Devious Political Tactics:
Divide and Conquer, Part I
by Rick Brenner
While most leaders try to achieve organizational unity, some do use divisive tactics to maintain control, or to elevate performance by fostering competition. Understanding the risks of these tactics can motivate you to find another way.
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. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenSounORyiLfyMYjTwner@ChacJNBMKhHFRivCTeyhoCanyon.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
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.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Top Ten Signs of a Blaming Culture
- The quality of an organization's culture is the key to high performance. An organization with a blaming culture can't perform at a high level, because its people can't take reasonable risks. How can you tell whether you work in a blaming culture?
- Durable Agreements
- People at work often make agreements in which they commit to cooperate — to share resources, to assist each other, or not to harm each other. Some agreements work. Some don't. What makes agreements durable?
- Impasses in Group Decision-Making: Part I
- Groups sometimes find that although they cannot agree on the issue at hand in its entirety, they can agree on some parts of it. Yet, they remain stuck, unable to reach a narrow agreement before moving on to the more thorny areas. Why does this happen?
- More Limitations of the Eisenhower Matrix
- The Eisenhower Matrix is useful for distinguishing which tasks deserve attention and in what order. It helps us by removing perceptual distortion about what matters most. But it can't help as much with some kinds of perceptual distortion.
- On Snitching at Work: Part II
- Reporting violations of laws, policies, regulations, or ethics to authorities at work can expose you to the risk of retribution. That's why the reporting decision must consider the need for safety.
See also Workplace Politics, Managing Your Boss and Devious Political Tactics for more related articles.
Forthcoming Issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Ethical Debate at Work: Part I
- When we decide issues at work on any basis other than the merits, we elevate the chances of making bad decisions. Here are some guidelines for ethical debate. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Ethical Debate at Work: Part II
- Outcomes of debates at work sometimes favor one party, not only at the expense of the other or others, but also at the expense of the organization. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for steering debates toward wise outcomes. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates.
Contact Rick for details at rbrenLmsrqMxjQcTOyDWPner@ChacvtsEvORqRfwmjJBnoCanyon.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:
Reprinting this article
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 an upcoming date for this program:
- Managing in Fluid Environments
- Most people now work in environments that can best be characterized as fluid, because they're subject to continual change. We never know what's coming next. In such environments, managing — teams, projects, groups, departments, or the enterprise — often entails moving from surprise to surprise while somehow staying almost on track. It's a nerve-wracking existence. This program provides numerous tools that help managers who work in fluid environments. Read more about this program. Here are some upcoming dates for this program:
- The Race to the South Pole: The Organizational Politics of Risk Management
- On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in risk management, its application to organizational efforts, and how workplace politics enters the mix. A fascinating and refreshing look at risk management from the vantage point of history and workplace politics. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program: