Healthy v.s. Unhealthy Organizational Politics
But what are "politics", really?
“Most of the issues you see at a workplace, such as politics, misalignment, dissatisfaction, and so on, can boil down to communication issues.”
When a mentor said this to me earlier this year, it really shifted my perspective on workplace politics from the nasty, frown-upon “games” to the practical art of communication.
See, growing up in Taiwan, TV news often broadcasted politicians fighting, pulling one another’s hair, and ripping people’s clothes during important meetings. Instead of facilitating healthy debates to decide on critical matters for the general public, politicians customized banners/signs to ridicule and belittle opponents. “Politics are jokes.” I thought to myself.
Then, in high school, my homeroom teacher, who teaches history classes and used to work as a parliament employee, spilled the tea to us: those politicians who fight one another so fiercely on television would smile and shake hands and go get dinner and drinks together after the meetings. “Don’t believe what you see. It’s all for the ‘show’”.
That was the first revelation, politics are shows.
My first few memories of workplace politics came from my father. He was promoted to the head of the department in the hospital where he worked but chose to resign and went back to being an attending physician because “media would cut/stitch his words from the interview to give out false information” and “the hospital politics.” Years later, he left the hospital altogether and started his own practice with more freedom.
I should’ve asked him more about his experience, but it seemed to be pretty traumatic so I never gathered the courage to ask. (He has a difficult life with his physical disabilities and all sorts of discrimination from that)
Witnessing his trajectory, I was 75% convinced that workplace politics are probably as bad as politics, and the best way to avoid it is to go solo, or be a lone wolf.
When discussing future jobs in college, people often compare corporate and startup jobs. There are a lot of saying about how being in a startup or a small team has the advantage of not needing to deal with politics. And this saying is often backed by coffee chats with people who are working. How do you know?
After college, my first few jobs were mostly in a small company/team setting. After a while, I became skeptical. Are you sure there are no or fewer politics to deal with in smaller teams/companies?
If you observe closer, there are always some dynamics flowing inside the team, other teams, and the entire organization that intertwine across different teams and people. If you’re sensitive and observant enough, you can even spot whom the CEO likes more or less via eye contact and body language. (Maybe one of the pros of working in the office)
As naive as I could be, I looked up to and mimicked someone, who was hard-working and kind and refused to play the politics game, as a role model in getting things done without playing the game. It turned out to be a disaster, not just for themselves, but also for the entire team.
Similar to “if you don’t make the decision, someone/something else will make the decision for you”. If you are in the arena and refuse to play the game, you will be played by those who know how to play and/or exploit the game.
“Redefine” Workplace Politics
2023 has been huge for me as I started my first so-called corporate job. A lot of observing, asking, learning, thinking, experimenting, communicating, and repeating all of these. This opportunity allows me to (finally) compare the small co v.s. big co politics, based on what I’ve seen and learned.
(I’m truly grateful for the mentorship programs available and a safe space to ask tons of questions that might seem “inappropriate” in a corporate setting. Especially the quote at the beginning.)
Wikipedia’s definition of organizational politics:
Organizational politics are self-serving behaviors" that "employees use to increase the probability of obtaining positive outcomes in organizations
Putting healthy/unhealthy aside, my new definition of politics is:
A process of achieving one’s goal via identifying the key resources and their distribution decision-makers; identifying the goals and risk factors for those decision-makers; communicating how achieving your goal can help them achieve their goals and prevent/mediate the risk factors; obtaining the key resources and executing.
👆 This new definition might sound easy and neutral, but in reality, it can be more complicated than matted fur, and human factors would push it into a healthy or unhealthy state.
Unhealthy Ones
I can go on and on about how dichotomies such as good/bad, right/wrong, healthy/unhealthy, etc, are all created or defined by humans, but you get the idea - when something goes above or below a certain threshold, it could cause more harm than good or tip the balance between harm/benefit.
