistakes Gets support, bargains

Says things like:

‘Leave it to me, I’ll have a word with him – he’s terribly out of touch.’‘I think it would be unwise for me to take this on, it’s very delicate, how aboutyou … you know how good you are?’‘I share some of her/his feelings on this matter even if not quite so passionately.’

Believes:

In personal power to achieveIn personal visionIn the validity of political influence

Limitations:

Gets diverted from organisationally valuable activityCompliance easier to achieve than commitmentInvests huge effort in self-protectionSaturates others’ timeMotives eventually become apparent to others

Characteristics:

Sees things as ‘either – or’Plays psychological/political games but doesn’t read those of othersGets involved in gossip and rumours

Says things like:

‘You know me …’‘With all due respect …’‘Let’s decide what we want and then make it look like what they want.’‘Well, we all know how he got his job, don’t we?’

Believes:

Can’t personally make a differenceManaging change/issues is someone else’s responsibilityNothing really ever changes

Limitations:

Emotionally illiterateFocused on own feelingsInterpersonally inept at making alliances/coalitionsDoesn’t listen to othersNot tuned into grapevine

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 100

Low awareness

High awareness

Oth

er-c

entr

ed m

otiv

esCharacteristics:

Sticks to organisational and professional rulesHolds exaggerated respect for rationalityTakes things literallyOpenly shares informationSense of loyalty

Says things like:

‘Could we get on with the main task of this meeting?’‘If they would simply tell us what they really want, we could get on with it.’‘In my professional opinion …’‘I don’t get involved with politics.’

Believes:

In expert and position powerYou are powerful if you are rightFlavours of the month are here to stayAuthority and power are congruent

Limitations:

Doesn’t appreciate political purposeDoesn’t network, doesn’t know how to get supportUnderstands content but not process of proceduresDoesn’t recognise double messages

Characteristics:

Aware of purpose and interested in directionGood interpersonal skills, high levels of self-knowledgeChecks gossip/rumoursExcellent listener, is aware of others’ viewpointsUses coalition, knows how the informal processes workNon-defensive, learns from mistakes, reflects on eventsKnows the formal and informal organisation success criteria

Says things like:

‘How are we going to sort this out?’‘I wonder what’s lying behind these ideas?’‘What would be a good outcome for you?’‘Let me make sure I understand what you are asking for.’

Believes:

Different interests can be satisfiedIn personal power to achieve changeIn collaboration to gain buy-inIn the validity of political influence

Limitations:

Failure to recognise that not all game players will collaborateCan fail to recognise when own goals need to be prioritised

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 101

the model. However, remember that where you see yourself in thematrix may not be how others view you. For example, your ownbehaviours of private reflection and consideration might be seenby your colleagues as secretive and covert, and as a consequence,they may suspect rather than support your thinking.

Whatever your intention, to operate consistently below thehorizontal ‘motives’ axis is untenable as a long-term strategy formanagers. Those in positions of responsibility need always tostrive towards being as aware as possible of the key business andinterpersonal issues facing them. As we have described in thischapter, this means using your time judiciously, in both formalmeetings and informal corridor conversations, to build yourstock of business and personal knowledge. Whether suchinsights are used for constructive or self-serving political ends isa matter of balancing motives, and so we consider the shadedarea at the top of the framework to represent the aspirations forconstructive politicians (see Figure 4.2).

102 Smart Management

Preferred range ofbehaviours for

constructive politicians

Other-centredmotives

Self-centredmotives

High awareness

Low awareness

Individualsreflect a rangeof behaviours

Figure 4.2 The zone of constructive political behaviour

97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 102

Personal Development Implications

Some managers are natural constructive politicians. For most,however, becoming an effective politician involves a difficultlearning process. As we have seen, there are layers of capabili-ties from conceptual understanding to interpersonal skills, allholding significant personal development implications. Masteryof each capability in its own right requires time, energy anddevotion to the task. As with all complex learning it is under-standable to falter, to lose the will to persist. But above all it isa hard personal journey because this transition is aboutacquiring a mindset, and there is a powerful counter force –rational organisation.

A shift of mindset only occurs when there is sufficient dissat-isfaction with the prevailing one. It is the same with any signifi-cant personal transformation. Negative feelings have to exist inorder to overcome the pull of familiar, tried and tested ways ofthinking, or skills and knowledge you have learned over manyyears. There is a lot to lose. Only when there is enough disillu-sion, frustration, feeling of injustice, or similar opposing motiva-tion, will a transition occur. And it will be an uncomfortableexperience, characterised by pendulum emotions that accom-pany success and failure as you struggle to learn in an environ-ment which is anything but supportive.

But the prize is high. Successful personal transitions tend toculminate in a feeling of great achievement, a higher level ofmaturity, and those who discover the organisational potential ofthe political mindset have a sense of new-found liberation. Theirself-belief spirals upwards. However, these outcomes are onlypossible because the development process is motivated bydissatisfaction with rational management values. To put itanother way, such a transition cannot be just an exercise in intel-lectual stimulation. So if you have got to this point, we believeyou need to ask yourself a question before proceeding to thenext chapter. Here it is:


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 103

What are the negative feelings you harbourabout rational organisation that will allowyou to succeed as a manager far beyond its

limitations?

It is a straightforward question and you must be able to give asimple answer. If you can then read on, and we will describe foryou how capable politicians operate so that you can take the nexttransitional steps.

Notes

1. Atkinson, S. and Butcher, D. (2003) Trust in managerial relationships, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 18(4) 282–304.

2. Butcher, D. and Atkinson, S. (2000) The bottom-up principle, Management Review,January, 48–53.

3. Clarke, M. and Meldrum, M. (1999) Creating change from below, early lessons forchange agents, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20(2) 70–80.

4. Baddeley, S. and James, K. (1987) Owl, fox, donkey or sheep: political skills formanagers, Management Education and Development, 18(1) 3–19.


97802305_42266_05_cha04 17/3/08 17:00 Page 104

C H A P T E R 5

Working with Legitimate Politics

Chapter 4 described the competencies and personal developmentnecessary for managers to become politically able. In order toturn these ideas into action this next chapter examines howmanagers might work in practice from the perspective of a polit-ical mindset. It encourages readers to rethink their role and towork in very different ways from the conventions of managerialactivity. Our starting point is to describe what managers actuallydo now, and why they do it that way in the first place. By exam-ining the evidence that we and other researchers have amassed inthe study of managerial work, we will be able to compare andcontrast activity patterns based on the rational mindset withthose of the politically astute manager.

The reader will be presented with a series of case studiesdescribing everyday managerial work. This will enable us toillustrate the ways that managers operating within a politicalmindset use their time, channel their energies, and prioritise theirwork. It will also allow readers to compare the use of their ownmanagerial time, and how this may need to be changed to reflectconstructive political behaviour and motivation.

In the final part of the chapter we will show how managers cansimultaneously work with the value of rationality and the reality

105

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 105


of a political environment to secure operational and strategicchange in the interests of their organisation.

Understanding What Managers Do

The analysis of managerial work has a long tradition. Identi-fying, cataloguing and classifying the roles, tasks and activitiesthat managers actually spend their time on has been a preoccupa-tion of academics and practitioners for many years. The mainfocus of this enquiry was very much set by Henri Fayol,1 one ofthe earliest researchers, who in 1916 classified the managementrole into eight basic functions: determining objectives, fore-casting, planning, organising, directing, co-ordinating, control-ling and communicating. Down the years the Fayol classificationhas been developed and elaborated many times over, taking intoaccount different variables such as national culture and organisa-tional constraints. However, most of this work has beenconcerned with description and classification rather than with aneffort to build theory. Put differently, we have learnt more aboutwhat managers do than why they do it.

Despite this, the impact of these descriptive studies in rein-forcing the rational nature of managerial work has beenimmense. For the most part, the rationality of organisations istaken for granted – in other words, the researchers have animplicit theory of managerial behaviour. There is a broadassumption that managers act as neutral professionals, exer-cising their expertise with impartiality, while the impact ofpower has been largely ignored. For example, Henry Mintzberg,the author of another landmark study into managerial behaviourin 1973, classified management in terms of ten different roles,each being derived from formal organisational authority andstatus.2 In other words, Mintzberg’s managers were assumed tobe motivated to enact their roles in accordance with their formalorganisational authority.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 106

Attempts to develop alternative approaches have mostlyfocused on empowerment and its constituent elements of trust,openness and collaboration. But as we noted in Chapter 2,these concepts still reflect the core principles of the rationalmodel because they are embedded in values of corporate unity.Realistically speaking, the decentralisation of power andauthority is the management response to an increasinglyunstable business environment, rather than a genuine desire torelease decision-making authority, driven by the recognitionthat unity is a myth. This is never more evident than duringtimes of downturn when top management feel compelled toreturn to traditional command and control measures in order toturn round ailing corporations.

The difficulties of getting beyond the rational model ofmanagement, to understand how managers come to resolve thetensions between rational management and the inevitable poli-tics of competing interests, prompted us to embark on our ownresearch study in this area.3 The investigation used the model ofgovernmental politics we discussed in Chapter 3. We asked: incomplex contemporary settings, how do managers create unityand exploit differences and how do they balance self-interestwith wider organisational concerns? The research consisted ofinterviews with managers from organisations with varyingdegrees of formally acknowledged corporate unity in five verydifferent industries. We asked them about their understanding ofthe organisations in which they worked and how they wentabout influencing and leading within that environment. Withineach business, the managers had experience of working witheach other so we were able to gain an insight into not only howthey tackled these issues, but also how they viewed each others’behaviour in doing so. Perhaps not surprisingly, responsesvaried from those reflecting the rational mindset of corporateunity to those demonstrating behaviours consistent with a polit-ical model of activity. In the absence of any formally agreedmodel of working, the latter group of managers appearedlargely to ‘make it up for themselves’. That is, in seeking towork with the tensions of competing interests, they arrived at

Working with Legitimate Politics 107

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 107


their own conclusions almost irrespective of organisationalcircumstance. In consequence, they tended to see themselves asindependent of the goals of their organisation, while alsoworking within them.

Table 5.1 A continuum of leadership behaviour

From rational leadership To (constructive) political leadership

Preference for formal meetings and Extensive use of informal processes, e.g. processes covert activity, corridor meetings

Focus on senior management Focus on working with personal agendasapproval/buy-in

Relationship building focused at Relationship-building and networking at all senior levels levels

Debating and challenging among Encouraging debate and challenge at all levelssmall coterie

Carefully prescribed delegation and Providing others with space and autonomy toempowerment experiment, stimulating bottom-up change

Tendency to influence through Influencing by focusing on broad directionoperational control

Working on formally agreed priorities/ Working outside agreed responsibilities, often issues on unofficial initiatives

Challenging through established Challenging the status quo, irreverent and processes subversive

Exclusive and involving of few Inclusive and involving of many

Representing legitimate organisation Representing the interests of quasi-legitimate interests, e.g. own department, constituencies, often external to own respons-customers ibilities, e.g. other functions, unofficial issues

While being able to work from the rational perspective ifrequired, these managers were more likely to make extensive useof relationships and networks, and involve many others indebating, challenging and experimenting with different ways ofworking. Most interestingly, they were often to be foundworking outside their formal responsibilities, sometimespursuing unofficial initiatives, sometimes representing the quasi-legitimate agendas of others.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 108


These actions (see Table 5.1) reflect well the capabilitiesdescribed in Chapter 4. Those managers working with this orien-tation reduced the chance of negative reaction to their approachby tactics that included transparency of motive, searching forwin–win solutions, and an openness to dialogue. While not alltheir colleagues were consistently positive about their actions,overall they were seen in a very positive light and variouslydescribed as; ‘a good role model’, ‘very good at getting peopleto work for them outside their own area’, ‘the most stimulatingperson I could think of working for’, ‘a brilliant leader’,‘massively democratic’, ‘receptive to new ideas’, ‘incrediblyopen to dialogue’, ‘extremely inclusive and consultative’.

These descriptions appear so favourable one is left with thequestion as to why more managers do not work from a construc-tive political orientation. However, much of our argument thus farhas highlighted the power of the rational model to underminelegitimate political activity. What is it then that enables individualsto work in contravention to this dominant approach? The answerlies in understanding the motivations that drive managerial behav-iours, above all the motivation to take responsibility, the commondenominator to all managerial work. Focusing on responsibilityenables us to illustrate how patterns of everyday managerial activ-ities are driven by motivations other than the desire to conform tothe principles of rational organisation, and allows us to avoid theself-fulfilling nature of tacit, value-driven theory.

So Why Do Managers Do What They Do?

As we have just suggested, the differing motivational assump-tions that lie behind the rational and political mindsets areparticularly well illustrated in the concept of managerial respon-sibility. Colin Hales,4 a management theorist who has writtenextensively on issues of managerial work, identifies organisa-tional responsibility as the defining element of managementwork and one that distinguishes managers from non-managers.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 109


This being so, when we ask basic questions as to why managersfeel responsible, to whom are they responsible, and for what, webegin to reveal the true motivational basis for their actions.

