Miss Congeniality... or Miss Take?

So "the Donald" pardoned Carrie Prejean and let her keep her crown as Miss California.  The photos "weren't that bad."  The comments about same-sex marriage were "honorable."  No harm, no foul.  Everyone back to your corners.

But I want to see Round 2.  Rosie O'Donnell hasn't weighed in yet.  Expect a press release comment soon.

Given their past relationship, I really wonder if Donald Trump did what he did just to tweak Rosie.

In office politics, there are some people who take actions - not because they really believe they're right - but just to spite another human being... or department... or team... or company.

What can you do if you are on the receiving end of this bad office karma?

1. Nothing - if the action is not harming business as usual, then I've found a "do nothing" approach can annoy the annoyer more than anything.

2. Alliance Building - Get other people to go to bat for you.  This shows the decision-maker that the action was inherently bad.

3. Up the Food Chain - If you have the relationships in place, go above the decision-makers as a "concerned team player"

4. "What the hell...?" - Confront the person if the opportunity arises.  Hold a crucial conversation to get at the heart of the conflict and move past the surface struggle.  I've had situations where a thorn in the side has become a great ally after one of these talks.

5. Mitigate - if their actions or decisions are irreversible, at least try to lessen the blow to yourself and those around you.

6. Kill 'em with Kindness - I've found that retaliating with a kind and considerate gesture can do wonders for turning something negative into something really cool.

We'll see if Rosie reads my blog.  If I were her advisor, I'd tell her to go with 1) or 6).

Reasonable Force

One of the side benefits of volunteering for the SWAT team as a photographer is being able to learn some great lessons about how they do their jobs.  It seems each training session has a main theme, and there are some amazing field training officers on the force who really drive home the points with crystal clarity.  During some training a couple of weeks ago, the main emphasis was "reasonable force."  In other words, just because you have the weaponry and ability to thoroughly kick somebody's tail (or as one officer puts it, "give 'em a slug to the CPU"), doesn't mean it's always appropriate or warranted.  They listed case after case of instances where the police department was found at fault for using unreasonable force in resolving a stand-off.

Two of the criteria for reasonable force that were discussed included a history of a violent act (i.e., has the perpetrator already committed a violent crime) or whether there was imminent danger (e.g., the perpetrator is brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner).  In those cases, it is justifiable to use appropriate force to subdue the perpetrator either by bringing them into custody (preferred) or ... um ... less desirable means.

Office politicians can learn a lot from the principles of reasonable force.  I just blogged about situations where we need to let things slide and not get so hyper about various offenses; however, in some instances that is just not feasible.  So what is considered "reasonable force" in reacting to somebody else?  Well, like the SWAT team, a mix of reactive (history of violence) and proactive (imminent danger) need to be considered.  When you have to take action, does the offending party have a history of stupidity making bad choices, or does it appear as though they are about to do something boneheaded less than beneficial?  In either case, having written documentation through emails or talking to witnesses of the behavior is helpful.

Applying too much force to a situation can backfire and get everybody mad.  This includes calling an all-team meeting to address an infraction made by only one person.  Everybody already knows who is doing the offense being discussed and they are wondering why they're being dragged into it.  The person doing the offense rationalizes that others must be doing it, too, so they can keep doing it.  Not taking enough force is also bad since it causes low morale and makes employees think the boss doesn't care about bad behavior.  The other issue to address is whether the punishment fits the crime.  Sometimes it's simply a case of an adult discussion to say, "Hey, maybe you didn't realize you were doing this, but it's really becoming an issue with how we do business. How can I help you change your behavior?"  Other times, it may be more severe such as an official HR repirmand, docking pay, or dismissal.  The newspapers and blogs are littered with pending cases of individuals who were the victims of over-reaction.

So the next time you HAVE TO react to somebody else, think about how you can apply the principles of "reasonable force" to the situation to get the best outcome.  In the meantime, enjoy these employee handbook jokes demonstrating unreasonable force.

No Offense, But...

I've always been curious about what offends people.  It seems the past year has had a lot of posturing from people in both parties who are "mortally offended" by an innocent comment made by another person.  Take last night's State of the Union Address... the talking heads from both sides are dissecting and reacting and whining.  And don't even get me started about the cast of The View.  Those "ladies" can get offended by a speck of dust.

I've found in office politics, many people CHOOSE to get offended by something.  And thus begins the lobs of accusations, innuendo, and counter-insults.  I'm curious how many office politics conflicts would be avoided if we just let some things slide.  You heard me.  Don't tattle to the boss.  Don't file a report with HR.  Don't send of a scathing email CC-ing and BCC-ing 50 million others.  Just ignore it and let it slide.  Even better, just laugh it off.  Yes, if somebody is doing something that is truly WRONG (i.e., directly targeted at an individual or violation of company policy or HR regulations or illegal), then they should be called on it.  However, if someone "overhears" a comment or sees something they just don't like, can it be ... well... just dropped?

Maybe there's just too much drama in the world already and what we really need is to develop a sense of humor and laugh more.  Then we might actually get more accomplished in the long run.

Your thoughts?

Save Your Money, Bob

A journalist friend of mine emailed me yesterday with Bob Vander Plaats' press release to run for Governor of the State of Iowa in two years.  Maybe I'm just a little battle worn after two years of presidential campaigning, but I can't help but think he's wasting his time and money (as well as those of other people).  Again, those who have read this blog know I fall on the side of the political conservative; however, I like being able to step back and look at the big picture of politics.

The reality is that it will be hard to unseat Governor Culver.  Anyone who thinks they'll be able to run on the basis of the economy is fooling himself - it stinks for everyone, so no one politician will be able to change it.  In the two years he's been in office, Governor Culver has shown fairly solid leadership through some large disasters, and he hasn't done anything irretrievably stupid.  Even his suggestion about leasing out the lottery could be spun as "Hey! At least I'm weighing all the options and trying to be creative."  Vander Plaats big platform issue tends to ride on moral conservatism, which is going to be a hard sell to a moderate state.  Unless one of the Republican candidates can create a real case that the status quo needs to be upheaved, it's going to be a tough campaign.  Of course, maybe Vander Plaats is just jumping in too early.  Like I said, we're all a little tired with the Presidential Inauguration just last week.

Now I don't dislike Bob; I actually voted for him when he ran a few years ago and lost out in the primary.  It's just the political and social environments are going to make it an uphill battle for any challenger.

How often do we see that in office politics?  Before you jump into a highly political situation, you may want to ask yourself some good questions:

• What are my motives for getting involved?
• What do I hope to accomplish by injecting myself into the office politics conflict?
• Do I have the resources needed to go the distance?
• What value do I bring to the conflict to help it come to resolution?
• Am I getting involved at the right time?  Should I hold off and wait and see how the situation plays out?  Conversely, have I missed the opportune moment to get involved?
• How will other stakeholders react to my getting involved?

Will Bob Vander Plaats win the governor's race in 21 months?  Well, history will play that one out.  From this angle, he's one pony I wouldn't be betting on.

The Gloves Must Come Off

Since we are talking about my latest experience with the SWAT team, a funny thing happened later in the evening.  After it was too dark to do any more non-flash photography, I volunteered to be a role player (bad guy) in some of their scenarios.  During the few couple of runs through the exercise, I was compliant and followed orders.  Then the field training officer suggested I could be a little contrarian with the cops (he knows me too well).  Hence, I got roughed around a little, and was cuffed a few times.  Our last time through the exercise, the cuffs refused to unlock.  Try after try to uncuff me was met with equal failure.  They were having a great time joking that I would have fun explaining to my wife why I was showing up at home in handcuffs.  Finally, 15 minutes, 7 cops, and 3 sets of keys later, I started to pull off my gloves and found the problem:  the cuff of my glove was caught in the cuff.  So while I pulled on my cuff, one officer turned the key while the other manipulated the cuff which finally freed me.

We have the same problem in office politics.  Sometimes there is something seemingly unnoticeable that is "caught" in the conflict.  We may not notice it at first and keep trying the same old techniques to resolve the conflict as before, only to make matters worse because we haven't stopped to understand all angles of the office politics issue.  Only when we "take off the gloves" do we see what is really happening underneath and be able to solve it.

This glove-cuff-catch may come in the form of our personal beliefs about a person (ever try negotiating project resources with a workaholic sponsor who thinks everyone should put in 100-hour work weeks?) or it may be company policies (what procedures are making everybody's jobs more difficult instead of easier?).  Our job as office politicians ia to figure out how to pull off the gloves to figure out these catches... BEFORE they occur.

Ask yourself the following before you engage somebody on a conflict or a politically sensitive point:

• What are their beliefs and perceptual filters about me?
• What are their beliefs and perceptual filters about the issue between us?
• How can I mitigate these to get a favorable result for both of us?
• What are my beliefs and perceptual filters about them?  (be honest about it)
• What are my beliefs and perceptual filters about the issue between us?
• How can I use these or move past them to get a favorable result?
• Are there elements of the organizational culture which is impacting our relationship?
• Are there policies and procedures which are getting in the way?
• Do any sacred cows need to be grilled up to help us move forward?

 

Each of these may be catching in the cuffs which are preventing you from moving forward.  Will I still play bad guy for the cops when they need it?  Sure.  I'll just make sure it's in a warmer climate so the gloves can come off.

The Sneak Attack

"Nobody now fears that a Japanese fleet could deal an unexpected blow on our Pacific possessions... Radio makes surprise impossible." -Josephus Daniels, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, October 16, 1922

We never saw it coming... or did we?  Sixty-seven years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, it is interesting to read the reports and watch the documentaries.  The Japanese fleet was picked up on radar that morning.  So, could the attack have been averted?  Well, it's a moot point, only to be argued by "what if" arm chair historians.  The fact is that it did happen.

Having visited Pearl Harbor, I stood in awe of the monument.  it's a sobering reminder of the damage which can be caused by war and hatred.  It's a beautifully haunting memorial.  A lot of lives were lost that day because of the surprise attack.

We have surprise attacks all the time.  In the office, we have adopted the unflattering term of "being thrown under the bus."  And the victims always declare, "I didn't see it coming."  But this is a situation which needn't be argued in the past tense.  I contend there are ways to see if you're about to be thrown under the proverbial bus:

• Pay attention - first and foremost, allow yourself to let your inner Jane Goodall come out.  Observe the office animals around you.  Their body language and word choice will give off clues on how they feel about you and each other.

• Same page - getting the whole team focused on a common goal early will prevent some of the politics which occur as a project progresses.  Have team members sign off on deliverables to show (visibly) everyone's support of the project and the approach.

• Build relationships rather than alliances - from the beginning, look for ways to forge long-term relationships with those you work with.  Test the waters for snakes, but look for means to build trust.  Your project is NOT a reality TV show, so don't look for the short-term win just to get a deliverable out the door.

• Heightened Accountability - if people are shirking responsibility and making excuses, then it's likely they'll attack you when your back is turned.  If you are having to play the accountabilty cop, then be alert to possible back-lashes from your slackers who are now more visible in their boss's eyes than they care to be.

• Hide, Achilles - if you have a weakness which can be exploited, be careful how public you make it.  The snakes will use it against you at the first sign that it can benefit them.

• Peaks and Valleys - be on your guard during deliverable reviews and peer reviews, which are the most vulnerable moments for sneak attacks.  Spend quality time with your stakeholders to shore up any weak links or loose cannons.

• Tell me first - create a culture where honest feedback may be given and constructive criticism received directly.  People are more likely to throw somebody else under the bus if they've been shot down by giving honest feedback previously.

I just finished a semester when one class of students had to do peer reviews.  There were a couple of students who were thrown under the bus by their teammates.  I'm curious if those individuals even knew they were perceived as poor performers by their peers.  My guess is they will perceive their grade as a complete sneak attack.

