At work, political attackers seem to some to be amoral, without conscience, or just plain slime. Doubtless, some are, but most are hard working people dedicated to purposes they consider worthwhile. What distinguishes them is that they see their attacks as justifiable, even necessary, parts of their workplace roles.
Some attacks are indeed vile and serve little purpose. Among these are attacks aimed at the target's essence or legitimacy. For organizational targets, they raise questions about their continued independent existence; for people, they emphasize the target's character.
Enduring a political attack on one's essence is emotionally painful. It's unnerving, and some targets have difficulty maintaining the coolness needed for formulating effective responses. To learn how to reason under such pressure, it helps to appreciate the psychological advantages attackers enjoy.
- Deal with your inhibitions about attacking
- Although most of us are reluctant to initiate attack, we find it somewhat easier to respond to it. Initiation often creates feelings of guilt. Since the key to prevailing in a political conflict is capturing the initiative by counterattacking, targets probably cannot recover unless they can overcome their inhibitions. Since attackers have already dealt with their inhibitions, they can usually maintain dominance until the target's soul-searching is completed.
- Prepare in advance. If you anticipate attack, recognize that survival depends on your willingness to counterattack. Deal with your inhibitions by accepting that they apply only in times of relative peace. And remember that initiating attacks can be justified when your target's behavior is harmful to the organization.
- Rewrite your unwritten rules
- Most believe that political conflict has at least some rules. For instance, most agree that damaging a rival's computer is foul play. But at the margins, there's little agreement about what's fair or ethical. The advantage goes to the flexible.
- Your Although most of us
are reluctant to initiate
attack, we find it
somewhat easier
to respond to itown rules are your own. They're probably not shared by your attacker. Even though your attacker has been unwilling to engage in some kinds of conduct, those inhibitions might fall at any time. The more effective your response, the more likely is your attacker to overcome those inhibitions. Your political survival might require expanding your own boundaries more rapidly than your attacker does. Find ways to expand your boundaries with integrity. - Use diversions and distractions
- Diversions and distractions are methods for controlling the target. Diversions absorb the capacity of the target to counterattack. Distractions absorb the capacity of the target to understand the environment.
- Observe the political attackers in your organization. Notice their use of diversion and distraction. Determine their set routines; watch for improvisations. Anticipating what might be effective against you helps you design countermeasures. Learn techniques that help you when you attack.
These are difficult transitions for anyone to make, especially under the pressure of political attack. If attack abounds where you work, start making your transitions now. First in this series Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Ground Level Sources of Scope Creep
- We usually think of scope creep as having been induced by managerial decisions. And most often, it probably
is. But most project team members — and others as well — can contribute to the problem.
- The Power and Hazards of Anecdotes: I
- Anecdotes are short stories — sometimes just a single sentence. They're powerful tools of persuasion,
but they can also be dangerous, to both anecdote tellers and anecdote listeners.
- That Was a Yes-or-No Question: II
- When, in the presence of others, someone asks you "a simple yes or no" question, beware. Chances
are that you're confronting a trap. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for dealing with the yes-or-no
trap.
- Narcissistic Behavior at Work: III
- People who behave narcissistically tend to regard themselves as special. They systematically place their
own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this part of the series we consider how
this claimed specialness affects the organization and its people.
- Would Anyone Object?
- When groups consider whether to adopt proposals, some elect to poll everyone with a question of the
form, "Would anyone object if X?" It's a risky approach, because it can lead to damaging decisions
that open discussion in meetings can avoid.
See also Workplace Politics and Conflict Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 3: Recapping Factioned Meetings
- A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting. Available here and by RSS on April 3.
- And on April 10: Managing Dunning-Kruger Risk
- A cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect can create risk for organizational missions that require expertise beyond the range of knowledge and experience of decision-makers. They might misjudge the organization's capacity to execute the mission successfully. They might even be unaware of the risk of so misjudging. Available here and by RSS on April 10.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.
- Wikipedia has a nice article with a list of additional resources
- Some public libraries offer collections. Here's an example from Saskatoon.
- Check my own links collection
- LinkedIn's Office Politics discussion group