I recently responded to a blog post that delved into our motives when making decisions and getting things done. The post included the following interesting dilemma, "One person's influence is another person's politics." This is SO true, but only in the absence of the constructs and conventions capable of exposing the true nature or our behavior.
Consider the definition of "play politics" - which I found listed as an Idiom at Dictionary.com when I looked up the word politics:
- To deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement.
I am sure countless examples of this come immediately to mind. I contend the pervasiveness of this behavior is due to (and please don't laugh), the lack of Governance. That's right. I am saying Governance deters politics.
Consider the simplest definition of governance: the processes and relationships that lead to reasoned decision-making. I use this basic definition to convince all organizations that if they are making decisions, they have governance. I simply point out that their governance is comprised primarily of relationships (people) and non-existent, ad-hoc or chaotic processes.
When organizations lack adequate governance, especially when it comes to projects and programs, they rely almost completely on people (and their associated relationships) to make decisions. This situation does little to prevent people from playing politics and in many cases, actually enables it due to the lack of the processes and associated controls and measures that ensure "reasoned and rational" decision-making.
In such cases anyone can argue either side (influence vs. playing politics) and there is little in place to reconcile differences in perception. And when somebody is accused of playing politics, they can easily justify their political behavior with the argument of "the ends justifying the means."
Sound governance will not completely eliminate this destructive behavior, but it goes a long way to inhibit and expose it.
Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist