CONFLICT

What Everyone Should Know About Office

Politics
 Dana Rousmaniere
FEBRUARY 13, 2015

SAVE


SHARE


COMMENT


TEXT SIZE


PRINT
RECOMMENDED


Communicating for Success Set

COMMUNICATION BUNDLES
o
125.00 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE

Johannes Linden: Managing the Global Executive Committee

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT HBS BRIEF

CASE
o Linda A. Hill, Mark Rennella
8.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE


HBR Guide to Persuasive Presentations (HBR Guide Series)

COMMUNICATION BOOK
 o Nancy Duarte
39.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE
Nobody really likes office politics. In fact, most of us try to avoid it all costs. But the reality is that
companies are, by nature, political organizations, which means that if you want to survive andthrive
at work, you can’t just sit out on the sidelines. If you want to make an impact in your own
organization, like it or not, you’re going to need to learn to play the game. That doesn’t mean you
have to play dirty, but you have to figure out how to influence those around you.

In our HBR.org series on office politics, we asked experts to provide insights and practical advice
for navigating the political playing field in any organization. Together, these pieces offer a solid
foundation for learning the rules of engagement.

First, it’s important to understand why playing politics is so unavoidable. Work involves dealing with
people, and people are, whether we like to admit it or not, emotional beings with conflicting wants,
needs, and underlying (often unconscious) biases and insecurities. Our relationships with our
colleagues — with whom we both collaborate and compete for promotions, for a coveted project,
or for the boss’s attention — can be quite complex. Not everyone is friend or foe; many people are
somewhere in between. And more people than you might think are lying to get ahead or gossiping as
way to exchange information, vent their frustrations, and bond with co-workers when they don’t
trust their leaders. Put all of this together and you’ve got a highly politically-charged work
environment.

So, what can you do to navigate this dizzying maze?

Let’s start with an approach for three common scenarios that many of us will have to deal with at
some point in our careers: 1) When you’re mad about a decision that affects you; 2) When you need
to make critical comments in a public forum; and 3) When a colleague goes postal on you. It helps
to have guiding principles to call on when you find yourself in one of these situations, keeping in
mind that the context of the situation determines how you should proceed.

While these are common scenarios, there are lots of other minefields you’ll come across in your
organization. Perhaps you’re dealing with a boss who’s a control freak. Or, maybe you’re knee-deep
in the politics of a family business, when you’re not actually part of the family. Even the most
seasoned executive, who’s worked long and hard to build trust and political capital, can make the
wrong move and lose years’ worth of ground in an instant. Perhaps you’ve made a very public
mistake that requires an apology. It’s important to admit your flaws, fix your mistake, and reclaim
respect.

FURTHER READING

HBR Guide to Office Politics

COMMUNICATION BOOK
o Karen Dillon
19.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE
 O SHARE

Women have a unique set of challenges when it comes to navigating office politics. Research
shows that women are more likely to become nervous and uncomfortable in meetings when
interpersonal conflicts and other political challenges arise. And women executives say they believe
politics present a particular dilemma for them: On one hand, they feel uncomfortable engaging in
quid-pro-quo behavior and political maneuvering. On the other, they acknowledge that it’s all but
impossible to operate above the political fray. Some of the most effective practices that help women
become more politically savvy include finding a sponsor within the organization, treating politics like
a game, doing some advance “political homework” before important meetings, and learning to lobby
for yourself. After all, the most savvy women and men alike know how to promote
themselves without looking like a jerk.

No matter what the challenge, one of the surest ways to improve your political prowess is to
strengthen your emotional intelligence — it’s a key differentiator between star performers and the
rest of the pack. If you recognize any of these telltale signs in yourself, don’t wait until it’s too late to
address the problem. And at the end of the day, remember: when it comes to standing out in your
organization and carving out a bigger leadership role for yourself, you’re never too experienced
tofake it till you make it.
Office Politics Is Just Influence by Another
Name
Annie McKee
JANUARY 16, 2015

SAVE


SHARE


COMMENT


TEXT SIZE


PRINT
Office Politics Is Just Influence by Another Name
RECOMMENDED


Leadership That Gets Results
 LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE HBR
ARTICLE
o Daniel Goleman
8.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE

What Makes a Leader? (HBR Classic)

LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE HBR

ARTICLE
o Daniel Goleman
8.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE


HBR Guide to Persuasive Presentations (HBR Guide Series)

COMMUNICATION BOOK
 o Nancy Duarte
39.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE
Most of us cringe when we think about office politics. It’s a disgusting, immoral mess that we try to
avoid. After all, who wants to participate in backstabbing, lying, cheating, blaming, sucking up, and
playing people against each other? Or maybe you take a slightly less offensive view of office politics
and see it as controlling agendas, building covert alliances, protecting access to key leaders, and
holding “meetings before the meeting.” No matter what your take, it’s not surprising that honest
people don’t want to get involved.

