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? rbrenuHSzamfAlUJyzRiqner@ChacTfBdFpZPEPcnjeLdoCanyon.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 Pressure: The Unexpected
- When projects falter, we expect demands for status and explanations. What's puzzling is how often this
happens to projects that aren't in trouble. Here's Part II of a catalog of strategies for managing
- Beyond Our Control
- When bad things happen, despite our plans and our best efforts, we sometimes feel responsible. We failed.
We could have done more. But is that really true? Aren't some things beyond our control?
- Getting Into the Conversation
- In well-facilitated meetings, facilitators work hard to ensure that all participants have opportunities
to contribute. The story is rather different for many meetings, where getting into the conversation
can be challenging for some.
- On Badly Written Email
- Even those who aren't great writers do occasionally write clearly, just by chance. But there are some
who consistently produce unintelligible email messages. Why does this happen?
- Workplace Politics and Type III Errors
- Most job descriptions contain few references to political effectiveness, beyond the fairly standard
collaborate-to-achieve-results kinds of requirements. But because true achievement often requires political
sophistication, understanding the political content of our jobs is important.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 24: Big, Complicated Problems
- Big, complicated problems can be difficult to solve. Even contemplating them can be daunting. But we can survive them if we get advice we can trust, know our resources, recall solutions to past problems, find workarounds, or as a last resort, escape. Available here and by RSS on April 24.
- And on May 1: Full Disclosure
- The term "full disclosure" is now a fairly common phrase, especially in news interviews and in film and fiction thrillers involving government employees or attorneys. It also has relevance in the knowledge workplace, and nuances associated with it can affect your credibility. Available here and by RSS on May 1.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenqMOYQKKhrySvanhcner@ChacAMwXbFNrKjChJJRwoCanyon.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, 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.