Motivation and the Rational Mindset

In the rational mindset, organisations are economic unitscreated to achieve shareholder value if they are businesses, or inthe case of public institutions, realise specific social objectiveswith minimal use of resources. In this way organisations areconstructed on the ideals of efficiency and effectiveness andmanagers are the agents through which these ideals are imple-mented. Objectives that contribute to the overall strategy arecascaded down to individual managers who are given specificresponsibility for the success of the collective endeavour. Withthis responsibility comes the formal authority to pursue theirorganisational goals. Rationally, then, managers are motivatedto exercise their power responsibly in the interests of the widerorganisation, the team, the function or the business unit.

But with responsibility also comes accountability. Managersare answerable for their own actions and for those of others, notjust direct reports, but in today’s organisational structures, forindividuals and groups in cross-organisational arrangements ofmany kinds. They are faced with the dilemma of individualaccountability for a collective outcome, and a very basicdilemma this is, because ‘imperfections’ in the rational modelthrow up two special problems: aligning the ‘irresponsible’agendas of other managers, and addressing the behaviours ofthose who do not have to act responsibly since they do not haveorganisational responsibility in the first place. The more difficultthese problems become, the greater the test of managerial moti-vations, since from within the rational mindset, responsibilityfundamentally means working to create alignment.

Naturally enough, the understandable response to these moti-vational challenges is to dig deeper into the tool kit of rationalcraftsmanship. Take the example of Carlo.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 110

Faced with the problem of extending his responsibility beyondhis immediate remit, Carlo’s reaction was to reach for theconventions of rational management. When these failed him hehad to retreat in order to affirm his responsibility and identity asa manager. This too became counterproductive, but it allowedhim to close off the contradictions of the rational mindset, and tomaintain purity of motive.


Carlo had worked in furniture manufacturing all his lifeand risen to the position of Operations Manager. In thisnew role he was being asked to contribute to the widerstrategy of his company, and work more with colleaguesacross the business, not just those in manufacturing. Hesoon found that they had different agendas to him, and indue course this started to weigh him down. He failed topersuade them to give greater priority to certain manufac-turing issues that seemed to be holding back the entirecompany. Consequently, he lost interest in the biggerpicture issues and focused down into his own direct areaof responsibility. That is where his effort should be goinganyway, he reasoned, and he set out to drive throughimprovements he could control. He knew every littledetail of what was happening in production, and wouldconstantly get involved with the work of his staff, tellingthem what they should be doing and how they should bedoing it. He didn’t recognise that he was interfering sincehis motives were purely about improving the efficiencyand effectiveness of his operation. Inevitably there was aback reaction, and he was met with a string of furtherproblems such as mysteriously disappearing resources,and a sudden upsurge in unreliability of tried and testedtechnology. He worked sixty hours a week but didn’tmove his facility forward at all.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 111


Motivation and the Political Mindset

Politically fluent managers are guided by a different set ofassumptions about organisations because they understand thelimitations of the rational mindset. They have the same basicneeds for security, recognition and advancement as everyoneelse, but our research revealed that the political mindset leadsto a definition of responsibility that bears only passing resem-blance to the one we have just described. Politically awaremanagers tended to reason that if organisations are naturalarenas of self-interest, then it makes common sense to pursueindividual agendas in order to achieve something worthwhile.In doing so these managers demonstrated a heightened aware-ness of not only the responsibility they were given but,crucially, they also took responsibility. Just as the rationalmanager looks to the pursuit of corporate goals throughassigned responsibility, these competent politicians definedtheir own goals and sought to take responsibility outside theirallocated remit in order to achieve them.

In practice this meant that their focus of responsibility changedas different projects took priority. Above all, they saw responsi-bility in terms of worthwhile effort on behalf of others, evenwhen this ran counter to corporate unity and the organisationalstatus quo. The example of Jim helps put these ideas in context.

Jim is an Operations Director in the building suppliessector reporting to a strong CEO, who was seen by manyto be autocratic in setting strategic goals. While some ofJim’s peers were pursuing goals of alignment and unity,Jim was engaged with an agenda of decentralisation, andencouraged greater local autonomy. For Jim, thisincluded ‘pointing to examples where people haveachieved things because they hadn’t stuck to the rules,

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 112


by opening communication and saying to people that ifthey have got an idea and are struggling to get it throughand you want someone to bounce it off, feel free to ringme. Part of the leader’s job is to fight the business offand we do that a lot. Part of my advice to others is not tolet [the company] anywhere near a new idea.’

He seemed to define his remit in relation to hisability to form cross-functional relationships: ‘A bigpart of my role is just facilitating and trying to bringpeople together, almost acting as a consultant. That’sthe way I think of it, especially when I move outsidemy direct responsibility. My biggest role then isalmost just like a healing hand, bringing peopletogether.’ Working across organisational issues natu-rally brought Jim into conflict with other directorswho at times questioned his intentions: ‘I think indiv-idual directors, as you go into their functions, at firstare suspicious … I don’t think they are comfortablewith that. They’re not comfortable with you on theirturf.’ He attempted to ameliorate these concerns bymaking his motives clear: ‘People have to see you asyou are and see that you’re trying to do something forthe right reasons, and that can be quite difficult. Howdo you do that? By spending time with them and goingaround finding out what they do, trying to understandwhat drives their lives, and what makes life difficultfor them.’

This case illustrates the motivation of a politically competentmanager to take responsibility rather than work with what isgiven. Jim was motivated to do this because he recognised thevalue of challenging the status quo in order to generate newideas. In protecting these innovations from external interfer-

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 113

ence, Jim is clearly conscious of the pressure of the rationalmodel to squash such subversive behaviour. By working with awide range of relationships, he is able to pursue his ownagenda outside his formal responsibility, but demonstrates areal concern to work with issues that are also considered to beimportant by others.

In this section we have used the idea of managerial responsi-bility to highlight the different motivational assumptions that liebehind the political and rational mindsets. Carlo, working froma rational frame of reference, was motivated to take responsi-bility for activities that promoted organisational alignment.When these good intentions faltered in the face of differinginterests, he chose to close off the frustrations that this causedby focusing on those few activities where his motivations couldremain true. Jim, on the other hand, working with a politicalmindset, was motivated to move beyond what was given, totake responsibility for activities that were understood bycolleagues to be outside his area of control. He was motivatedto do this because he felt that he had a good chance to achievesomething worthwhile for his company. Clearly, these differentmotivations have fundamental implications for the day-to-dayactivities in which managers engage.

Activity Patterns of Constructive Politicians

What in practice, then, do managers do when they act asconstructive politicians? We will try to show the reader how tothink in terms of activity patterns that reflect this, and to do sowe will use a series of case studies. This will allow the reader toobserve directly where managers operating from within a polit-ical mindset focus, what they give priority to, and how thesepriorities are executed. Three pairs of cases will be examined inthis way in order to be able to compare the activities and motivesof the politically capable with:


97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 114

� The rational manager, who believes he or she is working to thegoal of corporate unity

� The destructive politician, whose goal is self-interest andorganisational power

� The disempowered manager, who has come to believe thatindividuals make no difference to organisations.

Each pair represents a direct comparison of two managersaddressing the same role or type of role from different stand-points. Using these three perspectives we hope to present acomprehensive picture of how constructive politicians contrast,not only with managers of a rational persuasion who rejectpolitics, but also with those who perpetuate the negative imageof politics, and those who feel themselves to be victims ofMachiavellian intrigue and deception. A short analysis of themotives and activity patterns of the characters will follow eachpair of cases.


Pairing 1Corporate Unity and

Constructive Political InfluenceVICE PRESIDENT – MANUFACTURING North America

The North American Operations VP in this internationalmanufacturing organisation reports through to the countryCEO. There are manufacturing operations in several othercountries that need to collaborate on joint projects but arealso competing for long-term work allocated from thecorporate centre. They have been using lean-manufacturingprinciples for some time now.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 115


Don – The Rational Approach

Don (see Figure 5.1) has been VP Manufacturing for fouryears now and in the company for just over ten. On theface of it he has many of the qualities required for theposition. He has good analytical skills and is wellrespected by most of those who work for him. He’s a hardworker always leading by example, ‘mucking in’ whenthere is a crisis or emergency. His old boss, who appointedhim but retired eighteen months ago, was always quick topraise his knowledge of the manufacturing facilities andhis ability to get things done on the shop floor. It was hisold boss who gave him his nickname of ‘get it done Don’.However, Don now has a new boss brought in fromoutside the Group and he now feels much less comfortablethat his contribution is as valued as it used to be.

Figure 5.1 Don – the rational approach

Vice PresidentManufacturing

Managing Manufacturing

Performancemanagement

Departmental teammeetings

Problem solving45 per cent

Managingboss/corporate

10 per cent

New manufacturing

projects25 per cent

Global manufacturingstrategy team

10 per cent

Executivecommittee/

cross-functionalprojects

10 per cent

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 116


‘One of my enduring principles of managing in anycompany is to keep the boss sweet’, said Don. ‘That meansalways delivering on your key objectives and trying to be ateam player. I put a lot of time into making sure the shopfloor runs to capacity and in the most cost-efficientmanner.’ In essence this is Don’s number one priority. Hespends around forty-five per cent of his time keeping thefactory going and has a good reputation for meetingproduction targets. He is loyal to his team and works withthem in sorting out difficult production problems, and isoften seen on the shop floor talking to his supervisors. ‘Ifeel responsible for my production workers, they have ahard job and I need to do my job well if they are going todo theirs well.’

However, despite this focus Don has struggled to get onwith his new boss. He feels that Derek doesn’t seemsympathetic towards the difficulties he faces in meeting hisproduction targets. For example, Don is often asked tospend time on group policies that he sees as being discon-nected from the reality of conditions in the plant. ‘Derekjust doesn’t seem to understand the constraints I have tooperate within. There are the unions for starters, hugeamounts of policy from Group, the cost structure I’msaddled with, and so on. I do try to stick to these policiesand procedures but this creates all sorts of problems for meand my team.’

In addition he attaches considerable importance toformal hierarchy which often has the effect of narrowinghis options even further. As he puts it, ‘I don’t actuallyhave very much latitude for all my seniority, and Derekdoesn’t represent my corner at Group very well. Some ofmy problems need the full attention of the Group Presidentof Manufacturing, but Derek never really tackles him onthese. Basically I don’t really understand Derek, and so Idon’t trust him. I guess if I’m honest, I try to stay out of his

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 117


way if I can.’ He pauses, and then continues, ‘However, ifI do get asked by Derek for something he wants, I alwaysensure it gets my full attention.’ Don spends nearly ten percent of his time responding to such requests, but because ofhis mistrust of Derek, he shies away from trying to buildthe relationship.

Don also has a reputation for running a tight team and isa stickler for well-managed departmental meetings. Hehas put a lot of time and energy in recruiting and devel-oping a team that thinks and acts in the same way, in thebelief that this will ensure consistency. ‘I remember whenI first got appointed as a VP’, reflected Don on one occa-sion, ‘I realised just how unfocused the team was, thatthey were not pulling in the same direction and were fartoo involved in projects way outside their brief. I reallyhad to force the Group to get things done to deadline. Iwould listen to their ideas of course, but then gently andfirmly let them know what I was thinking. This led to bigarguments, and our meetings tended to last all day. Butafter about six months of hard work and some plaintalking from me, they are much more focused. I knowthere is a bit of “OK Don, I hear what you say”, but basi-cally we now all see things the same way.’

Organisational politics really annoy Don. He sees thembeing entirely to do with ‘internecine conflict’. In theExecutive Committee he hears his colleagues squabblingabout turf issues, but tends to see only the surface contentof these ‘squabbles’, distancing himself from the discus-sion. As he explains, ‘Sure, if they want to know myopinion I let them have it, but otherwise I let them argueuntil they are blue in the face. It washes over me. Derekreally needs to get a handle on this kind of stuff. He needsto provide much stronger chairmanship at these times. Thetrouble is, none of them really understand manufacturing,and I should have Derek’s support, but I don’t get it.’

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 118


Don finds similar difficulties on the Global Manufac-turing Strategy Team. It only meets four times a year butDon sees it as being of limited value. He has to prepare aconsiderable amount of information each time, but doeshis best to minimise the time he spends on this. He ‘getsaway’ with about ten per cent. ‘The amount of infor-mation these guys require is amazing’, he says. ‘They arealways trying to prove that their sites are performingbetter than the rest. My operation is usually above halfway up the league table. Some of my colleagues reckonwe should be at the top, but those guys in Korea don’thave my union problems to contend with. There are a lotof politics at these meetings too. I try to collaborate but itis difficult when they don’t see the priorities we have towork with. Like when they wanted Jimmy Carlson tovisit the Korean plant to show them how we reconfiguredthe line for the HNS product. I wasn’t trying to be diffi-cult. It’s just that I needed him at the time for SAP imple-mentation. And as we are the pilot site for SAP for thewhole Group, we needed to take priority.’