But are politics at work inherently dirty?

The truth is that just being a member of an organization is a political act. And in fact, we must
influence people at work all the time. It’s how we get things done. And to influence, we must have
power, the real currency in workplaces. Most people want it. All of us need it. In healthy
organizations, we “get” power, or are granted power, by virtue of our ability to inspire and provide
vision. We also get power as a result of what we can do for people. In companies that value
peopleand results, we are granted power because we help to create a vibrant climate and a resonant
culturethat is ripe with hope, enthusiasm, and a can-do spirit. In such companies power is used well
– for the good of people and the enterprise.

Office politics is really just the art of influencing others so we can get stuff done at work. And,
despite the bad rap that politics gets, successfully engaging in politics requires the development and
use ofgood qualities. For example, Gerald Biberman’s research found that those who engage in
office politics are more likely to have an internal locus of control — they believe they can influence
people and outcomes, which motivates them to get into the mix and try to get things done through
others. At best, such confidence is grounded in self-awareness, self-management, and a desire to
move people for the good of all. The combination of emotional intelligence and, what the late great
David McClelland, called socialized power, can result in influence strategies that make people enjoy
working together toward common goals.

Linda Hill and Kent Lineback, authors of Being the Boss argue that leaders should stop avoiding office
politics. They note that people who actively steer clear of politics don’t do what the best leaders
always do — build strong, positive relationships that serve a purpose beyond simple friendship
(although that’s nice, too). My co-authors and I call these relationships “resonant”.

Resonant relationships are bonds we build as a result of truly seeing people and valuing them for
who they are. These powerful relationships are grounded in empathy as well as authenticity and
mutual respect. In such relationships, we come to know what drives people and what they value, and
can hence inspire, motivate, and influence in a way that makes them feel valued. People who avoid
office politics miss out on all of this, as well as on receiving help, benefiting from mutual support,
and even having fun. Rob Ashgar, writing for Forbes, takes it step further, arguing that office
politics is the art of getting along with others and of putting yourself in positions where your work
will be noticed. That’s not bad. That’s simply a smart thing to do.

FURTHER READING

HBR Guide to Office Politics

COMMUNICATION BOOK
o Karen Dillon
19.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE
 O SHARE

Politics, then, can be okay to engage in. Unless, of course, your organization is toxic (which too
many are). If the politicos in your organization are Machiavellian types you’ll notice lots of lying for
personal gain, self-aggrandizement, clever flattery, and people taking delight in crushing weaker team
members and enemies. Research suggests that Machiavellian individuals tend to have lower
emotional intelligence — particularly when it comes to empathy and recognizing emotions. These
people — and there are a lot of them, to be sure — are destructive, self-centered horrors to work
with. How can you protect yourself from these people? To start, engage your social awareness skills
and ferret them out. Don’t be fooled by their flattery. Then, you’ve got to have clever strategies for
avoiding them or beating them at their own game, without becoming manipulative yourself.

We can’t avoid politics and we should not, because if all of the good people stay out of the game,
the Machiavellians and the narcissists win. Worst of all, if you choose to opt out, you may be putting
your relationships — and your ability to influence others — at risk.

So, get in the game. Be authentic, and claim your right to guide and inspire others. Broaden your
group of friends at work. Learn what it takes in your organization to influence individuals and
groups. Do something for somebody else, every day, without thought of personal gain. Treat politics
like the game it is, with all the seriousness and ethics it deserves.
The Underlying Psychology of Office Politics
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic
DECEMBER 25, 2014

SAVE


SHARE


COMMENT


TEXT SIZE


PRINT
The Underlying Psychology of Office Politics
RECOMMENDED


Shakedown (HBR Case Study)
 GLOBAL BUSINESS HBR CASE
o Phil Bodrock
8.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE

Harvard Business Review on Finding & Keeping the Best People

LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK

o
22.00 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE


Discussing the Undiscussable: Overcoming Defensive Routines in the
Workplace
 LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE CASE
o Bill Noonan
8.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE
All organizations are political – and to some degree, they always will be. The underlying reasons are
psychological. First, work involves dealing with people. That means finding a compromise between
what they want and what we want; and it’s often a zero-sum game. Second, humans are emotional
creatures, biased by unconscious needs and riddled with insecurities. As the great Dale Carnegie,
who probably knew more about the art of politics than anyone else, once observed: “When dealing
with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic but creatures of emotions.”

