Episode Transcript
[00:00:02] Speaker A: Nick, in my role as a recruiter, I frequently meet professionals who aren't just seeking a new job. They're trying to escape the frustrations of workplace politics. They've shared stories of feeling overlooked despite the hard work or being blindsided by decisions made behind closed doors.
These experiences have highlighted just how profoundly workplace politics can affect Morales and career satisfaction. Given how widespread issues, I thought it would be invaluable to explore it with you.
Nick, to start off, could you give us an understanding of what workplace politics really means and how individuals can navigate it without compromising their integrity or values?
[00:00:45] Speaker B: Yeah, sure. So for me, workplace, when we talk about workplace politics, we're really talking about a negative kind of toxic environment where people don't feel as though they actually understand why some of the decisions are being made, how they're being made, and they identify that there are maybe some players who are manipulating situations or, you know, negotiating things in the background, and they're not party to it. So I don't know whether I've summarized it well enough, but it feels like it's a negative situation.
[00:01:23] Speaker A: Yeah, I think that would align with my understanding, Nick. Certainly. So why do you think it becomes a source of frustration for so many professionals?
[00:01:33] Speaker B: Well, I think because most people, you know, when they join a company, they know that they're going to work on a team in some respects. You know, they're either going to have a line manager and there's maybe peers that they've got, or they're going to be a manager themselves but work with other managers in teams, in collaboration. And I think therein lies the issue that when we talk about office politics, it sounds like collaboration has gone. It sounds like business communication, normal, open, healthy communication isn't present. And so it's a negative thing. People feel left out. They feel misinformed, uninformed, and basically they don't feel like they're actually part of the team.
[00:02:19] Speaker A: Definitely. I think we are certainly framing workplace politics as negative thing, and that would be my immediate thoughts. That is largely negative. But can it be harnessed positively? Is there any positives from workplace politics?
[00:02:36] Speaker B: Maybe we regard it as positive if we actually use that kind of political approach ourselves. That's not to say, you know, when we talk about the negativity of office politics, we're probably more worried about the fact that other people are getting their agenda points pushed forwards, and that's at our cost.
So if there is anything positive about it, maybe we can harness that approach to actually make sure that we get an early listening around a Topic that we're passionate about, maybe we can actually use that political approach with the right kind of counter, where we ask questions, we come up with counter arguments so that rather than letting the decision be taken elsewhere behind closed doors, where we're not party to a discussion, maybe we can figure out ways that we can actually stop it moving in the direction it's going if we don't agree with it. So I think we can sometimes turn what appears to be negative into a positive, or maybe we can harness the power of that kind of approach.
I would say just be careful because it maybe isn't an approach that sits comfortably with us. And I know that values, our personal values come into question then.
So if you're somebody that values openness and collaboration, to actually go and talk to somebody in a one to one on a topic that you know will cause angst or harm to others may not be something that sits comfortably with you.
[00:04:15] Speaker A: Yeah, I think most organizations I've worked in, Nick, thankfully, I feel, have been largely bureaucratic. And the one organization where I didn't feel it was meritocratic, there was a lot more workplace politics. And my line was just to try and avoid it and not get involved in workplace politics. And I really, I stopped that throughout my time with the organization. But retrospectively or even at the time, I felt potentially disadvantaged by not engaging in some of those workplace politics because as you've mentioned earlier, maybe your voice doesn't get heard or your viewer opinion doesn't get heard as much as some of the people who are engaging with it. So, Nick, is it important to engage with it? And should I have engaged with it more in that organization or should. Was it right to step away and just let the politics play out and.
[00:05:04] Speaker B: Just, I think, I think being, being aware of the effect it has on you is, is one aspect of this I would say is important Sometimes, you know, we can go and dip our toe into things without becoming fully embroiled and feel comfortable with that. In other cases we might actually just want to run away from it and keep out. And I think where you've got a particularly toxic environment in a company, the inclination might be to say this job isn't worth it to me. The angst I feel, the anxiety it builds up with me is just totally negative. Perhaps I need to go avoid this. And so one form of avoidance is not to become involved. Another form of avoidance is actually to step away from the company, from the role or whatever it is. And at the end of the day, it's kind of looking after yourself.
