So... Who's Right?

I ran across two interesting - albeit very opposing - posts this past week on the topic of office politics.

Penelope Trunk of Brazen Careerist had a great post on the topic.  Her premise is that dealing with politics is unavoidable.  Her comment about office politics being integral to society is spot on.  She takes the issue of office politics to be about opportunity, to be about knowing yourself (motives, integrity, and goals), and to be about understanding how to navigate the waters.  Her four steps to getting good at office politics were relevant and useful:

1. Make Time For It
2. Listen
3. Have Genuine Interest In Other People
4. Practice Empathy

Meanwhile, Jason Echols at Blackbelt Productivity continued his John Maxwell book report by stating that one should avoid office politics in order to be a 360 degree leader.  I have to take exception to many of the arguments stated; it sounds like Maxwell and Echols are supporting avoidance strategy.  While one does not have to dive into every conflict that comes around, one needs to be a shrewd politician about things like turf wars, office gossip, and petty arguments.  Like it or not, regardless of your integrity or your motives, you will be embroiled in these things at some point in your career.  Simply turning your back and saying, "La-Dee-Da, I'm not going to play" can turn you into the next target.  There are smart ways of dealing with each of theses issues.  Now to be fair, I think Maxwell's principles of standing up for what's right rather than what is popular, looking at all sides of an issue, and saying what you mean/meaning what you say are very shrewd pieces of advice.  However, sometimes acting ethically and morally can make you a political target, and you need to be savvy in order to effectively act in your own defense.

OK, so who's right?  Is it possible to unilaterally avoid office politics?  Is that even realistic?  Obviously, I'm falling on Penelope's side on this issue, and not just because I have a book on Office Politics about to be released.  I've watched first hand the people who take the ostrich approach to practicing office politics; they almost always get burned.  John Maxwell makes no secret of his faith, which I admire in his writings.  It is possible to be a Christian businessperson in the 21st century.  However, it's also possible to be a Christian (or a good Jew or a good Muslim) AND play politics.  Read the Old Testament books of Nehemiah and Esther in the Bible (just as a start) if you want classic examples of shrewd political behavior.

What are your thoughts?

Comments

[Penelope Trunk]

I like that you've put both these posts together. Makes for good discussion.

I actually think that it might be a semantic issue. The idea that we should all do good, should all help each other, and should pay attention to the people around us - these are all vaulues that square with the Christaians and the best of the office politicians.

The problem is that people mix up incompetent office politics (backstabbing, ego-centric behavior) with good office politics.

There's research that says that it's so important to be liked by people you work with that being likeable is more important than being competent. This relates to office politics: It's about being nice, and that's really your job, to be nice. If you are good at your job and not nice, it doesn't matter.

Here's the link to a post about that research:http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2006/07/18/social-skills-matter-more-than-ever-so-heres-how-to-get-them/

Penelope

Penelope

[Tom Haskins]

I promote an approach that transcends both the avoidance and enmeshment strategies: informal leadership. Where formal leaders get respect because of their position, power, paycheck and privileges, an informal leader earns respect without formal authority. Avoiding politics like an ostrich or joining in with the rabble like crows on a fence -- both fail to earn respect. Using Penelope's four steps does earn respect. Having listened to many sides of a dispute, it becomes possible to empathize with each camp and help the politicos become understandable to those hurt, distanced or angered by them. Seeing all the sides clearly avoids taking one side at the expense of another. Informal leaders often envision ways out of partisanship to find common interests, shared values and mutually beneficial solutions. They set a tone of compassion and an example of insight that differs from those providing models of fear, hypocrisy or antagonism. Informal leaders also practice servant leadership that lends a hand, works through others, trusts appropriately and unifies quarreling factions. WWJD in the midst of office politics? Informal leadership.

[Timothy Johnson]

Penelope - couldn't agree more that there are varieties of office politics... and office politicians. Besides the ostrich, in my upcoming book, I also mention the snake (the backstabber) and the bear (the sensible, ethical politician). Being able to differentiate is key. I'm also glad you mentioned being liked vs. being competent. When you have neither, you wind up with "Satan's Chihuahua" (see my earlier post on that topic).

Tom - brilliantly worded response. St. Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary, use words." Our actions in times of conflict and in times of peace speak volumes more than any mission statement or values clarification statement could ever make.

Both of you - thanks for commenting!

[Jane Greer]

The post and the comments here are fabulous. Thank you, Penelope, for including the link to the article. In all the wisdom there, one thing in particular stuck out to me: "people who lack social competence end up looking like they lack other competencies, too." This is the crux of it, I think: a semi-universal "If you don't like me, how smart can you really be?" attitude.

I'm interested in whether this is strictly an American or western phenomenon, or global. Also, if you're a CEO looking to promote a manager, is her supervisor-to-supervisee niceness as important as her peer-to-peer niceness? CEOs don't appear to think supervisor-to-supervisee niceness is important; if they did, they'd interview a candidate's current crop of supervisees before inflicting her on a new crop.

I'm asking myself whom I'd rather work for: a nice but incompetent person or a crabby competent person. It's a toss-up!