Politics and Power - The Difference Between the Two

One of the most commonly recurring topics I encounter in my discussions with other professionals is politics or more specifically playing politics. Most professionals are very familiar with the idiom of playing politics as it is classically referenced: to deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement. It is the source of much consternation, frustration, and quite frankly worry. Also usually in the same discourse many of my fellow professionals complain about power, mostly their lack of it. Again they tend to address power in it's classical definition; the ability to do or act; the capability of doing or accomplishing something. 

What I find absolutely fascinating is how common these two terms are in any conversation and how fundamentally critical they are to the professionals career satisfaction. Interestingly almost all professionals note how playing politics impacts their power. To be honest I have never really understood the tight relationship between the two concepts in terms of impeding career advancement. They are and have always been two separate and distinct concepts whose only common ground is that they are as old as humanity and quite obviously are as unique as the individual that encounters them.

Let me be frank. Any workplace, no matter where it is, has some professionals that play politics. In my experience the organizations who have a significant amount of this activity are typically the ones that have lacked strong leadership, who have been inconsistent in their values and their missions, and that have ineffective communication.  Yet in spite of this fact, most professionals still let these activities directly impact their power. 

In some of my most recent discussions I have leveraged my own experience which has been honed over years of applying it. My insight is mixture of experiential, religious, philosophical, historical, and martial arts viewpoints. While quite eclectic it is amazing to see how many of the insights have common ground. Succinctly put the activities of playing politics should NEVER have any impacts on your own personal power. After all we do this every day in our normal lives. We know about all the scams, ploys, plots, and what not that everyone uses to ply our earnings from us. Yet we all, for every one of these attempts, have successfully created defensive mechanisms to protect ourselves from them. However it is rare to find such mechanisms used in a business setting. My efforts with my colleagues and students concentrate on re-affirming their own personal power both the benefits and the consequences. After all having power is an awesome responsibility that can be yield both positive and equally powerful side effects. There are no silver bullets, no absolute guarantees, no safe havens in asserting one's own personal power which is as it should be.

Giving personal power over to someone else is a rare feat, one that is only done between individuals that have significant devotion and relationship to one another. As a result this is not what motivates most professionals. Instead they spend a significant amount of time creating their own barriers to entry in attempts to distance themselves from becoming too attached to co-workers. After all you can feel less guilty about playing politics with someone if you think of them as non-entities. It takes far more bravery and courage to see people as people in a business setting, and working with them in a accordingly human manner. 

Exactly how each individual professional asserts their individual power, where and when is up to their unique circumstance. Typically I advise simple exercises that can be measured so that professionals can see their impacts. It takes only a fraction of a second to make a critical decision and with so many decisions in a typical work day, there are certainly no shortages of chances to improve. 

The goal of mentoring someone I find is not just of benefit for them but myself. After all, in the end all I or anyone can do is offer advice. It is up to the individual professional to find merit in that advice and to use it in a way that makes their life more rich and enjoyable. I find that by helping other professionals with my advice such as seeing the difference in politics and power, has made both of our lives better and our outlooks more positive. 

Do You Speak Techie? - Why Leaders Love/Hate Techies

For most of my career I have been a success bridge in organizations able to speak to many different levels and groups, getting them to understand one another, and ultimately working together towards goals. What is fascinating to me is how often being a bridge starts with a manager or leader in an organization asking a question similar to this "Can you do the technical secret handshake with the various groups? We really need that." No matter where I go, the size of the company, the type, or products that they make, technology and those who work in that area are both loved by their leaders and hated at the same time.

Most leaders see technical-based professionals as valuable assets, able to shape technology into powerful services and products that an organization can use. At the same time, they hate these same assets because generally speaking they are very demanding and potentially costly. Generally speaking the problem from an organizational level can be in fact replicated with just a simple conversation between a techie and a non-techie. One person simply has no idea what the other one is saying. An exchange on a challenge such as "I need a way to track certain web page responses more accurately for better reporting purposes" can suddenly lead into a whirlwind of well-intentioned, but meaningless technical explanations. 

At such a personal level, the exchange may seem very confusing. However the parties involved follow very basic principles common to even the largest organizations. They speak about what would be delivered, what would it look like, how long would it take, how much would it cost, what happens when it is available, and how fast can changes be made. However this type of exchange assumes several critical things such as the two parties mutually respecting one another to have this exchange and trust in one another such that their discussion actually is valuable.

