Some people are the equivalent of a political party while others resemble an interest group.
At their core, political parties exist to elect people to office. They don't exist to make a point, create a philosophy or to hammer a narrow issue. Their job is to attain power so such things can or may get done. Their natural inclination is toward compromise if compromise will help them secure power. Parties that choose to alienate various factions soon discover that subtraction is a strange mathematical method for increasing power.
Interest groups do exist to promote causes. They may educate and pressure the parties, but they are far less inclined to compromise because their goal isn't to win office but to influence the power brokers who eventually do. They are purists and they serve an important function by honing and promoting a particular point of view.
In the rough and tumble of office politics, it is not unusual to encounter individuals who are a one-person equivalent of a political party. They may indeed be power-hungry but they recognize that attaining power requires making compromises, not engaging in unnecessary conflict, and forming alliances with diverse groups. Likewise, you can also find people who are one-person interest groups. They have an agenda and do not want to bend. When either of these types align with others of the same nature, they risk slipping into the worst characteristics of the trait because their inclinations may be excessively reinforced by the encouragement of others.
This is not an either-or situation. Most of us resemble a party on some issues and interest groups on others. It is important to know which role we are in if we are going to be effective or clear. The party that acts as an interest group is unlikely to gain power. The interest group that acts as a party is unlikely to preserve its values.
4 comments:
that is an amazing analogy to describe the essence of office politics and both the objectives & tactics of the players and the non-players of the game. though on an intellectual level it is clear that both are required to maintain the balance, each tempering the extremes of the other, coming to the harsh reality of office politics, it is blindingly obvious to me that unless there is a conscious effort by the top management to keep the horse-trading and stratagems in check, the "political parties" always have the "interest groups" by the balls. incidently i belong to the "interest group" & increasingly find myself marginalised by the "political parties" even though they don't do anything directly to me but simply by reinforcing every single day that conformance to the work culture & traditions is mandatory even if that is stifling. i have stuck to my guns on many occasions but found second-guessing myself after every outburst. it has created an immense conflict inside me since on one hand i know what i believe as an "interest group" is bullet-proof logically but doesn't cut it with the quirks & ulterior motives of the "political parties". i am wondering if i should cross-over. the only way to get ahead seems to be to compromise my values & ethics. or is that simply becoming more flexible & savvy? i guess the ones who are adept at putting on a mask when they go to work & change colors like a chameleon to blend-in will always find the dice loaded in their favour. or is there hope for straight shooters yet?
Anonymous,
I think the best strategy is one of "both/and" rather than "either/or." On some topics, you can be in interest group mode, push your agenda and stick to key values. On other topics, you can operate in "party" mode and cut deals to get something done but only up to a point. It is important to understand what reality would have to resemble in order for the other person's view to be rational. I recall advising a CEO on a project and he said, "You know, that is very good advice and when I was in your shoes and advising organizations, that is precisely the advice I would give. But in my current capacity, I need to take another approach because of ...." He then listed a couple of considerations that made enormous sense. It can be a real challenge to determine if someone is selling out a value or making a wise concession to achieve an admirable goal. There is hope for straight-shooters and yet seeking to clarify - and understand - the other person's position is crucial.
Thanks for your thoughts. You've raised a very interesting point.
thanks for addressing my points, michael. on a conceptual level, you are exactly right when you say that the approach should be a mashup of "political party" & "interest group". in fact taking the middle path is mostly the best way out. but that means that all of us have a different yardstick to decide whether we should mostly conform to the status quo & avoid offending the "kingmakers" or rock the boat. now my problem is that it seems that the ones who go along with the charade are given preferential treatment over the ones who genuinely care for the issue at hand and dare to call a spade a spade. if both the types were given the freedom to be themselves & thrive, it would be OK. as an "interest group" i would not judge the "political parties". but in reality, since in an average organisation the "interest groups" are marginalised for rocking the boat, they are forced to question the motives & modus operandi of the "political parties". if the people in power do not have the time to understand the issues that the "interest groups" passionately advocate & defend, and in many cases believing that the issues are sentimental BS, tangential to the "real" business issues, penalise them for speaking-up, there isn't gonna be much left to be passionate about. we will mostly become mindless robots indulging in groupthink. on a related issue, i read a lot of business books that exhort values like transparency, leadership, passion at work, self-actualization, mentoring, etc but increasingly find that what actually works in the real world is expedients. i am wondering now if i should stop buying the books since the advice contained probably works in a vacuum. i guess reading these books is like watching a movie--you are transported to a make-believe world where your fantasies are true but after it is over, you are back in the real world. what's your take on that?
Anonymous,
The best organizations can be nuts and cruel and the worst ones can have moments of brilliance and kindness. I suggest looking at what tends to be rewarded. Some of the worst places talk a good game but their real values come out in their reward system. Look for the pattern. My standard advice to those who find themselves in dysfunctional organizations in which serpents are rewarded and honest workers are punished is simple: flee. You will probably never change the place and there are truly decent employers out there. In some cases, the employer isn't all that bad but it is not a good fit for you. It is not unusual to find people who would never be promoted - due to their personality or style - at one place who fit in beautifully elsewhere or who are happier in a different role.
Post a Comment