If you're still interested, here's the summary from the top of the article:
Office politics aren’t something you can sit out. Most people look down upon them, but the truth is, they are a part of every organization.
Office politics are about relationship currency and influence capital — and the power these two things give you or don’t give you. The myth that “office politics” are always unethical or evil need to be debunked.
Start by reframing what office politics mean. Do you see informal conversations as “lobbying” (with all the negative connotations this generally carries) or do you see them as “doing important homework”?
Focus your time and energy on understanding what kind of political environment your organization has, the degree to which it suits your personal political style, and how you are going to be most effective in it.
Realize that focusing only on your performance is very unlikely to get you the success you’re aiming for — be it a bonus, promotion, or recognition from senior executives. However, investing time in your networks and building the connections that can speak for you and your work will.
When viewed from the perspective the author is promoting, wouldn't "sitting out" really just be "not playing the game very well"? I have to say I largely agree with him in this aspect. Unless your self-employeed or work in a very small, extremely tight-knit team, I find it hard to believe you entirely avoid office politics. I say this because while from your perspective, you might be a nonparticipant, from the perspective of your peers who do partake in it, you're just not playing the game very well. They might see your inaction and instead feel that it's a lack of social skill, that you lack passion or concern regarding your work, or that your simply unpleasant to be around.
I'm not saying that any of these are the case in your situation. I just beleive the author is on to something here, and that by human nature, all of our social interactions are rooted in personal politics on an indiviudal level (i.e. separate from one's standing on government politics).
Depending on the circumstances, individual contributors that are good enough can often set their own personal requirements and get them.
Setting your own expectations and requiring that they be met isn't playing politics, it's just setting the terms of your employment that you require from your employer.
When working for others I'd rather flog myself and deliver bottom line excellence than have to cow tow to some low level managers whims or plans for promotion.
I remember a 10x engineer friend of mine (a better engineer and generally smarter person than myself) who when he was younger, on the first day of a new job was gotten onto by some HR exec about how he used the elevator, it was something boring, insignificant and not even wrong (so insignificant I can no longer remember the details) that he was "corrected" on, and in that moment he realized he could ignore HR on almost anything, they weren't going to fire him for some perceived, undocumented, etiquette breach, he's a high value employee.
The other scenario is the person "sitting it out" is being viewed as an ally/play piece of someone else who IS playing the game. Other people may even be saying they represent your interests in the games they are playing because you aren't speaking up for yourself.
If you aren't using your political capital, other people will use it for you.
How often have you heard "X person agrees with me about this" at the office?
Those who don't do politics can still have politics done to them. If you've never been in places where that happened to you, that's wonderful, but it's not something you can count on being true for your whole career.
On the other hand, a place where politics is not done to you is probably a healthier place, so if that's your current situation, consider well before you move on to another job.
I don't think this is useful for most employees. The writer has the perspective of an executive - someone making the decisions. Politics at that level is high stakes and about managing relationships. In my experience, politics get more toxic as the stakes are lowered. A small startup deciding what feature to prioritize next quarter is a political discussion, but everyone involved has skin in the game.
No, politics is toxic and bad when it comes to decisions that are low stakes for the company as whole, but have major implications for individuals who don't have much input into the decisions. Seating charts are incredibly political and toxic for precisely this reason. They're usually determined by middle managers, have little impact on the company's bottom line, but have a huge impact on the people who have to sit in the chairs. Not getting the window seat you wanted, or being put next to the person who eats fish at their desk for lunch once a week is going to majorly impact your day-to-day. If someone gets a good seat because they're sucking up to the manager while someone else is getting work done and gets a crappy desk assignment, it feels political and unfair.
What I took away from the article: The behavior you're describing comes naturally to humans by our nature. We are an individualistic species and in most cases, we work towards things that will better our own situation or benefit ourselves in some way. Generally speaking, we (as humans) don't focus on fairness. I agree with you that low stakes decisions like seating charts being decided by personal bias that's influenced by office politics isnt' ideal, but that is the current situation. I also don't think that we're going to be changing this any time soon. If we can't even make large scale changes in society's thinking on things like racism, how will we go about fixing even more basic social interactions like this?