As a result, office politics tend to eclipse formal organizational roles and hijack critical organizational
processes, making simple tasks complex and tedious, and organizations ineffective; wearing people
out and accounting for a significant portion of work-related stress and burnout. Indeed, we all know
people who have perished for their inability to navigate office politics in spite of being talented,
hard-working and having the best of intentions. In that sense, one may regard politics as an
inevitable force of nature to which we must adapt in order to survive.

This Darwinian take on office politics was first highlighted by the psychologist Robert Hogan, who
observed that the universal dynamics underlying workplace relationships boil down to three basic
evolutionary needs or “master motives.” First, the need to get along, which promotes cooperation and
makes us group-living animals. Work, the modern equivalent of a hunting tribe, provides a major
context for affiliation and bonding. Second, the need to get ahead, which results from the power
struggle within groups. Some individuals are more willing and able to be in charge of a group, but
their power will sooner or later be challenged by other group members, resulting in internal
competition and friction. Furthermore, tensions are also created by the desire of group members to
be accepted and loved by the leader, resulting in group members fighting to climb up the group
hierarchy. Finally, groups – and, especially, large groups like organizations – provide individuals with
a formal system for finding meaning. That is, an ecosystem of knowledge which works as a lens
through which we see the world. Given how much time people spend at work – no less than a third
of their adult life – organizations are essential to fulfill this third evolutionary need, that is, the quest
for meaning.

Sigmund Freud noted that although humans are social animals, living with others does not come
easy. He compared people to a group of hedgehogs during the winter: they need to get close to each
other to cope with the cold, but if they get too close they end up stinging each other with their
prickly spines. This very rule governs the dynamic of office politics. You can’t go it alone, but
working with others does require some discomfort.

So does this mean that office politics are inevitable – that if we can’t beat politics, we might as well
promote them?

FURTHER READING

HBR Guide to Office Politics

COMMUNICATION BOOK
o Karen Dillon
19.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE
 O SHARE

Not exactly. It’s important to recognize that untrammeled politics have a corrosive impact on the
organization. This can be hard for leaders to realize: because most organizations promote individuals
who are politically savvy, managers and senior executives tend to perpetuate rather than inhibit
office politics. If you are rewarded for playing the game, you surely have no incentive to stop
playing. But to most employees, politics signal a discrepancy between what should be done and what
is really done, defeating their own sacrifices and efforts. This leaves most employees demoralized
and united only against their bosses or senior leadership… not a good position for a company to be
in.

Conversely, in less toxic companies, leaders manage the tensions within groups to enhance team
performance and, in turn, organizational effectiveness. To do this, the best managers recognize the
psychological underpinnings of office politics and do two things in response: they manage the way
they themselves behave, and they are careful about how they motivate others. People who are
perceived as apolitical display high levels of congruence between what they say and what they do,
and they are also good at rewarding others for what they were required to do, while holding them
accountable for what they fail to deliver.

As such, good leaders focus on the bright-side personality characteristics associated with their ability
to navigate office politics: social skills, emotional intelligence, and intuition. They recognize that the
more secretive, selfish, hypocritical, hierarchical, and incompetent they appear in the eyes of
employees, the more political the organization will become. So they are driven to come across as
competent, transparent, approachable and altruistic.