Nice Voice... May I Please Have It Back?

I couldn't resist a little humor at the beginning of a workweek.  After all, who wouldn't like a little Coldplay a la Muppets?

I'm in the process of answering a really tough letter for Office-Politics.com, and one of the people in their letter is "pulling a Beaker" - he's stealing somebody else's thoughts and passing them off as his own.

It seems there's a lot of credit stealing going on in the office.  I created a document over 10 years ago for a client laying out how to tell if a project status is red, yellow, or green.  It's since been plagiarized all over the city of Des Moines.  Oh well, at least I know who the original author was.

So, how do you protect yourself from credit stealers?  Here are a few simple tips:

• Archive... often!  I start out all of my documents with an 8-digit date (e.g., 20081201 Blog Post.doc) and then as I go back and work on it, I change the date appropriately.  This way, I have a paper trail to protect the creative thought process and prove I worked on it longer than anyone else.  I may have 20 iterations of the same file when I'm done, but it's also compelling evidence, if needed.

• Share and share alike.  It may seem counter-intuitive to share your work with others if you're trying to protect from a credit-stealer; however, if you've archived (above) then getting your work for others to see shows them who the author is.  Should a credit-stealer arise, you have witnesses.

• Um... excuse me...  If you catch a credit stealer trying to pass off your stuff (or someone else's material) as their own, call them on it (in a nice way).  "Bob, that was a great presentation.  I'm sure it was just an oversight that you used a few of Andi's ideas from her project and forgot to give her credit.  You did a masterful job of building on what she created, though."

• Once a thief... If you know somebody has a history of stealing others' work, steer clear of them.  They most likely will try it again.  More importantly, warn new people coming in (a favorite target of the credit stealer).

Most importantly is to show some backbone and hold people accountable.  Letting a credit-stealer get away with their work is as bad as... well... as bad as letting the Muppets sing Coldplay hits.

The Show Me (How To Drive) State

Another week of blogospheric silence... what gives?

Well, to be honest, I've been a little preoccupied.  You see, I had a boo-boo.  More appropriately my car, Gerald, had a boo-boo.  Specifically, the Ford Escape was not engineered to smooch a utility pole.  So the car is now totaled... gone to that great parking lot in the sky.

How did it happen?  Well, funny you should ask.  There was another driver... an evil Missouri driver... also heading south on the same rain-soaked street last week.  He decided he would rather be in my lane than his, so he made a rather rapid switch immediately.  Then he also decided that he was going too fast in his efforts to get around me, so after he made his lane change, he proceeded to slam on his brakes before eventually speeding back up, leaving me to take evasive measures to avoid rear-ending him.  My evasive maneuvers led me right into the nearest parking lot where the Kansas City public works department decided a utility pole should be strategically placed.  Meanwhile, he was merrily on his way, unaware he had caused anything.  Enough said.

Amazingly, even Missourians criticize themselves when it comes to driving.  The people at my client site have made worse comments about their fellow drivers than my inside voice could ever conjure up.

Office politics sometimes work like that other driver.  People changing lanes, slamming on brakes, performing tactics on wet pavement... not very happy for the rest of us.  So how do we practice DEFENSIVE DRIVING in an office setting?

• Lane Changers - look for people who change their decisions and positions quickly and often.  Get things in writing from them and hold them publicly accountable.
• Jerks and Stops - beware of those who pull the "hurry up and wait" game on you.  Validate urgencies and deadlines before work begins.  Make everyone aware of the consequences of starting and stopping tasks frequently.
• Wet Conditions - what is your business environment right now?  With the current economic crisis, "slippery when wet" probably doesn't even begin to cut it.  Be extra careful when playing politics if there are bigger business issues to address.
• Immovable Objects - if you find yourself having to take evasive action when dealing with office politics, make sure the avoidance won't cause even more trouble (i.e., utility poles) than actively engaging the other poor drivers.

These are just a few of the lessons I learned last week.  All in all, I have much to be thankful for.  Outside of a banged up knee, I wasn't injured.  The car was insured.  Nobody else was hurt.  The pole was replaceable.  And it's a great time to be car shopping.  And I've re-learned the importance of defensive driving... on and off the road.

Executives Don't Shoot Messengers

OK, I'll try to make this my parting shot on the presidential campaign.  For all of you caught up in the emotional sweep of Obama-ism, you're not going to like this.  An ABC reporter catches Joe Biden off-guard, makes him look like a fool (not too hard to do to Mr. "Gird your Loins"), and the Obama camp "punishes" ABC?  OK, let's step back here a second.  I'd say the same thing if the McCain camp pulled a stunt like this.  The candidate gives a bad answer, and it's the media's fault?  The same media darlings who have been treating Obama like the messiah he thinks he is and have been biasing the campaign against McCain is now being punished because Foot-In-Mouth Biden makes a gaffe?  Can you imagine an Obama Whitehouse Press Conference?  There won't only be gag rules, there will be bound-and-gagged-and-tied-up-and-body-dumped-where-nobody-will-find-them rules.

But because I try to keep this in the arena of organizational behavior, let's bring this back to cubicle-land for a minute.  How many of our executives and managers do the same thing?  Somebody gives a bad answer, and they are pigeon-holed as incompetent.  An employee asks a question at a public forum, and all of a sudden they are shunned as a trouble maker.  We cringe at these behaviors, the same ones that got AIG and Enron and other giants in trouble, the same behaviors that Obama is criticizing as corporate greed and malfeasance.  And yet we'd be willing to tolerate a shoot-the-messenger mentality from the most powerful man in the world?  Obama has touted himself as the anti-Bush, which is moderately wise branding given how unpopular "W" is right now.  But then he turns around and exhibits the same brand of bullying which got the Bush Administration to where they are now.

Maybe I'm missing something.  Maybe Obama isn't really a naked emperor.  Maybe it's all a big misunderstanding.  After all, the only true Messiah was misunderstood as well.

But then again... maybe Joe Biden is right.  Gird your loins, folks.

Poll Dancing

It seems that "real" politics these days give us a great reflection of their office counterpart.

I've been fascinated by story after story in the papers and on the web that - less than two weeks before the election - the polls may not really reflect a true Obama lead.  One AP Poll had them as close as one point as of Wednesday.  Some polls still predict an Obama landslide, while others are severely pulling back their predictions, a few saying the election is too close to call.

What happened to the commanding lead Obama held a couple of weeks ago?  Is the "liberal elite media" learning their lesson from the 2004 Election Day?  Are the polls really reflecting what's going on?  In this mixed up election year drama, I'd say anything is possible.  It just seems odd that the story is changing so quickly when it appeared a slam dunk.  Were the earlier leads just spin?  Is McCain really going to pull off an upset?  Is the "race card" a factor?  Are the recent gap closures meant to scare people into voting for Obama?  Did Joe Biden scare people with his doomsday scenario that will "test Obama"?  Are Sarah Palin and Tina Fey really separated at birth?  So many questions!

In office politics, we have to watch out for changing stories all the time as well.  Somebody will commit something one day and pretend they never met you the next.  People will say they'll have it done by Friday, only to look surprised when they exclaim, "Oh, you meant THIS Friday?!"  Executives will want something "as soon as possible" only to be shocked when it is shoved to the bottom of the priority pile because it wasn't yet as soon as possible in the underling's schedule.

How can you prevent a blindside when stories change a the last minute?  Here are a few techniques I've used:

• Be clear - don't ask for it by Wednesday.  "I need it by noon CDT on Wednesday, October 29, 2008."  This will leave a lot less ambiguity.  This heightens the visibility and accountability of the task.
• Create checkpoints - rather than waiting until the end just to find out it didn't get done, ask for updates (along with documentation and tangible evidence) a week in advance, 48 hours in advance, 24 hours in advance, and the morning of the due date.  Annoying?  Only if the person is shunning accountability.
• Identify "done" - let them know up front what the criteria to complete the task looks like.  This will prevent the "oh, it's technically done... we just have a little tweaking to do."  A check mark is earned, not given.
• Provide rewards and consequences - if it's a major milestone, I start with positive rewards which should motivate the team.  If I perceive there may be political slackers, I try to make sure there are clear consequences.
• Mitigate - have a Plan B.  "If we miss this milestone, we will have to..."  This prevents a mere communication blindside from becoming a major disaster.

So how do you handle the potential "poll dancing" of public opinion on your projects?

I Need More Minions! BUWAHAHAHA!

An article in the Des Moines Register yesterday led me to Marc Ward's blog, Attack of the Narcisse Clones.  For those of you outside the Des Moines area, here's the scoop:  Marc Ward lost his seat on the Des Moines school board the same year that Jon Narcisse won his.  Narcisse has been undisputably controversial in both his message and his approach since being elected.  He's done some things that make even the most naive politicians wince.  His supporters call him a straight shooter.  His detractors, well, something less flattering.  Now Marc Ward has started a blog with the sole purpose of pointing out all of Narcisse's faults, one of which is that he's gathering clones and minions to get elected onto the school board to help him achieve his nefarious plans and gain world domination (insert evil Plankton laugh from SpongeBob Squarepants here).

I'm not sure what solution could resolve the conflict between these two men, but maybe that wise sage of the ages, June Cleaver, said it best:  "Ward, I think something is wrong with the boys.  Maybe you should talk to them."

Marc Ward's accusations bring up an excellent issue with office politics, though.  How can you tell when somebody is gathering minions vs. building healthy alliances?  Because the snake politician is one can work either overtly or covertly to accomplish his goals, it can be hard to tell when a secret army of evil is being amassed.

Here are some easy tips to figure out when somebody is building alliances vs. seeking minions:

• Motive - does the person have an obvious agenda on a specific issue?  If so, there may be minions.  If not, it's probably just alliance-building.
• Independence - are the relationships able to act independently of the person building them or does everything have to funnel through one person (or a select group) in thought and in deed?
• Novelty - is this something new and sudden and urgent (a sign of minion building) or does it happen gradually over time and allowed to occur naturally through mutual interests?
• Invitation - can anybody be allowed to forge a relationship or do you need to be extended an invitation to be in the group?
• Openness - how secretive is the group that they are building relationships?  Are lunches held behind closed doors?  Do people take bathroom breaks together?  This one test is a good indicator on the alliance-vs-minion test
• Noise - is this group wreaking havoc or are they providing a calm and rational voice for their views, listening to all sides without throwing stones or sabotaging dissenting views?

As far as certain behaviors going on in Des Moines, I believe there should be a time out for big people until they realize that kids' education is more important than agendas and egos.

Tick... Tick... Tick... Tick...

It seemed like a simple issue.  I had shared some information with a colleague, that's all.  We'd both been asked to review and respond to a document and give our approval to it.  I knew I couldn't put my approval on it (in good conscience), and I conveyed my decision to her.  I told her it was her decision whether or not she signed off on the document, but I let her know why I couldn't.  An hour later, she was talking with a person from the team who had created the document, sharing with them that neither of us would be signing off.  Well, you can guess what happened next.  A big blow-up.

There are occasions when the timing of the office politics are as critical as the issue itself.  Sometimes, you need to take action immediately on an office politics issue.  For others, "sleeping on it" is the best way to take action.  You may change your mind, or circumstances surrounding the office politics may be different in a day or two.  The moment you voice your stance on an issue, you've just communicated a lot of ammunition to the other office politics players.  This may actually be one of the few issues where I advocate procrastination.  It is OK to have an unspoken thought.

