# 139: Micro-Politics
Story behind the Passage
I know, everyone talks about politics, especially in Covid times. There is always something wrong that politicians can be blamed for — supposedly. And no matter how politically-interested or –informed we are, we all have to mess with politics since we are all citzens of a state (except for some exceptions). But I actually want to talk about the politics that we all deal with on a much lower level — on the level of our organizations. The only people who do not have to deal with this, at least to a minimum, are people like myself who run their own business. But even then, you encounter politics as an issue when dealing with others who live and work in organizations where politics is a daily business.
Currently, I am editing the final proofs of my book and came across the chapter on Cunningham again. I wrote about her before on the blog but today I simply have to do so again because her Powerplay sheds light on many different facets of corporate political ballgame. Even though her story focuses on gender issues, I am not discussing the importance of micro-politics through a gender lens only. What concerns me is how much many of us might undererstimate politics when we think about collaborations or even when applying to a job. All this is not only a women’s issue. It is one of excellence and talent, I would say. So, what do I mean by that?
My Learnings
“I’d walk into a meeting, notebook and pencil in hand, and in my very businesslike manner, start talking about market shares and P/E ratios.” Just for those of you who are confused now, “P/E” means price-to-earnings ratio in stock analysis. This already brings me to the point that I find fascinating about the sentence. It is how Cunningham actually observes herself from an outsider’s perspective — her non-verbal demeanor and her language. This is something, I think, that we do underestimate quite often, especially when we desperately try to look and sound professional, when we want to make sure that nobody doubts how professional and knowledgeable we are.
What I am saying: Our own fear sets off this spiral.
No worries, I am not going into psychology now, especially since I am not qualified for this. But anybody who works with people to support them in what they do knows how much fear can lead to the wrong signals being sent out. As most other communication issues, most of this, of course, happens without us being aware of it. While this might be the most frustrating part, it is also a very positive one, I think. Why? Because you know you cannot consciously influence people with some show you are trying to perform. But you can reach or even impress them with an authentic kind of “authority” that you can literally embody.
Yeah, right, authenticity — come on now!
If that is what you are thinking, I partly agree and I partly disagree. I know that authenticity has become an overused bullshit word by many. But that does not mean that I allow others to rule my vocabulary. What I mean by authenticity is that you send out the signals that are actually there in the present moment. And my experience is that when you are just trying to throw around with expert language, you might not be relaxed enough to just let things happen and to actually pay attention to what might really be needed.
So, what does all this have to do with micro-politics?
“In addition, I was extremely naïve about my position as a woman.” Sure, could be, but I doubt that stressing this so much is successful. I was never successful with anything if walking into a room focusing so much on something that I thought others would be focusing on when seeing me — you know what I am talking about? This puts you in exactly the defensive mode that I am talking about above. Sorry, but I do not buy it. Yes, there are moments that you experience as a woman when you feel you have been extremely naïve. Indeed, some of this naivety might be caused by the fact that you are a woman. Still, this is also quite self-centered. Many of these moments happen to guys as well — particularly the type of guys who are really good at what they do and who really care a lot about what they do.
“I was too busy thinking about my work, too immersed in solving the business matters at hand to my much attention to appearances.” I have talked about the “appearances” issue above. Let me focus on the problem-solving part. That is something that characterizes especially people who belong to the “analytical” leadership type. You are totally fixated on the problem and all you can think about is: How can we fix it? How can I push it? I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this. But the stupid thing is that the most intelligent among us get into this even more rapidly and this is exactly when micro-politics can hurt again.
We cause fear with our professional sovereignty.
We are unconsciously threatening other people around us — we are too fast, we might be overriding other people’s solutions, we are maybe moving into a direction with our solutions that scares the crap out of others because to them, these solutions are leading to unfamiliar territory. So, again, as with the appearance issue, you are trying to do the most professional thing — solving problems or focusing on some core subject matter at hand — and it backfires completely. If you focus only on your capability of solving problems and dealing with ‘issues’ from the beginning, it might even cost you the job in the first place.
So, is downplaying your strenghts the key then? How stupid is that?
That is actually the thing that I feel so sad about. You know that I hate mediocracy or understatement — if it is enforced, if it is the political code in an organizational culture. I hate it because it hurts our society and the innovation power we have if people, because of everything I am writing above, only give 20 to 50 percent due to the fear of causing conflict. You know what, this is my life struggle and somehow I have decided to not let people hold me back. But I am not as “blunt” and rebellious as in the past either. I do pay more attention to politics these days but as any politician, I am making sure what I stand for is also transparent. I do not allow others to use me as a pawn and I make it claear that others see and know that because I am walking the talk.
So, when I am saying I am not that rebellious anymore, I have come to accept that politics will always be part of any social order. But there is a huge range of how this can play out, right? Cunningham, by the way, also mentions how her next employer did not have all this bullshit bingo going on. And for me, this is the only solution as well. I am not naïve in anyway — at least not in this context. But I do not allow this to stop my optimism. I know so many examples of insituttions where all this ego stuff has mostly been abandoned and where people actually do get hired because they are smart and capable and socially intelligent. So, this is not just some unrealistic vision. It exists. And if there are institutions that are not that far yet, I am sure they do not want me because I do not fit in — no matter how “accepting” I have become of political issues.
I would like to end with a quote again because it summarizes the most important learning I have gone through up to this point as someone who is more and more able to practice diplomacy and bring people together:
“Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” — Winston Churchill
Reflection Questions
1) Do you feel that the impact of micro-politics is slowly decreasing as organizations are becoming less hierarchical?
2) If you were to describe yourself as a politician, what do you stand for?
3) Which example comes to your mind of a situation in which micro-politics were helpful in your life/career?