And in motivating their employees to try harder, they avoid pitting employees against one another
and instead focus on out-performing common adversaries: the company’s competitors. They do
this through articulating a meaningful mission — a vision that resonates and motivates people to
achieve a collective goal. This keeps the team focused on beating their competitors, rather than each
other.
Research:
Might Be Good
Love-Hate
for You
Relationships at Work
Shimul Melwani
Naomi Rothman
JANUARY 20, 2015

SAVE


SHARE


COMMENT
 
TEXT SIZE


PRINT
Research: Love-Hate Relationships at Work Might Be Good for You
RECOMMENDED


Becoming a Resonant Leader: Develop Your Emotional Intelligence,
Renew Your Relationships, Sustain Your Effectiveness

LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK

o Annie McKee, Richard Boyatzis, Fran
Johnston
30.00 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE


HBR Guide to Office Politics (HBR Guide Series)

COMMUNICATION BOOK
 o Karen Dillon
19.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE


How Can I Do a Better Job of Managing Up?
 LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE HMU
NEWSLETTER REPRINT
o Marshall Goldsmith
4.50 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE
Workplace relationships are complex. Colleagues compete as well as cooperate with you for
bonuses. Friends at work who are trusted confidantes may then gossip about you. Co-workers who
encourage you may also disparage you in front of others. You might call these people “frenemies”.
But researchers like us label these kinds of connections “ambivalent relationships”.

Ambivalent relationships are characterized by tension and conflict and involve both positive and
negative feelings towards the other person. These love-hate relationships are also
widespread,comprising close to half of important social network members. Research conducted in
families shows that people tend to view their parents, in-laws, and significant others with more
ambivalence than their friends. Why? It’s relatively easy to stop calling a friend, but much harder to
avoid staying in touch with your mother. When you’re stuck in a relationship, you’re probably more
ambivalent about it. This same dynamic — the constant, enforced interactions with colleagues and a
lack of exit options — make organizations a breeding ground for ambivalent relationships.

Most research about relationships in organizations have focused on either positive, high-quality
relationships or on the other end of the spectrum — enemies or negative relationships. And the
findings are what you’d expect: Positive relationships have positive outcomes and negative
relationships, negative ones. So what about ambivalent relationships? You might think they, like
negative relationships, would have mostly downright damaging effects. And that’s what most of the
research has shown up to now.

FURTHER READING

HBR Guide to Office Politics

COMMUNICATION BOOK
o Karen Dillon
19.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE
 O SHARE

For instance, in a study conducted in 2003, ambivalent relationship experts Julianne Holt-Lunstad
from Brigham Young University and Bert Uchino from the University of Utah, together with a
larger research team, asked 102 participants to wear blood pressure monitors for three days. The
readings from the monitors were then corroborated by participants’ descriptions of their interactions
with various people. They found that blood pressure readings were higher when subjects engaged
with their frenemies than when they engaged with either their friends or their enemies. Other
research validates these findings: love-hate relationships have been associated with
increased cardiovascular reactivity, higher levels of daily blood pressure, and greater cellular aging as
well as lowered resistance to stress, poorer physical health, and a decreased sense of well-being.

But we don’t believe that ambivalent relationships are all bad. In fact, in organizational research, the
notion of ambivalence is often associated with beneficial outcomes such as creative problem-solving
and accurate decision-making. One of us (Naomi) has even recently shown that expressing
emotional ambivalence while negotiating can result in more integrative agreements.

With these more positive findings in mind, we set out to see if ambivalence at work might have
positive effects. Could love-hate relationships be good for you and your work? The answer is yes.
What we predicted was that with frenemies, you’re more likely to put yourself in the other person’s
shoes, in part because you spend more time trying to understand what the relationship means. Also,
because these relationships make you feel uncertain about where you stand, you’re more motivated
to work harder to establish your position.
In two studies, a laboratory experiment in which we mimicked ambivalent relationships (as well as
positive relationships for comparison) and a survey of consultants, we found that ambivalent
relationships were indeed just that—ambivalent: neither all positive nor all negative, but rather both.
Participants in our two studies who experienced ambivalent relationships were more likely to engage
in perspective-taking as well as motivate themselves to succeed in both the task they were facing as
well as in their organizational relationships. But while the overall findings were positive, ambivalent
relationships were also associated with more time spent ruminating, and feeling envy and guilt.

So, how do you navigate these relationships at work?

 Focus on the positive: Having a frenemy is

better than having an enemy. No matter how
exasperating this relationship is, keep in mind that
it still provides emotional benefits that are often
hard to come by at work. So focus on these
positives. Start by sharing some personal
information and building a small degree of trust;
even if these relationships don’t ever make it into
a “friend” zone, they have some unanticipated
benefits.
 Try to work together on an important project.
Frenemies are a source of motivation and working
alongside them will make you work harder to
prove yourself. Plus the time you spend together
will help you understand each other better and
perhaps even develop some empathy.
 Turn your enemies into frenemies. Negative
relationships are toxic. Aim to transform your
worst relationships, not into friendships but into
ambivalent ones, which have more benefits in
 terms of your motivation and personal success.
You can do this by getting to know your enemy
better and focusing on his or her more positive
characteristics.
 Appreciate your varied social
ledger. Remember that it’s not just you who feels
ambivalent towards others at work. Stop feeling
guilty about these uncomfortable feelings and
appreciate that you have a wide range of
relationship types at work, as does everybody else.