Some questions to ask yourself when deciding when to communicate your office politics intentions:

1. Do you want to give the other party enough time to react?  Sometimes you may want to let them change course; other times, you may want them backed into a corner so they can't take further action.
2. How impatient is the other party?  Are they OK if you think about it overnight, or do they want you to provide an answer right away?
3. How does your answer impact the power balance between you?  As I said, once you've communicated your intentions, you've just provided them with new ammunition.  Prolonging your answer also gives you some breathing time to develop strategies to possible reactions down the road.
4. How will they react to your message?  Will they blow up?  Will they take it in stride?  Will they understand your point of view or will they make (possibly incorrect) assumptions?
5. Is it just bad timing to communicate here and now?  As they say, timing is everything.  There may be considerations outside your office politics challenge which may taint the views.  If someone is just having a bad day, ANYTHING you say could be taken the wrong way.

Again, before you hit SEND on that email or pick up the phone for that pithy retort, stop, pause, think, breathe... and consider whether it has to be communicated right now.

The Dog-Eat-Dog World of Misinformation

Pssst.  McCain is winning in a poll.  But don't tell anyone, OK?

Which poll is it?  Well, evidently, McCain is beating Obama in a poll among pet-owners.  Yup, that's right, 42% to 37% (paws down).

What's that you say?  Who cares?  Are you kidding?!  The fate of democracy as we know it is riding with those who care for our furry little friends.  What a CAT-astrophe.  The world really is going to the dogs.

But what are these numbers REALLY telling us?  Hmmm, well, it takes responsibility to own a pet.  Does that mean that only irresponsible people like Obama?  Does that mean Obama himself is irresponsible?  After all, look at all those "Present" votes in the Senate.  Barack must be afraid to take a stand on anything.  No wonder pet-owners hate him.  (Not even I can say that one with a straight face.)

We play this game a lot with office politics, too, don't we?  We can make any piece of information sound relevant, just in the way we spin it to others.  ("By the way, did you know that HALF of the entire population is below average?")  After all, if you take a piece of information that's really true ("Susan is a really dedicated wife and mother") and turn it into a useful piece of innuendo ("If you want a really dedicated project manager, you won't be able to count on Susan"), then you've accomplished effective spin doctoring.

How do you combat this?  It's simple, just ask questions.  "Have you ever seen Susan miss a critical project milestone because of a family event?"  That generally stops the office politician dead in his tracks.  Often, she or he relies on this kind of "stretch of logic" to get their job done.  If you choose not to play along, you can accomplish your job... finding the truth.

Putting Yourself Out There

I know a lot of ostriches.  It seems there are just too many people who go out of their way to avoid office politics at any cost because they don't want to get hurt.  Getting hurt is universally bad, so anything that could cause hurt can't be good.  Therefore, they want to avoid office politics.

This month, I'm volunteering some of my time for the local police departments as a role player for their RAID (Rapid And Immediate Deployment) training.  The police are practicing how they would handle an "active shooter" situation, and I get to play the "bad guy."  We're all using "simunition" (simulated ammunition) weapons, which is a cross between bullets and paintball.  Yes, I get to shoot at cops and it's legal.

Last night was my first session with this type of police training.  I've been receiving lessons in shooting and gun safety from one of the officers (believe it or not, as research for my next book), but it didn't prepare me for this experience.  I ended up with many more marks on me than I'm sure I inflicted on them (and I have the welts and bruises to prove it today).

But why would I do a thing like that?  Some kind of testosterone-laden perversely-masochistic fun?  (OK, well, sort of.)  But as I told one of the commanders, if I'm able to help an officer achieve a straighter shot or clearer thinking if the real event occurs, then putting myself out there to be bruised up a little bit for a few evenings is a worthwhile investment to me as a citizen.

Too often, we are so afraid of "being injured in the line of duty" as a cubicle dweller that we don't see the value that healthy conflict (or sometimes even unhealthy conflict) can bring to the organization to help it grow.  Avoiding office politics at any cost doesn't help to propel the team forward; it generally just suppresses the inevitable explosion.

How can you change your mindset and your actions to help yourself and your team get more comfortable with conflict?  Are you willing to take a couple of shots in order to make everyone stronger?  How can you move from "ostrich" to "bear" in your office politics situations?

Office Politics and the Project Manager

Originally Published at Iowabiz.com in January, 2008

You are a project manager.

You have a project you want done.

You've made assignments and set the vision.

So why isn't anything happening?  It might be that your organization is a victim of office politics, a case of passive-aggression in your company.  I've written numerous articles on my blog about office politics, and many people have used GUST in their career planning strategies.  Want to read more on the subject?  Check out www.office-politics.com.

The one constant problem with office politics is that 1) most people start the conflict themselves without realizing it and 2) most people don't realize that they are involved in a game until it is too late.  Celine over at the Pimp Your Work blog shared a great post about what to do when your team loses.  Office politics can cost your company thousands of dollars, and when it rears its ugly head on your projects, Celine shares some things to do to help your team cope:

• Keep your spirits up
• Find out what you could've done better
• Show appreciation for everyone's efforts
• Focus on how well the team worked
• Look forward to the next challenge

As the business owner, if you have control over the circumstances that caused the loss, there are some additional things I'd like to suggest for you to do to mitigate the issue:

• Determine the motives of the perpetrators - it may be that the office politics prevented you from doing something really stupid.
• Figure out what can be salvaged - did office politics completely undermine your project?  Can anything be saved?
• Establish safeguards for the future - determine how to leverage accountability to ensure that accomplishment can still occur.  Remove those who prevented your success earlier.

Carpe Factum!

The Birth Order of Territoriality

The other night, during a family outing to the mall, my wife took my older daughter to look for some clothes, leaving my younger daughter and me to fend for ourselves at the mall playground.  Always the people-watcher, I observed the other dads who had been banished to play-land and started noticing a really interesting trend.  It started with one other dad who was obviously a first time father.  I say this for two reasons:  1) he still was wearing designer clothes, and 2) he was hovering over his little girl, never letting his hand more than two inches away from her at any point.  On the other end of the spectrum were the dads who obviously had more than one child there; they were vaguely aware that they had offspring in the area.  As long as there was no bloodshed or loss of consciousness, they were content to sit on the sidelines.  Me?  I like playing with Abby, but I'm cool with giving her space to explore on her own a little bit, so I guess I fit somewhere in the middle.

In office politics, there seems to be the most trouble at the same two extremes as parenting.  You either deal with the overprotective professional, who is territorial about everything under his or her realm.  If you dare to give the slightest hint of invasion, it's as good as a declaration of war.  When "overprotective dad" made eye contact with me at one point, he actually scowled at me as if to say "Back off, bub."  I can't blame him; with my firstborn, I could have earned a spot as a Presidential bodyguard.  Territorial people are difficult to handle because they're doing the right things... just to an uncomfortable extreme.  In business, we want people to care, to take ownership, to seize the accomplishment.  However, when that psychological ownership comes at the expense of others, it's time to intervene.

Dealing with the overprotective and territorial professional is even more challenging because of the emotion involved.  Too often, management ignores the problem because the territorial person is getting stuff done and bringing in the results.  Or they "fix" the problem by reassigning the person to a new territory/department/division without ever explaining why this is occurring.  Then over time, the person becomes territorial again.  Fixing the problem may require having a difficult discussion with the professional, or it may require adding on more responsibilities to dillute their focus (like adding more children cures first-time fathers of overprotectiveness).  Whatever the reason, it does require some event to fix it.

How have you dealt with these kinds of people in the past?

What about the "under-protective" laissez-faire managers who don't do enough?

How To Destroy Your Manager

(WARNING TO HARRY POTTER FANS:  BOOK 7 SPOILER INCLUDED IN FINAL PARAGRAPH.)

I love to see how people find my blog through Google and Yahoo searches.  They find me through searches on serial killers and chihuahua behaviors.  They find me when they are looking for the Sound of Music and stool softener.  They hunt me down on weird topics like the Weather Channel and bunny costumes.  Most of the time, I just sort of chuckle about how my complete lack of focus (some would call it blogospheric attention deficit disorder) pulls in readers from numerous topics.  There was a search this week that really caught my attention, though:  "How to destroy your supervisor."  They had paired this phrase with "office politics," which is more likely the reason I arrived on their radar screen, but still it intrigued me that somebody was looking for a "how to" on destroying their supervisor.  Mind you, I've had managers and supervisors where I had hoped a house carrying a little girl from Kansas would fall on them.  OK, maybe not hoped, but it wouldn't have surprised me.

If you currently have a less-than-pleasant superior, should destroying him or her really be a goal?  I had to chuckle at a recent letter I answered on Office-Politics.com that wondered when "office karma" kicked in to do the trick.  I shared with the letter writer an early experience out of college with a supervisor and a manager... two of the most wicked and vile human beings on the planet.  Surprisingly, these two taught me the most valuable lesson about bad managers and how to destroy them:  do absolutely nothing to them.  Yup, that's right.  Do what you can to protect yourself, your reputation, and your integrity; they will eventually destroy themselves.  The time frame is out of your hands, but it will happen.

I've yet to see a bad manager who didn't eventually self-destruct.  I thought J.K. Rowling's conclusion of the Harry Potter series was nothing short of brilliant.  Harry didn't kill Lord Voldemort.  Lord Voldemort did himself in.  The same concept applies in business.  Ego.  Power.  Pride.  Selfishness.  Greed.  Backstabbing.  Disloyalty.  All of the same traits which make them so unpleasant will eventually be their undoing.  Before they "get theirs" you may have to decide to move on, or you may be presented with the opportunity to facilitate their downfall (but don't count on it).  Either way, you can get back on your own career path, and they are out of the way.  Then you can refocus on seizing your accomplishments.

I'll Do It Myself

Living with a toddler means that you'll hear the phrase, "I'll do it myself" a lot between the ages of two and four.  The kids are trying to assert their independence and it's up to us parents to figure out when to intervene and take over and when to back off and let our kids make a few mistakes.  It's all part of the learning process.

When you have an overbearing parent, the child never learns how to do things for himself.  Even simple tasks become long drawn-out chores over time because the child hasn't learned how to manage them.  In my master's leadership class a couple of weekends ago, I heard some of my students bemoaning the fact that they were working for micromanagers.  One shared that her manager couldn't even insert a picture in PowerPoint by herself, but she would stand over the employee's back and instruct her how to do it.  I've worked for managers who wanted to have a hand in every single email or deliverable that went out the door.  Michael Sheeley shared some great ideas for new managers to prevent them from becoming micromanagers.  But what if you are the subordinate who is dealing with the micromanager?  Since the balance of power is not in your favor, do you have a game plan for handling that scenario?

In short, the answer is yes, you can upwardly handle a micromanager, but it does take some finesse.  Micromanaging is a form of bullying, and there are some control and perception issues at stake.  Here are a few ideas and tips I've used in that arena:

• Stroke the ego - I've used phrases like "Certainly someone of your importance doesn't have time to look over my shoulder on such a trivial task."  This becomes a catch-22 for the micromanager, because if they admit they have the time, then they also have to admit that they're not as important as they thought.
• Help them practice time management skills - I will suggest to the micromanager that it is in their best interest to let me take the task or the project to a certain level, and then schedule check-points with them before proceeding.  This gives me some wiggle room to do things my own way and then to share the results and output with them.  Try setting up end-of-day recap meetings for 15-30 minutes.
• Multiple choice - when you come to an impasse, go to the micromanager with multiple solutions (that you've researched as much as you can), share your ideas with them and let them know that their final say is important.  At least you've provided them with a series of choices that are of your design, but you've still left the final decision with them.
• Their Idea - one of my favorite scenes in the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" is when the Mom and the Aunt work over the Dad to make him come to the conclusion they want about the daughter's choice of employment.  "The man may be the head of the house," admonishes the mom, "but the woman controls the neck."  Don't be afraid to try to basic manipulation techniques on the micromanager, but only if you can successfully let him think it was his idea all along.
• Better to ask forgiveness - if the micromanager is more of the hit-and-run type, sometimes I will go ahead and make progress.  If I get in trouble, I'll pull the "sorry, didn't know I wasn't allowed to make that decision" comment.  I've made more progress on projects that way.  If you just don't wait for the micromanager, you can get a lot done.  (WARNING:  This one can backfire and cause even more micromanagement if you screw up.)

