Politics is considered a ‘value’ in most organizations! Or would you disagree and say it is considered a necessary evil and not necessarily a ‘value’? Sigh! Whatever! And, what’s more, I am afraid it precedes all other ‘values’! Honesty, truthfulness, justice, kindness, genuineness et al. If you don’t particularly like politics and want to avoid it and concentrate on your work and do something constructive, you’re labeled as a maverick of sorts - idealistic, impractical and unreal! Come to think of it, what *is* corporate politics after all? A plain and simple case of people trying to save their own skins and lead life the way they want to (get what they want)? And many a time this comes at the cost of others’ lives and careers? So, why can’t organizations invest money, time and effort in avoiding the consequences of politics? (Note that I did not say ‘avoid politics’ because that will definitely be an unrealistic expectation). There are a lot of thoughts that are crisscrossing my mind on this topic…..but I am not able to articulate it right now. The key point for me is this:
Organizations ought to identify employees who love their jobs and are true to their organization and either protect them and help them follow their natural growth path or train them to deal with the politics so it doesn’t affect them or the company at large. Those who are too engrossed with their work but are unlucky to not be blessed with appropriate managers are either trampled all over or at best, get a raw deal in terms of organizational reciprocation. Would love to know your thoughts and comments. Enlighten me.
5 comments:
IMHO, the key drivers for 'corporate politics' are cribbing, rumor mongering and gossiping (all three may appear to be the same, but there is a subtle difference). This then leads to bias - both positive and negative, which in-turn leads to more cribbing+gossiping+rumors. So it is a vicious circle. I am seeing this happen in our company. It is about 1 year old, basically a startup... and "something" is brewing .... always
Another thought ....
How does a manager handling a team of 100+ people genuinely know that a particular team member is good at his work and is not interested in politics? That is possible only if the manager is extremely capable or if this particular person blew his trumpet.
If it is the first case, then obviously that capable manager will be promoted to manage more people and so he is more "removed" from the ground. If the team member harped about his work, then that would be a form of 'politics'. Either case appears wrong...
Thanks for these thoughts, Hari! Makes me think again....but, tell me, do you really think it is difficult to identify people who are genuinely interested in work? Would it not be quite obvious?
But your second point definitely definitely seems to make sense to me....the good ones could go higher up the ladder and then....the ones at the lower levels are deprived of a good leader who can hand-hold people... :(
Thanks again...and do keep sharing your thoughts! :)
Extremely valid points. But ya know what? Man is a political animal. 3 people are enough to start politics. A lot in the organization, like expertise of an individual, teamplaying skills, intiative et al. are subjective. This subjectivity brings in too many opinions and hence politics. Everyone wants to gain and there are limited resources (financial rewards, budgets, human resources et al.) out there. And that, in the language of economics is called scarcity. Scarcity gives rise to a market where the goodies are traded and priced based on supply and demand. If left alone, the market becomes a free market and hence an efficient one. The efficient market is like a Casino - unpredictable. To make it predictable, people have to fuck with the free market. In the organization that's called "politics".
Argument aside, what is an organization? It is merely a set of stakeholders from shareholders to customers to employees. And everyone is out their for their personal benefit. The organization is just a mechanism for people to come together and work toward their self interests. So people are bothered about the good of the organization to the extent that the good of the organization is in line with their individual self interests. Abolishing politics may be good to the organization but this good is not really tied in with the individual good of the politically savvy people. And it's these folks that call the shots.
I'm not sure if I'm right. But I hope I at least make sense.
Thanks, Samba. Your response makes me think on different lines....especially, your Economics angle...:) Makes politics sound inevitable...which is what I believed in earlier as well...
But what bothers me is that people can't be a part of an organization that exists for collective benefits while busy butchering the other entities within it and not to forget, not caring about the organization as a whole as well....
What's the purpose of an organization? To let such people do what they choose kills the bigger entity....makes it meaningless...
Still pondering...
Have u seen gone with the wind? Rhett Buttler is the only cause Rhett Buttler knows. I'm not saying this attitude is right. Nonetheless it's natural and hence present. In the individual's mind (regardless of the status of the individual in the hierarchy), the organization exists for her benefit and not necessarily the otherway round. If it works the other way round as well, then it's perfect and Utopic.
Bringing people to value the organization's good is about bring the organizations good in line with the good of all the individuals involved. Even if you do with a magical HR policy (which is dysfunctional at best), power equations would still stay.
Lemme end mt rather lengthy comment (could it have been a post) with a question and a rosy promise. Can you overcome prisoner's dilemma when your partner in crime is a stranger to you. If you can, I will rid all organizations in the world of politics for you!
Post a Comment