Don is well respected for his technical knowledge andexpertise, and his boss knows that he will ensure thatMRP2 and SAP will be implemented on time, and with afine attention to detail. He devotes around twenty-five percent of his time to these operational projects but very littleto strategic issues. As Derek says, ‘Don does a good job,he’s conscientious, he keeps the plant working effectivelyand I can always rely on him in a crisis. It’s just that …well … he’s blinkered, not very sophisticated. I wish herepresented our interests at Group more adroitly so that hedoesn’t keep coming up against so much opposition. Andhe’s too easy to read, it’s easy to press his button, just crit-icise his operations and see the reaction … instant action!He may have reached his limit.’

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 119


Dave – The Politically Capable Manager

Dave (see Figure 5.2) is starting to really enjoy the job.Having taken over from Don twelve months ago he isnow relishing the freedom it provides. He found the teamhe inherited somewhat lacking in initiative, so to beginwith he spent quite a bit of time finding out what madethem tick. ‘They are pretty good at keeping the operationrunning so I let them get on with it. Consequently I nowonly spend about a quarter of my time on day-to-daymanufacturing activities. I also found out the team wereactually quite innovative under their layer of cynicism, soI’ve been keen to get them working on different projects,freeing up about a quarter of my own time to work on

Figure 5.2 Dave – the politically capable manager

Externalnetworking

Benchmark club,and so on

10 per cent

Internal relationships

Global manufacturingstrategy team

Executive committeeManaging upwards

30 per cent

ManagingManufacturing

Departmentalmeetings

One-to-ones25 per cent

Strategic projectsProcess alignment

Supply chain management

Product innovation25 per cent

Vice PresidentManufacturing

Mentoring anddevelopinghigh flyers5 per cent

Customerinterface5 per cent

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 120


more strategic projects like the supply chain. The produc-tion levels are never going to improve until we get thesupply chain issues sorted out. The Korean Manufac-turing VP has proved to be a great ally here because hehas the same problems with the centre’s approach tologistics. Together we’ve been able to outmanoeuvre theVP of Group Logistics. Not that I would trust the Koreanguy with my life you understand, but on this one we havesome mutual advantage.’

This comment reflects a substantial difference inDave’s approach. Nearly thirty per cent of his time isdevoted to networking with global manufacturingcontacts and senior managers. It was through one suchad-hoc conversation that he picked up a valuable piece ofinformation. ‘It was only by luck that in chatting to Mark(VP of HRM) that I found out that Derek and the VPGroup Logistics go way back. Would you believe it! Ithought, “Christ, I’m going to have to keep quiet aboutKorea.” We presented the supply chain improvementinitiative as a fait accompli once we could prove the bene-fits. I had to put a hell of a lot of work into managing theboundaries with the guy from Korea. It involved a lot ofone-to-one conversations, really eyeballing people sothey knew where we stood. Derek had a tough time withhis friend “Mr Logistics”, and was pretty angry until hesaw the numbers.’

Once his team realised Dave’s intentions, some of themfelt insecure with the strategy they were developing.Worse still, most of them were initially so poor at formingtheir own opinion that Dave had to hold himself backfrom providing all the answers. This meant that he had towork hard to balance his own motivation to get thingsmoving with the longer term need to get real commitmentfrom his team. For example, before one of the monthlyproduction meetings, Dave had told everyone about his

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 121


thoughts on some changes they should make in certainareas of the production process. ‘I knew some of themdidn’t like it because they were worried about quality. So Iasked Jim Carlson to submit an initial paper to themeeting. The more he worked on it, the more he saw theadvantages. But everyone knew I was in favour of it so thedanger was that they’d just roll over because I was theboss. At the meeting I said, “OK what are your thoughtsabout Jim’s paper?” Silence. I repeated the question, butthis time directly at Gerry Greenberg. He gave me anuncommitted response, which several of the others agreedwith. So I said “Look, you guys, I am not making thisdecision on my own. I want your thoughts.” Anyway,Jimmy took up the baton and we had a good discussion,the result of which I still think was an error – we put off afull review of component manufacturing until next year.The upside, however, was that the quality of our meetingspretty much increased after that.’

From Derek’s perspective, Dave has also been a breathof fresh air in the Executive Committee meetings. He isparticularly good at recognising the strategic issues andensuring they are surfaced and resolved. Because hespends around fifteen per cent of his time with customersand external networks, he has brought a much widerperspective to discussions and is able to support his ideaswith reference to external benchmark data. In fact heusually gets what he wants at these meetings because hespends a lot of time talking to the rest of the executivebefore and after each meeting. ‘It’s my iceberg principle’,says Dave, ‘I reckon at least two-thirds of the workaround the executive meeting needs to be done one onone. Almost the least important part is the meeting itself.’

Like Don, Dave found that Derek played things tooclose to his chest at times, but once Dave had delivered ona few difficult jobs and had demonstrated an ability to take

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 122


a strategic view of the business, Derek was much moreopen with him. ‘The thing about Derek is that you have tounderstand what makes him tick. As long as he can demon-strate he is ahead of the game at Group he’s much happier.Because Derek is a salesman at heart he is happy if hethinks that the Group Manufacturing President is keepingan eye on me, while the Group guy thinks Derek ismanaging me. I suppose I implicitly encourage this. Afterall, it gives me room to focus on much more interestingstuff like product innovation.’ In this way Dave often givesthe appearance of complying with corporate policy eventhough he sometimes has his own agenda.

He is always on the lookout for new ideas and he likespeople who can think outside the box. He regularly volun-teers to mentor and support people on developmentprogrammes because that extends his network and identi-fies like-minded people who can help him.

Analysis

What can be learned from Don and Dave’s motives andresultant activity patterns? How do they differ? Take Don,whose motives appear praiseworthy. He is concerned forhis team and the business, working hard to support thecorporate line, while adhering to policies and proceduresto ensure consistency. He thinks that he is acting collabo-ratively in the interests of the Group and is being helpfulto his manufacturing counterparts in other plants. Heknows he doesn’t really trust his boss but neverthelesstries to be loyal upwards even though this causes himconsiderable problems. He has a respect for those inseniority, but believes in using his authority downwards.

However, these qualities are marred by Don’s lack ofinterpersonal and business awareness which leaves him

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 123


vulnerable. For example, he seems not to understand themisuse of his authority with his team, and their reactionto it. Similarly, he appears unaware of the way that Divi-sional and Group colleagues are manoeuvring around himin the Executive Committee and on the Global StrategyManufacturing Team. He recognises that others are polit-ically motivated, but dismisses them as people whodistract from broader business issues. His lack ofpersonal awareness also left him vulnerable to Derek’spolitical agenda.

Don’s response is to dive down into the (safe) detail ofhis operations in the belief that this will enable him toadd value. He concentrates on local activities and onmanaging the here and now of manufacturing. Conse-quently he doesn’t collaborate with other areas and evenrestricts resources like Jimmy Carlson being sharedacross the Group. In this way he is engaging in politicalactivity too, although he himself would not see it that way.

Relationship building seems restricted to hierarchicalroutes, upwards to his boss and downwards in his team.He only spends twenty per cent of his time on this activity,in comparison to over fifty per cent allocated by Dave,who extends his networking within and beyond the Group.The political significance of the global team is largely loston Don and there appears little motivation to learn fromthis group. Similarly, Don’s developmental work, whichoccupies twenty-five per cent of his time, is focused downinto the business. Consequently he has become inward-looking and overfocused on his own priorities. Onceagain, of course, Don himself would not recognise this. Infact he would be hurt by the criticism and find it difficultto accept.

Unlike Don, Dave recognises the difference betweenpersonal and organisational interests and is able to use this

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 124


insight for the benefit of the company. Because of his thor-ough understanding of others’ motives, there is a risk hemay appear manipulative, but this is kept in check throughhis high self-awareness. For example, he recognises thedanger of misusing authority with his team, even thoughhis personal style would allow him to push decisionsthrough faster. He develops trust selectively by relatingthis to specific projects and personalities. For example, heonly trusts the Korean VP with regard to their one sharedproject, and on this he is prepared to work covertly.

In consequence, Dave has a very different set of priori-ties to Don. He is deeply interested in relationships insideand outside his division, and in the agendas of key peoplearound him. He is able to build support for contentiousinitiatives like the logistics/supply chain project. Herecognises the constraints that manufacturing is facedwith, but unlike Don, sees a way of tackling these bylooking for collaborative alliances. Paradoxically, whileDon believes he is focusing on the best interests of thecompany by ignoring politics, it is Dave who actuallyaccomplishes more by working with competing andmutual interests.

The resulting activity pattern is very different fromDon’s. Much less time is spent managing the day-to-daymanufacturing activity – only twenty-five per cent incomparison to Don’s forty-five per cent – and muchhigher priority is given to relationship management insideand outside the company. Although like Don, Dave allo-cates twenty-five per cent of his time to projects, hefocuses more on issues that have a wider organisationalimpact, and beyond the boundaries of his own division. Insharp contrast with Don, he has a real interest in innova-tion, and is prepared to make time to challenge conventionby working with other nonconformists who can providedifferent perspectives.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 125


Pairing 2 Personal versus

Organisational MotivesCOUNTRY MANAGER, MWC Netherlands

The Dutch Managing Director of MWC reports directlyto the Regional CEO in this global IT systems supplier.He sits on the European Country Managers’ Forum. Therole encompasses all aspects of business unit manage-ment, but because there is no manufacturing facility inthe Netherlands, most of the focus is on sales andmarketing activities. The company has a strong sales-ledculture, and most of their business involves puttingtogether substantial IT system projects where there is aneed to integrate product from other hardware and soft-ware suppliers into their solutions.

Gerard – Destructive Politics

Gerard (see Figure 5.3) has worked for MWC throughouthis entire career. He joined as a graduate trainee and hasspent most of his time in sales, working his way upthrough pre-sales, professional services, and accountmanagement for one of MWC’s biggest customers. Eventhough he is now the MD of a significant operation he stillworks extensively in his old sales area because he soenjoys it. His justification for this reflects a deep insecu-rity. ‘Not that I would openly admit this to any of mycolleagues, but I reckon I still spend around a third of mytime selling and talking to customers’, he confided. ‘This

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 126


is a sales-led organisation and as long as I keep my contactwith major customers I stay in touch with what is going onin the market and help close the high profile deals.’

However, even though he has only been in the MD rolefor two years, he has still accomplished a substantial turn-around for the Dutch operation by introducing a radicalreorganisation for the business. The reorganisationreduced costs by nearly fifteen per cent, but created a lotof pain for the business unit, which was felt for monthsafterwards. ‘I know the reorganisation created a lot ofdiscomfort, but I’m not being paid to be liked in this job’,he says. ‘I was under a lot of pressure from Region toimprove performance, and although my plans met withquestions from the senior team in Holland, we had to get

Figure 5.3 Gerard – destructive politics

Training anddevelopment

5 per cent

Dutch ExecutiveCommitteeManaging

individuals andthe team

15 per cent

Business development

Pre-salesSales

Account managementPartnership

development35 per cent

NetworkingGroup

relationshipsHQ activities

Corporate initia-tives

20 per cent

Country ManagerNetherlands

Financialmanagement20 per cent

Internal figurehead role

Site visitsKick off meetings,

and so on5 per cent

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 127


on with it. I’ve known most of them some time, and Iknow what their pressure points are. So I can usually getthem heading in the right direction, although in one case Ihad to put a guy on special projects. Around here that isone step short of being shown the door.’ Not surprisingly,this attitude led some of his senior managers to believethat Gerard was only interested in his own aims, and wasprepared to manipulate any dissent out of the way.

Gerard is well tuned into organisational relationshipsbut usually with an eye for what he can gain from thempersonally. He is so used to this way of working that hehas come to enjoy the wheeling and dealing, seeing it asa game at which he is particularly good. ‘You need tomake sure you’re talking to the right people – it’s theonly way to get what you want. Go round the system. Alot of people here don’t do that, and they end up aslosers. You can see where they are coming from beforethey see it themselves.’ He gives an example. ‘We havethis project to do with taking the management of certainaccounts to Regional level because of customer presenceacross Europe. Wim, the guy who’s supposed to belooking after this, tells me he wants to start with theNetherlands because he worked in the Dutch organ-isation before, and anyway we are ahead of the gamehere. He just wants to use us as a back door. I told him noway, it wasn’t a good time, and my people are up to theirnecks in invitations to tender.’

This type of manoeuvring keeps Gerard busy, occupyingas much as twenty per cent of his time. He knows it createsenemies, but he believes that delivering the requiredrevenues makes him invincible. ‘You’ve also got to lookafter the numbers. At the end of the day it’s the numbersthat really count. But it takes a lot of time, about a day aweek, but it’s worth it. I make sure we are absolutelywatertight on the details. I know some of our people

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 128


complain it takes nearly three weeks out of every quarter toput the reports and presentations together, and then followup on Charles’s (the Regional CEO) questions, but oncewe have the okay nobody can touch us.’