[00:05:59] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I know. I think we've all probably worked with people who are always in the ear of the chief exec or always in the ear of the director and always trying to have, you know, the upper hand in conversations. But it does appear to work sometimes. Nick. I think I've worked with people who probably got ahead through navigating workplace place politics effectively. So I definitely think it's something we should be aware of in the workplace and if possible, you know, engage with it in the correct way. But what would be some red flags that indicate unhealthy or manipulative behaviors in the workplace?
[00:06:38] Speaker B: I think if you, you know, kind of actually or metaphorically notice that there are some conversations that come to a sudden halt when you walk in the room that could be indicative of something unhealthy going on.
If there are announcements that are being made that kind of say, you know, we've asked everybody but you weren't asked, those are kind of red flags for me and I think are probably indicative that actually there isn't the openness of environment, there isn't the openness and honesty that you might be looking for. The trust isn't quite well placed. I think going back to what you said about some people really do well out of it. I think, I think to a degree we, each of us need to be trusted as well. Now if one person is trusted above another, the question there is, are they trusted because of their integrity? Are they trusted because of their palliness? You know, sometimes the trust actually is born out of an unhealthy relationship that's going on and therein lies a potential problem.
[00:07:54] Speaker A: Do you think some organizations allow workplace politics or even endorse it as a strategy to try and you know, they have a lot of, a lot of organizations less so these days, but have a, you know, an upper out culture where either get on or you get out. And do you think that's something that's promoted in certain organizations to try and create a competitive advantage amongst staff?
[00:08:20] Speaker B: I think there's degrees of tolerance.
Some companies have a high degree of tolerance of that kind of stuff. Others have a lower degree. It makes me think as well, you know, we, we can't each of us be party to every decision that gets taken. It's just not normal, you know, if there's a decision taken a couple of levels above us or even one level above us, and, and we're not, we're not party to how that decision was taken. That doesn't necessarily mean to say that it's because of politics. It may just mean that actually there was a need and it needed to be addressed. But there may be things that are decided where we feel that it would have been good for us to have had a voice before the decision was announced so that we could at least have A, been aware of it, but B, influenced how that decision was taken and the way it was communicated.
So I think, kind of back to your question in this respect. I think there are degrees of tolerance. And I don't know about companies endorsing office politics, but I think the high degree of tolerance means that it's tantamount to endorsing.
[00:09:35] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I would definitely think it's probably used as a bit of a tool sometimes to create competition within organizations.
[00:09:43] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:09:43] Speaker A: Who are trying to create a high performance environment.
On the flip side, I think it creates additional stress for staff and could be a lot of downsides to endorsing that environment. So if you are working in a politically charged environment, what strategies can individuals employ to build genuine and trustworthy relationships with their colleagues and superiors?
[00:10:06] Speaker B: I think pick. Pick ones. It's a bit like picking your battle. You know, there may be some things that go on that you just cannot do anything about. You know, there's no point trying to stop the tide coming in. There's no point trying to stop the sun rising. You know, there are just some things that are just beyond us. But I do believe that we can build alliances.
So. So that's a useful thing to do always. You know, it's kind of like having a strong network. So build alliances in the.
Have strong interpersonal communications going on. Share concerns where it's valid to share them, but don't share them in a kind of a condemning way. Share them in a kind of this is the impact kind of way. So it's a bit like, I think we might have talked in a previous episode, Andrew, around having difficult conversations with somebody and there's this kind of situation, behavior, impact kind of a approach to it. So SBI means if we're talking to somebody, we might say to them, this is the situation. So recently there was an announcement made and the behavior that we might hint at or talk about is it looks like the decision was made without my inputs to that. And the impact might be. Actually, I think you've missed a point. There's an important point that wasn't taken into consideration. So adopting that kind of approach when dealing with things might be helpful because the. The person that's making the announcement may be unaware that you had a voice on it that you had an opinion on it, or they may have been persuaded by somebody else that there wasn't time or it wasn't valid or something like that. So I think. I think work at building positive relationships. Pick your battles and yeah, don't think that you need to go and tackle everything that goes on.
