"OIIice politics" redirects here. For the "House, M.D." episode, see OIIice Politics (House).

Workplace politics, sometimes reIerred to as Office politics (which strictly only includes oIIice
workers, although the meaning is usually intended in the wider sense) is "the use oI one's
individual or assigned power within an employing organization Ior the purpose oI obtaining
advantages beyond one's legitimate authority. Those advantages may include access to tangible
assets, or intangible beneIits such as status or pseudo-authority that inIluences the behavior oI
others. Both individuals and groups may engage in OIIice Politics."
|1|
OIIice politics has also
been described as "simply how power gets worked out on a practical, day-to-day basis."
|2|

edit] Gossip
OIIice politics diIIers Irom oIIice gossip in that people participating in oIIice politics do so with
the objective oI gaining advantage, whereas gossip can be a purely social activity. However, both
activities are highly related to each other. OIIice gossip is oIten used by an individual to place
themselves at a point where they can control the Ilow oI inIormation and thereIore gain
maximum advantage.
OIIice politics also reIers to the way co-workers act among each other. It can be either positive
or negative (i.e. co-operate or compete).
edit] Manipulation
t the root oI oIIice politics is the issue oI manipulation which can happen in any relationship
where one or more oI the parties involved use indirect means to achieve their goals. In the
workplace, where resources are limited, individuals have an incentive to achieve their goals at
the expense oI their colleagues. For example, iI six people apply Ior one promotion, they might
expect the selection to be made purely on merit. Where one oI the people believes that this would
put them at a disadvantage, they may use other means oI coercion or inIluence to put themselves
into an advantageous position. When the people being manipulated begin to talk to each other
directly, or when other evidence comes to light such as Iinancial results, the manipulator will
have an explanation ready but will already be planning their exit, because they would rather stay
in control than Iace a revelation which exposes their behaviour.
edit] Aims
The aims oI oIIice politics or manipulation in the workplace are not always increased pay or a
promotion. OIten, the goal may simply be greater power or control Ior its own end; or to
disrepudiate a competitor. While oIIice politics do not necessarily aim at selIish gains - they can
be a means towards outcomes which are corporate and beneIit the company, not the individual -
a 'manipulator' will oIten achieve career or personal goals by co-opting as many colleagues as
possible into their plans, strengthening their own position by ensuring that they will be the last
person to be accused oI any wrongdoing, because they ally themselves with everyone, changing
sides to suit their own personal, hidden agenda.
edit] Issues
OIIice politics is a major issue in business because the individuals who manipulate their working
relationships consume time and resources Ior their own gain at the expense oI the team or
company.
In addition to this problem, the practice oI oIIice politics can have an even more serious eIIect on
major business processes such as strategy Iormation, budget setting, perIormance management,
and leadership. This occurs because when individuals are playing oIIice politics, it interIeres
with the inIormation Ilow oI a company. InIormation can be distorted, misdirected, or
suppressed, in order to manipulate a situation Ior short-term personal gain.
|3|

edit] Games
See also: Mind games
One way oI analysing oIIice politics in more detail is to view it as a series oI games.
|4|
These
games can be analysed and described in terms oI the type oI game and the payoII. Interpersonal
games are games that are played between peers (Ior example the game oI "No Bad News" where
individuals suppress negative inIormation, and the payoII is not risking upsetting someone);
leadership games are played between supervisor and employee (Ior example the game oI "Divide
and Conquer" where the supervisor sets his employees against each other, with the payoII that
none threatens his power base); and budget games are played with the resources oI an
organisation (Ior example the game oI "Sandbagging" where individuals negotiate a low sales
target, and the payoII is a bigger bonus).
|3|

O
edit] References
1. ) Marilyn Haight, OIIice Politics, BigBadBoss.com
2. ) Lebarre, Polly, The New Face oI OIIice Politics, Sept. 1999, Iastcompany.com
3. )
,

