George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
I’ve written multiple articles over the years that delved into corporate politics, and I find it interesting that project managers are weary of sharing their experiences and lessons learned on this subject.
In part, I do not believe we have a clear definition of what corporate politics is and the purpose it serves. Although I recognize that not everyone will agree, let me propose the following:
- Corporate politics exists to achieve “change” within an organization. It is stated as a positive when the change (and/or action) benefits the organization, and as a negative when the change (and/or action) is implemented for the benefit of an individual or group without regard to the organization.
Most folks associate the term with its “negative” connotation and reject its “positive” form. However, for me, rejecting its positive form represents a constraint on the project manager’s ability to leverage the “positively-formed corporate politic” to benefit their project. Whether in response to an individual or group wielding a negatively-formed corporate politic or simply a project manager navigating their project to objective success.
So, my questions are the following: [1] Do you agree with the definition of corporate politics stated above? [2] What do you believe is the role of the project manager in the negative and positive forms? [3] What has been your experience, and what have you learned from those experiences? Saving Changes...
1. I do agree with your definition. Politics is employed to make decisions or take actions even if those decisions are to do nothing!
2. A PM is expected to use influence & persuasion with stakeholders - this is effectively the use of politics. If the PM does so for their own benefit (rather than the organization's or society's), this would be considered bad politics. This is also the case if they take the "ends justify the means" and act in a Machiavellian manner to achieve positive ends.
3. My experience is that whether you like or dislike "playing politics" is immaterial - if you want to get your project delivered, you need to. The key is to ensure that you don't stray to the Dark side...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
George, your analysis does resonate with me a lot and you're right, majority of the people do associate the term with its negative connotation. As for your questions:
1) In principle, I do agree with your definition.
2) The role of a PM involves the use of influence, and strategic maneuvering to achieve organizational goals.
3) From my experience, organizational politics will always be there with or without your consent so, you need to work within those politics and like Kiron said, make sure you move away to the dark side. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Having the skills, ability, and desire to “navigate the corporate-political ecosystem” that your project resides in is vital to delivering a successful project (as Kiron Bondale portrayed), especially when the project is under stress.
Unfortunately, stakeholder management principles largely skirt the subject, reaffirming the idea that a project manager should avoid the realm and territory of corporate politics.
If true, how can we rebrand this territory as a profession?
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Mar 08, 2024 5:04 PM
Kiron Bondale
...
Good point, George - the term "politics" does have negative connotations in many circles, so perhaps influence & persuasion are better terms for what we do as PMs. I find the same challenge with the term "risk" in that outside of our domain, it usually refers solely to threats and not to opportunities. Perhaps Dr. Hillson's definition of risk as "uncertainty that matters" is better (although quite a mouthful!)...
Having the skills, ability, and desire to “navigate the corporate-political ecosystem” that your project resides in is vital to delivering a successful project (as Kiron Bondale portrayed), especially when the project is under stress.
Unfortunately, stakeholder management principles largely skirt the subject, reaffirming the idea that a project manager should avoid the realm and territory of corporate politics.
If true, how can we rebrand this territory as a profession?
Good point, George - the term "politics" does have negative connotations in many circles, so perhaps influence & persuasion are better terms for what we do as PMs. I find the same challenge with the term "risk" in that outside of our domain, it usually refers solely to threats and not to opportunities. Perhaps Dr. Hillson's definition of risk as "uncertainty that matters" is better (although quite a mouthful!)...
Kiron Saving Changes...
William M Hayden JrAdjunct Assistant Professor| University at Buffalo, School of Management, Operations Management & StrategyBuffalo, Ny, United States
Re: "Corporate politics exists to achieve “change” within an organization"
In practice, it exists to protect the assets of those who reside in the C-Suite.
Cheers,
Bill
p.s. Now, if they decide to actually lead the way for "Change," they best do that by first changing their own individual and collective behaviors. Then others will believe that "Maybe this time they are serious."
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Mar 11, 2024 10:58 AM
George Freeman
...
Bill,
The phrase “corporate politics” is stigmatized in society and branded with its negative connotation:
- i.e., change (and/or action) implemented for the benefit of an individual or group without regard to the organization
However, suppose we, as a profession, recognize that a project manager is part of the “corporate political” framework/mechanism (i.e., we are the favored instrument for implementing change). In that case, we become more open to leveraging the “positive” form of corporate politics to benefit our projects.