Gerard’s approach to problem solving involves usingblame to generate action. For example, given advancedwarning that the customer satisfaction survey wouldcontain some strong criticisms of his organisation, hecalled in the relevant parties for a ‘learning review’. Noone thought for one moment that it was going to beabout learning, and in the meeting no one acceptedresponsibility, Gerard accused everyone of a cover up,and each area represented blamed the other. Hepretended to be amazed afterwards, remarking to severalwho had been present, ‘No wonder we have got into thissituation when you fight among yourselves like that.’

It is an outcome that typifies the game-playingmentality of the destructive politician. Those caught upin it then resort to their own games, looking after them-selves at the expense of all else, and contributing to thedownward spiral of the self-serving motivations thatreinforce the illegitimacy of politics.

Inica – Constructive Politics

Inica (see Figure 5.4) took over from Gerard after he waspromoted to become European President of Marketing.Gerard left just before the publication of the annualcustomer and employee satisfaction survey that showed amarked decline in performance. He blamed external pres-sures for the downturn, but Charles confided to Inica thatit was clear Gerard’s approach was not appropriate for along-term growth strategy.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 129


Inica had her doubts about succeeding Gerard: ‘WhenCharles told me he wanted me to take over from Gerard,my first reaction was that I was not up to it, and anyway Idon’t trust Charles. The Dutch operation is male dominatedand I thought “I don’t need this – I’m not the right person.”But I waited and talked to various people, and started tofeel better about it. At least I knew the personalities and thepolitics after working all that time with Gerard.’

As one of Gerard’s protégés, she initially tended toapply many of the tactics she had seen him use. ‘I took upwhere he left off – “divide and rule” I suppose he wouldcall it. I was met with real defensiveness, and because Icouldn’t deal with it I got directive when people didn’t dowhat I thought we had agreed. But they always foundsome way of letting things fall off the agenda. The initialgoodwill extended to me vanished, and I was getting

Figure 5.4 Inica – constructive politics

Managing thebusiness unit

Executivecommittee

One-to-onesand so on

30 per cent

FigureheadSite visits

Walking the talk,and so on

15 per centbut sponsoringchange all the

time!

Organisation development

Change programmesInnovation

managementDevelopment

Creating role models,and so on

20 per cent

Building relationshipsexternal to

MWC,customers,industry

groups, and so on

15 per cent

Managingcorporate

relationshipsexternal to

the businessunit

20 per cent

Country ManagerNetherlands

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 130


nowhere. None of the executive team seemed capable ofcollaborative working and Charles was breathing downmy neck.’

‘Eventually I confided all this to Wim. He is probablyone of the few people I really trust in the company. Hisreaction was to the point. He simply said, “You have madea poor start”. I think that was something of an understate-ment. I thought I knew the personalities but I’d made toomany assumptions. It was a good conversation with Wim,but basically what he told me was “Just back off and findout what people are thinking. Try showing them that youare willing to do something for them.” This became a realturning point for me.’

Over the next few months Inica’s approach changedsubstantially. She spent a lot of energy talking to people inher own operation and in the European organisation. Shebecame increasingly good at using time to build relation-ships – for example, travelling with Charles, who, shediscovered, is much more receptive to ideas once settled inbusiness class with a glass of wine. She now uses anymeeting or chance conversation to find out about otherpeople’s agendas. ‘I’ve been amazed just how much infor-mation is out there for the taking if you stop indulgingyourself with your own assumptions. Don’t get me wrong,I’ve not turned into some selfless angel – that wouldn’t getme anywhere in MWC. I do it so I can achieve something.’

Inica’s network of relationships across the Europeanregion and into the US has become a source of consider-able influence for her. For example, one thing all herfellow country managers agreed on was that the quarterlyreview was unnecessary. It was far too retrospective anddetailed. In her conversations with colleagues, Inica builtup a strong lobby group who were willing to raise theissue at the European Country Managers’ Forum. Sheknew Charles would be completely opposed to the

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 131


proposal to abandon the quarterly review, so she kept itquiet. At the meeting he was outvoted.

This degree of influence could not have been achievedwithout the credibility of a substantial improvement inoperating performance behind her. As a consequence of herextensive relationship building inside the Dutch operation,Inica was able to make much greater headway in initiatingchange. Gerard had stripped the organisation to the boneand removed most of the initiative with it, so Inica neededto build this up carefully. She encouraged pockets ofchange and when they started to succeed, she built them upas examples to the rest of the Dutch organisation. Not all ofthem made progress of course, but they were nonethelesspublicly rewarded if they exemplified behaviours shebelieved were needed to move the business unit forward.

‘In retrospect’, she says, ‘my behaviour at the beginningseems obviously unsophisticated, but when you’re caughtup in the middle of the storm it’s hard to understand. Iguess the feedback from Wim helped me see I was onlythinking about my issues, and if I wanted to get people tomove I had to find some common ground with them. It’san uphill struggle, but it gets easier. I still have to thinkcarefully about who I talk to about what, but I feel muchmore relaxed now.’

Analysis

On the face of it Gerard and Inica appear to display anumber of similar priorities. They both spend time gettingto know people, assessing their agendas and motivations,and both can see through the veneer of corporate rhetoricas to how decisions are really made in MWC. They bothseem to possess a wide network of contacts and try to keep

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 132


track of shifting power distributions. Indeed there is a greatdeal of similarity in the way they spend their time. Neitheris afraid to use the power that their position brings in orderto achieve results. They also recognise the importance ofmanaging their boundaries to ensure the most favourableinterpretation of performance. In consequence, both arepowerful individuals.

The central issue that distinguishes Gerard from Inica isthat of motive. Throughout the narrative it is clear thatGerard is focused primarily on promoting his own interestsabove those of his colleagues and the business unit. He hascome to see the organisation as a political arena in whichthere are winners and losers, and that staying on toprequires working the same way himself. Over time he hasbecome too ready to read negative self-interest into thebehaviour of others, and this validates his own approach.These motives encourage an activity pattern that focuseson staying one step ahead of the game. Time and energyare spent soaking up the gossip that enables him to stay incontrol. As his managers remove their goodwill hebecomes even more controlling and manipulative.

In contrast, Inica’s motives lead her to find a balancebetween her individual and organisational interest. Shehas clearly undergone a significant transition, triggered byWim’s feedback. This has enabled her to understand moreabout her own motivations and aspirations, and to developa genuine interest in the motivations of those around her.In the process she herself appears to have become evenmore motivated because she can see how to get results inthe prevailing culture, and is prepared to work hard forothers who show the enthusiasm to follow.

Particularly noteworthy is the way she uses her time todevelop political maturity. All conversations and evenbusiness trips are an opportunity to understand others,lobby for her agenda or communicate her vision. Such an

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 133


approach requires high standards of thinking, in terms ofpersonal clarity about her role, her motivations, and theway her organisation works. This requires a better use oftime rather than more time. Consequently she devotestwenty per cent of her time to positioning her business unitat corporate level. That is augmented with fifteen per centof her time allocated to maintaining external relations, notjust with customers (unlike Gerard), but with partners andindustry groups as well. Some thirty per cent of highquality time is devoted to working with her team, collec-tively and in one-to-one relationships, helping them get togrips with the changes she believes to be necessary.

Pairing 3The Value of Individual Action

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANT AND IT DEVELOPMENTMANAGER, KIX BUSINESS INFORMATION UK

The Management Accountant reports to the FinancialController in this UK-based subsidiary of a Europeanbusiness information company. It produces a variety ofhard copy and electronic marketing, credit, legal andfinancial reports. The Management Accountant managestwenty-five staff.

Colin – The Disempowered

Colin (see Figure 5.5) joined KIX four years ago from acompetitor company. He had always worked in finance,

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 134


mostly in management accounts. When he first arrived hewas very enthusiastic, and set about revising and stream-lining the monthly accounting procedures. He related wellto the collaborative culture of the company and tried tosupport colleagues in the other areas of finance. The busi-ness then went through a difficult period. Technology wasfast reducing the cost of standard business informationreports that had previously attracted a high margin, andprices were being forced down. There was a correspon-ding knock-on effect in terms of headcount, and Financehad to reduce staff numbers.

Colin came up with the idea of creating a multi-skilledresource pool to be shared by the finance sections, as eachhad different peaks and troughs over the month. The ideawas not received well by his colleagues who said theywere concerned about the way this would limit operationalflexibility. ‘I worked hard on putting a plan together’, saidColin. ‘Jack (the Financial Controller) had said we shoulddiscuss the situation among ourselves and recommendwhere the staff cuts should be, so I offered to give it somethought as a start. Pat (Credit Control Manager) didn’t

Figure 5.5 Colin – the disempowered

Budget planning

10 per cent

Production ofmonthly accounts

40 per cent

ProjectsABC

15 per cent

Staff developmentAppraisalsTraining

Communicationand so on

20 per cent

Departmentalliaison

15 per cent

ManagementAccountant

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 135


accept it and she would not change. At the meeting todiscuss it we agreed that I would talk it over with Jack thefollowing week. When I saw him it turned out that Pat hadbeen to see him the day before, and Jack had decided mostof the staff cuts should be made in my area. I don’t knowhow she did it but she convinced him.’

‘You can guess the rest’, he continued, ‘I took the hitwith the cuts and we have struggled to deliver ever since.Jack doesn’t understand and thinks I am incompetent, andPat walks about like Mother Theresa. I’m never going toget caught out like that again.’ Pat and the other sectionmanagers in Finance had little co-operation from Colinafter that, and he became increasingly cynical about KIX,seeing hidden agendas all around him. He buried himselfin management accounting routines, spending up to fortyper cent of his time driving for complete accuracy in thework of his section. Information was given grudgingly tobusiness managers, he criticised the IT Departmentconstantly because of system failures, and was quick toblame anyone who did not meet his high standards. Heinitiated no new improvement projects, and worked onthose that were assigned to him with just the minimum toget him by – perhaps only ten per cent of his time beingused in this way. But the more he withheld information,the more people would go around him to Jack, or ignore him altogether. This only served to confirmColin’s cynical view of his colleagues and their self-interested motives.

Over time, this resulted in Colin being drawn deeperinto the belief that there was little he could do to changethe situation. Doing nothing, of course, only served toconfirm this for him. Typical of his view is the responsehe gave to the Information Systems Manager (Steve), whohad been attempting to persuade Colin to go with him tospeak to Jack about some expenditure on system improve-

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 136


ments in Management Accounts. ‘Why bother?’ was hisattitude, ‘You can’t change his [Jack’s] mind, and anyway,he is being driven by the FD.’ Steve’s suggestion ofgetting the support of one of the business managers(Christine), who he knew was frustrated by the lack of ITdevelopment, was met with much the same air of resigna-tion: ‘There’s no point. She can’t help. It wouldn’t achieveanything – just more difficulty.’

But the more Colin focused on his own agenda todefend himself, the more vulnerable he became. In time,the business managers he was there to support used hisunwillingness to help as a political weapon with which tocomplain to Jack. Colin received poor performanceappraisals and was passed over for promotion. He becamemore isolated still, which reinforced his perception of theunfairness that surrounded him, and his own powerless-ness to change it.

Steve, Information Systems Manager – ThePrincipled Use of Power and Stealth

The IT Development Manager reports to the TechnicalDirector and is responsible for all software developmenton existing and future programs and applications. Stevetherefore has a significant role in new product develop-ment, an area critical to the company’s success.

Steve (see Figure 5.6) started with KIX two years agoand was seen as a breath of fresh air in InformationSystems. The existing operation was often blamed for linemanagement failures, and morale was low. Most of thebest people had left, yet software development was criticalto the future success of the company. At the outset Stevetalked to his internal customers about the service levels

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 137


they were looking for and the issues they had. He alsospent a large amount of time talking to his team, findingout about their aspirations and competence levels so as toget a match between what his customers wanted, and whathis team were able to deliver. By then he was well placedto draw up a plan repositioning IT Development as amuch more strategic contributor.

An analysis of the workload of the department showedSteve that seventy-five per cent of the projects theyworked on were operational: most of them wereconcerned with small incremental improvements to thecore information databases. Very few could be consideredstrategic and, most importantly, there were no high valueprojects that would enable KIX to regain its competitiveadvantage. ‘We were not open about the plan we agreed inthe team. I knew that any substantial changes from opera-tional jobs would be a problem for most of the businessmanagers. They talked about business improvements butin reality they had a short-term view, so we still had to

Figure 5.6 Steve – the principled use of power and stealth

External relationshipmanagement

Workingcustomers,

industry groupsand so on5 per cent

Line managementrelationships30 per cent

Managing performance

Individual and departmental

development and soon

25 per cent

Projectmanagement25 per cent

IT DevelopmentManager

Project appraisaland development

15 per cent

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 138


maintain a basic database support service.’ The teamdecided it best to keep certain ideas hidden until it hadmade some progress. For example, they did not reveal thatthey had a development project being worked on at theconcept stage with the help of external consultants, or thatthree of the team attended business school IT strategyseminars. This expenditure was assigned codes that wouldnot arouse suspicion, and the team agreed cover storiesthat would suffice unless close questions were asked. Inthe event of more intense scrutiny it was understood thatSteve would handle the situation.

