The 4 Types of Organizational Politics

The first 100 days are usually the honeymoon period for any new CEO to make their mark and
get others on board. However, for Airbus CEO Christian Streiff, it was just a brief window before
his abrupt departure from the European aircraft company thats part of the EADS consortium,
along with DiamlerChrysler and Aerospatiale-Matra.

Streiffs drive to speed up decision-making, overcome bureaucracy, and deliver rapid execution,
exposed historic and deep divisions between executives at the consortium. There were reports
of internecine feuding at Airbus: The internal atmosphere was tense; jobs were allocated by
preferences other than commercial criteria; and mistakes such as insufficient cabling were a
result of internal conflicts and mistrust. Even Streiff ended up concluding that it was the political
nature of Airbus that prevented it from becoming an integrated company. In short, he became
the unintended victim trapped by what the Financial Times called byzantine organizational
politics.

Dysfunctional politics can sink an organization, and yet most of the executives I teach react with
distaste to the idea of being a savvy organizational politician. Yes, it can be self-serving. However,
the reality is that politics is normal. According to McGills Henry Mintzberg, its just another
influencing process along with norms, formal authority and expertise. Thus its important for
leaders to understand the forms it can take and how to use it for the well-being of the
organization.

Defining politics

While we would be naive if we didnt acknowledge politics as a potentially destructive force,

So what is it? Organizational politics refers to a variety of activities associated with the use of
influence tactics to improve personal or organizational interests. Studies show that individuals
with political skills tend to do better in gaining more personal power as well as managing
stress and job demands, than their politically naive counterparts. They also have a greater
impact on organizational outcomes.

However, political behavior is also likely to be present, but not explicit, until it is too late. For
example, it may be the case that a manager needs to exert a large amount of pressure on a team
to get something done by using the power of their position over others. It is also occasionally
necessary for employees to work behind the scenes to build coalitions of believers in a new vision
to convince others. Whatever the situation, it is important to understand that the root cause of
political activities are often scarce resources (including time pressures), social and structural
inequalities, and individual personal motivations.
Executives can view political moves as dirty and will try to distance themselves from those
activities. However, what they find hard to acknowledge is that such activities can be for the
welfare of the organization and its members. Thus, the first step to feeling comfortable with
politics requires that executives are equipped with a reliable map of the political landscape and
an understanding of the sources of political capital.

Mapping the political terrain

To address these challenges, we need to chart the political terrain, which includes four
metaphoric domains: the weeds, the rocks, the high ground, and the woods. Each has different
rules for skillful navigation.

Navigating these domains requires awareness of two important dimensions. First is the level that
political activity takes place. Political dynamics start with the individual player and their political
skills. These can evolve into group-level behaviors. At the other end of this dimension is the
broader context, where politics operates at the organizational level.

The second dimension of the political landscape is the extent to which the source of power is soft
(informal) or hard (formal). Soft power is implicit, making use of influence, relationships, and
norms. Political activity based on hard, formal, or explicit power draws upon role authority,
expertise, directives, and reward/control mechanisms.

These two dimensions of power can provide us with the tools to navigate the four metaphoric
domains.
The Weeds

In this quadrant, personal influence and informal networks rule. I call it the weeds because its
a dynamic that grows naturally, without any maintenance. It can be a good thing. For example,
at one not-for-profit organization, the Secretary General was seriously underperforming, and
sometimes acting unethically, leading staff to worry that theyd lose the support of key donors
and government officials. As a result, an informal group regularly met to cover up his mishandling
of situations. However, the problem became unsustainable and the same group, within the year,
helped to ease him out to protect the organizations reputation. Thus, the development of an
informal coalition saved the organization and political activities, in this case, were a force for
good.
But the weeds, if left unchecked, can also form a dense mat through which nothing else can
grow. In these circumstances, informal networks can be a countervailing force to legitimate
power and the long-term interests of the organization. For instance, they can thwart legitimate
change efforts that are needed to put the organization on a sounder long-term financial footing.

To deal with the weeds, get involved enough to understand the informal networks at play.
Identify the key brokers, as well as the gaps if you can fill the gaps or ally with the brokers,
so that you can increase your own influence. Conversely, if the brokers are doing more harm than
good, you can try to isolate them by developing a counter-narrative and strengthening
connections with other networks.

The Rocks

Power in the rocks rests on individual interactions and formal (or hard) sources of authority
such as title, role, expertise, or access to resources. It might also include political capital that
arises from membership of or strong ties to a high status group such as the finance committee,
a special task force, or the senior management team. I call this the the rocks because rocks can
symbolize a stabilizing foundation that keeps an organization steady in times of crisis. But
conversely, the sharp edges of hard power can wreck a plan.