[00:12:06] Speaker A: Understand. So if you are faced with situations that maybe go against your values, how can you maintain integrity during those periods, Nick, and avoid compromising your values?
[00:12:19] Speaker B: I think be clear about the fact that you don't necessarily endorse the decision.
When a decision has been taken, though, as a good team player, we have to go along with it. Unless we can successfully argue that the decision is actually going to be counterproductive. But where the decision's been taken, there's no point as just, you know, crossing our arms, sitting in a corner of the room and saying, I'm not joining in, because that. That then creates stress, strain, that's unnecessary. But I would say that to maintain our integrity, to align with our values, I think we just have to be open and honest about our disagreement with it. But then be the team player that hopefully we all are.
[00:13:05] Speaker A: Yeah. Quite a common conversation that I'll have, Nick, with professionals who may be looking to leave a job because of office politics is that the decision's been taken without their visibility or input. And because that decision's already been made, they maybe don't have an understanding why that decision has been made, maybe disagree with that decision and they don't feel that they've been consulted, but that decision's now directly impacting them. And that. That's actually fairly common. And so someone finds themselves in that position and the decision has been made, there's not much they can now do about it. Is it still worth them raising that with their superiors and having that battle, or is it just time to either deal with it or move on?
[00:13:47] Speaker B: It's always worth raising it.
I don't think it has to be raised in an acrimonious way. It can be raised in a way that, hey, this has been decided. I'm really not on board with the decision, but I understand that it's been made and we can't turn the tide. Fine. If it is a matter of something that can be changed, it might not be that you don't agree with the whole decision. You might just disagree with one aspect of it. And so it might be possible to negotiate a slight change which then makes it more comfortable for you to accommodate.
But it's always worth voicing it because when you voice an opinion. Unless people are totally thick skinned, hard as nails, they will take account of the fact the next time that you do have opinions about things where you don't say anything and you just mutter in the background, your opinion's lost.
[00:14:50] Speaker A: Yeah, it's quite common. I'll speak to people and I'll ask them, have you raised this with the organization? And they'll say no. I suspect a lot of issues come out. I know some companies do exit interviews, which is probably a good strategy, but it's probably a bit too late if you're identifying an issue on someone's exit that could have been resolved before it got to that point. But yeah, when often I'll ask people if you raised it, they'll say no. I say, well, you should have that conversation. And I completely agree with your advice, Nick, especially if you're thinking of leaving the organization anyway because there's very little to lose by having that conversation, but probably everything to gain and you might be surprised to the outcome.
[00:15:33] Speaker B: Yeah, sorry, go on.
[00:15:35] Speaker A: Yeah, just looking to discuss leadership. And I think one of the big things I think in my experience is if leaders are transparent and you understand and you trust that they're making decisions in good faith, people generally don't have an issue with. Even if those decisions impact you, generally take those decisions and take them on board and be happy enough with them. So what role do leaders play in fostering a positive and collaborative work environment that minimizes unhealthy political behaviors?
[00:16:12] Speaker B: It's incredibly important that leadership is seen to be balanced and is seen to be embracing everybody on the team. That doesn't necessarily say that every decision ends up being a compromise based on everybody's inputs, but the fact that people feel as though they were listened to is really important.
It may be that they've had their say, but the decision still goes in a direction that they themselves don't feel totally comfortable with. But the fact that they felt listened to is really, really important. So a strong leader, a good leader, will not just talk to one or two people or be influenced by one or two and then decide that on behalf of the whole team. They will seek opinions, they will seek inputs from everybody. But then a strong leader is the one who decides, this is where we're going, this is how we're doing it.
