More on Politics and Culture

Jason-

Hmmm. I am still not sure if this is primarily a difference rooted in how we define politics or if there is something larger here. I agree that politics are a component or an element of an organizations culture, but I do not think that politics are a necessary component and I do not think that politics is a positive component. I totally agree that you can use politics to accomplish positive things, but that does not make politics a positive thing or even a necessary evil. We make choices that allow politics to flourish and drive behavior in our organizations,or we make choices to keep politics in check.

In my opinion, the more politics exist in an organization the less honesty there is. I see organizational politics existing (in the place of honesty) in order to protect the distribution of power in an organization. In most organizations the top-down organizational structure concentrates all power at the top and creates a false ideal of perfection rooted in proximity to the top of the heap. People are right based on who they are (title), rather than on the value of their ideas or decisions or their competency...the degree to which this is true can vary greatly from organization to another. Never a good thing.

For example, there are employees today in your organization that will not question or challenge your decisions because of your title. That may not have anything to do with you or your behaviors, but is likely about the amount and nature of politics that exist in your organization. So, rather than question or challenge you on a decision or an idea that might be really misinformed, employees with better ideas have to find political ways to maneuver you toward the right line of thinking. You may eventually end up with the best outcome, but there has been a real waste of energy and effort...because of politics. Everyone involved (and the organization) would have been better off with honesty and transparency, rather than the political approach.

I think that politics are a naturally occurring phenomenon that emerge from culture, but that does not mean that politics are good or that we should just accept them. The more politics we accept the less we are comfortable with honesty...that is why this issue is so strongly correlated with the leadership in an organization because it is the leaders that decide how much honesty is acceptable. The gaps are filled in with politics.

Organizations that understand and value shared and distributed power, that understand and value innovation and engagement, that are inclusive and truly in partnership with their workforce and the customers also treasure honesty. It is in those organizations that you will find the least amount of politics.

-joe

More on leading and following, etc.

Jason-

I agree with your thoughts on this and especially the idea that we assume a lot of things about where people are at on self-management, etc. I also like the three foundational areas you have staked out, but I wonder if there is one missing. I am not even sure what to call it, but in my mind it is the difference between an ideological approach to management/leadership and an evidence based approach to management/leadership.

I think that a lot of decisions that we make as leaders are based on some of the bedrock beliefs and assumptions that we have about people and about human nature. And because so many of our decisions are framed by these beliefs I think it is worth including this (whatever it should be called) with your three core areas of focus.

Take human resources for example.

We do a lot of work with HR leaders, and interact with HR leaders in various industries, and geographies with different expertise and levels of experience. And I know that for me personally, as I interact with someone and discuss a specific issue, there are times when it becomes very clear to both me and the person I am talking with, that we have very different perspectives on people in general, which gives us a very different perspective on our work and on the issue at hand.

Some human resource professionals and some business managers see people as commodities that are largely interchangeable. Some leaders see people as lazy and self-interested, so they need to be coerced and closely monitored. Some leaders see people as one of a kind masterpieces with untapped and unlimited potential.

Regardless of what we believe to be the right or wrong perspective, I think that these underlying beliefs are a big piece of the puzzle and I wonder if this might also be an opportunity for us to improve how we engage and develop ourselves, our peers and emerging leaders?

-joe