I don't think it's easily fixable, but I don't think the author's advice to embrace office politics is very good advice for most people, because it isn't easily fixable, and if you're low on the org chart and don't have much influence, the primary kind of politics you can reasonably engage in is at that level.
One fix for the seating chart problem is to do away with seating charts - give everyone a laptop and equip all the desks with identical equipment, and let people sit where they want. This has costs and other downsides, but seating chart politics isn't a problem anymore. But if you're someone who has an assigned seat, you don't even have access to the political relationships to advocate for that change, so your only options are to A) not play politics and roll the dice, or B) find out how to make the people who determine seating charts like you. The only available politics in this situation are toxic politics, so "embrace politics" is inherently toxic advice.
Opting out of the politics game is a rational option for the many people who just want to get their work done and go home.
This is useful to all employees. But you don't have to take my word for it. In fact, it's better that you don't. That makes it a much easier game for me to play.
12 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 36.1 ms ] threadOffice politics aren’t something you can sit out. Most people look down upon them, but the truth is, they are a part of every organization.
I'm not saying that any of these are the case in your situation. I just beleive the author is on to something here, and that by human nature, all of our social interactions are rooted in personal politics on an indiviudal level (i.e. separate from one's standing on government politics).
Setting your own expectations and requiring that they be met isn't playing politics, it's just setting the terms of your employment that you require from your employer.
When working for others I'd rather flog myself and deliver bottom line excellence than have to cow tow to some low level managers whims or plans for promotion.
I remember a 10x engineer friend of mine (a better engineer and generally smarter person than myself) who when he was younger, on the first day of a new job was gotten onto by some HR exec about how he used the elevator, it was something boring, insignificant and not even wrong (so insignificant I can no longer remember the details) that he was "corrected" on, and in that moment he realized he could ignore HR on almost anything, they weren't going to fire him for some perceived, undocumented, etiquette breach, he's a high value employee.
If you aren't using your political capital, other people will use it for you.
How often have you heard "X person agrees with me about this" at the office?
On the other hand, a place where politics is not done to you is probably a healthier place, so if that's your current situation, consider well before you move on to another job.
No, politics is toxic and bad when it comes to decisions that are low stakes for the company as whole, but have major implications for individuals who don't have much input into the decisions. Seating charts are incredibly political and toxic for precisely this reason. They're usually determined by middle managers, have little impact on the company's bottom line, but have a huge impact on the people who have to sit in the chairs. Not getting the window seat you wanted, or being put next to the person who eats fish at their desk for lunch once a week is going to majorly impact your day-to-day. If someone gets a good seat because they're sucking up to the manager while someone else is getting work done and gets a crappy desk assignment, it feels political and unfair.
What I took away from the article: The behavior you're describing comes naturally to humans by our nature. We are an individualistic species and in most cases, we work towards things that will better our own situation or benefit ourselves in some way. Generally speaking, we (as humans) don't focus on fairness. I agree with you that low stakes decisions like seating charts being decided by personal bias that's influenced by office politics isnt' ideal, but that is the current situation. I also don't think that we're going to be changing this any time soon. If we can't even make large scale changes in society's thinking on things like racism, how will we go about fixing even more basic social interactions like this?
One fix for the seating chart problem is to do away with seating charts - give everyone a laptop and equip all the desks with identical equipment, and let people sit where they want. This has costs and other downsides, but seating chart politics isn't a problem anymore. But if you're someone who has an assigned seat, you don't even have access to the political relationships to advocate for that change, so your only options are to A) not play politics and roll the dice, or B) find out how to make the people who determine seating charts like you. The only available politics in this situation are toxic politics, so "embrace politics" is inherently toxic advice.
Opting out of the politics game is a rational option for the many people who just want to get their work done and go home.