More openly, Steve and his team made it their goal tochallenge the assumptions upon which existing IS projectswere based, asking what sort of return a project wasexpected to produce, and how each one related to businessstrategy. These questions attracted both negative and posi-tive responses, the latter coming from certain of the busi-ness managers who were frustrated at the lack of ITdevelopment. One in particular, Christine, who managedthe legal information market, turned out to be doing somehidden work of her own. It was limited in scope, but Stevewas naturally keen to help her once she had opened up tohim about it.

Realising that there was scope to build support forhimself through pockets of like-minded people in thebusiness units, Steve began to use these opportunitiessystematically, but always informally. For example, hewas able to cross-charge for the use of outside contractorsto cover development expenditure that he would havestruggled to justify, and could not have hidden. Theoutcome was a number of small but significant projectsthat improved the profitability in two lines of business.

‘Only then did I start to broadcast what I was doing’,confessed Steve. ‘Jeremy [Commercial Director] wasimpressed, especially by the figures from Christine. He

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 139


wants us [IT] involved in several areas on businessimprovement projects, so I’m using him to persuade Mike[Technical Director] to go with this, and give me moreresource.’

‘Not all the initiatives work of course’, says Steve. ‘Youhave to be philosophical about it. I tried to get Colin inter-ested in some work in his area. It didn’t happen. I nevergot past trying to persuade him to go with me and talk toJack. I even suggested getting Christine to talk to Jackfrom the business point of view. She could have helpedhim [Colin] but he was not interested. I doubt if he willsurvive here but it is not my problem. There are too manyother things happening now, and if people don’t want toget involved, they lose, not me.’

Steve’s position has improved steadily to the point wherehe has gained the confidence of most business and supportfunction managers. He has double the budget allocation thathe began with, and there are major IS development projectsin most areas of the organisation. It is widely accepted thathe will succeed Mike, who is due to retire in two years’time. Although Steve has some ideas about repositioningthe role of Technical Director to be more customer facing,he judges that now is not the time to voice these.

Analysis

When Colin started at KIX he had little understanding ofthe political nature of organisations. In responding withsincerity to the stated values of a collaborative culture, hefollowed the familiar path of working in the collectiveinterests of the business. But he failed to see how politicsshape collaboration. Experience did not match expecta-tions, causing him to reject the school of rational thinking

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 140


in favour of the school of hard knocks. The low awarenessof individual and organisational issues that caught him outin the first place continued to reduce his power and influ-ence. He could not see how or why people circumventedhim; he knew only that such ‘underhand’ action createdinjustice, reinforcing his own limited view of what wasthen possible.

The resulting pattern of activity is once again inwardfocused but on this occasion motivated by defensiveness.Some forty per cent of Colin’s time is spent micro-managing the historic monthly accounting informationand only ten per cent on the wider forward-planningaspects of his management accounting role. He believesnothing can really be changed in the organisation so thereis no point in trying to do so. Steve’s encouragement tobe proactive falls on deaf ears and, in effect, Colin hasdisempowered himself.

In contrast, Steve is optimistic that he personally canmake a difference, although this is moderated by a criticalinsight into the power issues within the organisation.Given the prevailing culture, he recognises that there is aneed to present an appearance of conformity in order toward off interference. Similarly, he remains quiet abouthis overall intention to reposition his department, but thatmeans managing the boundaries between his departmentand the business carefully, finding influential like-mindedallies with whom to make his plans work. When he is surehe has built up the necessary support and achieved somedegree of success, he is then prepared to leverage thepower he has gained to stimulate further change.

A high level of drive encourages him to view the bound-aries of his influence as widely as possible. If there is animpact to be had on product development, Steve is inter-ested. He doesn’t restrict himself to IT. Yet even with hishigh ambition, Steve is realistic about what is possible. He

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 141

The Complete Constructive Politician

These case studies reveal how far managerial work may differfrom the well-ordered, neat activity patterns described bymany of the management theorists. While these important


does not waste further time on Colin, nor does he losesight of his department’s central role in keeping the data-bases up and running. This balancing act is essential inmaintaining his credibility.

Like Dave and Inica, Steve appears able to balancepersonal and organisational interests. He readily shares hisown agenda with those he trusts, and sometimes takes riskswith those he is unsure about, like Colin. The result is ahigh degree of consistency in his behaviour that seems tolessen suspicions about his motives. And again, like Inicaand Dave, this ability to balance personal and organ-isational concerns is built on a clear understanding of hisown motives, the interests of others, and key businessdrivers. The resultant activity pattern is focused on relation-ship building throughout the organisation and beyond.Around forty-five per cent of Steve’s time is spent buildingrelationships both inside and outside KIX. This is particu-larly important given his functional support role, andcontrasts sharply with Colin, who only spends aroundfifteen per cent of his time on those same activities. Steveinvests time in getting his team behind him, using manage-ment development opportunities to widen their perspective.That achieved, he only needs twenty-five per cent of histime to manage the department. Colin, in contrast, requiresforty per cent of his time to do this. Steve is therefore ableto focus a quarter of his time on projects and politicalactivity that have a wider strategic relevance for him, forthose around him and the company.

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 142

contributions were made at a time when organisational envi-ronments were much more stable and predictable, and organi-sations more centrally controlled, it is doubtful that they everreally captured the essence of managerial work. So what canwe learn from our six case studies about the way that politi-cally capable managers use their positions to be effective incontemporary organisations?

What we will say in answer to this question is based on oneoverriding conclusion about the activity patterns of politicallyable managers – they see their role as one of continuous changemanagement, unlike their rational mindset counterparts. In therational model, change tends to be seen as a process of movingfrom one stable state to another, in other words, as a discontin-uous process. That is because change takes the form of initiativesdriven by top management who periodically set about makingorganisational improvements, often in response to crises precipi-tated by the business environment. As a result, change has cometo be viewed as an additional activity to the main task ofmanaging, and a common response when confronted with newchange management responsibilities is, ‘But how am I supposedto fit all this in to my normal work?’

For organisational politicians, managing change is not anactivity scheduled in for half a day each week, but something thatis synonymous with the task of management. However, it wouldbe easy to minimise the importance of this insight. Readers maybe tempted to respond: ‘Of course my job is about change. I livewith change everyday.’ That is undeniably true, although it has tobe said that most daily change is relatively trivial. But it missesthe point. For what distinguishes the politician’s view of changeis the ambition to shape an organisation through his or her ownagenda, and it is the pursuit of this that is ceaseless.

Establishing Worthwhile Causes

From a political perspective, strategy, operational activity andchange are the result of negotiation between vested interests that


97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 143

emerge over time. To exempt oneself from this ‘messy’ arrange-ment is to exempt oneself from power and influence. Progress isonly made in organisations because individuals like Steve, Daveand Inica are prepared to put effort into promoting worthwhilecauses, and considering those of others. Like Colin, if managerswait for top-down, unambiguous direction, or assume that powervacuums provide long-term safety, they are implicitly passingpower over to others. If they have no agenda, one will be definedfor them. In activity terms this means that able politicians givepriority to seeking out like-minded individuals with whom toestablish value-adding projects and causes. This has two impor-tant implications for their activity patterns:

� Stimulating organic change. As organisations become moreinterconnected and complex, people naturally tend to see thegreatest worth in local issues because these affect them most.Able politicians recognise the value of local self-interest instimulating change. It was therefore the basis on which Steveworked with his department to reposition its role. Groups thatinitiate change in this way have been variously labelled as ‘hotgroups’, ‘communities of practice’ or ‘pockets of good prac-tice’ by contemporary management writers. They mayconform to formal organisational boundaries and divisions, orat the opposite extreme, consist of informal networks of like-minded people spread throughout an enterprise or acrossseveral. As with Steve and his move to reposition the IT func-tion, these groups feature influential individuals who share acommon purpose, with or without formal organisationalconsent, and tend to adopt a siege mentality.

Managers like Inica use their time to establish such pockets oflocal practice as exemplars and role models for organisationchange.5 This may involve encouraging others directly to workcovertly, and protecting them until it is time to use theirachievements in the broader organisational context. It amountsto an organic process of change that stands in marked contrastto the rationality of top-down transformation.


97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 144

� Stealth and the nominal adherence to accepted procedure. Inpursuing worthwhile causes that run counter to formal policyand procedure, managers inevitably risk being taken formaverick individualists. Maintaining credibility is, therefore,key, and astute organisational politicians appear to complywith formal procedure. It requires the principled use of stealth,exemplified in the way Inica gathered support to abandon thequarterly review, or in the tactic Steve took in maintaining abasic database support service when his real priorities lay innew product development. This requires careful boundarymanagement by all involved in a pocket of local practice, andmight include such ‘dubious’ practices as defending officespace, limiting access to reports, or being selective about whoattends key meetings. Such practices are of course close to theedge of constructive political behaviour, and can only beconstrued as principled if those involved are able to justifytheir actions in the interests of the organisation.

Relationship Building

If the capable politician is motivated to take individual respon-sibility for worthwhile causes with other like-minded individ-uals, then relationship management is the vehicle through whichthese are negotiated and implemented. This requires a particularactivity pattern that clearly distinguishes the work of politicians,and it is determined by the manner in which they build relation-ships up, across and outside the organisation:

� Managing upwards. Conventional wisdom emphasises theimportance of boss and subordinate establishing commonexpectations, a free flow of information, compatible workstyles, and honesty, while gaining senior management buy-infor change is central to the rational model. However, from apolitical perspective this advice can be problematic. True,bosses are normally stakeholders for subordinates, but there isno guarantee that they have the best interests of their direct


97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 145


reports at heart. Furthermore, organisations are now config-ured according to processes, projects, networks, and matrices,and boss–subordinate relations can become indistinct ‘dottedlines’. Bosses may have very different agendas to their ‘subor-dinates’. So one way and another, telling your boss, or othersenior managers, your intentions may be neither necessary norwise. This was the case for Steve; his boss was focused onmaintaining the databases, but Steve saw his real responsi-bility in developing new software solutions. If your boss hasinterests that cannot be reconciled to your own, stealth may beinevitable unless or until the relationship develops.

Managing upwards is an activity aimed at creating the spacenecessary for independence and self-determination. Equally itcan be used to great effect in getting support and sponsorshipfrom key stakeholders, and in the rational model this is thestarting point for change. However, in the political model,spending time on this has to be considered in the light ofmotives, aspirations and power. Seen this way, the boss is apotential ally, but may be no more than another relationship tobe managed.

� Internal networking. With increasing organisational complexity,managers have been encouraged to form extensive organ-isational relationships. In the rational model, motivations fornetworking are about enhancing the co-ordination of effectiveoperations. In activity terms this means building closerelationships, sharing resources and tackling projects collab-oratively. Not surprisingly, networking is often used as a just-ification for executive development events. Supposedly,seminars and workshops help managers from different parts ofa business ‘to get to know each other better’, but what thisoften hides is the fact that networking is pursued as much forreasons of self-interest as it is for organisational co-ordination.

Networking is the driver of political fluency. It enablesmanagers to generate support, identify key issues and locateresistance. For the capable politician, the network provides

97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 146

access to power up and down the organisation, and establishingone’s self as the informal link between different networksoffers great scope for influencing. Building a network demandsan activity pattern that defies the conventions of time manage-ment. Dead time becomes prime time – travelling, for instance,can be an activity in its own right. So can corridor conversa-tions, attending ‘boring’ formal functions and ceremonies, ordoing favours – in other words, any situation that can be usedto good effect in the effort to understand the agendas of others,and begin to reveal your own.

� External networking. Building relationships across externalboundaries has assumed an entirely new significance asorganisations are increasingly bound to each other throughsupply chains, joint ventures, strategic alliances, sharedprocesses and resources, and several other ‘mutual destiny’mechanisms. In these arrangements stakeholders in organ-isations may be powerful allies. They can support an initiativeif it has a business implication for them, and this opens upfurther possibilities for the politically minded in realisingtheir agendas. In fact the greater the mutual destiny that existsbetween organisations, the more politicians think in terms ofbelonging to a web of organisations rather than to just one.But even where organisational boundaries are maintained intraditional style, there is much credibility to be gained inpossessing an external network.

The implications for managerial activity patterns are clear.The able politician devotes time to networking withcustomers, suppliers, competitors, industry groups, profes-sional and academic bodies, consultants, and other institutionsand agencies in the external environment.6 There is a practicalquestion of where to draw the line, for these are all potentialsources of political support, information, knowledge and, if allelse fails, employment. Rational managers will draw that linetightly round the organisation, dealing only with those in theenvironment they are ‘supposed’ to, while politicians willchoose on the basis of relevance to their agendas.


