Advanced Political

Here are some more information for Advanced Political:

The Problem of Office Politics

When we join a new company, we're all hoping for a fresh start and clean slate. The last thing we want is to get embroiled in political intrigue, regardless of how petty it might seem. Most of us just want to do our work and move along with our lives. Even if this were so, which is rarely the case, we must still deal with "political correctness" as defined by society; we have to recognize certain protocols in our mannerisms, language, and conduct. So, even before we get started in a new job, we have to recognize there is going to be some form of politics, like it or not. I remember visiting a manufacturing company in the Midwest where a Vice President proudly said to me, "You'll like this place Tim, there's no politics here whatsoever." And I think he firmly believed it too. In reality, they had more cutthroat politics than I had ever seen before.

Whether you are a new employee or a visiting consultant, one of the first things you have to determine about a company is its pecking order. An organization chart makes a convenient road map in this regards, but it doesn't truly define the power structure in a company. For example, a weak manager may actually draw his strength from a powerful assistant. Nonetheless, it is important to identify the fiefdoms of the company, who the key players are, and who the allies and adversaries are. Without such knowledge, you will inevitably trip into some political dispute or become an unwitting pawn in a power play. The best advice in the early going is to simply keep your eyes and ears open, and your mouth shut.

Aside from the power players in an organization, the three most common types of political animals you will encounter are the Suckup, the Radical, and the Saboteur. The Suckup (aka "Brown Noser") essentially has no spine and is the perennial "Yes Man" to the boss. The boss says "Jump" and the Suckup says, "How High?" But the Suckup has a political agenda of his own which typically is an advancement through the assistance of the boss. He therefore bends over backwards to please the boss at the expense of losing the respect of his coworkers.

The Radical represents "the bull in the China shop" or "loose cannon" and is best known for revolting against the status quo, not quietly but loudly, and is not afraid of stepping on a few toes along the way. In many ways he is like Sherman's march to the sea. Perhaps his mission is correct, and perhaps it isn't. Regardless, this type of person has a slim chance of succeeding as his detractors will work overtime to undermine him. When dealing with such a person you basically have two choices: either join him and hope for the best, or get the heck out of his way so that you are not run over.

The Saboteur is perhaps the most vicious of the three and can probably best be characterized as the "conniving weasel" or "backstabber" who schemes to make the lives of others miserable. He is driven by petty jealousy and wants desperately to be seen as a power broker in his institution. Since he has no real life of his own, the Saboteur gets his jollies by undermining anybody that garners more attention than he does. Whereas the Suckup and the Radical can be dealt with politically, the Saboteur is a pest that must be exterminated.

Office politics is about loyalty and trust. At some point, you will be asked to choose sides and this to me is what makes office politics ugly. I might understand this in government politics, but not in a company where we are all suppose to be on the same team. Politics is an inherent part of the corporate culture; some companies deplore it, others thrive on it. I guess it's a matter of whether a company values the concept of teamwork or rugged individualism. I have found there is much less politics in companies promoting the former versus the latter. Either way, my advice to anyone joining a new company, be it a corporation or nonprofit organization, is actually quite simple: "En Garde!"

About the Author

Tim Bryce is a writer and management consultant located in Palm Harbor, Florida.
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

He can be contacted at: timb001@phmainstreet.com

Copyright © 2008 Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Do political parties advance or hinder the democratic process?

reflecting on the ideas of Washington and Madison?

They can do both. I reject the notion that it's an absolute "or question". Some systems can be very democratic without parties, other systems function very democratic just because of the participation of parties. It greatly depends on how the rest of the system works.

If parties are organizations of citizens rallying around a common themes or shared believes that's a valuable contribution to democracy. But if parties are entities with little connection to citizens that get more concerned with the survival of the party or keeping power than the good of the country then they hinder the democratic process.

Ferragut: Optimism, hope stomped down by vicious schoolyard politics
I recently had a breakfast meeting with the president of a company from Germany. His products are more technologically advanced and higher quality than his competitors.

Thanks for visiting!