The Globe and Mail (Toronto, Canada), September 21, 2005, Wednesday

The Globe and Mail (Toronto, Canada), September 21, 2005, Wednesday

MANAGING BOOKS: WORKPLACE POLITICS

Got a good idea? A little Machiavelli goes far
By HARVEY SCHACHTER

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Page C2

Get Them On Your Side
By Samuel Bacharach
Platinum Press, 234 pages, $26.95
Good ideas aren't enough. To get those ideas adopted, and implemented, you need political competence.

The word "political" in organizations has been given a negative cast, thanks to obsequious, ambitious souls, who are more interested in buttering up colleagues to boost their personal fortunes than getting things done.

But in an era of empowerment, when ideas can come from all over the organization and need cleverly constructed strategies to come to fruition, political competence is an admirable (if little-discussed) trait.

"In order to get results, you have to identify allies and resistors, you have to get buy in, you have to build coalitions, and you have to lead politically," Cornell University professor Samuel Bacharach writes in Get Them On Your Side.

Understanding the political terrain starts with objections. You can expect them, no matter how brilliant your idea is. Prof. Bacharach lists the six common ones to anticipate:

"Your idea is too risky."
"That idea will make things worse."
"Your proposal won't change a thing."
"You don't know the issues well enough."
"You're doing it wrong."
"You have ulterior motives."

Inertia is comfortable, so you'll be hit by veiled or even outright attacks. You can try to confront the arguments head on, point by point. You could try to let your critics rant and rave, until others are tired of their protests, or try to steer around them. But Prof. Bacharach says those are defensive actions that are likely to create antagonisms.

Instead, he urges you to plan ahead, by analyzing the goals of people around you, and looking for how to find allies. People fall into four categories, based on whether they prefer planned or improvised actions, and whether they favour tinkering or major overhauls:

Traditionalists prefer to tinker but want to do so in a planned, rational way. They are wary of change but will accept it when regenerative -- the purpose of the change is to integrate the past successes of the organization into the current reality. The strength of this approach is that it's cautious and reflective. The weakness is that it focuses on the past and can ignore important differences with today.

Adjusters also prefer modest tinkering, but like to do so in an improvisational way. They assume change is inevitable but unpredictable, and so only react when necessary. The approach focuses on the present, and how to react to the external situation. Timing is critical; you have to figure out when to pursue the change -- when it will seem right to them.

Developers prefer planned change -- but also love major overhauls. They like a rational, scientific systematic approach, such as the Six Sigma quality method.

Revolutionaries want to fundamentally transform the mission and the processes of the organization but unlike the developers don't engage in a planned approach. They are nimble and reactive.

A key element of political competence, the author stresses, is to understand which of those four agendas your change falls under and then map out where the main people whose support you need fit on the same schema. By understanding their mindset, you can figure out who is likely to be an ally and who is a resistor.

If you are proposing a revolutionary improvising approach, for example, you can't expect support from a traditionalist, who is the opposite, preferring planned and incremental change. But you might be able to win over those who at least like the improvisational elements of your plan or who have a zest for big change.

That can help you gain initial support. Beyond that, you need to justify your actions to everyone, get buy-in, and lead a coalition that puts your ideas in place.

Prof. Bacharach outlines each of those steps in clear, practical fashion. By the end, you should be more politically competent, in the best way.