Ok, 'un-politically' is not an actual word- yet.
But I think you get what I mean- how can we navigate workplace politics, without politicking? Should we engage, or no? What's the cost, really?
So many questions! I mean, most people you talk to will also have pretty positive things to say about workplace politics, and it's widely accepted that learning to 'play the game' is a key part of career success. Depending on who you ask, it becomes a question of the end justifying the means- does engaging in potentially damaging behavior get a pass if the results are perceived as positive? Does it have to be a zero-sum game?
Let's explore this a bit more.
What is Workplace Politics?
In examining this paradigm, I'll try to be fair-even though I have a high intolerance for politics in general (lol). Let's first explore some of the things people say are positive about workplace politics:
The power of the group and social cohesiveness: Some see workplace politics as a great way to enforce group cohesiveness, which, from this perspective, increases group outputs and productivity. Also, the relationships formed within workplace settings help to facilitate work through social connections and collaboration efforts. Social connections are important for a variety of reasons, so it's logical to assume that this can be a positive output of a political environment. Many of you have probably made valuable connections and friendships throughout your career through networking and other social activities, which contributes to a higher rate of success, and increased feeling of connectedness and well-being.
Competitiveness: Many people view competitiveness as harmless and as a great way to motivate people at work. People who are competitive make extra efforts to beat the competition, thereby increasing productivity and increasing an organization's competitive advantage. Inter-organizationally, different departments can compete for resources, or engage in friendly competition to help motivate each other through tough times, helping to strengthen the social connectedness I mentioned earlier.
Easy avenue for career progression and self-promotion: Connecting with the 'right' people organizationally can be the difference between a successful career and lack of progress. Often, while building your skill and experience are also positive activities to take part in, making the right connections seems to outweigh skill and ability in terms of predicting success. All it takes is charisma, charm, and impressing the 'right' people to have access to opportunities- which many see as scarce and fleeting, and a game that only the best will win.
Shared goals and collaboration: Through what is said to be influence and motivation, many organizational leaders and influencers will 'rally the troops' behind whatever interest is important to the top few in the organization, giving the illusion of a cohesive group and shared goals. When this is actually genuine, it can actually result in a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose, which motivates the group, despite potential obstacles and differences.
Now, let's look at the flip sides of each of these:
Group power and social cohesiveness can lead to homogeneity and the ostracizing of certain people or groups. In the current societal structure, what fuels social cohesiveness are similarities- the more similar you are to widely accepted behavior norms and beliefs, the better your chances of success. For example, being a black person doesn't automatically mean you will be ostracized, if you assimilate in every other way you can. This is often the difference between BIPOC who report having positive experiences at work, and those of us who face constant mistreatment. Homogeneity is not healthy for any organization- there are plenty of studies that show the benefits of diversity (of thought, gender, race, personality, etc.) in organizations and the connection between diverse teams and profits. Group cohesiveness can be achieved without homogeneity- and I'd love to see diversity efforts focus on this factor in particular, as the opposite (that homogeneity is required for cohesiveness) is a belief that needs to be deconstructed in order for progress to happen.
Competitiveness: We all know competition can turn dirty, quickly. People will fight to win at all costs, regardless of the aftermath or effects on others around them. Competitiveness often reinforces right vs wrong thinking, in that if you 'win', you are 'right' and if you 'lose' you are 'wrong'. Competitiveness also reinforces scarcity mindsets in the workplace, causing people to vie for what they feel are limited resources- promotions, opportunities, or the spotlight.
Along the same lines, self-promotion often comes at a cost- either to oneself or to others. The cost to oneself may be a loss of authenticity, compromising our values, brown-nosing, pandering, and other behaviors that challenge our self-respect. The cost to others can come as a result of sabotage, gossip, and other methods people may use to minimize someone to get ahead. Political environments can be used as a playground for incompetent and malicious types to manipulate others to get ahead. Even more nefarious is the fact that many will see their actions as valid, even if they see the negative intentions behind them. After all, it's all a game!
Shared goals are the underlying glue that holds most organizations together. Everyone is there mainly to contribute their knowledge and skills to accomplish one, or a set of goals the organization exists to achieve. What can go wrong here? Well...what if others are working toward goals that are not aligned to the stated organizational goals? There is often misalignment between what the organization exists to do, and the goals of the individuals within it.
An earlier Paradigm Shifts article talked about skilled incompetence, where people intentionally or unintentionally work against their stated values and goals using learned behaviors designed to avoid embarrassment of consciously being aware of this. Our need for everyone to participate in workplace politics is a way for us to double-down on this protective measure, and the need for everyone to ignore this truth and act accordingly reinforces this protection further. So, the "need" for these political games is rooted in an avoidance of truth- actively disengaging from the reality of things and engaging in behaviors counterintuitive to the most basic of positive intentions.
So, how do you navigate office politics un-politically? By shifting the paradigm, of course.
Shifting paradigms minimally requires two things: seeing the need for the paradigm to shift, and the courage to act outside of the status quo in order to influence the changes needed. We have to be able to see beyond the influence to understand what's really happening below the surface, and then make conscious decisions to create behavior and thought norms that truly align with the things we say we value in organizations, and in others.
A few takeaway questions:
Given our discussion so far, is the existence of workplace politics conducive to a healthy organization?
How can you become more aware of how your behaviors and beliefs can contribute to a negative workplace environment?
Who is typically negatively impacted by workplace politics? Do you feel you should do anything to change this?
What behaviors do you reward? Punish? Why?
As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
Hi! I'm Nicole, an organizational consultant and personal coach, who is passionate about inspiring the changes our society needs for all to thrive. Using lessons learned from my own experiences and challenges, I hope to help people within organizations by creating mentally, socially, and emotionally healthy workplaces for all. Check out the other resources on this site for more ways to do just that!
Comments