So, what are your thoughts on dealing with a micromanager?

The Trojan Candidate

"I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

OK, I think I've figured out why I don't like Barack Obama.  If you recall, before the Iowa Caucuses, I mentioned that he looked and sounded really presidential, but there was just something about him that my gut said, "No way!"

Well, if his "you're likeable enough" comment to Hillary during the New Hampshire debate didn't turn my stomach, last night's South Carolina "whine with cheese" certainly did.  Mind you, I'm not arguing against the validity of the comment.  The Clinton machine is at top speed.  Both Hillary and Bill are creating a full-court press after being blindsided by Obama three weeks ago.  And, as is unfortunately normal in politics, facts and records are being distorted to make Barack look bad.

But come on... Obama is complaining about a "home court advantage" that he knew existed between the Clintons before he got into this race.  Hillary is the closest thing to an incumbent in this election, so for him to level that kind of comment seems petty at best.

But this post isn't really about national politics.  I'm using it to demonstrate a phenomenon of office politics... something I like to call the "Trojan Horse/Sacrificial Lamb" approach.  It's the office politics approach to using a hit man, and it is especially common with bullies in the work place.  Why dirty your own hands when you can get somebody else to do it?  I used to work for a consulting firm that was notorious for hiding the accountability of attacks among it's owners/management staff.  If you think you might be the victim of this approach, here are some things to look out for:

• Relationship with "attacker" - does this person have a valid reason to attack you?  Have they ever?
• "Attacker's" relationships - does this person have relationships with people whom you consider opponents?  How close are the relationships?
• Logic - Does the attack make sense?  Did you do something (inadvertently or on purpose) to warrant the attack?
• Outcome - What do you stand to lose and what does your attacker stand to gain?

If you think the attacker may be working on somebody else's behalf, don't fall into the shoot the messenger mode.  That is probably the outcome the mastermind is after.  You two go on the attack of each other while the master-mind rises above the fray.  This kind of relationship requires you to do a little more investigating.  Keep calm about the attack.  If you cannot stay calm while the attack is going on, try to gain some time before you engage the attacker.  Ask a lot of questions to gain understanding.  Ask the right kinds of questions, and the "Trojan Horse" generally tips his hand.  Talk to other people who may be involved in the conflict to gain a more objective view.

Remember:  your goal initially may not be to survive the attack as much as it is to figure out who or what is really behind the attack.  This should be the case regardless of whether your attacker is acting alone or on behalf of another.  After all, one of the key steps of office politics is to understand the players, their motives, and the environment.

I do have to give Obama credit for one thing last night:  he called their strategy for what it was (even if his wording and approach could have used some finesse).

Is Your Rule-Breaker Like Herbie or Christine?

Everyone knows the rules.  Cars are inanimate objects.  They are not alive.  They cannot think for themselves.  They cannot act for themselves.  They must be driven.  Those are the rules.

Uh... don't tell Herbie or Christine those rules.  Herbie will ignore you.  Christine will kill you.  But that's the way it is with "that type" of person.  We call them rule breakers, loose cannons, renegades, free thinkers.  They react.  Then we try to squish them.  The problem is that we don't take the time to figure out why they are the way they are.

Take Herbie for instance.  He's a loveable VW Bug.  He helps people.  He has feelings.  He wins races.  He spurs romance.  Heck, he even made Lindsay Lohan look presentable for two hours of her short yet disastrous career.  The car breaks the rules for the greater good.

Then there's Christine, the evil-possessed Plymouth Fury of Stephen King's imagination.  Her rule breaking is based on malice and jealousy.  It is based on sabotage and injury and destruction.  People who cross Christine wind up dead.

So, which one is your office renegade?  Are they breaking the rules because they found a better way to kill the sacred cow?  Or are they breaking the rules because they found a way to kill the secretary's career?  Is their motivation to make it better or make it badder (yeah, yeah, I know, not grammatically correct... just work with me here, OK)?

I found a great post by what appears to be a now-defunct blog (too bad) on the Dwonder Blog.  I suppose even dead blogs have something to say on occasion.  Anyway, the author of the blog was talking about avoiding office politics and shared the following snippet:

If you choose not to play, be sure you don't criticize those who do, or the game itself. You'll be labeled a loose cannon or a troublemaker. You'll also be a target for skilled political players who may decide to use you to further their own agendas. It's easy to identify the person who doesn't want to join in as the malcontent who's responsible for badmouthing unpopular decisions. Well, says you, I'm not being negative, I'm just saying that things should be based on merit - the quality of your work, not who you kiss up to. I agree - in principal. It sounds great, but I've never seen a company where there wasn't some element of politics at work.

And so we need to figure out WHY we're labeling somebody as a loose cannon, and if their rule-breaking tendencies actually can add value to the organization and to their coworkers.  That should be part of your diagnosis before taking action.

And as for that rule about cars not being alive, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't say anything like that around Gerald.  He's really hyper-sensitive about those things.

Office Politics Overload

Wow!  Either there are a lot of people who are dealing with office politics (and wondering how to handle office politics), or Franke James just likes me.  (For those who don't know, she is the editor and owner of Office-Politics.com, a website to which I contribute regularly.)  I've been on a letter-answering binge recently.  You can check out all my letters here.

There have been some doozies:  a "backfired" employee raffle, a horny commanding army officer, an upwardly-sucking coworker, and an unempowered trainee have all been crossing my desk recently.

Yesterday, I had the honor of addressing the local chapter of IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) and the even greater honor of having Claire Celsi in the front row (heckle-free, no less).  I shared with them how to use office politics as a proactive tool rather than a reactive weapon.  The presentation was very well received, and I am appreciative of the opportunity.

So, it's a new year... are you still being stumped by office politics?  You know what to do.

Image from despair.com

Caucus Office Politics: Annoyance or Irrelevance

To my fellow Iowans:

Thanks for letting me poke fun at our politcal process (more at the expense of the candidates than at your expense, so maybe I should be thanking them).

I'd like to encourage all of you to get out and caucus tonight.  I've heard many of you complain about the incessant TV ads and the irritating phone calls over the dinner hour.  Please, we deal with humidity and mosquitos during the summer months... how bad can the candidates really be?

The important issue is demonstrating to the rest of the nation that we are relevant decision-makers in this process.  We get to be first.  You may be thinking "big whoop" to that, but it goes beyond bragging rights.  Think about the millions of dollars that are poured into our state over the past several months all because a bunch of people want to seek the presidency.  This is the first time in 80 years that there has not been a sitting incumbant (President or VP) running for this office.  It's a wide open field.  And we have protected our "first in nation" status once again.

In office politics, the players complain a lot about little annoyances until they are gone... and they are generally replaced by even larger annoyances.  The little annoyances for us are a few ads and phone calls.  The larger annoyance is that nobody would pay attention to our little state if it weren't for the caucuses.  We owe it to the rest of the nation to take this seriously.  We owe it to ourselves to protect it.

Regardless of whom you love or hate, just get out and caucus tonight.  It won't take that much of your time.  I was originally planning on staying home with our children so my wife could caucus without interruption.  Then we decided we'd take the kids with us.  We need to set an example for them that we live in a democracy, and it's something to be proud of.  We even decided to split the parties (one going Republican; the other, Democrat) and compare notes later.

Tomorrow, Iowa will be a political ghost town as all of the candidates scamper off to New Hampshire.  Let's make sure that Iowa is not a political ghost town in four years.

Carpe Factum, Folks!  Get out and caucus.

Caucus Office Politics: In the Dogma House

You didn't think I was going to let Mitt Romney off the hook, did you?

You all know, of course, that if Mitt Romney wins the election, that the Mormon Church will be running the US, didn't you?  No?  Well, that's the rumor going around.  Mike Huckabee said so (which is entirely possible given all the mud-slinging between the two).

Actually, it was just one of those early "urban myths" that was circulating about the former governor and business leader.

This is one of those office politics situations that always amuses me:  guilt by association.  Of course, Mitt has good company.  The Catholic church took over the US when Kennedy was elected in 1960... not!  Because somebody is associated with a given organization, association, team, or department, a lot of times we apply the "halo effect" to them and make assumptions based on these affiliations.  This is the reason many organizations bring in consultants to lead cross-departmental issues; we have no loyalty or affiliation.

So, what are your associations that make your colleagues scratch their heads?

Caucus Office Politics: The Early Winners

I don't even need to tally votes or watch the polls tonight to find out who the winners are for the Iowa Caucuses.  I've already identified one Democrat and two Republicans who are winners:  Tom Vilsack, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback.

Yes, yes, I know they dropped out already and that they have as much chance of being president as Britney Spears has of becoming the next role model for wholesome living and abstinance.

However, in office politics, sometimes knowing when to drop out of a conflict and walk away can make you a big winner in the end.  Too few people know how to lose a battle in order to win a war.  I wrote a post a few months ago on effective retreats, and the principle of "win-win or no-deal" holds true in almost any situation.  Instead, too many people press ahead only to worsen their case.

Tonight, the official winners will be Huckabee, McCain, and Romney for the Republicans.  For the Democrats, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama will impress the caucus-goers.  No big surprises there.  (The order is really irrelevant - win, place, or show are all rewarded.)  However, in the game of office politics, an early departure means that you may get to come back and fight another day.

Caucus Office Politics: Bad Hair Day

In retrospect, it was probably blown way out of proportion, but it happened nonetheless.

John Edwards needed a haircut.  When you're on the campaign trail, you have to look your best at all times, and getting a good trim is difficult.  So, you see if you can get a reputable stylist to make a house call.  To your private jet.  On the tarmac.  Then you pay him $400 and send him on his way.  Realistically, it was probably a cut for which he would have spent $50-70 if he had gone into the salon, so the $400 is reasonable from the stylists' view, who most likely had to forfeit a half day's worth of business to accommodate Edwards.  And the haircut had to happen, because if the media get a hold of a picture of you with bad hair, a picture like that can haunt you through the rest of the campaign.  So the $400 haircut seemed reasonable.  He could afford it.  He needed it.  It happened.  So, what's the problem?

The problem is that John Edwards has been trying to pass himself off as the "working man's" candidate.  He's one of us.  He was raised poor in the South (um, yeah).  And now he's pushing for you, the little guy, and he wants your vote tonight.

I truly think that Edwards believes he has good intentions.  But he made the error in judgment of spending $400 on a commodity where most of the people he is trying to reach maybe spend 2-3% of that amount for the same service... or they do it themselves.  And certainly never in a private jet on a tarmac.

Office politics is mostly about perception.  There may be a perfectly good explanation for your actions, but if those same actions can be twisted around, they probably will be.  My first boss out of college had a habit of using the phrase "in all fairness" when she was trying to sell us on a concept.  The more times she used the phrase, the more unfair we knew the policy actually was going to be.  We would do IAF counts at meetings to figure out how much we were getting screwed over.  Shrewd office politicians - both for positive and negative actions - know how to play with perception and use it to their advantage.  A lot of perception starts with self-awareness, though, so if you don't have a keen grasp of how you are coming across, you may be challenged in understanding how others perceive you.

So, how are you managing the "spin" that revolves around you?

Caucus Office Politics: Gut Check

Barack Obama says all the right things to become President of the United States.

Barack Obama looks presidential (and his wife looks first-lady-ish).

Barack Obama seems personable, funny, intelligent, and articulate.  He appears to balance big picture strategies with the tactics needed to pull them off.  He's "stately."

Barack Obama could probably unite the two parties better than most of the other candidates.

Then why on earth can I not caucus for the guy?

