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? rbrenfPisQwhtshXzxJVvner@ChacUYLEiQVcXCoqJzufoCanyon.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:
- Nasty Questions: II
- In meetings, telemeetings, and email we sometimes ask questions that aren't intended to elicit information.
Rather, they're indirect attacks intended to advance the questioner's political agenda. Here's part
two of a catalog of some favorite tactics.
- Hostile Collaborations
- Sometimes collaboration with people we hold in low regard can be valuable. If we enter a hostile collaboration
without first accepting both the hostility and the value, we might sabotage it outside our awareness,
and that can render the effort worthless — or worse. What are the dynamics of hostile collaborations,
and how can we do them well?
- Devious Political Tactics: More from the Field Manual
- Careful observation of workplace politics reveals an assortment of devious tactics that the ruthless
use to gain advantage. Here are some of their techniques, with suggestions for effective responses.
- Managing Non-Content Risks: I
- When project teams and their sponsors manage risk, they usually focus on those risks most closely associated
with the tasks — content risks. Meanwhile, other risks — non-content risks — get less
attention. Among these are risks related to the processes and politics by which the organization gets
- Impasses in Group Decision-Making: III
- In group decision-making, impasses can develop. Some are related to the substance of the issue at hand.
With some effort, we can usually resolve substantive impasses. But treating nonsubstantive impasses
in the same way doesn't work. Here's why.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. 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 rbrenfPisQwhtshXzxJVvner@ChacUYLEiQVcXCoqJzufoCanyon.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 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.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. 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.