In 1940s street parlance, to frame is to ensnare or catch: "I was set up!"; "He was innocent, but the police framed him." In framing, someone creates evidence to project the appearance that the target carried out an illegal act. For instance, a framer might plant at a crime scene a drinking glass with the target's fingerprints.
In organizational politics, frames need not meet the standards of evidence that a court of law requires. Political frames often consist of interpretations, innuendos, privately voiced assertions and vague accusations. Moreover, political framing isn't necessarily carried out before the fact. The innuendos and accusations usually occur after an incident, as the framer provides an alternate interpretation of that incident to disparage the target.
Here are some of the communication techniques of political framers, and a few suggested counter tactics.
- Requests for information
- To further an appearance of probity and reason, the framer can make innocent-sounding requests for information. Phrases like "help me understand," or "can you clarify" might appear. The questions themselves provide the framer opportunities to add to the frame. For instance, the framer might ask, "I've been told that you assassinated President Lincoln. Can you confirm that this is a simple misunderstanding?" The accusation is nested in a seemingly reasonable request for a denial, but the request itself gives the framer a chance to spread the accusation.
- When this occurs, the damage is already done. Although it's tempting to say nothing at all, remember that silence can be interpreted in many ways. A response is required, but if it's anything more than a simple, straight, and serious denial, you risk making the problem worse.
- Multi-channel communication
- Believing that they know everything the framer has said is a common mistake of targets of framers. When targets learn of some new charges, usually indirectly, they tend to focus on those charges, ignoring the possibility that other communications are happening In organizational politics,
frames need not meet the
standards of evidence that
a court of law requiresor might already have happened. For instance, the framer might make an accusation directly to the target, having already prepared the audience by making that same charge — and more — in a more private venue, excluding the target. Targets, believing that they know the full scope of the problem, then address the charges they know about. The framer is then free to fall back on already-prepared ground, leaving the target's carefully prepared defense unanswered and effectively deflected.
- As a target, it's wise to assume that the framer has had more communication with others than you know, and that some of those others are convinced that you've done and said what the framer claims. When you hear of new charges, try to draw out more, to get everything on the table before trying to turn things around. To avoid further spreading falsehoods, privacy is best, but privacy is not always possible.
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
Double Indemnity is over 60 years old, but still entertaining. Get some popcorn and make an evening of it. As a film, it has served as a template for many more recent screen tales, including — possibly — Body Heat. Students of film will certainly enjoy Double Indemnity. Order from Amazon.com
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenrCzIXJqEdnWSiwzmner@ChacopXwnfCIbiEWSnNDoCanyon.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:
- The Advantages of Political Attack: II
- In workplace politics, attackers are often surprisingly successful with even the flimsiest assertions.
Often, they prevail, in part, because they can choose the time and venue for their attacks. They also
have the advantage of preparation. How can targets respond effectively?
- How Pet Projects Get Resources: Cleverness
- When pet projects thrive in an organization, they sometimes depend on the clever tactics of those who
nurture them to secure resources despite conflict with organizational priorities. How does this happen?
- No Tangles
- When we must say "no" to people who have superior organizational power, the message sometimes
fails to get across. The trouble can be in the form of the message, the style of delivery, or elsewhere.
How does this happen?
- 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
- Social Entry Strategies: II
- When we first engage with a group at work, we employ social entry strategies to make places for ourselves
to carry out our responsibilities, and to find enjoyment and fulfillment at work. Here's Part II of
a little catalog of social entry strategies.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings
- Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.
- And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I
- Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenqjYHvubNwPTvAbOFner@ChacSzSbTZnvDtKrPCkNoCanyon.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.