In my view, one of life’s greatest ambitions is to remain authentic. Never underestimate the many circumstances, however, that will challenge your ability to be yourself – particularly early in your career.
Navigating office politics is one of these challenges. It is a high-ranking test of one’s character and belief.
The view of politics from the CEO’s helicopter seat is predictable and vivid. It is much easier to see personal agendas, competition, ‘backstabbing’ (a word I loathe), and false relationships at play amongst those eager to succeed. But for the less seasoned professional, workplace politics can be a costly and demoralising distraction.
So, the earlier you learn how to navigate your surrounds, the quicker the career you deserve begins. It took me longer than it should've to work this out. I incorrectly focused on the moments of politics, not the long term game to benefit my career. I was guilty of being distracted by futile, ‘in the moment’ politics. Don’t let that happen to you.
Be better than me – try these tips:
1) Learn how to influence
Influencing is an invaluable asset of leadership, but it is also complex to attain and wield. At the core of effective influencing is the art of building authentic relationships in your work environment. This involves the simple principle of being genuinely curious about people – for instance, their interests, motivations and ambitions. This curiosity should extend beyond just those that you may directly work with. My effectiveness as an influencer came from building broad and honest relationships across the business. While we didn’t always agree on issues, there was a genuine respect for each other. Legitimately getting to know people will more often than not smoke out disingenuous political agendas.
2) Don’t resent others success
This is a sleeping giant. A really important habit to get into is to play your long game – focus on your career, not that of others. In almost every work environment I have been in, the least gracious people are the most unsuccessful. You must learn to appreciate and acknowledge other’s success. I know that can be tough for highly competitive people, but be generous – people will notice. There is nothing more appealing than the genuine support of colleagues. These moments can change the nature of relationships for the better. It also sends a signal that you are above any petty jealousies.
3) Toughen up
As you know in life and business, things are not always fair and reasonable. As a CEO, I always observe people’s reactions to difficult scenarios, such as missing out on a promotion, dealing with confrontation or personality clashes. This is important because if someone exhibits calm, respectful objectivity in such circumstances, it tells me they are building the maturity for greater success into the future. They are developing objectivity. They are toughening up.
4) Ignore the pack
From the moment you walked into the schoolyard, the challenge to be yourself began. To this day, your perception of yourself is, to some extent, shaped by your experiences with people. In almost every work environment, whether it’s a result of a poor work culture, or the convenience of jumping on the bandwagon of popular opinion, pack mentality exists. The most successful people are able to manage and build relationships with many and varied individuals, without ever being pressured, coerced or influenced to join a destructive pack. Always seek to remain a collaborative individual, rather than a compliant groupie.
5) The long game
Don’t let office politics distract you from the long game. Ultimately, the goal of your long game should revolve around three things. Firstly, take every opportunity to build and maintain relationships across the business. Secondly, expose yourself to a variety of environments both within and outside your place of work (through volunteering, for instance). This will provide you with a greater capacity to work alongside people who face different issues and challenges in their respective roles. Last of all, make it your business to position yourself as the person who will help conclude a difficult project, step in to assist when disagreements arise, or provide a positive perspective when others are no longer capable of doing so. By focusing on these three long game objectives, your context and judgement will continue to improve, and you will further insulate yourself from the petty politician(s).
***
Alex Malley FCPA is the chief executive of CPA Australia and the host of the Nine Network television series The Bottom Line. Alex is also a regular contributor to The Huffington Post and he is a regular business commentator on the nationally syndicated programs The Money News on 2GB and Sky News Business.
Nearly 2 months since my last post? Already? Wow time flies, especially when that time is spent plotting, fighting, manoeuvring in "high" level corporate politics in order to get that promotion you've been eyeing for over a year.
Well did I get it? No. And yes it sucks. But lets try to look at the bright side: within 6 months, I've been taught 2 or 3 MAJOR life lessons. They all hurt, badly, but hey I'm 30, so I'll recover.
Let me very briefly outline them, and maybe I'll post some detailed thoughts on each of them at a later date. Then again, maybe not.
Lesson 1: never, ever, ever trust anybody in the corporate and business world. Every one has an agenda. Of course, a fun part about business is meeting and working with great people with whom you travel, eat well, party, and of course build good business... This obviously builds strong links, which can blurr the lines. Just never forget, no matter how much fun you have and no matter how much great business you build... the simple fact is that your interests vary and everyone has different agendas. Never loose sight of that or you will get burned.
Lesson 2: the corporate world is not a meritocracy. See previous posts. Definitly not.
