Do companies always become corporations? Do people who play politics within an organization always make it to the top? How can companies manage or reduce the impact that politics plays in day-to-day business?
I’ve always struggled with the amount of politicking that goes on within a corporation to get anything done. For the purposes of this article, we can consider politics as the amount of time used within an organization to improve a person’s status or standing at the expense of technical work. Maybe it’s a result of my analytical background but I’ve never been one to focus on politicking, perhaps to my detriment. There’s a massive amount of money, time and energy that’s spent each political cycle on trying to convince the electorate that one candidate is more suitable than another. I know that people will argue that the dumpster fire of resources that is an election is necessary but I’m more interested in questioning what level of politics becomes inherent in an organization.
In large corporations it’s quite obvious that the people who are more politically minded tend to end up on top regardless of their technical abilities. Even in the more meritocratic organizations there’s evidence that the politically minded end up on top (as evidenced in this recent Twit storm). Is there any way to avoid this? Can organisations grow and become successful without employees diverting a large amount of resources to politicking or is politicking a result of evolution in society and an organization?
Recently, when talking to an entrepreneur who had spent over 15 years in the human resources industry, he identified three key skills that are associated with success in an organization; likeability, political ability and emotional intelligence. Technical ability might be one of the top ten key performance indicators but it doesn’t fall in the top three, which comprises of soft skills. He was also an adamant believer than an organization of more than 20 people becomes political.
My initial thought was that an organization is able to operate like any social organization. Dunbar’s number would determine the upper limit of people who can co-exist in an organization, which is “the cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.” Beyond this level it’s necessary to have reporting structures and organizational hierarchies in place so that outsiders can understand who reports to who and how the various silos are organized.
If we assume that there are varying degrees of political mechanics at work within an organization and they begin somewhere between 20–150 people then the outlook is grim for people that want to avoid political organisations. However, using a numerical framework might not be the best way to determine when a mini-Machiavelli appears inside the machine.
In her paper titled “Considering Political Behaviour in Organisations” Goltz talks about the operant behaviour that results in competitive environments with unclear rules to determine the division of resources and multiple levels. This could be a better framework to determine when politics will come into play as opposed to an absolute level of people working together.
Inherently, inconsistently applied or unclear rules in a competitive environment are a more likely to appear as an organization grows as there different teams need different resources. It would be easier to have clear rules and frameworks surrounding the division of resources in a smaller organization because there is less complexity and ambiguity. Simple rules can be applied across everyone and each activity in which the organization is involved.
As an organization expands beyond serving one simple function (such as having a dedicated sales department as well as the technical department) then it’s likely that multiple rules will apply. For example, the sales team might need to have more relaxed spending limits as they work through a sales process. However, it’s unlikely that a developer would require the same spending limits, if any, because of the tasks in which they’re involved.
Add a layer of management on top of that and you limit that amount of transparency that any person in the organization will receive. When you consider that there’s typically differing levels of remuneration or bonuses that are based on uncertain (and unknown prior to the event) outcomes then it’s likely that everyone is going to be playing their own game as soon as there are multiple functions and/or levels in an organization unless there are rules that can be applied to add certainty.
I’m no organizational development expert but I imagine that it would be hard for any meaningful organization to have solid rules that work across the whole company. One element that is important is to make appropriate rules to determine the division of resources. I’m not a fan of having pay bands because if you want the best people, you might need to pay something beyond that pay band. However, the bands do add an element of certainty to the division of resources and should theoretically reduce the level of political operations, at least with regards to remuneration, within an organization.
Beyond trying to maintain some clear rules without becoming tyrannical, it’s difficult for any organization to grow without needing to deal with the inherent politics at some point. It’s important to maintain consistency where possible but you can’t avoid politics.
Read more at endeavour ventures.
