Office Politics
This is a magazine article I wrote
What is office politics?
Office politics is the combined result of an artificial segregation among groups of people and the gratification one sub-group gets from dehumanising another. In other words, it is a human-initiated delineation of “us versus them”, usually within a generally homogeneous cohort of people, and the self-correctness hence derived from undermining the actions or inactions of “others”.
Gossip as a medium
Gossip is the medium where office politics flourishes. Small minds talk people, and from these people talks, minor or pseudo-differences are enlarged. Coupled with cliquing, people take sides and polarities are formed.
Common causes
While most displeasure starts with a cause, office politics does not necessarily need a strong and proven cause to get started. The weakest of causes could set ablaze the whole grapevine. Below are some common causes:
(1) Personality clashes. This is a common sight in the office, especially among two or more executives similar in pay grades. The unspoken competition for one party to be taken seriously in company decisions may land two or more parties in personality clashes, especially when their perspectives towards similar objectives are different. Others may take sides and battles are waged from within.
(2) I-work-harder-than-you mentality. Everyone works hard, but not everyone knows the job scope of another and how hard the other person works. However, when one reaches his work-stress tolerance limit, he would think that he is doing more than others, and he may derive a pessimistic and cynical perception of his colleagues.
(3) One-upmanship. Some individuals enjoy showing off their achievements to fulfill their superior complex. They are haughty and pompous and risk annoying others. Nobody likes boastful colleagues. As a result, ostracism happens.
(4) Idea pilferage. Developing on someone else’s ideas and not giving credit to that person is a trigger for future animosity. While the deprived subject may not be vocal in confrontation, he is likely to badmouth the “thief” behind his back.
(5) Bootlicking. This is a common and commonly mistaken phenomenon in any office. Sucking up to bosses and being an obedient subordinate are only a fine line apart; not many others can tell when is which. When this “others” cannot tell, they may start whisper campaigns to degrade the subject.
(6) Good-talker-poor-worker phenomenon. While all top executives are good communicators, not all good communicators are good executives. Those outspoken fellows who do not produce results or whose results are not widely known risk being relegated in trust levels among colleagues. In the process, they would likely suffer further disparage.
(7) Jealousy. As one of the seven mortal sins, people become jealous of others for a cause, for a perceived cause, or even, for no cause. Some people, especially those with inferior complex, who have high desires simply become jealous over anything that they do not already have. It is not difficult to think that these small minds spin unfounded tales about others and form their allies of the equally puny-minded to manifest more untruths.
(8) Power shifts. This is one of the governing reasons why many top executives who had been posted elsewhere sometimes become nasty to their colleagues. They fail to realise that working in a new environment requires adjustments. These top executives’ discomfort in getting an understated preferential treatment derives by-actions like their nasty behaviour, their lack of reasons when they reprimand their subordinates, short temper etc. Combined, they make him Office Enemy No. 1, and this opens a new chapter in office politics.
Common types of domain
Causes alone cannot fuel the office politics fire. To grow from strength to strength, it needs perpetrators in the form of cliques. Some of the common clique types are:
(1) Common habits. Colleagues who share common habits usually clique well. They form sub-groups that may downplay others who are not in. For example, smokers bond themselves with one another and may be involved in small talks that discredit certain personalities in the same office.
(2) Proximity and identity. Colleagues who work near or together with one another would derive a sense of identity and may deprecate others who are further away. For example, sales team members located in the same section may not see eye to eye with another team located elsewhere within the same company. Their proximity with one another had enforced their sense of common identity as a team, and when results and reputation are at stake, they become susceptible in condemning the other teams.
(3) Innate similarities. A typical example for this cause would be the man-versus-woman phenomenon, especially when many men are working under a woman-dominant management. The gender division would be widened beyond just the anatomical and emotional differences to include artificially constructed beliefs like, “Ms A has been sleeping with the CEO to stay in her position”, “I think her husband does not satisfy her at night” and ilks.
How to control office politics?
Office politics cannot be eliminated, but it can be kept well under control. It cannot be eliminated because cliquing as a factor cannot be prevented. The only other way would be to minimise the severity from potential causes. To keep these causes at low levels, the management would have to define job scopes in detail and to personalise its management style amid two higher-order prerequisites.
Defining jobscope in details prevents personality clashes, I-work-harder-than-you mentality, good-talker-poor-worker phenomenon, and to a certain extent, it mitigates jealousy and adjustments to power shifts. With job clarity, everyone knows everyone’s roles in details and when grey areas surface, they can be addressed immediately to avoid undue friction.
Combined with a personalised management style that opens hearts and encourages colleagues to speak their minds, the nuances of human relations (one-upmanship, idea pilferage, bootlicking) can be prevented from worsening pronto.
However, the difficulties the management has to face are how to consciously ensure everyone is clear and happy with what other colleagues are doing, and how personalised must it get to open hearts so as to hear inner voices. These would require two higher-order prerequisites that cannot be exemplified by mere text. They are emotional intelligence and understanding of group dynamics.