So this kind of political approach, where there's mutterings in the background or side conversations or behind closed doors conversations, except on perhaps some sensitive topics, I think they're there to be avoided.
Let's get everybody together and Say what you all think and then actually be patient in listening to everybody's opinion.
[00:17:34] Speaker A: Yeah, I think it's a good point, Nick. The biggest leadership mistake I see getting made consistently is probably inconsistency and decision making. And even if you look at it on a UK wide level, you've got the term two tier tier because of Keir Starmer's indecision potentially in the way it makes this lack of consistency and maybe the way decisions are made. I know that that's, you know, put certain, consistently put various areas of the population off site. And you do see that happen in businesses as well where people feel that there's not a consistency from leadership and a fairness in which decisions are made. And I think that is consistently an area that people have concerns where they don't feel they're treated equally to other people in the organization or set in parts the organization aren't treated equally or valued equally. I think that really it tends to cause a lot of issues and it seems to be something, I don't know if it's something you ever have in your coaching sessions, but it seems to be something that leaders are sometimes blindsided by to a certain extent when it's such a big issue.
What was your experience and inconsistency of leadership decisions, Nick? Is that something that's fairly common? Is it something that leaders are even aware of themselves? Is it something that they get blindsided by? Why?
[00:18:54] Speaker B: I think. I think the strong leaders, experienced leaders, let's say, as well as strong leaders, are ones who know what's important for the business rather than important for an individual. They're ones who know that the inputs from certain individuals are politically motivated or personally motivated and they know how to garner that kind of balanced view that's going to maintain on boardness of as many people as possible in the team.
They also know how to trust their people and in what way to trust them. So that's me talking about strong, experienced leaders, people who are mature where we might have immaturity. That's when we start to get sidebar conversations, decisions made that blindside everybody, that kind of stuff. And that doesn't usually lead to a good outcome. One of the things that I'm interested in is over the years I've seen a lot of grand statements being made in business and in, in government as well. And, and very often these are made to grab attention, you know, to get immediate approval, but then the truth comes out later. So, you know, the growth expectations for the business very often are not met. Very often acquisitions that companies make are not actually based on any real science. They're actually based on the ego and the desire, the aspiration of the boss.
So. So sometimes, you know, there's this kind of calling out that takes place. It happens a lot in politics now. You see it's rife that decisions that have been announced, you know, goals that have been announced, everybody scrutinizes it to say, did they do it? Did they achieve it? And I think sometimes we make the grand announcement with hope rather than with certainty that we're going to be able to deliver.
[00:21:04] Speaker A: But yeah, I think accountability is very important in my belief. And I think that leaders, whether it be in politics or in business, should be accountable to their employees to deliver against what. What they've suggested. And I think people appreciate it's not always going to be the case that they will be able to deliver. But I think if there's a consistent under delivery and promise, I think that causes a real issue and trust and damages the relationship.
[00:21:34] Speaker B: Yeah, no, absolutely. I think. I think the trust. The trust goes. I think we give everybody credit at the start of a relationship, a few points in the bank balance, as it were, but some people build on that and other people burn through it. And the ones that burn through it, you know, they're not trusted, they're not liked by the team, the team don't believe in them, and then eventually the team stops believing in anything that they say.
[00:22:01] Speaker A: Once that trust lost, Nick, do you think it can be regained?
[00:22:05] Speaker B: I'm sure it can. It depends on how far gone it is. It depends to what extent it's gone. And also it's not just, you know, if Einstein coined the phrase, you know, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. To change a situation means that the individual has to change. You know, stop doing the politics, stop making the announcements, stop deciding things in the way that you've decided, and actually start to embrace a different approach. And then maybe people will embrace. But so often I think what happens is somebody that's in a leadership position ends up getting bounced out of it and they just go and repeat the same approach at the next employer.