Lesson 3: power is TAKEN, not given. Do NOT expect to be given anyting, and never rely on "the good judgement" of anyone. TAKE what you want.
I'll end this short entry by copy/pasting this short blog post from Jeffrey Pfeffer that more adequatly sums up my current dark thoughts. The original can be found here.
Take Care of Yourself First 9:31 AM Wednesday July 14, 2010 by Jeffrey Pfeffer
Drafts of my new book on power (and the HBR article drawn from it) provoke strong reactions. One reason is that I show little concern for any aspect of organizational effectiveness. In stark contrast to virtually all of the management literature, I focus on ensuring that people build the insights and skills that will ensure their organizational survival and success.
My perspective is that organizations — which have laid off millions, which have workplaces filled with disengaged and dissatisfied employees, and which regularly, even in partnerships, cast people aside — can (and do) take care of themselves. My point of view is quite consistent with the popular idea of employees as free agents and the evidence on the ever-weakening bonds between people and their employers.
This is not to say that by helping people help themselves I am in any away against organizational effectiveness. A manager's success and the success of her employer are positively related. But let's be clear — this relationship is often small and sometimes absent. In the world of financial services, Stan O'Neal of Merrill Lynch and Frederick Raines of Fannie Mae were just two of many executives who oversaw the downfall of their companies while walking away with many millions of dollars. At lower levels, research shows that salary and job progression depend on educational credentials, years of experience, social similarity, and political skill, not just performance (either individual or organizational). It's not enough to do good work. People who are not politically skilled will be outmaneuvered.
This basic fact of organizational life hit me again just the other day as a woman who had effectively run one of the centers at Stanford Business School for more than a decade sat in my office on the verge of tears. As part of a staff survey, one of her recently-hired subordinates had sabotaged her by questioning her efforts and commitment. The center directors she had served so well — and who, by the way, up until that point had consistently praised her — chose not to get involved. Now she is on her way out, good work, helpful demeanor, and center success notwithstanding.
Should my friend have been caught by surprise? Or should she have been more aware of what her "colleague" might be up to, and how she might protect herself? Focused on getting the work done and confident in its quality, she learned, as many others have, that organizational life is not always fair.
The first and most important message in my course on the "Paths to Power" (pdf) and in the writing I do on that subject is that you need to take care of yourself — and do so by whatever means necessary. Don't rely on the kindness of strangers, much less the unselfish support of colleagues or the good auspices of your employer. You have to fend for yourself, or like my friend and soon-to-be former coworker, you may find yourself in a bad situation.
Jeffrey Pfeffer is the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, where he has taught since 1979. His forthcoming book from HarperBusiness is Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don't.
Mad Men A show based in the early 60s that follows the men who run one of the top advertising agency in New York, Sterling Cooper, located on Madison Avenue (hence "Mad" Men). Great show that provides researched backed insight on the social and cultural aspect of life in NY at that time, the American dream, the WASP way of life and most of all... the birth of modern advertising and marketing. Check out the trailer:
Highly recommended. I consider this show to be up there with The Wire and Sopranos, and therefore it made my top 3 best drama show list.
But i digress...
I wanted to break down a scene from season 2, which I found quite inspirational when I saw it. Now, before I go on, please do not take this post too seriously. I obviously do not turn to HBO or Showtime for career and management advice ok? However sometimes there's some hidden knowledge in good TV, so bear with me.
The following scene takes place right after Sterling Cooper was bought out by a large British corporation. At the table, we have in order of appearance:
- the show's main character, Don, the agency's Creative Director, but also one if not THE pillar of the company thanks to in addition to his creative talents, a keenly developed business sense.
- Duck Phillips, a Business Development expert who arrived in the company a few months back,
- two British guys that represent the buyers,
- the first owner of the NY firm, Mr Cooper, (the oldest dude that has a goatee),
- the second owner of the firm, Roger Sterling (gray hair, no beard).
Now that the characters are set, lets talk context.
Don was, for personal reasons, out of the office for 3 weeks. During these 3 weeks, Duck stealthily and hastily set up a buy-out deal between the interested British corporation (whom he had worked with in the past...) and Sterling Cooper. He sold Roger Sterling on the idea because, well the deal represented mucho dollars, and Sterling being in the middle of an expensive divorce could use the cash to retire to the tropics with his mistress.
If I remember correctly, Duke sold the idea to Cooper by basically telling him the agency would keep its name and independence, and that the British corporation would only be bringing in more resources to help Sterling Cooper continue to grow. Rightly so, Cooper had major doubts, but nearing retirement and after consulting with Sterling, he Okay-ed the deal. Something like that, roughly.