Simple:  because of my gut.  Something deep down in the pit of my stomach (and no, it's not the enchiladas my wife made for New Year's Eve) is telling me that "President Barack Obama" is the biggest mistake our country could make.  And doggone it, I can't put my finger on the reason why.  And that is bugging the heck out of me.

But my gut has never steered me wrong.  Every time I've ignored it and given somebody the benefit of the doubt (against my better judgment), I keep wishing I'd have listened to it.  Every time I have listened to it, I've not regretted it.

There is a lot of intuition that goes into playing the game of office politics.  If you are somebody who is very tangible and black-and-white, you are probably somebody who takes an ostrich stance to office politics.  Some of you do it well, but I'd be willing to bet that the lack of engagement bites the rest of you.  The gut-check isn't just fluffy.  All of our experiences (direct and vicarious) go into making up our intuition.  It all just sort of swirls there and helps us as we create perceptual filters about the world around us.  And those perceptual filters aren't all bad.

So tonight, I won't be caucusing for Barack Obama.  My logical side says I should.  But I gotta listen to my gut on this one.

Caucus Office Politics: Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

Um... Duncan who?

Duncan Hunter?  Nope, never heard of him.

What?  You say he's running for president?  Really!  What country?

No!  Ours?  Which party?  Republican, eh?  You sure?  OK.

In office politics, sometimes it pays to make a little noise.  A lot of people get passed over for promotions and cool projects because nobody knows they are even there.  Kind of like Hunter Duncan... er... um... I mean Duncan Hunter.  I think.  Not sure, really.

Have I made my point?  Good.  Now get out there and make sure people know about you... in a positive way (or even in a negative way... at least they'll hear about you).

If you're not managing your publicity and self-branding effectively, you may as well just pack in your career now.  Just like Dalton Hopkins... uh... Duncan Hunter will be headed back to (pssst... where's he from again?)  You, just like this "candidate" (wink, wink, nudge), will merely be a footnote in history.

Caucus Office Politics: Conveniently Unavailable

It's been interesting to watch John McCain slowly start to gain ground in Iowa, since he and Rudy Giuliani have purposely been avoiding the state since the beginning of the caucus season (which I believe started sometime in 2005, right after Bush's inauguration).  Actually, the unofficial launch is the Straw Poll that was held last June, from which both candidates bowed out.  Neither has made much effort to maintain a strong presence in Iowa, and I was a little surprised when The Des Moines Register gave McCain its nod for Republican selection.

McCain, at the eleventh hour, has been engaging a little more than previously.  All of a sudden, the Iowa publicity is appealing to him.  Rudy still hasn't made much of a splash here and probably won't be in the next 24 hours.  What amuses me is when I see this kind of behavior in office politics.  It's a basic power play, where somebody in power (generally an executive) will avoid meetings and phone calls and not respond to emails, leaving the parties on the other end to attempt to progress without him or her.  Then the offender swoops in at the last second and upsets the entire apple cart, leaving everybody scrambling from their hit-and-run drive-by management.  For those who read GUST - The "Tale" Wind of Office Politics, the chief antagonist in the book was based off of an actual executive who played those games.

Are McCain or Giuliani right for the nation, let alone right for Iowa?  Who knows?  A buddy of mine is an editor for a small town paper, and they were unable to get representatives from either camp to even show up for an editorial board interview.  When you make yourself unavailable, you leave a lot of room for people to make assumptions.  That's my best way of dealing with this type of individual:  document the assumptions about what is acceptable behavior (showing up for meetings, turnarounds on requests, etc.).  If only we could apply those rules of engagement to the candidates.

Caucus Office Politics: The Tainted Past

We attended a New Year's Eve party with some friends from church and the topic of Hillary Clinton came up.  There's no doubt about it:  the only woman in the pack is very polarizing.  I've shared in the past why she is a valid choice for the presidency, but I'd like to explore some of the reasons why people think she isn't.

Her policies on issues like healthcare is what bring people to a boil first.  Seems that a lot of people cannot get past something that happened fifteen years ago when she was leading a committee for her then-president husband.  Even Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite columnists, has made her unbridled loathing for Hillary well-known.  The other thing people bring up is the whole Clinton legacy... the lying, the stealing, the murdering, the framing, the manipulating... the list does go on.  A few of my conservative friends really put their finger on the pulse of things:  the Clintons always get away with everything.

Hmmm... they always get away with everything.  There is something to that.  The Clintons have been compared to Teflon in that nothing ever seems to stick; it just rolls off.  But I don't think it's as simple as getting away with things.  Let's compare the Clintons to family dynamics... most people can relate to the following two roles in the family:

1. The youngest child
2. The weird Uncle Floyd from Kentucky

The youngest child (perceived as spoiled) gets away with things because we have to know how to manipulate what we need to in order to survive among a sea of dysfunctional older siblings (no offense, David and Shelley).  We purposely set out to make our voice heard as the newcomer in an already-established family.  In other words, getting away with things is a purposeful choice.  While the Clintons have shown some of these traits, I think their Teflon capabilities now fall into the latter category.

Many of us have a "weird Uncle Floyd from Kentucky" (OK, OK, change the names and locations to suit your own situation).  You bring your new spouse to the family gathering, and she spots him in the corner doing something obnoxious asks who that is.  You simply respond, "That's Uncle Floyd from Kentucky" as if that is all the explanation needed.  You're just resigned to the fact that Uncle Floyd will always act weird.  So it is with the Clintons... that's why nothing sticks to them.  They are the weird Uncle Floyd from Kentucky.  It's as if we have created an entirely new category of "acceptable behavior" based on what the Clintons do, but it applies only to the Clintons.

I'm neither condoning nor condemning Hillary with this post.  Regardless of the past Clinton behavior, one cannot debate that most Americans felt pretty good during the 1990's about themselves and their way of life.  After eight years of the Bush administration, I personally believe that Americans collectively need to feel good about themselves again while pursuing the significant accomplishments that made this country great in the first place.  After listening to an ocean of rhetoric spouting from every single candidate, I still think that Hillary (among a couple others) could achieve this one objective well enough to deserve a glance at the White House.

Now to office politics.  How many times have we excluded somebody because of their past?  Sometimes it is warranted, but I've seen some teams and organizations shoot themselves in the foot by ignoring the best person for the job because of some past transgression.  (Here in Des Moines, you'd be surprised how slight the transgression needs to be.)  In office settings, people need to separate personal feelings about individuals from their knowledge about whether that individual can perform.  There are and always will be situations where the individual just isn't trustworthy and should be ignored, but (as in many things), it's a subjective call.

So... which candidate is next?

Caucus Office Politics: This is Off The Record, Right?

From now through Thursday night, I thought it would be fun to inject some "office politics" insight into the behaviors of the political candidates, all scrambling like silly little ants over the picnic crumbs.  Since the Iowa Caucuses are fast approaching, we'll see if we can glean some office politics lessons from their behaviors.

Let's start with class clown, Mike Huckabee.  He's seeing some things crumble here in Iowa, so he spends tens of thousands of dollars on some commercial spots.  Then he decides they are too negative so he pulls them... BUT not before giving the media a "sneak preview" of the ad he's not going to be showing them.

Never in the annals of potty-training two children have I witnessed a greater potential for leakage.  Duh, Mikey!  If you're going to pull an ad, pull the ad.  Who do you think you're fooling here?

We see the same thing happen in office politics, though, don't we?  One of the "game balls" of office politics is information, and information is power.  One of the great office politics games that I see people employ with this game ball is to share "just enough" to obtain the desired effect without spilling all the beans.  But Governor Huckabee is probably going to see this antic come back to bite him.

So, he's used religion and he's faked taking the high road in order to "engineer" our perceptions of him.  Hmmm... gotta wonder what's next in the office politics game.

Reindeer Games

My good friend (and dance-partner, but that's another story), Glenda Watson-Hyatt, just wrote a magnificent post on her blog about Rudolph The Rednose Reindeer.  Her point was on valuing diversity, and she poignantly demonstrated how important it is to recognize and embrace those who are different from us, because you never know when there's going to be a foggy Christmas Eve and their unique skills will be needed... and no, you can't outsource reindeer to India... doesn't work that way.  Glenda speaks from the heart, and her own story glows so brightly that it could pull Santa's sleigh single-handedly.

I want to take Glenda's post one step further to a critical situation I see happening all too often.  No, it's not about the value of finding a good dentist, although Herbie the Elf plays a critical role in this issue.  And no, it's not that "bumbles bounce," despite Yukon Cornelius' role in saving the day.  The key point that I wish more people would take from this story is that if you're going to dare to be different, it really helps to have other allies watching your back.

Think about it... how many of your office politics situations have gotten out of hand because you've been the "lone voice crying in the wilderness"?  As office politicians (and we're ALL office politicians if we regularly work with at least one other individual), it is imperitive that we do adequate stakeholder analysis of our situation.  How do people feel about us personally?  How do they feel about the plans and goals we're trying to elevate?  Do you have adequate support against the Abominable Snowmen of your office?  What about other snooty reindeer?

If you're standing alone, bright nose or not, maybe it's time to think about building some alliances in the office to keep your backside covered.  Who knows?  Maybe you'll go down in history (in a good way, we hope).

Angles We Have Heard On High

¹Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, ²saying, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him."  ³When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.  ⁴And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

⁷Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.  ⁸And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and search diligently for the young child, and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also."  ⁹When they had heard the king, they departed; and lo, the star which they saw in the East went before them until it came and stood over where the young Child was.  ¹⁰When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.  ¹¹And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh.  ¹²And being warned by God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

¹⁶Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children who were in Bethlehem and in all the region thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.  (Matthew 2, selected passages, 21st Century King James Version)

OK, here's an interesting question for you:  when is it moral to play office politics?  Is it ever justifiable to lie to somebody?  To withhold information?  To mislead?  To spin doctor?

Never?  What about the Wise Men in the Christmas story?  It sounds as though they had agreed to bring Herod the information he requested, and it was a warning that directed them not to follow through.

I was leading a workshop this fall where one of my participants shared the story of a secretary who was assigned to work for an absolute tyrant.  Very methodically, she undermined and sabotaged his work until he was let go from the company, then she went back to being the same sweet, caring, thoughtful person she was before.  Was this sabotage out of character for her, or was she playing "bear politics" for the greater good of her organization?

Granted, it's hard to have office politics back in a time when cubicles had not yet been invented... tent politics, maybe?  Or camel politics?  Regardless, getting back to the point, can a seemingly moral person play office politics and keep their morality in check?  Is there ever an acceptable angle to justify certain behaviors?

Well, Hello, Dalai...

How interesting... The U.S. honors the Dalai Lama with a Congressional Medal of Honor... and now China is upset with us for doing so... yeah, I get the whole "world politics scene" and why they are doing it.  Tibetan independence... blah, blah, blah.  It's pretty much all about posturing and perception.  However, from a personal standpoint, I find myself scratching my head.  The award is between the U.S. and the Dalai Lama.  Who cares what China thinks?

But let's take it down a few levels.  I was at a Valley High School football game the other night where U.S. gymnast (and World Champion) Shawn Johnson was honored by the athletic director for her recent accomplishments.  On a trip to the restroom, I overheard some snippy and disgruntled high school girls sniping about the "special attention" that Shawn was receiving.  My inside voice started screaming, "I'm sorry... how many world championships did you win that your high school ignored?"  Crikeys!  Local kid makes good - really, REALLY good - and there are ugly comments.  But again, that's just high schoolers for you.  They get their nose bent out of shape over the wrong color of shoes.