Office politics is the combined result of an artificial segregation among groups of people and the gratification one sub-group gets from dehumanising another. In other words, it is a human-initiated delineation of “us versus them”, usually within a generally homogeneous cohort of people, and the self-correctness hence derived from undermining the actions or inactions of “others”.
Gossip as a medium
Gossip is the medium where office politics flourishes. Small minds talk people, and from these people talks, minor or pseudo-differences are enlarged. Coupled with cliquing, people take sides and polarities are formed.
Common causes
While most displeasure starts with a cause, office politics does not necessarily need a strong and proven cause to get started. The weakest of causes could set ablaze the whole grapevine. Below are some common causes:
(1) Personality clashes. This is a common sight in the office, especially among two or more executives similar in pay grades. The unspoken competition for one party to be taken seriously in company decisions may land two or more parties in personality clashes, especially when their perspectives towards similar objectives are different. Others may take sides and battles are waged from within.
(2) I-work-harder-than-you mentality. Everyone works hard, but not everyone knows the job scope of another and how hard the other person works. However, when one reaches his work-stress tolerance limit, he would think that he is doing more than others, and he may derive a pessimistic and cynical perception of his colleagues.
(3) One-upmanship. Some individuals enjoy showing off their achievements to fulfill their superior complex. They are haughty and pompous and risk annoying others. Nobody likes boastful colleagues. As a result, ostracism happens.
(4) Idea pilferage. Developing on someone else’s ideas and not giving credit to that person is a trigger for future animosity. While the deprived subject may not be vocal in confrontation, he is likely to badmouth the “thief” behind his back.
(5) Bootlicking. This is a common and commonly mistaken phenomenon in any office. Sucking up to bosses and being an obedient subordinate are only a fine line apart; not many others can tell when is which. When this “others” cannot tell, they may start whisper campaigns to degrade the subject.
(6) Good-talker-poor-worker phenomenon. While all top executives are good communicators, not all good communicators are good executives. Those outspoken fellows who do not produce results or whose results are not widely known risk being relegated in trust levels among colleagues. In the process, they would likely suffer further disparage.
(7) Jealousy. As one of the seven mortal sins, people become jealous of others for a cause, for a perceived cause, or even, for no cause. Some people, especially those with inferior complex, who have high desires simply become jealous over anything that they do not already have. It is not difficult to think that these small minds spin unfounded tales about others and form their allies of the equally puny-minded to manifest more untruths.
(8) Power shifts. This is one of the governing reasons why many top executives who had been posted elsewhere sometimes become nasty to their colleagues. They fail to realise that working in a new environment requires adjustments. These top executives’ discomfort in getting an understated preferential treatment derives by-actions like their nasty behaviour, their lack of reasons when they reprimand their subordinates, short temper etc. Combined, they make him Office Enemy No. 1, and this opens a new chapter in office politics.
Common types of domain
Causes alone cannot fuel the office politics fire. To grow from strength to strength, it needs perpetrators in the form of cliques. Some of the common clique types are:
(1) Common habits. Colleagues who share common habits usually clique well. They form sub-groups that may downplay others who are not in. For example, smokers bond themselves with one another and may be involved in small talks that discredit certain personalities in the same office.
(2) Proximity and identity. Colleagues who work near or together with one another would derive a sense of identity and may deprecate others who are further away. For example, sales team members located in the same section may not see eye to eye with another team located elsewhere within the same company. Their proximity with one another had enforced their sense of common identity as a team, and when results and reputation are at stake, they become susceptible in condemning the other teams.
(3) Innate similarities. A typical example for this cause would be the man-versus-woman phenomenon, especially when many men are working under a woman-dominant management. The gender division would be widened beyond just the anatomical and emotional differences to include artificially constructed beliefs like, “Ms A has been sleeping with the CEO to stay in her position”, “I think her husband does not satisfy her at night” and ilks.
How to control office politics?
Office politics cannot be eliminated, but it can be kept well under control. It cannot be eliminated because cliquing as a factor cannot be prevented. The only other way would be to minimise the severity from potential causes. To keep these causes at low levels, the management would have to define job scopes in detail and to personalise its management style amid two higher-order prerequisites.
Defining jobscope in details prevents personality clashes, I-work-harder-than-you mentality, good-talker-poor-worker phenomenon, and to a certain extent, it mitigates jealousy and adjustments to power shifts. With job clarity, everyone knows everyone’s roles in details and when grey areas surface, they can be addressed immediately to avoid undue friction.
Combined with a personalised management style that opens hearts and encourages colleagues to speak their minds, the nuances of human relations (one-upmanship, idea pilferage, bootlicking) can be prevented from worsening pronto.
However, the difficulties the management has to face are how to consciously ensure everyone is clear and happy with what other colleagues are doing, and how personalised must it get to open hearts so as to hear inner voices. These would require two higher-order prerequisites that cannot be exemplified by mere text. They are emotional intelligence and understanding of group dynamics.
