The phone rang, and Ed picked up. "Morning, Ed Philips," he said. What he heard next stunned him, because the voice came from the very top of the org chart.
"Ed, Dan Briscoe," said the voice. Briscoe was the Executive VP. "I've got a problem I think you can help me with. When can you stop by."
Ed knew it wasn't a question. "Be right there," he said. The phone clicked, so Ed hung up and took off for the top floor.
Jumping through several hoops of executive reception and assistants, Ed arrived at Briscoe's office. Briscoe greeted him and motioned him to a chair.
He began, "There's a committee reviewing and reorganizing the Web site, and they're stuck. I'd like you to join them representing Engineering, and get them unstuck."
"I see," Ed replied. "What do you think they're stuck on?"
Briscoe shrugged. "God knows. Probably the usual bureaucratic BS. Just go in there and throw a hand grenade on the table."
Ed was a little taken aback but tried not to show it. "OK," he said.
"Great," Briscoe said. "No need to report, I'll know when things get moving. Thanks." Ed stood, smiled, thanked him, and then left, wondering what he'd gotten into now.
Ed is right to be concerned. He's been asked by a senior manger to do something that could backfire for Ed. If he complies, he risks whatever relationships he has with people on the Web review committee. If he doesn't, he could have trouble with Briscoe.
"Divide and conquer"
has a long history
in war, politics,
child rearingThis is just one of a family of political tactics that implement a strategy of "divide and conquer," which has been used for thousands of years in war and politics. Today, managers and others use it in the workplace.
In using Ed to stir up the Web committee, Briscoe is using divide-and-conquer. He hopes to create anxiety within the committee — enough to get them "unstuck." While Briscoe is relatively safe, Ed is at risk because the members of the committee might see him as a divisive influence.
But Briscoe is also using another divide-and-conquer technique I call confidential aspersions. By denigrating the committee, he hopes to make Ed feel included in a confidence. Typically, this technique is applied in private, prior to asking the subordinate for some information, or for a special favor.
Confidential aspersions are very damaging. Using the tactic sets an example of denigrating colleagues, which can contribute to formation of a toxic and conspiratorial atmosphere. And there are those who realize that if you speak unfavorably about some subordinates, then you're likely to speak unfavorably about anyone if it suits your needs.
Divide-and-conquer tactics come in many forms — so many that I have to divide this topic to conquer it. We'll look at several more varieties of divide-and-conquer in "Devious Political Tactics: Divide and Conquer, Part II," Point Lookout for July 20, 2005. 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? rbrenaSxjhcTtrYEZlpMXner@ChacMjHtEHAhWlxVneXDoCanyon.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:
- Managing Risk Revision
- Prudent risk management begins by accepting the possibility that unpleasant events might actually happen.
But when organizations try to achieve goals that are a bit out of reach, they're often tempted to stretch
resources by revising or denying risks. Here's a tactic for managing risk revision.
- Rope-A-Dope in Organizational Politics
- Mohammed Ali's strategy of "rope-a-dope" has wide application. Here's an example of applying
it to workplace politics at the organizational scale.
- Deep Trouble and Getting Deeper
- Here's a catalog of actions people take when the projects they're leading are in deep trouble, and they're
pretty sure there's no way out.
- 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?
- Holding Back: I
- When members of teams or groups hold back their efforts toward achieving group goals, schedule and budget
problems can arise, along with frustration and destructive intra-group conflict. What causes this behavior?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming November 29: Manipulators Beware
- When manipulators try to manipulate others, they're attempting to unscrupulously influence their targets to decide or act in some way the manipulators prefer. But some targets manage to outwit their manipulators. Available here and by RSS on November 29.
- And on December 6: Reframing Revision Resentment: I
- From time to time, we're required to revise something previously produced — some copy, remarks, an announcement, code, the Mona Lisa, whatever… When we do, some of us experience frustration, and view the assignment as an onerous chore. Here are some alternative perspectives that might ease the burden. Available here and by RSS on December 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenQdvEXzkiFMMpwnJTner@ChaclVVpjkBMkAKaBHFQoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, 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
- Ten Project Management Fallacies: The Power of Avoiding Hazards
- Most of what we know about managing projects is useful and effective, but some of what we know "just ain't so." Identifying the fallacies of project management reduces risk and enhances your ability to complete projects successfully. Even more important, avoiding these traps can demonstrate the value and power of the project management profession in general, and your personal capabilities in particular. In this program we describe ten of these beliefs. There are almost certainly many more, but these ten are a good start. We'll explore the situations where these fallacies are most likely to expose projects to risk, and suggest techniques for avoiding them. Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:
- 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.