Now enters Don after 3 weeks of absence. First off, he is ultimately pissed off, as his hard work these past years explains the firm's success, he was not consulted and he doesn't believe for a second the British have good and long term intentions. He believes they'll take control of the agency, restructure it and sell it for a profit... while during this process kill its soul and creative expertise.
Furthermore, he has no respect for Duck (and Duck sees Don as his arch enemy): while Don is client and quality oriented, and a creative personality, Duck is purely business and billing oriented, and can't stand the independence, freedom, trust and close connection Don has with the owners. Damn this is so REAL.
So Don comes back, he's pissed, but the deal is already signed by Sterling and Cooper so it's too late for him to change their minds.
The British fly to NY and everyone sits at a table, and this starts the scene we'll discuss.
One last piece of info: I think it's standard practice in these types of company to have them make their employees sign exclusivity and non competition contracts for a certain amount of years. Hence a Creative Artist with such a contract could not legally quit and go work for the competition.
Now lets break the scene down because there's several interesting concepts here. Of course everything below is subject to interpretation but feel free to comment.
1/ First and valid question asked: now that the Brits bought Sterling Cooper, who's gonna run the agency? Ofc everyone already knows the answer, but the question had to be asked. Duck will take over. What a victory for him that must be...
Notice Don stays totally cool, however Duck acts like a douche-bag, acts surprised and "humbly" accepts.
So, IMO, his first mistake of the scene is here. There is very rarely need for theatrics in business. In this case everyone knows he initiated and brokered the deal, everyone knows he was aiming for the CEO job (and he got it)... so why act so douchy? It's going to impact the perception his future top management (the 2 British guys) have of him. He's basically not being straight... and that doesn't instill trust.
Oh and gloating over your victory is never good.
Sterling and Cooper's reactions are priceless. Sterling, a no nonsense guy, just points out all of this is obvious. Cooper, a more subtle guy, extends his "warm" congratulations to Duck. I love the look on his face, it says it all.
2/ Duck fires his first shot at Don Duck then promises to treat the founders of Sterling Cooper with all the respect they deserve... then stares straight at Don... The message here is crystal clear: "Don my boy, you are not a founder, I do no know who you think you are but you do not deserve respect, you are simply a creative and now things are going to change for you...".
3/ The Brits ask Duck to expose his vision regarding the company's future. And Duck blatantly lies. "I find myself a little unprepared here". Yeah, right. He looses credibility by the second in this scene. Once again: no theatrics. Higher ups don't like this.
He then exposes his plan, which ok maybe it makes sense, but his third major mistake here is that he is now obviously, and for everyone to see, attacking Don. The reason this is a mistake is because he ALREADY WON, so why keep on trying to destroy his rival? This continues to reduce his credibility with everyone at the table and makes him look like an ass.
Don ofc, being the cold blooded business man he is, doesn't flinch.
4/ Enters Don. Cooper asks him what he thinks about Duck's strategy And ofc, Don goes the opposite route and takes the high road. As you know now that you saw the scene, he could have bashed Duck without a care in the world, as he is leaving the agency. Instead, he says "I think it sounds like a great agency, and I think Duck is the man to run it".
Boom! That's what we call taking the high road!
"I just dont think I'll be part of it."
BOOM!! Checkmate. And perfect timing!
The deal is signed, the Brits are heavily relying on him (Don is after all the locomotive of the company), they flew over to NY, he waited for Duck and his future bosses to be around the table, he waited for Duck to make an ass of himself and demonstrate to the Brits that well... he'll never be able to manage Don and that their relationship would never work, and now BOOM he tells them he wont work for them. That's basically a fatal blow to Duck.
Now if you can please bear with me while I digress a bit, this brings me back to another lesson a great lawyer tried to teach me just a few months back.
- it's all about timing, he told me. Negotiation, politics and management: it's all about timing. You need to think about all of this as if you were playing chess, and you need to think as many moves ahead as you reasonably can, taking in account the information you have and the information they have.
Now ofc I had heard that kind of advice in the past, but the context I was in made that advice truly sink in. I got to see this guy, a "Don in real life" if you will, negotiate a complex multi-layered deal like a freaking chess player, it was great. And his timing... his timing was insane. He knew what the other party was going to say before they said it, he even BAITED them with assertions and assumptions, knowing full well what was going to be replied, to then fire the hard hitting fact or counterargument... He could also steer the conversation one way, get the guy across the table to say something, to then use it 2 hours later...