Despite the benefits, we don’t want all our relationships to be ambivalent. There is much more to be
gained by having as many positive relationships as possible — and that’s where your priorities
should lie. But navigating relationships at work is complicated, and not only are love-hate
relationships unavoidable, but having a few is good for us.
Stop Enabling Gossip on Your Team
 Joseph Grenny
JANUARY 09, 2015

SAVE


SHARE


COMMENT


TEXT SIZE


PRINT
Stop Enabling Gossip on Your Team
RECOMMENDED


Becoming a Resonant Leader: Develop Your Emotional Intelligence,
Renew Your Relationships, Sustain Your Effectiveness

LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK

o Annie McKee, Richard Boyatzis, Fran
Johnston
30.00 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE


HBR Guide to Office Politics (HBR Guide Series)

COMMUNICATION BOOK
 o Karen Dillon
19.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE


How Can I Do a Better Job of Managing Up?
 LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE HMU
NEWSLETTER REPRINT
o Marshall Goldsmith
4.50 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE
Every Friday, the CEO of a prominent tech company (I’ll call him Ken), gathers his troops in the
courtyard of their campus for critical updates. The level of candor in these meetings is impressive
but the most fascinating part — and what makes this company so unique, is the Q&A that follows.
It’s a no-holds-barred exchange that would take the breath away of most corporate managers. The
CEO implores people to ask tough questions. On a recent Friday at 4:55pm with seconds left in the
meeting Ken points to an employee with a hand raised. The employee says:

“Ken, when I got here I was told you wanted a culture of candor and respect. I have an email thread that included
dozens of us here from one of our top managers that demonstrates he is a flaming jerk. He was abusive, condescending
and threatening. So, I have three questions for you: 1) did you know this? 2) do you care? 3) what are you willing to
do about it?”

Exchanges in the Q&A are breathtaking not because the sentiments are unusual but because in most
organizations they are firewalled off in gossip where they can never get to those who can do
something about them. I’m not suggesting that excoriating someone in front of thousands of co-
workers is a preferred way of solving problems. It’s not. But I would argue that clumsy efforts that
get problems in the open are almost always preferable to collusive gossip that disavows
responsibility.

First, let’s talk about why gossip happens. People wouldn’t do it if it didn’t serve a purpose. In fact,
gossip serves three: informational, emotional, and interpersonal.

1. It is a valued source of information for those

who mistrust formal channels. “Word on the street is
that the new test facility funding didn’t make the cut.” It’s
also the most common way of gaining valued
information about our most important social
systems. “Don’t have Ted do your graphics unless you’re
satisfied with clip art.”
2. It sometimes serves as an emotional release for
anger or frustration. “Chet made us look like idiots in
the project review today. I was so humiliated!”
3. It is used as an indirect way of surfacing or
engaging in interpersonal conflicts. “I heard Brett
slammed your capital requests—and mine—in the
planning meeting. I see no reason to keep processing his
claims with the same urgency.”

Gossip is an effective way of achieving these goals in an unhealthy social system. People engage in
gossip when they lack trust or efficacy. We become consumers of gossip when we don’t trust formal
channels — so we turn to trusted friends rather than doubtful leaders. We become purveyors of it
when we feel we can’t raise sensitive issues more directly — so we natter with neighbors rather than
confronting offenders.

The problem with gossip is that it reinforces the sickness that generates it. It’s pernicious because it’s
based on a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I lack trust or efficacy I engage in gossip — which robs me of
the opportunity to test my mistrust or inefficacy. The more I use it the more I reinforce my need for
it.

FURTHER READING


HBR Guide to Office Politics
 COMMUNICATION BOOK
o Karen Dillon
19.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE

Over time gossip weakens the will. Like all palliatives, it provides relief from problems without
actually solving them. Reliance on gossip can sap the strength it takes to participate in complex
social life. Risk-free yakking about problems temporarily distracts us from our sense of responsibility
to solve them. It also anesthetizes us from the painful uncertainty that inevitably accompanies
mature interpersonal problem solving.