[00:22:50] Speaker A: Yeah, I think a difficult position sometimes leaders are put in, as you've maybe seen this in your career at various organizations, Nick, is if you're promoted within an organization, you obviously have those relationships with peers and that relationship dynamic needs to change. If you're. Then they're superior to some extent. And I think favoritism or office politics can come into play when Someone's promoted because as a pr, people may not have that same relationship, and now it's suddenly your boss. And I think that's a difficult transition for leaders to make. How can leaders make that transition effectively?
[00:23:29] Speaker B: I think actually realizing that they're not in the same place that they were, that the people that were their closest buddies, if I can call them that when they were part of the team, are still close to them. But actually, you know, the relationship changes. I. I remember working for a company where we had a canteen, and so when people kind of logged off at lunchtime, the supervisor or the team manager would go sit at the same table for lunch with his team, and they'd be laughing and joking and fine, but actually they were struggling to separate themselves away from being a part of the team rather than the leader of the team. I think sometimes it's a healthy thing just to say, you know, as the. As the leader of a team, I don't participate in everything that the team does.
Likewise, there were people that you were close to when you were a part of the team, a member of the team, and there were other people that you weren't so close to. You've got to build those relationships up when you're leading the team because you rely on everybody contributing.
So being balanced across the whole team, appreciating the strengths of individuals as well as the weaknesses, and being able to figure out how you actually tap into everybody's contribution.
[00:24:47] Speaker A: Nick, I don't know if you could share an example, obviously, without naming names, of a time there's been maybe difficult workplace politics within an organization you've worked and how these workplace politics have been effectively navigated, and if there was a positive outcome at the end of it? Are there any situations you immediately spring to mind throughout your career where there's been a difficult situation or some turmoil that's affected the workforce and how it's been steered out of that situation effectively.
[00:25:16] Speaker B: At a scale that's kind of meaningful. So, yes, sometimes decisions are announced that affect the whole company. And those are the kinds of decisions that I think for us at the level where we may not feel as though we've got any input to deal with that, but at a meaningful level, there was a decision that was made about some shift working. So this was back early in my career where some decision was made around shift working. We were all going to be changed and working shifts, which for me was fine because I didn't have a family and other commitments to worry about, but for some members of the team meant that they had child minding to rearrange and all sorts of other things. The decision was taken without any reference to anybody. It was all done for the good of the team, for the good of the company.
Further conversation would have arrived at a balance of things where some team members were quite happy doing certain shifts that were unsociable and others were happier with a decision that was actually going to mean that their current arrangements were largely unchanged. The way we got round it was by asking questions. I think sometimes asking questions in a non confrontational kind of way is a really useful way of saying you didn't take everybody's circumstances into account and what it caused in that particular case. As I say, it's a long time ago. What it caused in that case was a rethink that meant that some members of the team were prepared to step up and take on a change and others weren't asked to. But still it engaged the team because everybody felt that they'd been listened to.
[00:27:00] Speaker A: I want to just ask you briefly a real life example I've been discussing with someone recently, Nick. They won't be identifiable from this but so they have an issue where a large part of their role has been taken away from them. They're senior, they report into the chief exec and that decision has been made by the chairman of the business, not the chief exec. And they've taken it up with the chief executive to say, listen, I'm not happy about this portion of my role being taken away from me. I really enjoy it and actually want to build upon it. And the chairman's taking the decision that there's a new department going to be started that's going to look after that portion of the role so no longer be within their remit. They feel that the chief executive not giving them a fair representation to the chairman, although they're removed from the chairman. So they don't have that direct line of communication.
Would you advise that person to bypass the chief exec to directly communicate with the chairman? Or would that be a big no, no and something that would put.
[00:27:59] Speaker B: I think it depends on the situation. If the chairman is the one that's made a decision, presumably the chief exec has endorsed the decision for a part of somebody's role to be taken away. And so where that's happened, I think going back through the chief exec is the right way to go. But to do it in a way which, you know, almost kind of. Let's make sure that there's something documented because if the decision has affected, if it's me. If the decision has affected me in an adverse way, then I would want others to know why the way it's affected me is adverse. You know, it may be that you've taken away a particular part of the job that I love doing.