97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 147

In Conclusion

We have argued that the defining characteristics of the politicallyfluent manager described here are very much a reflection of thecapabilities required to operate successfully in today’s organisa-tional environment. For if organisational forms and businessmodels are fast becoming unrecognisable in terms of the trad-itional principles of rationality, that is because the old model oforganisations is no longer applicable. These sea changes areleading towards a world in which organisations cannot bemanaged other than by accepting the inevitability of organic,bottom-up change driven by the competing agendas of individ-uals who care about the future of their organisations. The condi-tions in which constructive politics become the natural means ofmanaging may therefore be rapidly appearing, and it is to thispossibility we now turn in the final chapter. Are we soon to seethe legitimisation of organisational politics?

Notes

1. Fayol, H. (1967) General and Industrial Management, Pitman, London.2. Mintzberg, M. (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, New York.3. Clarke, M. (2006) A study of the role of representative leadership in stimulating organ-

isation democracy, Leadership, 2(4) 417–50.4. Hales, C. (1999) Why do managers do what they do? Reconciling evidence and theory

in accounts of managerial work, British Journal of Management, 10(4) 335–50.5. Butcher, D. and Atkinson, S. (2000) The bottom-up principle, Management Review,

January, 48–53.6. Bailey, C. and Bristow, M. (2004) Thinking outside the box, Training Magazine, 25–7.


97802305_42266_06_cha05 17/3/08 17:00 Page 148

149

C H A P T E R 6

Politics – The Essence of Organisation?

We have set out to position politics as a central dimension inmanagement, and we have surfaced the influence of the deep-seated rational mindset in undermining its legitimacy. As withgovernmental politics, the constructive value of organisationalpolitics stems from the possibility of acting on personal agendas,which itself turns on the balance of self- and other-interest. Themoment managers stray from the straight and narrow of therational mindset, they are faced with the problem of finding thatbalance. Yet this is their day-to-day experience. It is the essenceof organisation and it leads us to recast the managerial role asthat of ‘politician’.

Maybe it is more accurate to say that politics are becomingthe essence of organisation. For perhaps the rational mindsetwas once both the legitimate and entirely dominant one. Afterall, the more powerful a mindset, the more it saturates ourattention. Or has the political dimension always been a seriouscontender? It is well known that those who have studied organ-isations for the past fifty years or more have consistentlyencountered what they called the ‘informal organisation’ – analternative mindset, in other words – and managers seem tohave always recognised that organisation charts do not fully

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 149


reflect power structures. However, the informal organisation isprobably better understood as a reaction to control, than as ameans of expressing personal agendas for the organisation.Just the same, we are left pondering whether or not politics,constructive politics, that is, have always been a significantdimension of organisations. Perhaps not, given the over-whelming impact of rational values on society at large. Wecannot really know. We can, though, be in little doubt nowabout the power of the political mindset, and the weight of itsalternative status. So – is its significance increasing? Will poli-tics become the essence of organisation, the legitimatecompanion, rather than illegitimate alternative to rationality?

We think so, and in this final chapter we will try to showwhy. The argument goes like this. The trend towards organ-isational democratisation, driven by massive changes in thebusiness environment, provides the basis for an organisationalmodel in which the role of hierarchy is limited, but whichcannot be realised without the legitimisation of politicalactivity. Yet in the face of a long established rational mindset,how realistic an expectation is this? It depends. Clearly educa-tion has a part to play, but then education is often instrumentalin perpetuating the dominance of the rational model, partic-ularly in the field of management development. How influen-tial education will be, therefore, is worth some seriousconsideration. But if the institutions of education cannotexpose the strait-jacket of rationality, because they are unableto extricate themselves from its values, then it will be the inter-vention of individual managers, and their ambitions to createenlightened organisations, that will have the most impact onlegitimising organisational politics. They will do so only ifthey see it as personally meaningful and relevant, and thatdepends on them pursuing worthy causes. For it is the pursuitof political agendas that reveals the political mindset as theessence of organisation. There is no limit to the potential forindividual action, but it could be a slow process.

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 150

Politics – The Essence of Organisation? 151

The Democratisation of Organisational Life

There is always great debate about the future of organisations,their structure, form and role in society. Central to this discussionis the idea of democratisation, by which is meant the widespreaddistributing of influence in organisations.1 This is a processthrough which a multiplicity of stakeholders becomes involved inthe management of an organisation. It arises both by design and asa consequence of the evolution of organisational forms. Democrat-isation is based partly on the acceptance that organisations func-tion far more effectively when their internal dynamics are treatedas markets, rather than centrally planned economies, and partly onthe recognition that organisations are not sovereign entities thatcan operate independently of their environment. Consequentlyorganisations need to manage themselves in a way that reflects therelative power and value of their range of stakeholders. It is aconception of organisation that reflects directly the mindset ofconstructive politics because it explicitly endorses the need to takeaccount of internal and external interest groups, while refuting theidea that superordinate judgement is concentrated at the top of ahierarchy, no matter how flattened.

An Accelerating Process?

The move to redistribute organisational influence has a longhistory, traceable in Europe, for example, to feudalism. In recentyears democratisation has become evangelised by business gurusand politicians as a new paradigm of economic, social and polit-ical organisation. While there are divergent views about thenature and form of democratised organisations of the future,there is some agreement that they are likely to share at least thefollowing characteristics:2

� Devolved power and responsibility for many more organ-isational decisions, leading to smaller, self-organising units.

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 151


These are likely to operate jointly in corporate structures moreakin to a federation or holding company than a uniform entity.

� Processes that recognise the importance of satisfying diverseinternal and external interests, and that emphasise power as afunction of successful relationships rather than structure.

� People strategies that provide for greater levels of psycholog-ical ownership of organisational activities, and that dependmore on individual contribution, knowledge and leadership.

However, if these ideas have taken root at all, it is not because ofwell-intentioned words. Rather it is a response to the very realbusiness imperatives we discussed briefly at the beginning of thebook, namely, technological advances, the drive for innovation,the impact of globalisation, and an increasing concern for busi-ness ethics. These drivers of change have encouraged the democ-ratisation process in several ways:

� The need for continual innovation and improvement has led tothe recognition that individual tacit knowledge, held in theheads of employees and deployed through key organisationalrelationships, is a rich vein.3 This has stimulated greaterinterest in the relative value of individual contribution andgenerated a multitude of methods to identify, communicateand exploit this knowledge for organisational benefit. Inparticular, it has led to a focus on knowledge management,and the importance of releasing knowledge to those closest toorganisational problems. As information is increasinglydisseminated, so organisational democratisation is enabled.

� The recognition that customer satisfaction is critical to organ-isational success has facilitated the idea of employee empow-erment. In an effort to increase responsiveness to customerneeds, decision-making has been pushed down the organ-isation. Similarly, the intention behind delayering is to accel-erate decision-making processes. In other words, thesechanges are designed to ensure that information, power and

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 152

authority are pushed to the point where they can have greatestvalue for the customer.

� The benefits of managing knowledge and reducing hierarchyare realised through attracting, retaining and developing keytalent. Central to this is the need to understand the motiva-tions of these exceptional people. In response, organisationshave increasingly been making determined efforts to create anew ‘psychological contract’ with employees. In the words ofthe social philosopher and business commentator, CharlesHandy, they are treated as ‘members of voluntary clubs’rather than as organisational assets, or human resources.4 Inparticular, this necessitates providing greater autonomy andchoice for individuals so that they can achieve results in waysthey see fit. In certain industries, particularly those associatedwith IT, organisations have had no choice but to treatemployees as voluntary members, because their skills andcompetencies are so much in demand. These changes have theeffect of raising the voice of individual contributors in organ-isational decision-making.

� As organisations align ever more closely with the needs ofspecific customer groups, individual business units and depart-ments serving customer segments inevitably become morespecialised. The resulting fragmentation of organisationalstructures drags organisational power away from the corporatecentre in the service of specialised customer needs.

� The inescapable interdependence of organisations, theirsuppliers and competitors, has led to increasing acceptancethat external stakeholders influence decision-making. This isnot just an issue of corporate responsibility but equally one ofcompetitive advantage. For example, the more companies areable to build close relationships with customers and suppliers,the more effective their supply chain becomes.5 In someindustries, like biotechnology, product development may bedependent on a knowledge network of thousands of scientistslocated all around the world. Democratisation, therefore, is


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 153

also being driven by the need for organisational boundaries tobe permeable and, at times, altogether removed.

� The need to secure greater levels of employee commitmenthas led organisations to democratise their approach to rewardsand ownership. Many have introduced stock ownership plans,albeit restricted to specific management levels, and someorganisations, like the UK-based John Lewis Partnership,include all employees as owners. One hi-tech company valuesits business units on an internal stock exchange to allow allemployees the chance to purchase ‘stock’ in sister businessunits as well as their own.

� Lastly, the democratisation process has also been influenced ona global scale by growing legislation in the areas of employeeprotection, participation and communication. Whether this isthrough the establishment of works councils, collaborativetrade union involvement, profit-related pay, or race and genderequality, each piece of legislation in some small way providesgreater emancipation from hierarchical control.

All these trends reflect the increasing importance of many voicesin the effective management of contemporary organisations.They act incrementally on society at national and global levels,edging organisations closer to accepting the need to reconciledifferent aims as the basis for managing.

Organisational Democracy and Organisational Politics

Clearly these influences alone do not create sufficientmomentum for a mindset shift towards the democratisation oforganisations, for when overlaid on to the rational model, theresult can be frustration and alienation, not emancipation.Furthermore, attempts to superimpose democratic principles onorganisations can devalue the good intentions of top managersand, worse still, generate cynicism about their motives.


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 154

For example, ideas of empowerment have often been imposedon sceptical middle managers, leaving them insecure andvulnerable because they are unsure about their future role. Thesame can be said of attempts to get employees to deposit theirtacit knowledge on corporate databases because they can seelittle personal benefit from doing so. Similarly corporate stockoptions appear to motivate primarily those who feel they caninfluence the stock price, usually senior management. Attemptsto value employees as corporate citizens by enhancing theiremployability fall into disrepute when training and developmentbudgets are slashed in the face of poor trading performance.Much the same tension arises when organisations talk of inde-pendent business units and then impose a top-down budgetprocess. We could go on. The point is that these kinds of frustra-tions are now part of everyday managerial life. Evidently some-thing more than good intentions or the changing businessenvironment is required to effect a fundamental redistribution inorganisational influence.

Throughout this book we have sought to show how constructivepolitics are essential to effective organisational functioning, and itis but a short step to suggest that they are also critical to realisingthe democratic principles necessary for contemporary organ-isational forms. We believe they do this in three key respects.

First, constructive politics represent the logical process by whichdiverse interests and stakeholders may be reconciled in organ-isations. Given that it is in the nature of organisations for powerfulinterest groups to form, more than ever in today’s decentralisedcorporations, how else can this reconciliation be achieved? Notthrough hierarchical control – the evidence for that is overwhelm-ingly clear. Indeed, within the model of constructive politics,significant interest groups check the power invested in formalhierarchy. Thus, far from being an irrational organisationalresponse, therefore, the political system, as with institutionalgovernment, is the only judicious way of managing inevitabledifferences. Also, like its institutional counterpart, constructivepolitical behaviour in organisations can only be considered legiti-mate if individuals are able to demonstrate civic virtue, to forgo,


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 155


or at least balance, personal interests with the interests of othercommunities. This is similar to David Buchanan’s notion of a‘logic of political action’, in which politically skilled individualsjustify their behaviour by reference to the maintenance of theirreputations, being able to account for their actions, and being ableto identify positive organisational outcomes.6

Second, in recognising the multi-goal nature of organisations,the political model implicitly values diversity. Generic corporategoals (survival, growth or profit) become an umbrella under which(competing) top management visions and disparate local interestscan be balanced. The democratic management of these differ-ences, that is, balancing the need for coherence and diversity, isthus a primary component of organisational working, as it is forpolitical institutions, and many examples are to be found. In IBMrecently, the organisation undertook to consult with all 300,000 ofits employees around the world about the future values of thecompany in a three-day ‘Values Jam’. In the UK shoe repairerTimpsons, ‘pedestrian’ middle managers have been removed in an‘upside down management structure’ where diversity of innova-tion at local branch level is considered critical to success.7 Suchexamples reflect both the desirability and centrality of diversity toeffective organisational working.

Finally, as in governmental democracy, it is the explicit recog-nition of the political nature of managing and leading that enables themaintenance and promotion of organisational democracy. True, itis the fear of leaders using personal power in a coercive mannerthat forms the rationale for the institutional checks and balances ofgovernment, yet formalised procedures are simply not enough tosecure the democratic process. Trust and power are central to goodorganisational governance; it is a leader’s personal stewardship ofthem through political process, and how this is perceived byothers, that is critical to their application in practice. While to beeffective, organisational democracy must also reflect processes ofparticipation, good citizenship behaviour and so forth, democraticgovernance is justified in terms of people exercising politicalinfluence over their collective destiny, and leadership is implicit inthis endeavour.

