Positics

One of the biggest problems for any change is the frustration caused by internal politics. Often you might be frustrated at the inability to move forward and your client irritated by your failure. However, anyone who suggests they can or should try to eliminate politics is naïve. Political action forms the lifeblood of any group. But it is possible to redirect some of the selfish energy and turn the negative aspects into worthy ones, i.e. "positics", the positive application of politics.

If you want to understand the political orientation of an organization, look at its normal behaviour and ask two questions: whose interests are being promoted?; and how visible is the action? By considering these two issues, it might be possible to determine the organization's political style. Response to the first question will indicate if behaviours are focused around self-interest or shared interests. The second question will indicate if actions take place in the hidden or shadow areas or are out in the open. The result is that the target audience will potentially sit in one of the four quadrants offered in Fig. 8.6. The result is that an individual's, team's or organization's natural orientation can fall into the politics, patronage, promotion or positics quadrant.

Organizations that sit in the politics quadrant can be recognized by the way that people jockey for position to advance their own interests and make their own claim on the organization's resources (Kanter et al., 1992). This behaviour is driven by self-need and often takes place behind closed doors, deep in the shadow world. The end result is game playing, conflict and significant levels of mistrust. This is a style of behaviour that can limit the performance of an organization and inhibit the progress of a project. Although political action is by its very nature hidden and intangible, it is possible to determine the level of political activity. Just look around the business and see how it is built. Are there barons controlling empires, are there pay rates that seem out of alignment with market rates and do the cultural norms of one group dominate the organization?

One quick and dirty way to assess the political balance within an organization is to use the change ladder as a comparative framework. Take each of the five layers in the model (asset, blueprint, capability, desire and existence) and compare who holds dominance in each of the functional disciplines. As seen in Fig. 8.7, you might ask who controls the business assets and whether they also own the blueprint that drives how they are used. From where does the soul or existence of the organization emanate? Does it align with the ideas of other groups? To what extent do one group's desires align with company goals and objectives? Any mismatches in these areas do not necessarily mean that political action will be taken, but it certainly provides the climate for such action.

The patronage quadrant of Fig. 8.6 offers a slightly different set of behaviours. This might be seen as a style where people operate from a positive frame but don't want the action to be too public. This is almost a philanthropic or altruistic approach, where action is taken for the good of the group in a private and reserved manner. This style might be found in an organization that is at ease with itself and possibly has a secure position in the market. Look at blue chip companies and this type of behaviour will probably be found in pockets. The optimist might suggest that this behaviour emerges from the natural soul of humans and is a style to which all people aspire. The cynic might suggest that it is a sign of a lazy organization and one that is due to lose market position or be taken over in the near future. Your concern will be to understand how you can use this supportive tendency to assist change. Can you find background benefactors who will support the change or people who are willing to offer their time to help others through the transition?

The promotion quadrant is quite different. Here people are driven by self-interest but are quite open and public about it. The classic example is the sports or music promoter who campaigns for his client on the basis that he will take a commission on any income. Interestingly, the way that people view this type of person will depend on their need for the services he provides. In a war, black-marketeers are vilified as selfish wide boys out for their own interests, but also seen as meeting the needs of people who want food and petrol. You must tread a careful line with these people. Clearly you might need to enlist their support when looking to find scare resource or influence certain people. The downside is that your association with such people might taint you. If you enlist the help of such a promoter, you should do it with the full knowledge and backing of your client.

The final quadrant, positics, is the one that you should aspire to operate from personally. Behaviour from this area is visible to everyone and is seen to be taken for a shared rather than selfish success. The intent is to still intervene in the political system but to do so in a manner that is both visible and seen to deliver a win-win outcome.

You may, however, face problems when you try to understand and use the political system within your client organization. Although the client and consumer may operate out of the positics model, your change might well be the trigger that pushes them back into the politics quadrant. You must be sensitive to the alignment between all five levels on the change ladder. If you are trying to change one of the levels, consider the political implications and how it might cause problems for the whole organization, not just your client area.