You see I'm an impulsive guy, and sad to say I'm more like Duck then Don. When I have ammo, I shoot all of it. When I want to take somebody down, I go all out. Or, more reasonably, when I want to get a point across, I throw all my arguments at the problem at once. And I always have been pretty bad at Chess...
So lately I've been taking the time to PLAN. Plan out my strategies, whether they are business strategies, political strategies or personal development strategies. I try to plan, lay out possible outcomes, prepare etc... And I have to admit it's HARD, because I really need to think and rack my brains. However, when a plan works out... it's the greatest feeling in the world.
Ok, so back to Mad Men.
The Brits are surprised and asks Don to repeat himself, which he does once again. "If this is the agency you want, Duck is the man for the job". Duck then goes on attacking Don and his artistic temperament blablabla...
5/Roger asks Don if this is "really necessary?" And, well... I have to admit this completely goes against my previous point that theatrics are not necessary in business... :P OK you got me... Sometimes they are, but very rarely.
You see, Roger is acting kind of surprised, but both Mr Cooper and Roger are "playing a part": they sold their company for a good sum of money (the deal Duck brokered was good for Sterling Cooper)... and they now intend to as soon as they cash in the check... start a new agency (cf. next season) with Don as a partner.
So yeah, here both Roger Sterling and Mr. Cooper are going to start acting a little bit.
Duck, who still thinks he has the upper hand, goes on bashing Don.
Duck still thinks that for contractual reason, Don will have to give in.. "get with the team" and check his ego at the door.
Duck: Don, you can either honor your contract or either walk out that door with nothing and start selling insurance. [pause. Once again, PERFECT TIMING :D]
Don: I don't have a contract.
BOOM!
And there you have it, the end of Duck. I also love how Roger pipes in: "we're close, we didn't think we needed one" and the look on the Brit's faces. They just realized they lost Don Draper, who was one if not THE MAIN ASSET of the agency.
The rest, Don's speech, is full of finesse while at the same time very very rough. He basically tells them that the meeting is over and he's ready to talk to the Brits on Monday, hence completely pushing aside Duck.
Then Duck blows up and hammers the last nail in his coffin. The "Duck would you excuse us for a minute" is the end of him.
Good stuff.
And to conclude, I think this scene brings up a final very interesting but surprising question. How can a deal so complex and so big go so wrong because of such a lame and stupid oversight? How could Duck not have checked all of the firm's contracts before he got his former employee to buy out Sterling Cooper? How could the Brits not have checked that as well?
Because it's television and they needed a story? Well, not in my humble opinion.
You see, there are huge amounts of very large deals that go wrong all over the world because of sheer stupidity. A leading French pharmaceutical lab had one of his leading brands stolen by one of their OWN INTERNATIONAL PARTNER in a large developing market because... THEY HAD FORGOTTEN TO REGISTER IT. Once the contract was over, the local partner decided to manufacture a similar drug (probably heavily inspired by the original product's formula...) under the French brand's name and is making tons of money off it.
Danone entered into a joint venture with a Chinese Partner in 96 in order to launch their mineral water in China. Basically the partner was going to produce and distribute locally and Danone was going to give them the know-how and technical data to manufacture. During several years, everything was fine but Danone NEVER SENT an expat to China. Not ONE. This is insane. Several years later Danone wakes up and realizes that their partner's CEO set up parallel companies that are exploiting Danone's know how to manufacture mineral water. Boom. Several years later, Danone left the Chinese mineral water market after buying their shares back from the joint venture...
So how does this happen? How do companies staffed by brilliant minds go so wrong? Human nature, that's why. Back to the Duck example. Duck isn't a bad guy, and he's probably super competent at his job. What got to him to make such huge mistakes were according to me "human factors":
- first, he made it personal. Not good. Your brain is not going to be thinking correctly when its overloaded with emotions born from the fact that you made it personal and created your own "arch nemesis". You are going to want to move fast, move aggressively and probably move recklessly.
- second, maybe the stakes were too high for him (I mean he was just about to be promoted to CEO of a leading NY agency... come on :), and he was not able to manage them properly. Hence an abnormal amount of stress and anxiousness, which once again leads to impaired decision making.
And there are probably other possible explanations... but to conclude this post (congratz to those of made it to here), no matter how big a deal is, how big a company is, how high the manager's IQs are... if they do not know how to manage themselves and their personalities... mistakes will be made.
How to do that is a vast and I would say bounder-less topic, but fascinating. For advice, maybe we should ask Don?
PS: watch the scene again. The acting is insanely good.
