Rescheduling: the Politics of Choice

As noted last time, our political choices have two kinds of effects — direct effects and system effects. To examine direct effects, we look at how our political choices directly affect other individuals, or how the actions of one business unit directly affect other business units. To examine system effects, we look at how our political choices affect the organization as a whole. Viewed this way, two domains of questions emerge. At the direct scale, when we make political choices in the course of rescheduling our work, our choices affect when others do what they do. At the system scale, when we make political choices in the course of rescheduling our work, our choices affect not only when others do what they do, but also what they do and how they do it.

An everyday organizational problem

To see these effects more clearly, consider a typical scenario.

Modern organizations operate atop a "stack" of hardware and software assets, each of which is subject to periodic maintenance and updating. Think of networking hardware and software, identity and access management software, and the like. From time to time, maintenance of these infrastructure items requires an outage that can have broad and severe service impact. When the Maintenance Team needs to perform a task that requires a "scheduled outage," the organization must choose a date and time for the work. Because some work groups will be harmed more than others, this choice is fundamentally political. We thus have a scenario in which we can examine both direct-level and system-level political choices.

Politics enters into this scenario as the organization tries to determine the timing of the service outages.

Choices that have direct effects

In the Just as there are political choices that advance
opportunities for cooperation, there are political
choices that suppress opportunities for cooperationcourse of doing its job, the Maintenance Team has multiple opportunities to make decisions that have political content. Consider, as examples, decisions that require other business entities to reschedule their work. Here are some examples of political choices that are fundamentally cooperative and which have direct effects on other units.

• The Maintenance Team schedules the service outages for times when they expect to affect a minimal subset of users.
• The Maintenance Team surveys users to obtain time-of-day, day-of-week, or time-of-year data on which to base the scheduling decision.
• The Maintenance Team surveys the user population to determine how far in advance it should provide notice of scheduled outages.

Choices that have system effects

The choices above do help limit the need for other groups to reschedule their work. But there are other practices that involve changing the basic approach of the Maintenance Team, independent of the preferences of the users. These choices tend to have effects at the scale of the system.

• The Maintenance Team adopts a policy of replacing any software infrastructure that is within one year of end-of-life. This enables replacement if possible when downtime is scheduled for some other purpose, thus eliminating the need for a single-purpose outage.
• The Maintenance Team adopts Blue-Green deployment to drive uptime as experienced by users over 99%. [Fernandez 2024]
• Management adopts a policy of staffing-in-depth to reduce downtime of assets due to shortages of people with the skills necessary to maintain or enhance critical assets. This policy leads to increases in staffing costs, but those increases are offset by dramatic decreases in the need to reschedule projects due to asset downtime.

Last words

Just as there are political choices that advance opportunities for cooperation, there are political choices that suppress opportunities for cooperation. And among those suppressive choices some can be classified as having mainly direct effects, while some others have mainly system effects. Try to construct some of each. Are any of these suppressive choices observable in your organization?   First issue 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

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

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:

Stonewalling: II

Stonewalling is a tactic of obstruction. Some less sophisticated tactics rely on misrepresentation to gum up the works. Those that employ bureaucratic methods are more devious. What can you do about stonewalling?

How to Undermine Your Subordinates

People write to me occasionally that their bosses undermine them, but I know there are bosses who want to do more undermining than they are already doing. So here are some tips for bosses aspiring to sink even lower.

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?

Not Really Part of the Team: I

Some team members hang back. They show little initiative and have little social contact with other team members. How does this come about?

Surviving Incompetence: II

When your organization undertakes a misguided effort that will certainly fail, you have options. One is to head for the exit. To search for a new position in such circumstances requires some care. Example: an internal transfer might not really be an exit.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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