Ten days ago, I related to a lack of systematic initiation into organizational politics, resulting in talented and motivated people losing out to folks with more political acumen.

To put this issue in focus,I began a series of five short posts illustrating how to initiate managers for more political awareness in the post 2008 zoo.

The goal of these posts is not to prescribe behaviour, rather to illustrate a gamut of frequently observed political behaviours, both positive and negative. It is my belief that in the same way that young kids should not learn sex from watching porn stars, neither should young managers learn organizational politics by being screwed, or by listening to some idealistic consultant or coach describe organizational life as it “should” be.

This is my 4th post (of 5) in the series, and I will relate to the issue of Performance Evaluation. (PE)

1) Overtly, performance evaluation is a tool to provide feedback to staff, create a dialogue about strengths, weakness, set goals. as well as provide a context for rewards or the lack thereof. Nevertheless, market forces ant not NOT PE set the context for rewards.

2) The entire PE process has a political dimension which has little to do with its overt goals.

3) The PE process is generally controlled by HR; it is one of the very few processes which they control end to end, and thus, PE is administered with orthodoxy. The degree to which performance evaluation is administered is often seen as a sign of loyalty to HR (and the regime).

4) There are 3 versions to each Performance Evaluation. The first is what you write down on the PE form; the second is what you say to the employee; the third is what you think to yourself. There is not a lot in common between the 3 versions. 

Example: you have a lazy employee with knowledge in a legacy product that no one understands anymore. If he leaves, there is a huge gap. If he stays, you need to put up with a lot of crap. So, you think to yourself “I’m trapped”. How to exit the the trap? Write a glowing  and stellar review, and tell the employee that he is fine, with a few minor “buts.” …and think to yourself what a comedy the PE process is.

5) Each organization plays games around PE.

• Some merely fill out the form and make nothing of it.
• Others use it as a platform to kowtow to HR.Y
• Yet others subvert the system.

Before doing PE, learn what game is played and how to play it. It can be a benign game when played well, and dangerous when you do not understand the rules.

6) Never ever take PE at face value nor too seriously. There is no set of relationships, at work, with kids, or with friends, which can weather a “full review” of the state of the relationship in 30 minutes. The world of relationships is not made that way.

In my next to last post, I related to a lack of systematic initiation into organizational politics, resulting in talented and motivated people losing out to folks with more political acumen.

Yesterday, I began the first of five short posts illustrating how to initiate managers for more political awareness in the post 2008 zoo. The goal of these post is not to prescribe behaviour, rather to illustrate a gamut of frequently observed political behaviours, both positive and negative. It is my belief that in the same way that young kids should not learn sex from watching porn stars, neither should young managers  learn organizational politics by being screwed, or by listening to some idealistic consultant or coach describe organizational life as it “should” be.

The first example was related to a project manager named Ted in a company called 3Q. In the next four posts, I will provide illustrative examples about how managers can be politically sensitized. Today we will look a a few particularly Machiavellian tactics in managing your boss.

• Some people find it useful to support their boss at all times, right or wrong. This helps brand an employee as fiercely loyal, which is seen as a distinct advantage in a highly political environment.
• There are  things that your boss may not want to know, because he may feel it may implicate him. For example, if a team needs to work every weekend for the next two months, the boss may resist wanting to know. However, it make make sense in certain cases to push unwanted information to your boss to mitigate the blame than the boss’ subordinate needs to shoulder.
• Over-involving a boss in the level of detail clearly spells out the obstacles that one is facing.  Even though NO is not being said, the expectations of the boss are “managed” more realistically.
• Disagreeing with a boss does not necessarily need to be done directly. Common less confrontive  disagreement tactics are “yes but”, foot dragging and tacit coalition building with other more powerful people who may help.
• Often, extremely unpopular bosses get screwed because their bitter employees merely carry out instructions. This is both a legitimate and  powerful political tactic.

You can follow me @AllonShevat

In my last post, I related to a lack of systematic initiation into organizational politics, resulting in talented and motivated people losing out to folks with more political acumen.

In the next five posts, I will provide illustrative examples about how managers can be politically sensitized to improve their chances of survival in the post 2008 zoo.

The first example will relate to a project manager named Ted in a company called 3Q.

3Q promises an upgrade to all its key products every three quarters; although 3Q never delivers as promised, 3Q is performing much better than its competitors.

Employee satisfaction at 3Q is very low; he atmosphere is aggressive; yet 3Q rarely fires employees and pays fairly well. Project managers have a yearly churn rate of 20% worldwide.

Ted comes from the military, where he was educated in rigorous and disciplined project management. For Ted, a commitment is a commitment is a commitment. The work at 3Q is Ted’s first exposure to project management in a non military environment.

Ted has 5 choices to manage the ludicrous commitments which have been rammed down his throat:

1) As he did in the military, in which case he will branded as a naysayer and pushed out of strategic projects.

2) Ted can agree to all commitments forced down his throat, and wait till someone else does not deliver a component  to him, and then “pass the blame”.

3) Ted can mask risks in ambiguity, so that what he says can be understood several ways. Eg, “while the goals appear aggressive, effective risk mitigation has been put in place to secure the needed focus etc.”.

4) As delivery deadlines approaches, Ted can start to very slowly expose delays and problems when he smells organizational “readiness” for more transparency,he can then ask for more time in exchange for future functionality.

5) Ted can over consult his boss or flood his boss with details,  until Ted’s boss is forced to attitudinally align with the commitment sham.

Ted chose to tell it as it is, military style; “I want to be a straight shooter; we need 5 quarters for this project”, said silly Ted. Ted was assigned to managing a minor project in supply chain, and  he left the company after 6 months.

You can follow me @AllonShevat

The ways and means that managers learn about organizational politics today reminds me of sex education in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.

All my friends thought my Dad was a liberal when he gave me a Playboy magazine to “catch up” on what was not covered in the biology class in the Protestant school I attended. (Jews were then sent to Protestant or Catholic schools in Quebec). My friend’s dad  was “more radical”; he gave my buddy  $20 and told him to go down to St Lawrence Boulevard on Saturday night “to become a man”.

This archaic mode of sex education is akin to the way managers are  introduced to organizational politics nowadays . By organizational politics, I am referring to legitimate and dirty influence peddling.  Managers either get no political training, or they are taught about all about how organizations should behave!

Political skills have always been important to success, and political astuteness and flexibility are even more important since 2008, with fewer jobs are available to fewer people. Political skills in some organizations are far more important than professional knowledge/skills. The higher the rung on the ladder, the more important having these political  skills becomes. Often one looks at the top and we ask, “how did s/he get there?” Political skills are often the answer. And you may never see the top without political savvy.

By political savvy I am not merely relating to Kipnis and Pois (and others) influencing strategies. These influencing strategies are but one very small part of a whole gamut of skills which constitute political astuteness and flexibility.

Political skills include influencing strategy, communication, self promotion, coalition building, badmouthing, discrediting, word- smithing, over/under promising, social media know-how, reputation management, networking etc..

Organizational politics is not “going down to St Lawrence Blvd to get laid!” Too many bright and talented managers are pushed aside due to the lack of learn-able political skills.

I enjoy the work I do coaching managers on organizational politics and there is immediate transfer of training.

You can follow me @AllonShevat