Leaders at the tech company discussed above see gossip not as a problem but as a symptom of a
lack of trust and efficacy. They address the underlying problem in three ways:

1. Stop enabling. The best way to stop gossip is to

stop enabling it. Gossipers are rewarded when
others respond passively — by simply listening.
To stop it, force it into the open. At the tech
company, employees know that gossip comes
with a risk — the risk that you will be called out.
Recently some employees noticed a number of
others had begun to use a third-party app, Secret,
which allows people to share message
anonymously, to complain about colleagues and
policies. When they recognized their colleagues’
complaints, longer-tenured employees began
calling out those who were whining rather than
confronting responsibly. They even posted their
names and contact information in the app to offer
support for those who wanted to learn how to
truly solve their problems.
2. Build trust in the alternatives. Leaders at the
company also reduce the supply of gossip by
decreasing demand. They proliferate options for
raising problems. The all-hands meeting is just
one example. The company also uses an internal
social network platform to model candor and
openness on a host of topics that would be
terrifying at other places. For example, some
employees grumbled when execs announced a
recent multi-billion dollar acquisition. Monday-
morning quarterbacking is common at all
companies but at this company it was done
with attributedcomments in a discussion group –
and Ken participated! One employee kicked it off
with: “What’s up? We already have a business unit
that does the same thing with even better
margins?” The concern was addressed openly
rather than metastasizing in gossip because there
were credible channels for the discussion to take
place.
 3. Build skill. Gossip is a form of learned
incompetence — an acquired skill that produces
poor results. Overcoming it requires replacing
that skill. The tech company starts re-scripting
employees on day one. In a rigorous orientation
employees are asked to describe things they hated
about other places they worked. At the top of the
list is always gossip and politics. Managers leading
these discussions use this moment to offer
alternative skills and strategies for surfacing
emotionally and politically risky concerns—and to
challenge employees to create the culture they
want by using them.

When the employee finished her statement to Ken, other employees erupted in applause. She was
rewarded because she was transparent. Every employee standing there that day got the message: “At
this company we do things in the open.”

And CEO Ken followed suit: “First,” he said, “I did not know about the concern you described.
Second, I care deeply. And third, I don’t know what to do, yet. I need information. Are you available
now to talk?”

Gossip is not a problem; it’s a symptom. The symptom disappears when a critical mass of leaders
stop enabling it, create trust in healthy communication channels, and invest in building employees’
skills to use them.
How to Handle 3 Types of Difficult
Conversations
 Karen Dillon
DECEMBER 29, 2014


SAVE


SHARE


COMMENT


TEXT SIZE

PRINT
How to Handle 3 Types of Difficult Conversations

RECOMMENDED

MRC's House of Cards

SALES & MARKETING CASE

o Anita Elberse
8.95 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE


B2B Brand Architecture
 SALES & MARKETING CASE

o Steve Muylle, Niraj Dawar, Deva Rangarajan

8.95 ADD TO CART

O SAVE

O SHARE

The Walt Disney Company and Pixar Inc.: To Acquire or Not to Acquire? An Update

STRATEGY & EXECUTIONSUPPLEMENT

o Juan Alcacer, David J. Collis, Mary Furey

5.00 ADD TO CART
O SAVE

O SHARE
Many of us find ourselves in professional situations where we believe someone has wronged us,
treated us badly, or just plain made us mad. The expert advice often is to have the courage to have
an honest conversation, air the grievance. No one can help you solve a problem if she doesn’t know
you have it. But that’s easier said than done, right?

It helps to have guiding principles to call on when you need to work through something difficult
with a colleague. But the context of your discussion also matters. Do you need to take a stand on
something? Deliver bad news? Do you have time to prepare, or are you caught off guard? Here are
some specific tips for navigating the most common scenarios, including the wrong way to approach
the issue and a better way.

If you’re mad about a decision that affects you . . .

We’ve all had white-hot reactions to news that affects our jobs. But nothing good comes from
launching from your chair to give your boss or colleague a piece of your mind: You’ll lose the
argument before you open your mouth. But waiting until you’re calm, and framing how the decision
is bad for the company — and not just you — will put you on a more productive path, says Jeanne
Brett, director of Kellogg School of Management’s Dispute Resolution Research Center.

The wrong way: “I just found out that Peter got double the raise I got. Are you kidding me? I work
three times as hard as he does! WTF?”