We discussed a few posts back the importance of networking and playing the "political game" at your job. I would however like to amend those blog entries with an additional thought: you need to understand that if you do NOT play the game, this doesn't simply mean you're outside of the political arena and therefore you are going to miss opportunities, it also means that your IMAGE is going to suffer greatly. Your image is actually going to be impacted negatively by the fact you are not playing the game. People who are in power and people who play the game will label you as somebody who is not outgoing, who is not social, who is withdrawn and introverted...
And that is far from being the traits of a high potential, a manager or a leader.
PS: don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean you need to transform yourself into something you are not. If you are naturally introverted, people know it and it's no big deal (tons of great leaders are introverts. Bill Gates anyone?). However even a little shift in attitude and behavior will be noticed and will go a long way. It's a little effort that will pay great dividends.
I take a lot of notes, all the time. About what I'm thinking, what I should improve, what negative patterns I need to correct etc... While I was reviewing some of last year's note I found this one:
"In a company, there are two types of people. Type A: their only focus is to climb the corporate ladder. They spend all their time and energy to make sure they move up, and are experts in announcing "good news" to reach their goals and polish their image. They will however hide bad news and mistakes. Type B: they work hard to move the company forward, build business and are confident about the quality of their work. Because of this, they are not afraid to admit mistakes or announce bad news to the CEO."
What I was basically noting was that some people are experts in self marketing, while others are "honnest and have integrity" and don't play the game. This over simplified manichean view of the corporate world brings me back to my previous post.
Type A, obviously a theoritical extreme, is an expert in the political and networking game, hence his climing of the corporate ladder.
Type B, the other extreme, is the nice guy that relies on the judgement of his CEO or apraiser.
The problem with Type B is that often times the apraiser is several levels above him hence he does not have a clear vision of Type B's work and results. Furthermore Type B's apraiser can be influenced by Type As. To climb the corporate ladder, Type B is basically only relying on the fact that his appraiser has 100% clear vision and will see him for the diamond in the dirt he is. Pfff, yeah right! If hard work and ethics always paid out, we would know.
Type B believes that the world is Rational, which isnt the case. Tons of Economics studies have shown that the rational choice theory is wrong. Consumers, investors, humans in general are NOT rational. There is no reason to believe that the corporate world is either.
Time to walk the political walk. The world is not black and white and progress is not linked to performance alone.
PS: what would be the best time allocation ratio between being a Type A or Type B? I would say roughly 20 / 80. Spend 20% of your time being political.
I think that after 8 years of work experience I finally got it. The business world is absolutely not ruled by a meritocratic system. I spent my first 8 years working hard, very hard, with my eyes only set on getting my job done in record time, closing deals, and what I call "turning the pages" of project after project after project. So yeah, I was pulling my companies forward, and everyone liked me for it. I even had the necessary ammo to negociate my salary raises and my 1st level promotions into middle management.
However, every once in a while I would take the time to study my environment and look around me. I would see incompetents running projects, departements or even companies, making way more money than me and working way less than me. I would ask myself: how do these "loosers" reach such high ranking positions? Well, I finally got it: the corporate world is NOT a meritocracy. People like me can climb the ladders up to a certain point, then they hit a glass ceiling. What ceiling is that? It's the POLITICAL and NETWORKING ceiling. And yes, it exists. You may not want to accept it, and in that case it's your loss, but it's there, right above the middle management floor. So from now on, instead of only working insanely hard on the tasks at hand, I will make sure to spend the necessary time on networking, showing interest in others, having lunch with other departments, keeping that smile on my face, and working on my behavior to make sure it sticks to the behavior found in upper management. It is of course key to be recognized for the excellence you always deliver in your work, but you also need to broaden your horizon and start walking the political walk. Consider it as part of your job, and allocate time to it as you would allocate time to any other tasks.
Finally, and to expand on the meritocracy idea, I recommend the TED video "Wrong Philosophy of Success". The topic goes way beyond the topic of this blog entry, however it does touch on the idea that the WORLD is not a meritocracy.
Here are a few key points of this talk: - the real world is not a meritocracy - if you believe it is, then you believe that everyone who enjoys success deserves it... and all those that don't deserve it as well. - this train of thought makes failure way more crushing then it should be (bad karma / negative vibes imo) and for some people this can be psychologically very rough. - it's crazy to believe we live in a meritocratic world. What about accidents at births? Illnesses? Being born into power or povrety?
Lets end this on a quote from St Augustin: "It's a sin to judge any man by his post (his business card) as you do not know what someone's true value is".
