Approval or denial of proposals or requests can have impact beyond the disposition of the issue at hand. It also has political impact. It can make or break a career, render other projects moot, or doom or create whole lines of business. Since so much can be at stake, approval seekers have an incentive to use all manner of techniques to enhance approval rates. Sometimes these techniques become habitual — they use them whether the stakes are high or low.
Approvers and recommenders would do well to recognize these techniques. When they do, they can be more alert to them, and better maintain objectivity. In a politically healthy culture, recommendations of the sophisticated approver are more likely to be based on the merits; in an unhealthy culture, sophisticated approvers are less likely to commit political blunders.
Here are some of the tactics of approval seekers.
- Misrepresenting an approval deadline or the narrowness of a "window of opportunity"
- When done to create a sense of urgency, this tactic helps them jump the priority queue. But it's also a way to claim resources before other projects are considered, or to reduce the time available for judicious consideration.
- Hiding among sheep
- Grouping the request with non-controversial requests might make it look more innocent or less risky than it actually is.
- Using misleading competitive intelligence
- Exaggerating the validity or content of competitive intelligence is especially effective when the approver is fearful about the competitive position of the organization.
- Appeals to personal interest
- Appealing to the approver's personal interest often helps, despite the obvious implications about the approver's corruptibility. These appeals include implying that the proposal was the approver's idea, or that it was motivated by the approver's vision, or suggesting that it will help accomplish a political goal of the approver.
- Overvaluing contributions to or synergy with other pet projects
- This is another form of appeal to personal interest, but it enables the seeker to appeal (unreasonably) to the personal interest of political allies of the approver. Analogous attributes of alternative investments might also be misrepresented negatively.
- Competitive champion character assassination
- Underestimation and
probably the leading
causes of budget
and schedule overruns
- When the integrity or performance of the champion of a competitive investment opportunity is suddenly called into question, it's indeed possible that misdeeds are afoot. However, the misdeeds might not be those alleged by the approval seeker; rather, in an ironic twist, they might be the allegations of the approval seeker.
- Misrepresenting costs or time required
- Underestimation and misrepresentation are probably the leading causes of budget and schedule overruns. Comments about costs and time required for alternative investments might also be misrepresentations. Subject all claims and estimates to close scrutiny.
- Misrepresenting risks
- Risks of the proposed effort, when misrepresented, are usually underestimated or omitted. But when the proposal includes analysis of alternative investments, risks of those alternatives can be exaggerated.
Sometimes I fear that articles like this serve as handbooks for people with dark motives. But I hope that shining light in dark corners makes the world a brighter place. My hopes conquer my fears. 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? rbrenaOiwfBvdWWCgGJSMner@ChacBwoZCKMdaQDyDprNoCanyon.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:
- Devious Political Tactics: Cutouts
- Cutouts are people or procedures that enable political operators to communicate in safety. Using cutouts,
operators can manipulate their environments while limiting their personal risk. How can you detect cutouts?
And what can you do about them?
- The High Cost of Low Trust: II
- Truly paying attention to Trust at work is rare, in part, because we don't fully appreciate what distrust
really costs. Here's Part II of a little catalog of how we cope with distrust, and how we pay for it.
- How to Undermine Your Boss
- Ever since I wrote "How to Undermine Your Subordinates," I've received scads of requests for
"How to Undermine Your Boss." Must be a lot of unhappy subordinates out there. Well, this
one's for you.
- Why There Are Pet Projects
- Pet projects are common in organizations, including organizations with healthy and mature planning processes.
They usually consume resources at levels beyond what the organization intends, which raises the question
of their genesis: Where do pet projects come from?
- Much of what we call backstabbing is actually just straightforward attack — nasty, unethical,
even evil, but not backstabbing. What is backstabbing?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 21: The Ultimate Attribution Error at Work
- When we attribute the behavior of members of groups to some cause, either personal or situational, we tend to make systematic errors. Those errors can be expensive and avoidable. Available here and by RSS on February 21.
- And on February 28: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: I
- Briefly, when people exhibit narcissistic behavior they're engaging in activity that systematically places their own interests and welfare ahead of the interests and welfare of anyone or anything else. It's behavior that threatens the welfare of the organization and everyone employed there. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenhNujuFdlUMRtTxoKner@ChacYPjBYfdRffCpYlnHoCanyon.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
- 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.