-
Games t Work - How to recognize and reduce oIIice politics Goldstein, Read and
Cashman pril 2009, Jossey Bass Wiley, ISBN 9780470262009
4. ) Berne, Eric, Games People Play. The Psychology of Human Relationships, Jan. 2010,
Penguin Books Ltd., ISBN 9780141040271




nCW 1C MINIMISL CIIICL CLI1ICS
ow it happens
CEO creates politics by encouraging and sometimes incenting political behavioroIten
accidentally. For a very simple example, let`s consider executive compensation. s CEO, senior
employees will come to you Irom time to time and ask Ior an increase in compensation. They
may suggest that you are paying them Iar less than their current market value. They may even
have a competitive oIIer in hand. Faced with this conIrontation, iI the request is reasonable, you
might investigate the situation. You might even give the employee a raise. This may sound
innocent, but you have just created a strong incentive Ior political behavior.
SpeciIically, you will be rewarding behavior that has nothing to do with advancing your
business. The employee will earn a raise by asking Ior one rather than you automatically
rewarding them Ior outstanding perIormance. Why is this bad? Let me count the ways:
1 1he oLher amblLlous members of your sLaff wlll lmmedlaLely aglLaLe for ralses as well noLe LhaL
nelLher Lhls campalgn nor Lhe prlor one need be correlaLed wlLh acLual performance ?ou wlll
now spend Llme deallng wlLh Lhe pollLlcal lssues raLher Lhan acLual performance lssues
lmporLanLly lf you have a compeLenL board you wlll noL be able Lo glve Lhem all ouLofcycle
ralses so your company execuLlve ralses wlll occur on a flrsLcome flrsLserve basls
2 1he less aggresslve (buL perhaps more compeLenL) members of your Leam wlll be denled off
cycle ralses slmply by belng apollLlcal
3 1he ob[ecL lesson for your sLaff and Lhe company wlll be Lhe spoeoky wbeel qets tbe qteose ooJ
tbe polltlcol employee qets tbe tolse CeL ready for a whole loL of squeaky wheels
Now let`s move on to a more complicated example. Your CFO comes to you and says that he
wants to continue developing as a manager. He says that he would like to eventually become a
COO and would like to know what skills he must demonstrate in order to earn that position in
your company. Being a positive leader, you would like to encourage him to pursue his dream.
You tell him that you think that he`d be a Iine COO some day and that he should work to
develop a Iew more skills. In addition, you tell him that he`ll need to be a strong enough leader,
such that other executives in the company will want to work Ior him. week later, one oI your
other executives comes to you in a panic. She says that the CFO just asked her iI she`d work Ior
him. She says that he said that you are grooming him to be the COO and that`s his Iinal step. Did
that just happen? Welcome to the big time.
ow to minimize politics
Professionals vs. Amateurs
Minimizing politics oIten Ieels totally unnatural. It`s counter to excellent management practices
such as being open minded and encouraging employee development.
The diIIerence between managing executives and managing more junior employees can be
thought oI as the diIIerence between being in a Iight with someone with no training and being in
a ring with a proIessional boxer. II you are in a Iight with a regular person, then you can do
natural things and they won`t get you into much trouble. For example, iI you want to take a step
backwards, you can pick your Iront Ioot up Iirst. II you do this against a proIessional boxer, you
will get your block knocked oII. ProIessional boxers train Ior years to take advantage oI small
errors in technique. LiIting your Iront Ioot Iirst to take a step backwards will take you slightly oII
balance Ior a split second and that`s all your opponent will need.
Similarly, iI you manage a junior employee and they ask you about their career development,
you can say what comes naturally and generally get away with it. s we saw above, things
change when you deal with highly ambitious, seasoned proIessionals. In order to keep Irom
getting knocked out by corporate politics, you need to reIine your technique.
Tbe Tecbnique
s I developed as a CEO, I Iound three key techniques to be extremely useIul in minimizing
politics.
ire people with the right kind of ambitionThe cases that I described above might
involve people who are ambitious, but not necessarily inherently political. ll cases are not like
this. The surest way to turn your company into the political equivalent oI the US Senate is to hire
people with the wrong kind oI ambition. s deIined by ndy Grove, the right kind oI ambition is
ambition Ior the company`s success with the executive`s own success only coming as a by-
product oI the company`s victory. The wrong kind oI ambition is ambition Ior the executive`s
personal success regardless oI the company`s outcome.
Build strict processes for potentially political issues and do not deviateCertain activities
attract political behavior. These activities include:
O 9erformance evaluaLlon and compensaLlon
O rganlzaLlonal deslgn and LerrlLory
O 9romoLlons
Let`s examine each case and how you might build and execute a process that insulates the
company Irom bad behavior and politically motivated outcomes.
Performance and compensationOIten companies deIer putting perIormance management and
compensation processes in place. This doesn`t mean that they don`t evaluate employees or give
pay raises; it just means they do so in an ad hoc manner that`s highly vulnerable to political
machinations. By conducting well-structured, regular perIormance and compensation reviews,
you will ensure that pay and stock increases are as Iair as possible. This is especially important
Ior executive compensation as doing so will also serve to minimize politics. In the example
above, the CEO should have had an airtight perIormance and compensation policy and simply
told the executive that his compensation would be evaluated with everyone else`s. Ideally, the
executive compensation process should involve the board oI directors. This will a) help ensure
good governance and b) make exceptions even more diIIicult.
rgani:ational design and territoryII you manage ambitious people, Irom time to time, they
will want to expand their scope oI responsibility. In the example above, the CFO wanted to
become the COO. In other situations, the head oI marketing might want to run sales and
marketing or the head oI engineering may want to run engineering and product management.
When someone raises an issue like this with you, you must be very careIul about what you say,
because everything that you say can be turned into political cannon Iodder. Generally, it`s best to
say nothing at all. t most, you might ask 'why?, but iI you do so be sure not to react to the
reasons. II you indicate what you are thinking, that inIormation will leak, rumors will spread and
you plant the seeds Ior all kinds oI unproductive discussions. You should evaluate your
organizational design on a regular basis and gather the inIormation that you need to decide
without tipping people to what you plan to do. Once you decide, you should immediately execute
the re-org: don`t leave time Ior leaks and lobbying.
PromotionsEvery time your company gives someone a promotion, everyone else at that
person`s level evaluates the promotion and judges whether merit or political Iavors yielded the
promotion. II the latter, then the other employees generally react in one oI three ways:
1 1hey sulk and feel undervalued
2 1hey ouLwardly dlsagree campalgn agalnsL Lhe person and undermlne Lhem ln Lhelr new
poslLlon
3 1hey aLLempL Lo copy Lhe pollLlcal behavlor LhaL generaLed Lhe unwarranLed promoLlon
Clearly, you don`t want any oI these behaviors in your company. ThereIore, you must have a
Iormal, visible, deIensible promotion process that governs every employee promotion. OIten this
process must be diIIerent Ior people on your own staII (the general process may involve various
managers who are Iamiliar with the employee`s work, the executive process should include the
board oI directors). The purpose oI the process is twoIold. First, it will give the organization
conIidence that the company at least attempted to base the promotion on merit and second, the
result oI the process will be the inIormation necessary Ior your team to explain the promotion
decisions that you made.
Be careful with ~he said, she saidOnce your organization grows to a signiIicant size,
members oI your team will, Irom time to time, complain about each other. Sometimes this
criticism will be extremely aggressive. Be very careIul about how you listen and the message
that it sends. Simply by hearing them out without deIending the employee in question, you will
send the message that you agree. II people in the company think that you agree that one oI your
executives is less than stellar, that inIormation will spread quickly and without qualiIication. s
a result, people will stop listening to the executive in question and they will soon become
ineIIective.
There are two distinct types oI complaints that you will receive:
1 omplalnLs abouL an execuLlve's behavlor
2 omplalnLs abouL an execuLlve's compeLency or performance
Generally, the best way to handle complaints oI type 1 is to get the complaining executive and
the targeted executive in the room together and have them explain themselves. Usually, simply
having this meeting will resolve the conIlict and correct the behavior (iI it was actually broken).
Do not attempt to address behavioral issues without both executives in the room. Doing so will
invite manipulation and politics.
Complaints oI type 2 are both more rare and more complex. II one oI your executives summons
the courage to complain about the competency oI one oI their peers, then there is a good chance
that either the complainer or the targeted executive has a major problem. II you receive a type 2
complaint, you will generally have one oI two reactions: a) they will be telling you something
that you already know or b) they`ll be telling you shocking news.
II they are telling you something that you already know, then the big news is that you have let
the situation go too Iar. Whatever your reasons Ior attempting to rehabilitate the wayward
executive, you have taken too long and now your organization has turned on the executive in
question. You must resolve the situation quickly. lmost always, this means Iiring the executive.
While I`ve seen executives improve their perIormance and skill sets, I`ve never seen one lose the
support oI the organization then regain it.
On the other hand, iI the complaint is new news, then you must immediately stop the
conversation and make clear to the complaining executive that you in no way agree with their
assessment. You do not want to cripple the other executive beIore you re-evaluate their
perIormance. You do not want the complaint to become a selI-IulIilling prophecy. Once you`ve
shut down the conversation, you must quickly re-assess the employee in question. II you Iind
that they are doing an excellent job, then you must Iigure out the complaining executive`s
motivations and resolve them. Do not let an accusation oI this magnitude Iester. II you Iind that
the employee is doing a poor job, there will be time to go back and get the complaining
employee`s input, but you should be on a track to remove the poor perIormer at that point.