We in the corporate world don't behave as badly as high schoolers and international super powers when somebody else is being honored, do we?  (Pause while the uncontrollable laughter runs its course.)  When I was employed in a department at a "big box employer" here in town, we had a woman in our department.  We'll call her Hannah.  Hannah was a bastion of mediocrity, although in her own mind, she was the best consultant/analyst/facilitator that ever graced the department.  Every month, the promotion list would come out.  Every month, her name wasn't on it.  Every month, we would deal with the same theatrics (crying, pouting, and bad-mouthing).  I sort of felt sorry for her.  She had very little self-awareness regarding the issues that were holding her back, but she consistently ignored any and all coaching she received on the issue.  Over all, she was just unpleasant whenever anybody else got ahead.

So, how do we deal with the disgruntled and unrecognized when somebody is honored with an award, recognition, a raise, or a promotion?

1.  Get at the root cause of the reaction:

• Are they jealous of their coworker?  That's a hard pill to swallow and an even worse one to manage.  The green-eyed monster bites everyone from time to time.
• Do they just not like the person being honored?  I'd simply tell them to get over it; they're only hurting themselves.  Smear campaigns always backfire.
• Is it a self-esteem issue?  Eleanor Roosevelt's quote, "Nobody can make me feel inferior without my consent," always seems to bring it into perspective.
• Is the honoree truly NOT deserving?  This does happen sometimes.  I remind them that time catches up with everybody.

2.  Talk it over with the disgruntled party.  Instead of focusing on the person being honored, what can they do by themselves, for themselves, to make themselves feel better?  Validate their feelings, but don't let them stay there.  Make them take some ownership.

3.  Create an action plan.  Have the disgruntled party list three short-term goals and three long-term goals that they can pursue.  The trick here is to take the attention off of the person being honored.  If they are focused on pursuing their own work, they won't have time to worry about what is happening to someone else.

4.  Close the loop.  Allowing the disgruntled feelings to stay out there and fester is not healthy.  Encourage them to congratulate the honored individual (sincerely), even if they don't feel like it.  Doing so will at least help them recognize that the award took place and prevents them from spiraling into other behaviors.

What happens between the Dalai Lama and China or between Shawn and her classmates is yet to be seen.  Let's see what we can do to make the workplace a little nicer environment than high school and international politics.

Images from www.dalailama.com and www.usa-gymnastics.org.

Conservative Republican Males for Hillary '08

Since I like to "geek out" on office politics, one of my "governmentally" political friends asked me the other day whom I was favoring in the 2008 Presidential race.  Since he knew I'd been a registered Republican since I started voting (never mind what year that was), I think he was more than a little shocked when I told him that, if I had to vote right now ... today ... that in my opinion, the "best man" for the job was Hillary Clinton.

I guess I should explain here.  Let's put all pet projects and political platforms aside.  After all, the president (more or less) is still at the mercy of the whims of a very fickle Congress.  So, that being thrown out, the issue of party is no longer as relevant for me.  In this sea of mediocre candidates, we're looking at a bunch of people who basically think Bush stinks.  I'll admit, I've been less than enthralled by some of the antics of the Bush administration.  Granted, he was better than the alternatives in either 2000 or 2004, but still... there are a lot of things leaving many of us scratching our collective heads.  OK, so none of the candidates like W.  No big differentiators there.  And it's really not a great platform... "I'm better than the last guy."

Since I'm a business consultant, let's approach this using basic business principles.  The mood in America right now is hungering for something different.  And the current business benchmark for "different" would be Seth Godin's Purple Cow premise (those that stick out from the crowd are more likely to be noticed).  As a nation, we've always been run by older-middle-aged white males.  If we are to seek the "purple cow" in this election, that leaves two candidates:  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Sorry to say it, but Barack is too purple (and I'm not talking race, either).  Candidates with unusual names do not get elected (yes, Tancredo, that includes you, too.)  In our minds, we already know what "President Clinton" sounds like; it's a title-name combo we can get our brains around.  Also, she "looks" more presidential than many of the other candidates.  So, from a marketing standpoint, Clinton wins.

Now, let's take it from an HR standpoint.  The only person in this entire sea of candidates who has any experience in the White House is... um... Hillary.  She's been there.  She's lived it.  Granted her role was "First Lady" but you can bet that she knew what was going on.  Amazingly enough, she still wants the job.  Everyone else is a governor or a senator or ... well... miscellaneous.  If I were to hire a CEO, I'd want somebody who's been in the corner office before - on the same scale of company as mine.  Sure, the Clintons have skeletons, but none of them are in the closet anymore.  They're all out on display.  Bill is a philandering, skirt-chasing lug.  And... people who cross the Clintons wind up in jail or the morgue (sorry for the reminder, Webster).  These are known flaws.  But the fact remains:  they're KNOWN.  Yeah, Mitt Romney has nice hair... but what is he hiding?

Office politics are pretty much the same thing.  You can try to read the people around you, analyze them, discuss them, pontificate about them.  But in the end, it's a crap shoot and you hope you can trust the person you pick for your team.  After all... there are some really good actors out there (but we're not talking about Fred Thompson).  There are more than twelve months before I have to cast my ballot.  A lot can happen between now and then.  But since I was asked...

(Oh, and the scary thing is... I'm not the only Republican who's thinking this way.)

Poor Cubs

Sigh.  Another year.  Another disappointment.  Hopes dashed.  Oh well.  Maybe next year.

Chicago Cubs fans are the pillars of the hope-disappointment cycle.  Every year, we delude ourselves into thinking, "This could be the year."  Years like this one - where the cubs get a little post-season action - are especially disappointing.  Hopes are up... and then... sigh... maybe next year.

Cubs fans are the brunt of many jokes, but we're a very stoic bunch.  We know deep down in our hearts that, with global warming and climate changes, there is a strong chance that Hell actually could freeze over and our waiting will be rewarded.

What amazes me is the number of employees who put up with the same kind of carrot dangling from their employers.  "Sorry, no promotion this year.  Maybe next year."  Or "You're just not ready yet.  We'll talk about it again at next year's performance evaluation."  And then next year rolls around.  Then it is "Oh, gee, you've been doing better, but so has everyone else."  Or "I'm sorry... I put in for a promotion but there's no money in the budget this year."

And, just like Chicago Cubs fans, we believe that next year might be the year.  Michael Adhi suggests that employees and employers alike should approach approach performance appraisals with a contractual MBO agreement.  "If I produce X and Y next year, I will receive Z."  No questions asked; nobody gets hurt.  Better yet, no missed expectations and no unpleasant surprises.  Can it really be that straight forward?  Could it be that Peter Drucker was right all along?

What do you think?

Not-See-Ism

"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist.  Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Trade Unionist.  Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."  Pastor Martin Niemoller, on the progression of Nazi occupation in Europe.

Adolf Hitler was a powerful leader, no two ways about it.  When somebody can rally an entire continent to carry out his plans, that's saying something.  No, I'm not defending what his plans were.  Decades later, millions of people and many countries still bear the physical and emotional marks of his activities.  At his core, Hitler was a prime example of a bully.  Not just a run-of-the-mill bully, but a bully of extreme measures.

Having run across a few workplace bullies in my career, it interests me how these people are allowed to get to where they are.  And it scares me.  Bullies of all ages tend to operate on two basic principles:

1. Abuse of power - as playground bullies operate on the principle of "give me your lunch money or you'll get beat up" workplace bullies operate under similar auspices:  threat of being fired or reprimanded, explosive and public tirades that degrade and humiliate.
2. Divide and Conquer - the true core of a bully's power is his/her ability to isolate, as demonstrated by the Niemoller quote, above.  Hitler couldn't have pulled off what he did without attacking the most vulnerable first.  So, too, do bullies attack those they perceive they can bully, isolating the "weakest of the herd" and leaving other people to watch helplessly or try to stay out of the way.

But it is these very witnesses to bullying that I'm addressing with this post.  Robert Sutton shared some fascinating statistics about witnessing bullying in his last book:

"...a British study of more than five thousand employees found that while 25% had been victims of bullying in the past five years, nearly 50% had witnessed bullying incidents.  Another British study of more than seven hundred public sector employees found that 73% of the witnesses to bullying incidents experienced increased stress and 44% worried about becoming targets themselves...."  (The No Asshole Rule, pp. 32-33)

So the ill effects of bullying go beyond the target; observing the bullying has negative impacts also.  But there is a solution.  It is called "safety in numbers" - it becomes very difficult for a bully to carry out his or her plans when people stick together.  Following my workshop in North Carolina, one gentleman shared his story with me.  He and his team had been victims of a bully, who intimidated the team to perform (one by one).  When the team found out that he had been given a promotion and a huge bonus for their performance, they collectively went to Human Resources with documented evidence of his behavior.  Not only was he subsequently demoted, but his bonus was retracted.

Hence, one of the most effective ways to deal with a bully is to gang up on him or her.  Using documentation and facts, go to HR as a group.  Human Resources can be pretty proficient at ignoring individual complaints and dismissing them.  When a group lodges a complaint, it becomes much harder to ignore, as there is a much more obvious liability issue.

While Hitler is a blatant and extreme example of bullying, the principles of how he got there still apply.  Are you witnessing bullying in your office?  How can you help the target handle the bully effectively?

Sure, It's a Pile...

"For God so loved the world, that He did not send a committee."  John 3:16 (New Corporate Translation)

Springboarding off of yesterday's post, another scenario that the SWAT teams practiced was called a "Covered Pile."  In short, the covered pile is a hostage technique more commonly seen in Europe (but gaining popularity here in the states) where the hostage-taker and the hostages are all covered under a tarp or blanket when making their exit.  This makes it far more challenging - yet not impossible - for SWAT officers to see who is who.  It took some practice, but these guys took down the covered pile very effectively with little effort.  (Note to bad guys:  don't try this technique here in Iowa.  They'll nail you.)

I want to bring the SWAT teams into some of the organizations with whom I've worked.  We have covered pile hostage situations all the time.  They're called committees, teams, and task forces.  Decision and accomplishment are the hostages.  Passing the buck is the tarp.  Accountability is completely non-existent.  We hear comments like "We're waiting on the team to make a decision" or "The committe is reviewing that; you'll just have to wait."  GRRRR.  Lacking a corporate SWAT team, I found a good blog post with some helpful hints to alleviate the covered pile hostage situation:

1.Create an intentional communication strategy. Your Management team must understand and support a common vision. This requires clarity. Clarity begins with effective communication. Make sure communication from your Management team reaches all employees.

2.Do not set up intentional competition in the workplace. Try to insure that individual skill sets compliment one another rather than compete with one another. Spread the responsibility and authority around by alternating leaders for various tasks. Look for star potential and introduce coaching & mentoring as a skill set.

3.Create team ownership in the decision making process but its not management by committee. Avoid group think by making sure that individuals express opinions openly without intimidation. Responsibility must be accompanied by authority and accountability.

4.Build trust and respect by giving trust and respect. Act as a coach or mentor and not a boss.

5.Create off site team building activities quarterly. Social gatherings, athletic activities, laser tag or other activities that build unification and trust in each other.

6.Dont just talk about empowerment and delegation, believe in it and demonstrate that belief by allowing the team members to make decisions and take independent action.

7.Take complex plans and strategies and assign accountability and ownership. This creates more efficiency and leverages creativity. Assign responsibility according to individual passions.

8.Brainstorming must be encouraged to release team innovation. Bouncing ideas off one another stimulates creative thinking which leads to creative solutions. This in itself bonds individuals into a common purpose.

9.Ask for solutions assigning both responsibility and empowerment. Ownership of ideas and initiatives builds commitment. Involving the team in creating direction and solutions through empowerment generates commitment to the tasks necessary to meet objectives.

10.Challenge your management team. Reliance on team effectiveness minimizes risk by being more flexible and adaptive than relying on a single individual. No one individual alone can jeopardize success. The loss of one team member can be overcome without losing sight of the objectives.

Sometimes, the basic strategies can be the most powerful.  Granted, it's nothing new or earth-shattering, but - as my SWAT buddies will tell you - following the basics saves lives.

Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead!

OK, so Leona Helmsley, the "Queen of Mean," is now going to be pushing up daisies... er... um... ok... maybe just weeds and occasional prickly thorn bushes.  Many of you remember the stories that surfaced about her savage abuse of her employees during her years as a powerful hotel maven.

The fact remains, though:  she's dead.  She can't yell at anyone, hit anyone, or abuse anyone from the grave.

So it is with bullies.  Dealing with them is a temporary state... or at least it should be.  I'm always surprised by people who put up with bullies for years... or even decades.  I learned about handling bullies early in my career.  I worked for a couple of Leona Helmsleys in my day, and it wasn't fun.  But eventually, I learned how to either fight back or move on.  Fight or flight is a natural human response, but too often we throw up our hands in despair.

Are you dealing with a bully right now?  Do you feel powerless to stop the abuse?  Here are a couple of pointers/action steps that I've suggested to others that you can begin doing right now:

1. Update your resume.  Even if you have no intention of leaving at the moment, the mere act of doing this can be very empowering.  It forces you to take inventory of your experience and the value you bring to an employer (albeit not your current one).  You probably need a cheerleader at this point, even if it is yourself.
2. Document the abuse.  If possible, covertly record it (digital recorders are dirt cheap and can be hidden strategically).  Put down dates, times, witnesses, what was said, the context, etc.  Create a log of the abuse and maintain multiple copies of it at work and at home.  After 1-2 months, consider visiting with an attorney.  Then visit your HR department and show them the COPIES of your documentation (don't let them have the originals).  HR departments are wising up to the fact that if you present them with evidence of abuse and they fail to act, they put the entire company at risk for a lawsuit.
3. Take some sick days.  Even if this will get you dinged on your next performance review, call a time out for your own sanity.  Get away from the situation and take objective stock of what is going on.  Daily abuse will only make matters worse.
4. Enlist Others.  Chances are good that you are not the only target of the bully.  There is, after all, safety in numbers.  The more of you that stand up to the bully, the better your chances of de-throning them.

Each of these strategies is intended for the short-term solution only.  A bully should never be allowed into your head... or worse yet, your heart.  Taking some of the above steps should help insulate you and also empower you to take action.

Team Spirit And Office Politics Do Mix

I've shared a lot about my writing on Office-Politics, and I have to admit that it's one of my favorite online publishing engagements.  Franke James, a blogospheric gem in her own right, does an amazing job of attracting meaningful and challenging letters from professionals all over the globe.  She's done an even more amazing job of assembling some outstanding thought leaders to answer those letters.  I'm in awe when I look at the company I'm keeping on that site, and it's an honor to think of them as peers.  And lucky for you, many of them are bloggers.  I'd like to give some of them a brief introduction, because I think it would be worth your time to go and visit their sites.

Erika Andersen is the newest member of the OP team, and I'm already wowed by her gentleness and professionalism.  She writes for The Simplest Thing That Works blog, and has published a book entitled Growing Great Employees.  She has a down-to-earth sensibility that will just draw you in.

Before being introduced to Arnie Herz, I thought that Brett Trout and Rush Nigut were the only blogospheric lawyers worth conversation.  Arnie is also cream of the crop in the legal profession, and his Legal Sanity blog is evidence of that.  And this guy could give Phil Gerbyshak a race on the link love, as Arnie is constantly giving nods to other great resources.  He's a must read!

How would you like to be known as "The Frasier of the Cubicles"?  Dr. Greg Ketchum appears to have rightly earned the title (with all of the wit and a lot less emotional maintenance than his Kelsey Grammer counterpart) when you read his emphathetic advice to letter writers.  His Talent Planet blog shares some interesting insights, and it's been a pleasure exchanging emails with him on occasion.

There are many other great resources on the Office Politics site, and I hope to get the chance to introduce them to you as well in the near future.  I wanted to highlight a few who contribute in numerous ways to making the blogosphere a better place to visit.

Is There a Killer Bunny In Your Office?

My wife and I recently saw the musical, Spamalot, based on the movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  The movie was funny, but the musical was a riot!  One of my favorite parts in both stage and screen was the Killer Bunny:

We see this quite a bit in office politics as well, don't we?  Somebody seems nice, introduces himself or herself to you, wriggles their way into your confidence, and then ... BAM!!!  You find yourself attacked.  To support this, I present Exhibit A and Exhibit B and Exhibit C for your consideration (you can find others at www.office-politics.com; it doesn't take a lot of looking).

Are there ways to protect yourself from Office Killer Bunnies?  Well, outside of lobbing any Holy Hand Grenades, there are some tips you can use to prevent yourself from being the victim of a vicious bloody attack.  I recommend using some of the principles of Stranger Danger that we teach our children:

• If somebody is nice to you immediately, remain cordial and professional.  Do not divulge personal information about yourself prematurely.
• Wait for introductions from mutually trusted friends/acquaintances before opening up to a stranger.  If you have a trusted colleague who endorses this person, then it may be OK to talk to him/her.
• Just as your child should never be coaxed into a stranger's car, don't allow yourself to be coaxed into a stranger's cubicle confidence.  Sometimes we enter the workforce with a strong desire to be liked, and the Killer Bunnies of the world know this.  It shifts the balance of power when you get sucked in.
• As I suggested recently in Office-Politics.com, being nice is not an either-or dichotomy; it's a sliding scale continuum.  Just because you don't play the cruise director, doesn't mean you cannot still be cordial and professional.  It's all a matter of striking the right balance.

Again, the trick here is to avoid being chewed to bits by a Killer Bunny.  Using some common sense is one of the best approaches in a strange environment.  Approach wisely rather than rushing in.  You'll be glad you did it before you lose five... no, three... of your men.

Taxing Our Memory

In my quest to discuss and dissect office politics, normally I attempt to stay away from government politics, especially local government politics.  However, this one is just too applicable to pass up.

The local leaders-that-be think that a 1-cent additional local option sales tax is going to be the answer to all of our woes.  They've sold this Project Density (correction:  Project Destiny) idea as something that will build infranstructure, create jobs, lower property taxes, do your mowing, whiten your teeth, and turn Des Moines into Mayberry.  OK, OK, so I exaggerated a little on those last few.  Regardless, they're asking voters here in a tri-county area to give them permission on July 10 to take more of our money.

Back in 1999, the county leaders attempted (multiple times before it finally passed) to add a 1-cent local option sales tax just to help schools.  Our schools are crumbling, they cried.  Help the children, they pleaded.  If you love all that is good and right about our budding future then you'll say yes to this tax, they implored.  The voters put it in back in 1999.  Within a few years of the tax, a few schools had been rebuilt or repaired, but there just wasn't enough money.  They'd still need to close schools (going against a promise made to "sell" the tax to the masses).  It just hadn't yielded the revenue they thought it might.  I always liked what my economics professor in college said, "Taxes should never be used to raise revenue (because they won't).  Taxes only should be used to alter behavior (because that's what they do)."

Case in point:  Why do so many people flock to stores the first weekend in August on back-to-school-no-sales-tax-weekend?  If you've noticed, many of the stores do not run any ad specials that weekend.  Why should they?  The sheep... um... er... lemings... uh... I mean... people with money think they're getting a good deal getting 6% off instead of the 20-25% off they'd get with an advertised sale.  Those who think this tax is a good idea, the lower income brackets, are actually being hurt the worst.  As this Register Article points out, sales taxes are regressive and hurt the lowest tax brackets the most.  There are so many reasons to shoot down "Say Yes To Destiny"... from a logical data-driven point of view.

My biggest reason for voting no still goes back to 1999.  Local officials made promises and didn't follow through.  Now they're trying to sell another bottle of snake oil to the public.  I'm not buying it.  Neither are 61% of the most likely voters.

So how does this relate to office politics?  It's simple:  watch what you promise/offer to people.  They're watching AND they're keeping score.  I've had promises made to me that weren't kept.  I've had offers extended to me that were reneged upon.  The promises and offers created only temporary and minor setbacks in the grand scheme of my career and my life... mere speedbumps really.  The real damage was done to the credibility of those who made the offers and promises.  I learned quickly that their integrity wasn't worth as much as they thought it was, and everything they've said after that was strained through the "crap filter."  So... Don't dangle promotions.  Don't promise raises.  Don't offer new opportunities.  Don't.  Don't.  Don't.  Not unless you know you can deliver.

Otherwise... when you really need it... you may find your constituents voting no.

Image from www.gapingvoid.com

Full Frontal Verbotomy

OK, if a so-called reporter like John Naish of The Times wants to make a game out of my book, why shouldn't others join in the fun?

The James Gang runs an awesome site called Verbotomy, an online game/contest for those who love words and word play.  Each weekday, they post a new definition, and your job is to come up with the most creative word to fit that definition.  For example, Friday's definition was "an invented language similar to baby talk, used by pet owners to communicate with their pets or to speak to an animal using such a language."  My personal favorite submission was "furnacular."  As if the word play isn't fun enough, the James Gang produces their own cartoons to accompany each day's contest, and they are a riot.

They will be featuring GUST and office politics all week.  So be sure to play along.  It promises to be a fun time.  And the best pick of the week will win a copy of GUST - The "Tale" Wind of Office Politics.  Put your creative side of playing the game of office politics to work, and see what you can generate!

Practice Safe Sects

An acquaintance joined an online community a while back, hoping to accomplish some networking and build his relationships.  He followed all the rules of online etiquette, introducing himself, not being demanding up front, actively participating to get a foothold into the community.  Nothing.  He told me that after a few weeks, he's considering dropping his membership, as there is just too much of a clique going.

A former student took a job at a new company, and she was very eager to add value.  She volunteered for projects, attended meetings, and made herself available as a resource to various teams.  When her first review came around, she was surprised at the relatively low rating she received.  Evidently, she made herself too available, and her supervisor didn't like some of the teams and departments with whom she was associating.

In my last post, I raised the issue of guarding your alliances and ensuring you're wearing the right "team colors" at the right time.  Many of us go into a new employer or enter uncharted territory without assessing the social landscape first.  While I firmly believe that cliques are best left for junior high children who want to belong to something merely to feel better about themselves, I also recognize that some people never grow up.  Hence, "red rovering" yourself on over to the best alliances is a good skill to have.  As long as there are people in the workplace, there will always be silos, cliques, turf wars, and alliances.  As a new person coming into the workplace, how can you tell if you are siding with the right people?

It's simple:  ROAR.

No, no, no, I'm not suggesting you belt out a primal screech as a sort of professional mating call, gathering like-minded individuals to your side.  I'm suggesting that you assess your alliances that you make with the acronym ROAR:

Reciprocal - it only takes watching a couple of episodes of Survivor or The Apprentice to understand the basic premise of alliance-building:  both parties have to benefit.  If the allies you've chosen are only take-take-take, it may be time to choose other allies.  Drew McLellan is one of the most at-your-service guys I've ever met.  He's always there to give people a leg up, and he sets the bar very high for an example of the type of person I want on my team.

Open - a few months ago, I talked about organizations that put the CULT in culture.  If the communication and relationships are based on secrecy and "mutually assured destruction," it's a sure sign that the alliance will eventually implode.  For a good read on open communication, check out Jane Greer's blog.

Accomplishment-Oriented - My core value is still about accomplishment.  If the purpose of the alliance is anything other than to accomplish something great for the organization (i.e., just water-cooler gossip), then it is probably not the best alliance in which to participate.

Respectful - If your newly chosen allies talk down to people, if they are rude, if they are two-faced, or if they are not genuine, RUN.  Run, Forest, Run!!  The online community requires a level of trust.  I was very pleased to see Linda Kaplan Thaler (one of my new colleagues of Office-Politics.com) highlight efforts to promote a code of conduct for web interactions.