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 156


In our research, described in the last chapter, this democraticorientation was clearly recognisable in the cluster of managersworking with a constructive political mindset. As Jim’s exampledemonstrates, they each viewed diversity of interest as a criticalorganising principle, to be encouraged in order to enhance organi-sational effectiveness. Second, this orientation encouraged amindset in which individuals felt able to make a personal differ-ence, to pursue their own goals legitimately. However, this perspec-tive was balanced by an orientation in which personal success wasinextricably interwoven with the success of others’ agendas,suggesting that these managers attached real value to the achieve-ment of others’ goals. However, this approach brought them intoconflict with their colleagues. Third, therefore, in order to amelio-rate accusations of self-interest, individuals attached importance tobuilding legitimacy of action through transparency of motive.

The resulting behaviour was far from self-serving, and demon-strated how constructive political activity enabled a more demo-cratic reconciliation of diverse internal agendas. For example, onemanager deliberately created a silo around her business, in contra-vention of the prevailing culture, in order to develop a morecustomer-focused approach with shared values of debate, challengeand autonomy. This was extremely successful and the manager,after publicising the advantages of her approach, secured agree-ment to extend the model to the rest of the organisation. In ourstudy, diversity of interest and reciprocity of success were signifi-cant in enabling managers to work with the conflicting tensions oforganisational and self-interest, and cohesion and diversity. Byaccepting these inherent contradictions, they were able to movebeyond the notion that more of one necessitates less of the other.

Our argument is therefore that the democratisation of organ-isations will only truly arise once politics are legitimate. For it isconstructive politics that provide the essential process for recon-ciling the differing interests endemic within the stakeholdermodel. In the light of the kinds of examples given here, wewould ask the reader to think about how similar actions mightaccelerate both the legitimisation of organisational politics andthe process of democratisation.

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 157


Education and Political Behaviour

How, then, can the legitimisation of organisational politicsactively be brought forward? It is a daunting question when wethink about how the tension between organisational democrati-sation and the rational model of management runs deep withinsociety as a whole. After all, the language of the rationalityapplies equally as much to military organisations or religiousbodies as it does to Wal-Mart and Microsoft. Church leadersgrapple with principles of democratic decision-makingprocesses at the same time as maintaining control over fundsand policy. Police forces attempt to be more open and inclusiveof minority interest groups within their ranks while operating acommand and control approach to management. Charitableorganisations rely on voluntary workers, but sometimes try tomanage them with the same degree of centralised control foundin commercial organisations. The dominance of the rationalmodel is a widespread phenomenon and the movement we candiscern towards organisational democracy is but a fraction of thechange required.

A logical starting point is education. Surely its reach andimpact are essential in creating such a massive mindset shift?The answer seems obvious until we remind ourselves thateducation is anything but value-free. It is an institution thathistorically has been the central pillar of both democracy andtotalitarianism, and while in democratic society educationemphasises a plurality of perspectives, it also reinforces the dominant mindset. This is very apparent in managementeducation, which does not exist independently of the prevailingmodel of effective organisation. In reality it is limited in scopeto accelerate the process of legitimising political behaviour,and will remain so until there is a resolute critique of thevalues that underpin it. Let us look at two major arenas ofmanagement education – in-house management training, andbusiness school development programmes – to understand this better:

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 158


� In-house management training. In-house training has become akey instrument of human resource policy, often seeking toinstil values of organisational consistency and uniformity inmanagement. This can be observed in the emphasis on compe-tency frameworks or psychological profiling that attempt tobuild conformity of behaviour. It can also be detected in thetraining that is delivered as part of culture change programmesattempting to build corporate values and attitudes. Conse-quently, instead of management training being a vehicle forpersonal challenge and innovation, it is often viewed withcynicism as another vehicle for top management control.Although more and more is invested in this kind of manage-ment training, research shows that much of it has little long-term impact on behaviour.8 Instead, managers tend to ‘surfaceact’, giving the appearance of publicly accepting the ideaspresented to them, because they recognise the need to ‘playthe game’ that brings careers, security, and a quiet life.

A significant part of the problem is that too little managementtraining can be considered developmental. By ‘developmental’we refer to a process of helping managers consider their ownvalues and attitudes, and how these influence behaviour.Training tends to focus on relatively simple skill transfer orknowledge acquisition, neither of which enables managers tothink critically about issues of power and politics. For them toconsider alternative models of managing, in-house trainingwould need to take account of the attitudes that influencemanagers’ assumptions about organising. Instead, the focus isusually on specific competencies derived from the rationalmodel, and consequently it does not touch those deep-lyingattitudes. Furthermore, managers themselves take the viewthat time away from the job must be short and relevant,thereby lessening the likelihood that development will be partof the training agenda.

� Business school development programmes. In theory, businessschool programmes should provide the intellectual critiqueabsent within the management development curricula of indiv-

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 159


idual organisations. Business schools are university based andsee themselves as thought leaders. However, in reality, theyare caught within the same rational mindset trap as their clientworld. Indeed, the academic communities of North Americaand Europe have played a substantial role in articulating therational model for managers, and it is only relatively recentlythat ‘deviant’ theorists have begun to draw attention to the wayin which management literature underemphasises issues ofpower and coercion in organisations.9 The powerful theoreticalconventions built by academia are hard to challenge fromwithin, and as with most scholarly disciplines, the study ofmanagement and organisation is no exception. Added to this isthe commercial reality of the business schools – they are alsobusinesses, and they prefer not to alienate their customers. It isnot hard to see how they would find it less risky to teachwithin the conventions of the rational model on theirprogrammes if that is the expectation of the client world.

Thus, as with in-house management training, true developmenttends not to feature on business school programmes. In factthere is an additional reason. The intellectual predilections ofmany business school faculty members lead them to emphasisethe cerebral rather than the emotional domain in their teaching.In fact, it would not be unfair to say that they can be dismissiveof the ‘personal’ in development processes, preferring to relyon the power of ideas to change the thinking of their students.Managerial attitudes and values are often talked about withobjectivity and distance rather than addressed from a develop-mental perspective. Seminars, presentations and case studiesare preferable to in-depth individual consultations. In otherwords, most of the personal development support necessary fora transformation of mindset is frequently missing in the busi-ness school environment.

In sum, education should provide a vehicle for substantiveprogress towards greater organisational democracy. However,key constituents of the institution of education have become too

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 160

entangled in the rational model. Too many parts have becomealigned to the values of the corporate business mindset, whichitself has too much invested in rationality.

But there are some signs of change. Academics are increas-ingly critiquing the processes of management education and thevalues upon which it is delivered, including the omission ofpower from the curriculum and the need to acknowledge thepolitics of management education.10 Furthermore, because busi-ness education has become big business, business schools arenow subject to unprecedented global media attention. While thishas the destructive power to transform them from substance toimage, it can also move them constructively towards creatingsubstance of greater worth. Among other effects, this growingtransparency has revealed that there is little evidence of businessschool research influencing management practice, calling intoquestion the professional relevance of management scholar-ship.11 In other words, the conditions are increasingly conduciveto demand relevance from the business schools, and manage-ment learning professionals are organisationally well placed todo so. In addition there is a growing body of such professionalswho are using unconventional and challenging approaches todeveloping executive talent. At Cranfield School of Manage-ment, for example, some executive development programmesare specifically aimed at developing constructive political skills,and attract managers from many leading organisations. As thesuccess of these programmes suggests, perhaps one of the mostcompelling reasons for change is the very need for relevancesought by management in their struggle to reconcile rationalorganisational principles with the reality of political purpose.

Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that there will be any rapidchange within education systems sufficient to hasten the democ-ratisation of organisations. Must we then wait for grand scaleshifts of values, inching forward as the forces that are changingthe business environment take further hold? Of course the answeris ‘yes’, because we always have to wait for great changes insociety. After all, governments come and go, and make littleimpact on some of the more intractable social problems like the


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 161

distribution of wealth, or the cycle of deprivation. But do we haveto wait as individual managers, responsible for individual organ-isations? Of course not.

Individual Action, Politics and the Art of the Possible

It is in the nature of democratic politics to revere the rightfulnessof alternative viewpoints, the ultimate minority view being thatof the lone individual voice. Within this core principle lies themeans of legitimising organisational politics, and advancing theprocess of democratisation. For in any business, governmentagency, charity or ecclesiastical order, it is the determination ofindividuals and groups to promote their alternative organ-isational agendas, to act on principled causes, which may serveto dislodge the rational mindset. In other words, within thecontext of any one organisation, constructive political action canlegitimise itself. One only has to look at where progress towardsorganisational democratisation has been made in particularenterprises to see how this happens. If you doubt that a singleperson can have an effect on a deeply ingrained and institution-alised rational mindset, think of the impression made by businessheroes like Richard Branson of Virgin or Larry Page of Google.They and others like them impact not just on their own organ-isations, but on popular consciousness as well. They createorganisations that become models for other organisations. And interms of the power of individual action they are but the tip of theiceberg, for in many circumstances it is possible to find unsungchampions of constructive politics who have won widespreadrespect and admiration for their opposition to ill-conceivedcorporate policies. Those organisations, or pockets of practicewithin them, provide glimpses of how truly democratised large-scale organisations might be managed.

But the impact of individual drive and determination on thedemocratisation of organisations is not limited to multinationalcorporations like Virgin or Google. Many other types of organ-


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 162

isation experiment with radical approaches to managing. Forexample, in Whole Foods, a US-based grocery chain founded byJohn Mackey, the basic organisation unit is unconventionallysmall; it isn’t the store but the department teams that run freshproduce or prepared foods. Managers consult these teams on allstore-level decisions and provide them with the autonomy todecide what to stock and who to hire. Team members haveaccess to comprehensive financial performance data, includingco-worker compensation levels. Over ninety per cent of thecompany’s share options have been granted to non-executives.12

Nucor, one of the largest steelmakers in the US, uses asimilar approach to democratising the workplace.


Nucor13,14

This highly successful company is defined by a numberof features. First, despite employing 16,000 people in 50locations, Nucor delegates decision-making so far downthe organisation that most of its operating budget restswith the front-line workforce. Teams are largely self-managed, encouraging an owner–operator mindset inmost employees. Teams select their own supervisor,decide when to hire new members and have a major sayin who gets selected. If there is an issue betweenemployees, it is their responsibility to talk it through untilthey find common ground. Basic salaries are supportedby significant bonuses and profit sharing. With only fivelevels in the business and a decentralised organisation,strategy making is necessarily an inclusive process.Nevertheless, there’s healthy competition between facili-ties and even shifts, yet at the same time everyone isencouraged to share their best practice across the differentsites. Again, teams make the necessary decisions about

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 163

At Semco, an example that captured considerable media atten-tion over a decade ago, founder Ricardo Semler provided anongoing invitation to employees to create their own jobs andgenerate new businesses, redistributing the weekend across theworking week while balancing work and personal life.15 UKadvertising company St Luke’s has gone one step further still interms of democratisation, and the company has become thesubject of books, articles and TV programmes around theworld.16 Andy Law set up St Luke’s by taking all the agency stafffrom the London office of Omnicom, where he had beenmanaging director. All employees at St Luke’s are owners,shares being distributed every year in equal proportion to all whohave been in the company for the previous year. Law, who hassince moved on to set up other radical organisation forms, isfirmly of the opinion that this ownership increases loyalty,productivity, responsibility, empowerment and trust.

These organisations are examples of where individual actionfrom leaders at the top can create organisational democracy. Ineach case, management has had to find ways of dealing with therealities of conflicting and mutual interests which have beendesigned in. At St Luke’s for example, since all employees havemore or less equal ownership, there are inevitable differences ofopinion about how the business should be run. These differencesare managed through a range of formal and informal processesincluding shareholder days, company days, where all employeesdiscuss the future direction of the business, monthly operationalmeetings, as well as bar room lobbying.


whether, when and where to travel. There are no fixedbudgets or limits to who can be away or for how long. Inthis culture, discipline isn’t imposed. Rather it is viewedas a natural response to the way employees are involvedand given autonomy.

97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 164

However, not all organisations are led by enlightened entrepre-neurs or radical corporate visionaries, so what are the possibilitiesfor individual action by managers working from less favourableorganisational starting points – most managers, in other words?

The Beginnings of an Agenda for Personal Action

Personal action that either supports or competes with theagendas of others arises because individuals see it as worth-while. Political behaviour for its own sake can be no more thana game, a form of deviant organisational activity disconnectedfrom relationships and meaningful work. Being political is notan end in itself but a means to an end, and most of us willengage in politics only when there is personal gain to be had.And as we have tried to show throughout this book, for politicalaction to be constructive, personal gain must be in the service ofothers, not just self-seeking. Worthy causes are the key, what-ever your own organisational starting point.

