George sat very still, withholding comment on what Trish had just said. She sipped her coffee and waited patiently for the idea to sink in. Trish knew that he would have difficulty accepting that the people in his organization didn't trust each other, and that they didn't trust him. And she knew that he wouldn't run away from the truth. So she waited.
George now sipped his coffee. He set the cup down, laced his fingers together, looked at his hands for a while, and sighed. Then he turned to Trish.
"I think I understand," he began. "People CC me on so many emails because they're trying to write a 'transcript' of their activities, so nobody can attack them later for not doing the job. Right?"
"Almost," said Trish. "Some expect you to defend them later, on the basis of the 'transcript.'"
"Right," said George, wincing because he'd forgotten that part.
Trish continued, "And some believe that since you saw the messages, you're now responsible, too, if they've made some bad calls."
"Right." George winced again. "And it doesn't matter that I get so many messages that I can't read them?"
"Right," said Trish. "It's a cultural problem. It's about Trust. But it's the same in International. It's no different in my patch."
Low-trust cultures have
lower productivity,
more defective products,
more rework and
more toxic politicsTrish and George are dealing with a common problem — a low-trust organizational culture. On the surface, things look OK, but the consequences of low trust include toxic politics, low productivity, lost sales, defective products, and still lower levels of trust.
Addressing the problem begins with understanding how people cope.
- Preemptive defense
- The preemptive defense, or "CYA," entails creating explanations or excuses intended to defuse any possible later attack from a colleague. Usually it takes a verbal form — a statement, a memo, or an email message — and serves no productive purpose.
- The costs of preemptive defenses include not only the effort required to create them, but also the time and effort required to read or hear them. In meetings, the preemptive defense can be very expensive, wasting time for all who attend.
- Preemptive attack
- The preemptive attack is intended to head off perceived threats from those we distrust. By limiting their ability to harm, we hope to defend against whatever we fear.
- This tactic leads to lower productivity for both the attacked and the attacker, and sometimes for bystanders, in two ways. Through the distraction and harm it causes, it interferes with getting work done. And attacks can actually disable those attacked, limiting their ability to exercise influence, even for legitimate purposes.
These are just two coping strategies for low-trust environments. We'll look at some more coping strategies next time. Next 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
For more about Trust, see "Creating Trust," Point Lookout for January 21, 2009, "TINOs: Teams in Name Only," Point Lookout for March 19, 2008, and "Express Your Appreciation and Trust," Point Lookout for January 16, 2002.
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:
- Using Indirectness at Work
- Although many of us value directness, indirectness does have its place. At times, conveying information
indirectly can be a safe way — sometimes the only safe way — to preserve or restore
well-being and comity within the organization.
- What Do You Need?
- When working issues jointly with others, especially with one other, we sometimes hear, "What do
you need to make this work?" Your answers can doom your effort — or make it a smashing success.
- Critical Communications
- From time to time, we're responsible for sending critical communications — essential messages
that the intended recipients must have. It's a heavy responsibility that can bear some risk. A strategy
for managing those risks involves three messages.
- Covert Obstruction in Teams: II
- Some organizational initiatives enjoy the full support of the teams responsible for executing them.
But some repeatedly confront attempts to deprive them of resources or to limit their progress. When
team members covertly obstruct progress, what techniques do they use?
- The Fallacy of Division
- Errors of reasoning are pervasive in everyday thought in most organizations. One of the more common
errors is called the Fallacy of Division, in which we assume that attributes of a class apply to all
members of that class. It leads to ridiculous results.
See also Workplace Politics and Conflict Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 24: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 1
- Knowing how to recognize just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can be helpful in reducing the incidence of problems. Here is Part 1 of a collection of communication antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure. Available here and by RSS on April 24.
- And on May 1: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 2
- Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of problems. Here is Part 2 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure, emphasizing those that depend on content. Available here and by RSS on May 1.
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