It's not too complex, but it's of a higher order than most junior high children can conceptualize (whether they are in a junior high school or wearing suits and invading our corporate offices).  So... next time you have to determine which sandbox is safest, just ROAR.

Flickr Illustration by Mario Zucco Illustration; Photo By Moon Fleet

Hoosier Daddy?

No, this isn't a story about Anna Nicole's baby or the paternity suit.

This is a story about association... and guilt thereby.

You see, my in-laws live in Bloomington, Indiana.  Yeah, you read that right.  I'm related to Hoosier fans.  Actually, my wife has lived in many of the Big Ten Conference states before settling in Iowa.  But now her parents live in Indiana.  Since we live in the Hawkeye state, it can make for some interesting discussions during football and basketball season.

There's an interesting by-product to having in-laws who are Hoosiers:  I own more Indiana University shirts and clothing than I do Iowa, Iowa State, and Drake combined.  And I have to tell you, it can be an interesting case study in social behavior to wear an Indiana shirt during a peak sporting season.  There's a lot of color commentary to be made... some sneers... and the obligatory derision that comes from siding with a non-Hawkeye team.  (Of course, Drake is still my preferred alliance.)

It is interesting how we sometimes find ourselves wearing the "wrong team colors" in the work place as well.  The typical office building architecture should just be thrown out the window in favor of work places that look like they act:  silos.  If you associate yourself with the wrong group, you could find yourself feeling like a lone Hawkeye watching them play the Hoosiers (where Indiana has the home court advantage).  Of course, if you try to act like the wolf in sheep's clothing and get caught, the consequences can be even worse.

As Juli Ann Reynolds pointed out a couple of months ago on Tom Peters blog site, a firm understanding of the corporate culture makes all the difference.  She says:

The most important asset in every company is the esprit de corps:  the motivation and passion of each employee... and... their willingness to collaborate together on whatever strategic projects are critical for growth.  At a time when 55% of the U.S. workforce is "actively disengaged" in their work at an annual productivity cost of $328 billion, understanding the esprit de corps element can greatly increase financial success (Gallup, 2005)

My questions to you are:  What do you think - is culture and alliance really all that important to accomplishment?  What have been the most visible turf wars you've observed by seeing someone wear the wrong team colors at the wrong time?

How do we deal with this issue?  Wait until my next post.

Photo from www.fansedge.com

Does Your Inner Child Need a Diaper Change?

In the last post, we talked about management who impose change upon their staff without embracing change themselves.  Change of any kind can be perceived as a political game, especially if a double standard is perceived from the leaders of the change.  I've shared a lot about management transgressions in the past, and my upcoming book, GUST - The "Tale" Wind Of Office Politics, shares quite a few strategies for dealing with these challenges.

An earlier post from last year shared the first step in identifying the Game of office politics - in other words, what is being manipulated?  The second step involves Understanding the game being played, and we've already talked about the three types of politicians:  Snakes, Ostriches, and Bears.  But it's not enough to understand the type of politician; one must also understand the motives behind the actions.

If one hopes to change the difficult and childish among us, it's important that you change your own point of view of the political situation first.  And the best way to do that is to understand what is motivating the political behavior.  We'll cover six kinds of motivational factors listed that tend to prompt office politics:

• Gain - somebody wants to obtain something they don't currently have:  power, resources, information, relationships
• Drain - somebody wants to take away something that exists (generally with somebody else).
• Maintain - are you resistant to change?  Then this might motivate political behavior.
• Contain - if you have a cult office culture, you want to keep things from escaping
• Chain - mergers and building alliances are ways bringing together things that otherwise would not have been combined
• Stain - damaging a relationship, a reputation, credibility can undermine another in today's competitive workplace.

In office politics situations, we often do not allow ourselves to assess objectively what is motivating political behavior.  If a manager is behaving badly, we take an "us good, them bad" stance and brace ourselves for the conflict (or run and hide our head in the sand).  If we truly want to make an impact on the behaviors of those around us, we need to begin by changing our own behaviors and tailoring our approaches to meet the motivations of those around us.  Taking the time to understand the office politics situation an invaluable investment.

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?

Super Bowl Edition: Cults vs. Bares

OK, for those who are searching blogs looking for some football insight, seeking whether Dungy's Indianapolis Colts can beat Smith's Chicago Bears, wondering if the Bears defense can go up against the Colts offense, contemplating how Manning will match up with Grossman... well, you've found somebody who'd rather talk about two different types of corporate cultures and the impacts each has on office politics.  Sorry, but the pun was too sweet to pass up.

On one end of the corporate culture continuum, there are "cult" companies.  Just like religious cults, these companies thrive on controlling their employees.  The leaders maintain a double standard, holding followers to higher standards of discipline while allowing themselves an absence of accountability.  The "cult" company emphasizes isolation as a means of controlling its members; if they are not communicating with "outsiders" then they are easier to command and manipulate.  As part of that, they "brainwash" their employees with an elitist mindset:  there's really nothing better out there.  If somebody ventures out, the "world is flat and you'll fall off the edge" doctrine is pushed.  This overbearing culture is a hotbed for office politics, as it creates conflicts over scarce resources, jockeying for position in the "kingdom," and egocentric issues that make facts and objective information difficult to prevail.  Silence is perpetuated through a culture of "don't ask, don't tell" and "if I told you, I'd have to kill you" - so nobody says anything that could get them in trouble.

By contrast, a "bare" company focuses on openness.  Collaboration is encouraged and rewarded.  Information is shared willingly among employees.  Relationships are honest and open (even when the truth hurts), and trust is fostered in a spirit of teamwork.  Leaders lead, but they also serve in a spirit of humility; there are no naked emperors in a "bare" organization.  Commitment is a natural by-product of how the employees feel; it is not forced through an overbearing culture.  Networking is encouraged, both inside and outside the company.  If an employee leaves, it is celebrated because it is believed that the employee and the company can both grow from the separation.  Office politics have a hard time finding a foothold in an organization such as this.  Resources are shared, healthy competition propels the company forward, and data balances passion to allow for decisions to be made with eyes wide open.

While you are shouting for your team tomorrow, you might stop and think if you are a fan of your own organization.  Do you wear your corporate-wear with the same pride that your sport your Bears shirt?  Do you cheer for your colleagues the way you screamed for the Colts a couple of weeks ago during their amazing comeback against the Patriots?  Do you celebrate your milestones in the same fashion that you revel in the halftime festivities?  In short, do you work for a cult or a bare?

FIRST HALF UPDATE:  Thought you might like to see a few of the sites I used as sources on cults.  All have some interesting checklists that you can apply to your organization.  Looking at them was interesting from a professional perspective, comparing them to actual companies with whom I've worked.

• ICSJ Checklist
• Let Us Reason Checklist
• Apologetics Index Checklist

Again, look at these lists from an organizational view rather than a religious view.  You'll see some interesting parallels.

Dividing By Zorro

Casey, our beloved dachshund-cocker mix, was attitude with fur.  We had raised her from a pup after adopting her from a local shelter.  She was a fixture in our household (literally, since she shed her own body weight in fur each day).  She was always there for us.  So it was a pretty sad day when she passed away suddenly at the tender age of nine.

I'm a dog person.  I crave canine companionship.  Being without a pooch around the house was unthinkable, so we immediately adopted a "rebound dog" named Murphy.  Big mistake to rush into an adoption while grieving for a pet.  Murphy turned out to be a biter.  (My hand still bears the scars to remind me.)  Murphy was later re-adopted to a person who was not as fond of all of his digits as I was.  My wife made it very clear after that incident that she was in no big hurry for another dog.

As summer drew to a close, my wife and daughters went to Indiana for a couple of weeks to visit the in-laws.  As fortune would have it, a couple at our church was trying to find a home for their Shih-Tzu named Zorro.  He was very affectionate and his hobbies included napping, snoozing, sleeping, and dozing.  While the family was away, I agreed to keep Zorro for a few days... you know, just to take him for a "test drive."  We hit it off famously.  Zorro became "my little man" around the house.

Suffice it to say, my wife was not as amused by the new family addition.  Casey had been her dog.  This little furry intruder smelled funny.  He could also be somewhat demanding and would bark at my wife when he wanted something, even when I was in the same room (oh great, a sexist dog... what do the HR manuals say about that?).  Then he committed the ultimate sin, involving one of my wife's shoes and a somewhat private act that was made very public.  But by then, Zorro and I had built a solid relationship.  So now my wife tolerates Zorro.  (We'll leave terms such as love, like, enjoy, amused, and "not repulsed by" alone for now.)  He's the big elephant in the room that fits conveniently into the Shih-Tzu body packaging.

I was reading David Maister's blog (thanks to Bob McIlree for recommending it to me).  In his recent post, he talks about how, as a consultant, he's brought in to a client for occasionally ulterior motives.  He also shares how his very presence as a new team member, while welcomed by some, threatens others.  I can definitely relate to that.  As the outsider, it's virtually impossible to avoid office politics.  On a project a few months ago, it took me three weeks and considerable executive interjection just to publish a project organizational chart (usually a one-day no-brainer task in every other client).

My point is that one cannot afford to be an "ostrich" when it comes to office politics.  Avoidance strategies generally make things worse, whether you are a consultant, cubicle-dweller, or executive.  The answer is intelligent engagement in office politics.  David quoted Ben Franklin, saying, "you don't persuade by appealing to people's sense of reason, but to their interests."  Sage advice.  Everyone is motivated by something, and often it's a simple acknowledgment of another's point of view that can diffuse a difficult situation.  There's a time and a place for avoidance, but those situations tend to be temporary.

Now... I wonder if I should get Valentine's Day flowers for my wife in Zorro's name.

Carpe Factum: Advice Columnist?

As the process continues to release GUST - The "Tale" Wind of Office Politics during the spring of 2007, I had the opportunity to meet Franke James, who has created an amazing Office Politics site.  It's a great one-stop resource for those seeking assistance with office politics issues.  Ms. James has created a network of authors and consultants to address the emails that are sent into the site on various office politics issues.  Through out conversations about my book, Franke invited me to be a contributing author to respond to some of the letters that are sent in.  The first three letters have been added to the site.  Check 'em out and see if you agree with my assessments.  Her site is set up as a blog, so you can add your comments.

It Slices, It Dices, It Juliennes

Roger von Oech recently posed a question for me about thin-slicing office politics when I come into a new client environment.  The idea of thin-slicing comes from Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink, and is about trusting your intuition to size up your surroundings to observe patterns.

So, what five things do I look for to quickly size up how political I think someone might be?

1. Body Language/Handshake - these are "high lobs."  I tend to look for extemes here:  slouched or closed posture OR overly straight and rigid posture; an extremely weak or very over aggressive handshake at least put something on the radar screen for me.
2. Facial Expression - again... go for the extremes.  Too much smiling or not enough smiling (in the appropriate context tells me that this person either has no sense of humor or they think they can cover something up with laughter
3. Word Choice - a consistently passive sentence structure ("the status report was written by Tom") as opposed to an active sentence structure ("Tom wrote the status report") makes me wonder if they're hiding other things in semantics
4. Cubicle - what artifacts are on display that can quickly tell me about this person's values?  Pictures?  Posters?  Awards?  Level of organization?  Positioning of desk?
5. General Interaction - how do they treat others (both present and absent); how engaged are they in meetings; and how do other people react to them when they walk into a room?

A few projects ago, I dealt with a guy who was very passive-aggressive and highly political.  He had all the "classic symptoms" listed above.

Now, before Mike Wagner tags everybody I know, I'll ask Rush Nigut and Brett Trout how they thin slice clients and cases.  Matt Owen can tell us how he thin slices a bull (or a bull-rider) before a ride.  Steve Farber can tell us how he thin slices somebody's LEAP potential.