The positive form (i.e., strategic use of influence and persuasion) allows us to break through the more “complex barriers” that often derail or reduce the value of our projects.
George
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Mar 10, 2024 11:58 AM
Replying to William M Hayden Jr
...
Re: "Corporate politics exists to achieve “change” within an organization"
In practice, it exists to protect the assets of those who reside in the C-Suite.
Cheers,
Bill
p.s. Now, if they decide to actually lead the way for "Change," they best do that by first changing their own individual and collective behaviors. Then others will believe that "Maybe this time they are serious."
Bill,
The phrase “corporate politics” is stigmatized in society and branded with its negative connotation:
- i.e., change (and/or action) implemented for the benefit of an individual or group without regard to the organization
However, suppose we, as a profession, recognize that a project manager is part of the “corporate political” framework/mechanism (i.e., we are the favored instrument for implementing change). In that case, we become more open to leveraging the “positive” form of corporate politics to benefit our projects.
The positive form (i.e., strategic use of influence and persuasion) allows us to break through the more “complex barriers” that often derail or reduce the value of our projects.
George, allow me to commend your initiative in seeking a better understanding of this topic. Based on my experience, corporate politics primarily involve asserting control over resources.
1. as per above, no
2. there can be positive and negative side effects of this power struggle
3. good PMs are usually perceived as those who can shield the team from it
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Mar 12, 2024 5:41 PM
George Freeman
...
Markus,
I would say it this way: The PM is responsible, as the project executive, for managing or leveraging the corporate politics on behalf and for the benefit of their project. Or, at the minimum, they are responsible for ensuring that an appropriate delegate (e.g., a sponsor) does so on behalf of the same.
In your phrasing, you state that corporate politics (in your experience) aims to assert control over resources, essentially creating a “power struggle” that can have positive or negative side effects. On this, I have a technical disagreement, as it paints the realm of corporate politics (i.e., the mechanism to achieve “change” within an organization) as only residing in its negative connotation/form.
When a project manager views corporate politics as ONLY existing in the negative, they essentially preclude themselves from leveraging the “positive corporate politic” within their organization for the benefit of their project. I have found this especially true when projects are under stress from a negatively wielded form of this mechanism.
Bottom Line: If project managers are “agents of change,” then they are “by definition” part of an organization’s political apparatus. Although this may seem unsettling at first, it is functionally empowering and a perspective that I’m seeking to share.
George
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Mar 12, 2024 6:20 AM
Replying to Markus Dolensky
...
George, allow me to commend your initiative in seeking a better understanding of this topic. Based on my experience, corporate politics primarily involve asserting control over resources.
1. as per above, no
2. there can be positive and negative side effects of this power struggle
3. good PMs are usually perceived as those who can shield the team from it
Markus,
I would say it this way: The PM is responsible, as the project executive, for managing or leveraging the corporate politics on behalf and for the benefit of their project. Or, at the minimum, they are responsible for ensuring that an appropriate delegate (e.g., a sponsor) does so on behalf of the same.
In your phrasing, you state that corporate politics (in your experience) aims to assert control over resources, essentially creating a “power struggle” that can have positive or negative side effects. On this, I have a technical disagreement, as it paints the realm of corporate politics (i.e., the mechanism to achieve “change” within an organization) as only residing in its negative connotation/form.
When a project manager views corporate politics as ONLY existing in the negative, they essentially preclude themselves from leveraging the “positive corporate politic” within their organization for the benefit of their project. I have found this especially true when projects are under stress from a negatively wielded form of this mechanism.
Bottom Line: If project managers are “agents of change,” then they are “by definition” part of an organization’s political apparatus. Although this may seem unsettling at first, it is functionally empowering and a perspective that I’m seeking to share.
to reiterate Kiron's statement from earlier in this thread: "The term 'politics' does carry negative connotations in many circles, so perhaps 'influence' and 'persuasion' are better terms to describe what we do as PMs."
Instead of attempting to force positivity into a term that, in my experience, is not commonly used in that context, we might opt to use existing leadership traits such as influencing when referring to the positive or neutral aspects.
Another reason to perhaps rebrand the term is that the current state of federal politics in a number of countries is pretty depressing and when the media frequently bombards us with case after case of politician who serves themselves more than the people they were elected to serve it continues to spoil the perception of an (otherwise) neutral term.
Community Champion