Maybe you already have one – most managers do. It is prob-ably not far out of reach, even if you cannot produce yourpersonal manifesto right at this moment. Just remind yourself ofthe ambitions you have for your team, or what you would likeyour part of the business to achieve. Think of how much yourprofessional values mean to you, or how important yourspecialist knowledge is to your colleagues, clients and suppliers.Ask yourself (again) about the mistaken strategic decisions takenby others on behalf of you and the business, or the neglect ofhuge opportunities in your markets. What about all those frustra-tions you have sometimes felt because obvious organisationalimprovements never happen? Just one item from the last off-sitestrategy workshop ‘wish list’ may be all you need. Consider butone of these suggestions and you will soon find your personalagenda. In fact you will probably be spoilt for choice. And if youwant to make that agenda a direct assault on rational manage-ment thinking – think carefully. There is plenty of scope but you


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 165

do need to be circumspect about directness. That said, you couldcontemplate some of the following:

� Challenging your management development professionals toexplain why they are trying to build conformity of behaviourat a time when diversity provides the basis for innovation andcreativity.

� Coaching those who work for you to question assumptionsabout corporate unity. Even better, do the same withcolleagues who do not work for you, like your boss. Call it ‘scenario painting’ or ‘brain-storming’, not coaching.Remember how much language matters.

� Recruiting and nurturing organisational misfits so that theyblossom into leaders of pockets of good practice. Protectingthose pockets once they begin to take shape, and until they canstand on their own success.

� Suggesting to your HRM people that political skills should beincluded in their competency framework, and that they shouldreconsider the value of team development for the organisation.

� Asking senior management if they would like you to lead aspecial project to evaluate the benefits of radical approaches toemployee ownership and rewards.

� Tasking business school academics and consultants withwhom you come into contact to show how their models ofmanagement and organisation challenge top managers, notmerely support their assumptions.

Each of these agendas alone may appear insignificant. But in thecontext of your own organisation they provide a point of departurein legitimising politics, and individual action is axiomatic in thisprocess. Progress is made by exploiting the loopholes and contra-dictions of the rational model from within that model, and what-ever your personal agenda, the power and benefit of constructivepolitical behaviour can only really be appreciated when exper-ienced in practice.


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 166

So are you convinced? We hope that you are, but perhaps forsome, the risks of constructive political activity may still seemtoo great. If that is your own conclusion, do pause one moretime. For constructive political action provides you with theopportunity to take greater self-control, to see choices and alter-native courses of action, and to realise agendas that are worth-while for you and for others. And remember this also. Therational model of organising has been around for severalcenturies, yet in the last ten years we have begun to witness anunfreezing of organising principles that fifty years ago mighthave seemed unthinkable. Even since writing the first edition ofthis book in 2001, we can see an increasing number of small, butsignificant changes: senior managers being prepared to debatepublicly the value of politics, business schools runningprogrammes on the constructive use of politics and a willingnesson behalf of business leaders to experiment with new ways ofworking. Like it or not, organisational forms are changing signif-icantly, perhaps fundamentally. How long will it be before trulydemocratised organisations, built on principles of constructivepolitical behaviour, become realities? Why wait to find out whenyou can be ahead of the game? After all, as a good manager, thatis where you would want to be.

Notes

1. Harrison, J. and Freeman E. (2004) Is organizational democracy worth the effort?Academy of Management Executive, 18(3) 49–53.

2. Gratton, L. (2004) The Democratic Enterprise: Liberating Your Business with Indiv-idual Freedom and Shared Purpose, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London.

3. Stewart, T. A. (1997) Intellectual Capital, the New Wealth of Nations, NicholasBrealey, London.

4. Handy, C. (1997) Unimagined futures, in, F. Hesslebein, M. Goldsmith and R. Beckhard(eds) The Organization of the Future, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 377–83.

5 Christopher, M. (1998) Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow.

6. Buchanan, D. (1999) The logic of political action: an experiment with the epistemologyof the particular, British Journal of Management, 10, S73–S88.

7. Simms, J. (2006) In their shoes, People Management, 20 April, 37–8.8. Clarke, M. (1999) Management development as a game of meaningless outcomes,

Human Resources Management Journal, 9(2) 38–49.9. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of Management, Sage, London.


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 167

10. Grey, C. (2004) Reinventing business schools: the contribution of critical managementeducation, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(2) 178–86.

11. Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. (2002) The end of business schools? Less success than meetsthe eye, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1) 78–95.

12. Hamel, G. (2006) The why, what and how of management innovation, Harvard Busi-ness Review, February, 72–84.

13. Byrnes, N. and Arndt, M. (2006) The art of motivation, Business Week, (3982) 56–62.14. Kelly, H. (2008) Rock and ore, People Management, 10 January, 30–3.15. Semler, R. (2003) The Seven Day Weekend, Century, London.16. Law, A. (1998) Open Minds, Orion Business Books, London.


97802305_42266_07_cha06 17/3/08 17:01 Page 168

169

3M UK plc 33

Aaccountability

and rational model 110–11political 73

alternative practice, pockets of86–7

analysis, causal 95–6authority 54, 58, 59, 60–1

see also hierarchy

BBaddeley, Simon 98BP 33Branson, Richard 162Buchanan, David 43business change

effects of 7–9resistance to 16–17significant drivers 5–7, 152

business ethics, concern for 7business paradigm, new 7–8business schools, development

programmes 159–60

Ccapable politicians 88–94

activity patterns 114–15

case studies 116–19, 120–3,129–34, 137–42

change management 143,144

conceptual understanding81–7, 97

establishing worthwhilecauses 143–5

interpersonal skills 94–7, 98key capabilities 97–8leadership behaviour 108managing upwards 145–6networking 146–7personal development 103–4political behaviour model

98–102reading others 96–7, 98

case studiescapable politicians 120–3,

129–34, 137–42destructive politician 126–9,

132–4disempowered manager

134–7, 140–2rational manager 116–19,

123–5Cash Co. 30causal analysis 95–6causes, worthwhile see

worthwhile causes

Index

97802305_42266_08_indx 17/3/08 17:01 Page 169

170 Index

challenge, productive 95–6, 98change see business changechange management

capable politicians 142, 143rational model 10–12, 143

Confronting Company Politics14

constructive politicians seecapable politicians

constructive politics seeorganisational politics

corporate goals 36–7Cranfield School of

Management 161

Ddecision-making 21, 32–3democratic ideals 71–5democratisation 76–8, 151–2,

158–65democratisation process

employeesempowerment 152–3, 155legislation 154rewards 154, 155, 166as voluntary members

153and individual action 162–7knowledge management

152, 155and legitimate politics

154–7, 162–5permeable boundaries

153–4segment specialisation 153

destructive politician, casestudy 126–9, 132–4

development, personal 103–4development programmes,

business schools 159–60Diageo 28

disempowered manager, casestudy 134–7, 140–2

drivers of change 5–7, 152

Eeducation, management

158–62embedded power 62–3employees, democratisation

processempowerment 152–3, 155legislation 154rewards 154, 155, 166as voluntary members 153

ethics, business 7expertise as power 56–7, 59, 60external networking 147

FFayol, Henri 106formal authority see authority

GGeus, Arie de 28Ghoshal, Sumantra ixglobalisation, impact of 6–7goals, corporate 36–7good practice, pockets of 76,

97, 144, 166government politics and

organisational politics 16,17, 73–8

Google 162

HHales, Colin 109Handy, Charles 153hard rewards 55, 60, 62–3hierarchy x, 40, 41, 48

decision-making 32–3

97802305_42266_08_indx 17/3/08 17:01 Page 170

Index 171

dysfunctional impact 33–4management 31–5, 54, 58,

59, 60–1hot groups 76, 144human resource management,

ethos 37–40, 41

IIBM 156ideals, democratic 71–5in-house management training

159information as power source

54, 60, 62–3innovation, drive for 6internal networking 146–7interpersonal skills 94–7, 98

JJames, Kim Turnbull 98John Lewis Partnership 154just causes and self-interest

20, 21

Kknowledge

of business environment93–4, 98

organisational 90, 92, 97–8of stakeholders 91, 97

knowledge management,democratisation process152, 155

LLaw, Andy 164leadership behaviour 108legitimate politics and

democratisation process154–7, 162–5

legitimate power see authority

Living Company, The 28lobbying 17, 18, 20, 85–6

MMackey, John 163management

classification 106–9problems 1–4

management education158–62

managerial activity,redefinition 21–2

managerial mindsets 26–9managerial responsibility

109–10motivation and political

mindset 112–14motivation and rational

mindset 110–11, 114managers

case studies see case studiesand motives 68–70, 98–102political mindset 78–9as politicians see capable

politiciansMicrosoft Corp. 158Mill, John Stuart 72mindsets 26–32

and conceptualunderstanding 81–2

managerial 26–9political see political

mindsetsrational see rational mindsets

Mintzberg, Henry 106motivation

political mindset 112–14rational mindset 110–11, 114

motivesbalanced 88–9, 97balancing individual/

organisational 20–1

97802305_42266_08_indx 17/3/08 17:01 Page 171

172 Index

balancing selfish/selfless69–70

and managers 68–9political activity 68–70political behaviour model

98–102stakeholder 96

Motorola Ltd 12

Nnetworking 146–7Nucor 163–4

Oorganisational knowledge 90,

92, 97–8organisational politics 13, 14

centrality of 18–19definition 18as ‘democratic asset’ 23and government politics 16,

73–8illegitimate x–xiinevitability 67–8key capabilities 97–9as ‘missing link’ 4negative interpretation

13–14, 16, 17political behaviour model

98–102organisational power 48–9

concealed 63episodic basis 65independent of awareness

61–3limits to application 60–1personal sources 53, 56–9,

63, 66–7and politics 82–3, 97problem of definition 51–3

situational sources 53–6,62–3, 66

see also power

PPage, Larry 162Perry, Nick 48personal agenda/interest see

self-interestpersonal development 103–4persuasive presentation 94–5,

98pockets of alternative practice

86–7pockets of good practice 76,

97, 144, 166political activity 68

as constructive 45–9motives 68–70negative perceptions 25, 26,

44–5human resource

management ethos37–40, 41

myth of corporate unity26, 35–7, 38

power of language 40–2self-delusion 43–4

political mechanisms 85–6,97

political mindsets 25, 29–31,70increasing significance 150justifiable means 70–1managers 76, 78–9, 80–1and motivation 112–14self-interest 112tension with rational mindset

78–9politicians see capable

politicians

97802305_42266_08_indx 17/3/08 17:01 Page 172

Index 173

politicsdefinition 51and democracy 71–5organisational see

organisational politicsposition power 54, 58, 59,

60–1, 67see also hierarchy

positioning 18–19, 20power

awareness of 53, 64–6embedded 62–3legitimate see authorityprincipled use of 19–20referent 56, 59, 60, 61, 63see also organisational

powerpower sources

expertise 56–7, 59, 60information 54, 59, 60, 62–3social competence 57, 58,

59, 63presentation, persuasive 94–5,

98 problems, management 1–4productive challenge 95–6, 98

Rrational manager, case study

116–19, 123–5rational mindsets 4, 14, 15,

34–5, 70, 71, 89and capable politicians 86circularity of thinking 44–5influence on managerial

thinking 9–10language use 40–2limitations 29, 31self-delusion 43–4tension with political

mindset 78–9, 107–9

rational model 10, 106–9accountability 110–11change management 10–12,

143contradictions 25decision-making 21dominance of 158influence of 14–16limitations 29, 31management education

160–1personal interest 19relationships 83–4

referent power 56, 59, 60, 61,63

relationshipscapable politicians 83–5,

97, 145–7rational model 83–4

responsibility, managerial seemanagerial responsibility

rewards, employee 154, 155,166hard 55, 60, 62–3soft 57

Richer Sounds plc 32

Sself-identity 43self-interest 4, 11, 12–13, 17,

25–6balancing motives 20–1and just causes 20, 21negative views 14political mindset 112view as illegitimate 39

Semco 164Semler, Ricardo 164skills, interpersonal 94–7, 98social competence as power

57, 58, 59, 63

97802305_42266_08_indx 17/3/08 17:01 Page 173

174 Index

soft rewards 57St Luke’s Communications Ltd

164–5stakeholder claims 37stakeholders 75, 91, 92, 151

knowledge of 91, 97motives 96

stealth 86, 145Stone, Beverly 14success as power 57–8

Tteamworking, difficulties of

38–9technological advances, impact

of 5–6Timpsons 156

top-down control see hierarchytrust 84–5

Uunity of purpose 35–7

VVirgin (group of companies)

33, 162

WWal-Mart Stores, Inc. 158Whole Foods Market, Inc. 163Willmott, Hugh 38worthwhile causes 165–6

establishing 143–5

97802305_42266_08_indx 17/3/08 17:01 Page 174

smart management, second edition: using politics in organizations

Documents