It may be that, you know, there were other options that were available that they weren't aware of. So, you know, being positive, proactive, balanced in our approach, rather than treating it as a fight, treat it as something to be pursued would be rather more positive. And it may be that you can encourage that decision to be rethunk and, and therefore it doesn't quite go down that route if the decision doesn't take. And then you have the choice of living with it or deciding on another course of action.
We always have choices. I think this kind of comes back to the beginning of this. When it comes to office politics and decisions that we feel haven't been thought through or have gone against us, we've always got choice. We're not ever without a choice.
And the choice, we effectively sell our time to the company in return for a salary. It would be great if we could sell our time to a company that we really believe in, that we really trust. All the values are aligned, everything's rosy, it's great. But the office politics topic kind of defines that. It's not like that. So then we have choices. Do we continue to sell our time to the company or not? Do we go to another part of the company? Maybe we can figure out a way that we can move from one role to another to avoid those office politics or to an area where they've got the politics are different and we can cope with them. We've always got choices. And I've only outlined a couple there. There are lots of choices available to us. I think that for me is the key to coaching people in business is that decisions aren't just this or that. Decisions really kind of come on a spectrum. We've got a range of options available to us. We just maybe haven't actually sat and thought about them.
[00:30:40] Speaker A: Yeah, I think that's great point. You've actually just answered my last question, Nicholas. I was going to ask you, what advice would you give to somebody who's in that position, basically, you know, considering changing jobs due to workplace politics. But I think you've given a fairly comprehensive answer there, Nick. Just that people really should realize that yes, they have a choice and they have the power to make that decision and move on. But as we were discussing a few weeks ago, Nick, on the flip Side, if you are operating at a senior level, there isn't always an abundance of opportunities to immediately step into in other organizations. And there can be that period of three, six months, a year maybe where you have to be proactive in the job market to secure the next opportunity. So if you've made that decision, Nick, to move on because of office politics and you've come to that conclusion, how should you manage that job search period with your current workplace? If you're not enjoying office politics and something that you try not to engage with and it's actually driven you to leave the organization, how should you manage that period before leaving?
[00:31:47] Speaker B: So you have to continue contributing in the job that you're in. So at any level, you can't take your foot off the gas pedal and check out because when you do that, you actually kind of turn the spotlight on yourself because people see a difference in you. And it might be that actually you end up at an extreme end. You end up going down a kind of a grievance procedure or disciplinary route that actually, you know, you get even more intense attention paid to you. So you have to kind of stay on board with the role that you're doing and what it requires.
But I would always say to people it's probably easier to find a job when you're in a job and certainly doesn't come with the frustration. So I would say be very, be very purposeful about doing what you're going to do.
You know, treat it as a project that you've undertaken in parallel with the work that you do, that you're going to go decide what it is you want to do. Future you might decide on a different career altogether and then go pursue it, research it properly, have build the right relationships with, say, recruiters, executive recruiters and so forth. Make yourself look right in the eyes of the prospective employer. But don't check out where you are. Just figure out ways that you can lessen the anxiety and stress on you of where you are. And even, even just the whole project of finding your next role can actually become a welcome distraction from becoming concerned about those politics.
[00:33:27] Speaker A: Definitely not. Great advice, Nick. I agree. Don't check out, keep your foot on the gas, people. If you leave during that period, if you, if you do check out, you can sell relationships that have been built up over years and you don't know when you may need those relationships again in the future. So thank you advice, Nick. Great insight as always, Nick. I really appreciate your time and hopefully you'll join me again next week.
[00:33:52] Speaker B: Absolutely. Thanks Andrew. It's been good to talk again. And what a. What a great topic. Yeah. Thank you for raising it.
[00:33:58] Speaker A: Absolutely. I think you could talk about it all day, but. Yeah. Thanks again, Nick. We'll catch up soon.
[00:34:03] Speaker B: Cheers.
[00:34:03] Speaker A: Cheers.