In many organizations both of these are fundamentally missing. I cannot tell you how often I hear phrases from professionals within an organization resembling "Our technical staff is great, but..." or "They deliver excellent solutions, however..." or "That group takes a certain type of personality to deal with them." and the list goes on. These concerns can be voiced from chief executive officers down to group managers depending on the size and type of organization. 

Yet is very true that in almost all cases, the techies deliver great solutions and often times valuable ones to an organization. However that world is as foreign to non-techies as being out in the of the Gobi desert would be to most people on the planet. 

Individuals that can bridge this gap always have the same general characteristics that tend to make them successful in their roles:

• Hands-on experience with technology. Most techies have excellent filters in place to determine whether someone they are working for really understands them or not. It is based on technology prowess. While at times techies can get along with non-techie leaders, this is not very common.
• Excellent communication. Most bridge leaders are in fact excellent communicators. They are able to speak to any person effectively and with empathy regardless of their position within an organization. 
• Consultant-like skills. Most bridges have many attributes related to consultants in terms of compromise, scheduling, scoping, flexibility, adaptability, and diplomacy so that they can work with may different groups that they have not worked with before to gets things accomplished. These skills are not typically the forte of true techies as their focus lies else where.
• Leadership. This is a nebulous quality that while well defined varies from professional to professional. Essentially the bridge has to act a lot less than their title and more like a leader being able to earn respect as appropriate, instill a sense of purpose and vision, and inspire others to reach for and realize their potential. Doing this "quickly" is a matter of perspective as each leadership style has it's own timeline.

In my role as bridge at any level in an organization, the issues with techies/non-techies is essentially communication, and mutual trust and respect. Techies love hard and challenging problems. They love delivering great things to people that can not only appreciate their work but actually use it. What frustrates techies are things very similar to non-techies. They dislike vague terms, they dislike dragging things along, they want to present things as quickly as possible as often as possible iterating along the way, they appreciate planning so long as planning does not become something unto itself, and they dislike vague or hidden deliverables. They want things as open as possible including the good, the bad and the ugly so that they can understand what they are operating against.

In the end, most organizations while improving their relationships between techies and non-techies are quickly finding themselves at odds with a more tech-saavy workforce that while not necessarily being technical in the purest sense, have an understanding of the techies enough to be effective bridges and ultimately leaders. 

Work Relationships - It's About Mutual Trust and Respect

This is a term I learned back from working with Toyota and it is one that I have used in all of my professional relationships. The concept is simple: people work well together when they trust and respect one another. So the goal is to create a working environment where everyone has "mutual trust and respect" for everyone else on the team and in the organization.

Now after many years of working at Toyota and seeing first hand how this is seen and handled, this is simple concept is NOT one that is easily embraced. It takes a lot of consistent effort by all parties involved that are actually willing to achieve this state.

Practically speaking I know just how unrealistic it is to expect most organizations to actually work towards this. They have their moments, but mostly these moments evaporate on the slightest leadership change or economic hardship that is encountered indicating that there is no real commitment by the organization to this ideal.

However that does not make this concept totally worthless. What I have found is that it is best for a technology professional or any professional for that matter whether they are individual contributors or leaders is that you have to get to a point where you can mutually trust and respect your immediate peers and the leadership you depend on. Most people understand the many guises this takes; basically the process of building up contacts within an organization that can be relied upon. However there is a very subtle and powerful distinction. The common thought of "building equity" that can be used later when needed is a highly political process one that can still be easily undermined by more powerful factors. Whereas the "building of goodwill" is entirely different in that it is an matter of integrity and reliability, true trust and respect whereby all interested parties will actually work with one another and back one another even in spite of political currents.

This can sound rather far fetched. However it is really very simply proven. Political equity takes time to build and is usually implemented via a slight hint of threat. Additionally political equity is invoked or actively implemented. Mutual trust and respect is the reverse. It is altruistic, people genuinely mention accomplishments, praise and critiques on a routine basis and even stand up for others without any prodding whatsoever. They do this because they know it is right, not because it is politically aligned. I have found that relationships based on mutual trust and respect last longer, provide greater value, and are far more reliable than any other work relationship.

For example networking on job opportunities is a classic. How good is your network at delivering opportunities? I receive a lot of really great opportunities from my network because they are all people that I mutually trust and respect and they do the same. Other colleagues and professionals who have not invested in their relationships as a result have limited success with their connections. Again job opportunities are just a single facet of building quality relationships.

It is relationships founded on mutual trust and respect that help get professionals through tough assignments and build lasting valuable networks.