Consider a mid-sized advertising agency that was implementing a new growth strategy. The
Chairman used his formal power to stop the changes. He would constantly question decisions
agreed with the management team, change his mind from one meeting to the next, stop agreed
allocation of resources to new structures, and take people off the special task forces, without
notification. Here we see the formal use of hard power to satisfy self-interest over the firms
longer-term value.

Navigating the terrain here relies on drawing on formal sources of power, rather than fighting
against them. Your best bet is to redirect the energy of a dysfunctional leader, either through
reasoned argument or by appealing to their interests. For example, in the case of the advertising
company, senior executives used the argument of leaving a legacy to get the Chairman to see
how he was undermining his own and companys long term interests. In fact, it was this sort of
political behavior and misuse of power that inspired Max Weber, a sociologist an early
organizational scholar, to write the classic book Bureaucracy, where he argued that bureaucracy
was the most rational and best way to organize and co-ordinate modern corporations. This leads
us to take the high ground.

The High Ground

The high ground combines formal authority with organizational systems; I use the term to
describe the rules, structures, policy guidelines, and procedures that form the basis of political
activities. The benefits of these rules and procedures are they provide a check against the whims
of individual level, charismatic or autocratic individuals. Thus, the high ground provides guide
rails for the rocks. Its a functional political. process that uses structures of control systems,
incentives, and sanctions that keep the organization in compliance. However, as many executive
know, rules and procedures can also lead to the company becoming overly bureaucratic, where
rules are used as a political device to challenge interests not aligned with the bureaucrats, or to
prevent innovation and change.

If you find yourself stranded on the high ground, take a lesson from one company that used
feedback from clients, customers, and end-users to highlight difficulties and make the case that
the current structure was constraining the organization. Since organizations where the high
ground is a problem tend to be risk-averse, you can also try emphasizing that not changing can
be even riskier than trying something new.

You can also argue that a separate group or task force needs to be set up to examine an issue or
bridge silos. It creates a working space outside of the mainstream structures, norms, and habitual
routines of the organization, providing an alternate source of power. Such groups can also
revitalize innovation and change.

For instance, a public agency was having problems collecting revenues because the structures
were slow and had to follow formalized steps to stop potential fraud. It meant that millions of
tax revenues were not collected at the end of the year. Senior leaders decided to set up a
dedicated task force outside of the formal organizational structure to solve the problem. After
the first year, they had reduced the problem by over 50% and reached an 95% recovery rate by
the second year. The organization then changed its official processes to match these improved
methods. Other well-known examples of similar methods include the changes at Nissan, pilot
projects at Asda, and companies opening up Innovation Labs in Palo Alto to remove the barriers
of bureaucracy.

The Woods

In addition to their formal processes and guidelines, organizations also have implicit norms,
hidden assumptions, and unspoken routines and thats where we get into the woods. The
woods can provide cover and safety for people in your organization; or they can be a bewildering
place where good ideas and necessary changes get lost. Thus, here it is important to understand
the woods from the trees as you can miss the former if you focus on the symptoms rather than
the hidden barriers to strategy execution.

Strong implicit norms can define what is even discussable. In some organizations, for example,
displays of emotion may be seen as socially undesirable, and so the organization finds ways to
marginalize, ignore, or reframe any emotions that are shown. In other organizations, the display
of certain emotions are essentially mandatory think of the smiling flight attendant.

Some organizations get lost in their woods. They focus on the presenting issue rather than the
unspoken ecosystem of habits and practices that remain unseen. The challenge here is to make
the implicit explicit. Ask the stupid question, bringing implicit organizational routines and
behaviors to the surface. Ask clients, recent hires, or temporary contractors about their
observations and experience of how the company works; a fresh pair eyes will often identify
things that incumbents are blind to seeing. Get benchmark information from surveys and
specialist experts. Once the implicit assumptions are out in the open, ask your team to reflect on
whether theyre helping your company or hindering it.

For example, consulting to a newly merged, international telecoms company, we conducted a

Understanding the political terrain can help executives fight dysfunctional politics. But its also
important to recognize that each landscape also contains positive dynamics. In either case, try to
understand the drivers rather than just judge the behaviors. Project leaders who do can avoid
the hidden traps of political dynamics, defend themselves against the dark side of politics, and
use what they know to support wider organizational goals will find it easier and get more skilled
engaging in positive political behaviors at all levels of the organization.