Many things can contribute to unhealthy workplace politics, to name a few:
Toxic company culture. E.g. hostile environments, micromanagement, …
Lack of autonomy due to lack of trust due to lack of alignment due to…
Ill-designed incentive structures that result in unhealthy internal competition
Unclear company mission/value so that most people choose to optimize self-benefits (e.g., resume-building, promotions, bonuses,…)
Tolerating “bad players” who pose negative impacts on others
Common unhealthy political behaviors:
Manipulation via gaslighting, reporting only good news, hiding issues, etc
Deceit, cover-up, fake information, rumors, etc
Favoritism: obtaining or giving special treatments
Dodging actual questions/problems so that “things look good”
Harassment, coercion, bribe, blame games, etc
There are so many disheartening workplace stories out there that’ll make you cringe. It is possible, with deliberate design and (lots of) efforts, that politics can be neutral (or even healthy).
Healthy Ones
The bar might be lower - non-toxic, neutral politics can be seen as healthy ones, and they usually have the following characteristics:
Behaviors are bounded by respect, kindness, or simply decency as defined by the professionalism/culture
People focus the conversations on the matters, not on other people (healthy debates with facts, instead of emotion)
Safe environments where open discussions, questions, different opinions, etc, are welcomed and encouraged
Transparency that facilitates better alignment among different groups/people
A culture of sharing information and helping one another - this is different from transparency because as a company grows bigger, pieces of information and access to them can become scattered and vague. This culture is vital in improving transparency circulation
Free of (or minimal) fear or a certain threshold of trust; for example, your manager is not afraid of you having skip-level one-on-one with their manager or anyone on a different team/level. Fear can grow into something toxic and painful that quickly infests many people and areas
Assumptions (we all make them) are held back so that they don’t interfere with progress, or are explicitly communicated/tested to improve the potential outcome
and more…
You don’t have to love it, but…
Well, some people love politics and enjoy the process and/or the “trophy”. Some people hate it to guts, some are indifferent, some have vague ideas about it, and some are not aware of it.
No matter how you feel or what you know about it, there are 3 inevitable factors for you to consider:
1. It is simply 99% inevitable.
Unless you live in a remote area where you grow your own foods and make your own goods to be fully self-sustained without ever needing to be in contact with anyone to have trades or communications (but even this, you’re still bound by the government or certain constraints by your citizenship or kinship), you are already IN the arena (society). And you will be forced into more arenas as long as you join a circle with more than 2 people and that circle has at least 1 overlapping with other circles.
2. You have to make at least 1 decision
There will always be good/bad players and healthy/unhealthy politics, even if you choose to go solo, like opening up your own practice. You’ll face competition. You’ll need to deal with local governments, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, clients, and so on. Or even dealing with the police department because your neighbor has too much free time and keeps filing false reports on you.
Since it is inevitable, you have to choose: exercise your rights to play or forfeit your rights?
3. More decisions to make when choosing either path
Some are applicable to either path, some are specific to one:
How and where can you learn more about such politics?
How to be a good player?
How to spot a bad player?
How to protect yourself from bad players’ exploitation?
How do you strike a balance between your personal values and the values surrounding politics?
When is it too much for unhealthy politics such that you should change the environment instead of changing yourself or the people around you?
How do we contribute to healthy politics?
What are the consequences of forfeiting your rights to play?
How can we improve our communication skills?
How do we improve our ability to identify key resources and decision-makers more efficiently?
How to uncover hidden messages from others?
How do we predict and verify their next movements, goals, etc?
many more…
Thanks for reading thus far!
It’s been an interesting learning journey this year, and it's quite fun to look back and stitch together the stories and experiences. It’s a never-ending learning journey (and a craft of skills including communication, strategy, emotional intelligence, etc.), and I’m looking forward to learning more.
Please feel free to reach out via LinkedIn or comment and let me know what you think :)
Happy Early Holidays and wish you and your loved ones all the best in 2024 ❤️