Carl hated writing his monthly reports, because there was no evidence that anyone ever actually read them. Still, he had to finish it by five, so he kept at it despite the pain, all the while looking for other things to do. He was relieved when the phone rang.
It was Betsy, his boss. After the polite chitchat, she said, "Can you look at Paula's report on Marigold? Let me know what you think of the risk plan."
Paula, Betsy's peer, had recently assumed responsibility for Marigold from Betsy. Betsy had been a little peeved about this, because Marigold was Betsy's brainchild. Almost everyone thought she was still bothered about it, although she never said anything explicitly.
Betsy continued, "in strictest confidence of course."
"Sure," he said. They said good-bye, and Carl slowly and thoughtfully placed the handset in the cradle.
Carl felt uneasy. The request seemed strange, because it had come by telephone, rather than Betsy's more usual email. And Paula herself had asked Carl to comment on her risk plan, and Betsy knew it. As he wondered what was afoot, he completely forgot about his monthly report.
An ammo dump, in military parlance, is a place where ammunition is stored. "Staffing the ammo dump" is the job of retrieving ammunition for someone else to use in an attack on a third party. It's a dangerous role in the military, and it's no less dangerous in the office.
Unlike real ammo,
for safe handlingWe can't know for sure what Betsy had in mind, but it could have been a trip to the ammo dump, looking for ammunition to help her reclaim Marigold from Paula.
This is a dangerous role for Carl, because unlike real ammunition, Carl can't be sure of the safety or effectiveness of any metaphorical ammunition he provides. If something he provides harms Betsy, she might not honor her assurance of Carl's anonymity. She might be tempted to defend herself by claiming that she was relying on Carl's information. So if the ammunition is defective, or if it's misused, the staff of the ammo dump could be blamed.
What did Carl do? He replied by email to Betsy, indicating that he was perfectly comfortable with being open with Paula, and enclosed as an attachment the comments he had previously sent to Paula. What could Betsy do? She couldn't ask — or wasn't willing to ask — for ammunition explicitly, at least not in email. If she had in fact wanted ammunition, she had cloaked the request as a request for information, which Carl had honored. So Carl had complied with her request, without incurring the risk of staffing the ammo dump.
Requests for ammunition are usually ambiguous; ambiguity gives the requester deniability. But if the requester needs protection, you do too. If you think you might have been asked to staff the ammo dump, find a way to honor the literal request as openly as possible. 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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenFTbLaWLrEjLTMQmVner@ChacXruYooKzRXxGytsaoCanyon.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.
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.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Are You a Fender?
- Taking political risks is part of the job, especially if you want the challenges and rewards that come
with increased responsibility. That's fair. But some people manage political risks by offloading them
onto subordinates. Be certain that the risk burden you carry is really your own — and that you
carry all of it yourself.
- Scopemonging: When Scope Creep Is Intentional
- Scope creep is the tendency of some projects to expand their goals. Usually, we think of scope creep
as an unintended consequence of a series of well-intentioned choices. But sometimes, it's much more than that.
- Animosity Patterns
- Animosity between two people at work is often attributed to "personality clashes." While sometimes
people can't get along, animosity can also be a tool for accomplishing strictly political ends. Here's
a short catalog of some of its uses.
- Bottlenecks: I
- Some people take on so much work that they become "bottlenecks." The people around them repeatedly
find themselves stuck, awaiting responses or decisions. Why does this happen and what are the costs?
- The Knowledge One-Upmanship Game
- The Knowledge One-Upmanship Game is a pattern of group behavior in the form of a contest to determine
which player knows the most arcane fact. It can seem like innocent fun, but it can disrupt a team's
ability to collaborate.
See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 25: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: VI
- Narcissistic behavior at work distorts decisions, disrupts relationships, and generates toxic conflict. These consequences limit the ability of the organization to achieve its goals. In this part of our series we examine the effects of exploiting others for personal ends. Available here and by RSS on April 25.
- And on May 2: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: VII
- Narcissistic behavior at work prevents trusting relationships from developing. It also disrupts existing relationships, and generates toxic conflict. One class of behaviors that's especially threatening to relationships is disregard for the feelings of others. In this part of our series we examine the effects of that disregard. Available here and by RSS on May 2.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenpDrPAIWlyUMqVBmsner@ChackECpMExeXYNhIOHFoCanyon.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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
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.