A better way: Take a broader view of the issue. If you’re unhappy about a decision, might others
be, too? If so, why? What’s the larger issue for your team or organization? Brett advises framing the
conversation as, “I’ve observed something that’s not good for the company, and I’d like to help
address it” rather than “I’m really mad this decision has been made about me.”

FURTHER READING

HBR Guide to Office Politics

COMMUNICATION BOOK

o Karen Dillon
19.95 ADD TO CART
 O SAVE

O SHARE

After discovering that her peer received a much larger raise, a young partner in a law firm
successfully employed Brett’s approach of framing the problem as an organization-wide challenge.
Although the young partner was upset, she recognized that it wouldn’t be wise to complain about
her colleague’s raise or ruminate about the injustice. The firm hadn’t deliberately set out to slight
her; another partner had just made a more convincing case for raising her colleague’s pay. So the
aggrieved lawyer approached the senior partner, making clear that she didn’t begrudge her
colleague’s raise, but framed the issue as a lack of transparency: “We don’t have a clear, fair system
for raises in this firm.” She volunteered to do some research on how other firms handled the same
challenge so that her organization could create a better process. Eventually that research led to a
new, fair, transparent system, one the partner was happy with. Although she didn’t get a salary
correction immediately, she improved her situation for the future — and created a better process for
everyone.

If you need to make critical comments in a public forum . . .

Speaking up is challenging enough. But speaking out in front of everyone in your company? It’s
fodder for nightmares.

Still, it doesn’t have to be. Preparing thoroughly, framing the issue with a company focus, and
positioning yourself as a problem solver will help make the daunting task of raising concerns at a
large meeting, such as a board meeting or all-staff meeting, more palatable and productive.

The wrong way: It’s unwise to make a statement like this in front of everyone: “I think this is a
stupid idea for the company. If we keep proceeding down this path, prepare for a death spiral!”

A better way: Before you stand up, prepare to take some heat. Making a critical comment in a
public forum is likely to generate anger in people who don’t agree with you. So say explicitly that
you’re trying to do what you think is best for the company. But also recognize, Brett says, that you’re
probably not alone: “In every case, you’re not likely to be the only person who has these concerns.”
If possible, find a like-minded colleague before the meeting who might be prepared to back you up.

To start the conversation, say something like, “I know everyone thinks we can manage the potential
conflict of interest between these clients, but I feel very strongly that if we start down this path, we’ll
find ourselves managing all kinds of conflicts that will be destructive to our customers down the
line.” But don’t stop there. Identify potential solutions to the problem you’re raising. “I know this
will delay our work for the client, but I’m happy to spend the next few days discussing some
alternative paths forward with other folks.” Hopefully one or two of your colleagues will join you in
voicing the importance of alternative paths and volunteer to study the issue with you.
If a colleague goes postal on you . . .

Do not respond to raw anger. Let your colleague’s words wash over you. See whether the scene will
wind down. Here’s where managing your thoughts and emotions will help you navigate this
challenge successfully. “Most people reciprocate other people’s behavior,” Brett says. “It takes
discipline not to get angry in response. But it’s effective.”

The wrong way: “What are you talking about?! You have no idea what work went into this project!
Next time I’m not going to bother to ask your opinion!”

A better way: You don’t need to go to the other extreme and cower, or apologize for something
you didn’t do, but simply choose not to engage in the battle. If your colleague is so emotional that
you can’t get a word in edgewise, sometimes merely labeling the situation helps deescalate the
tension: “Listen, we can trade threats and insults here, but that’s not going to solve our problem.
We’re not getting anywhere this way.” You’re much better off removing yourself from a situation
than trying to fight back. Suggest you meet later to discuss the problem. Do whatever you need to
do to stay calm and avoid having an emotional conversation.

But because you can’t always dictate the timing — and trying to do so can make some people even
angrier — it helps to respond in the most neutral way possible without conceding or escalating.
Neutral in this case sounds like this: “I don’t know what to say. This is unexpected. What shall we
do next?” suggests Holly Weeks, author of Failure to Communicate: How Conversations Go Wrong and
What You Can Do to Right Them. You haven’t placated the person, you haven’t conceded; instead, you
have calmly acknowledged that your colleague is angry. The conversation may not be pleasant after
that, but you haven’t made anything worse for either of you. You’re now thinking together, rather
than just reacting.

On the other hand, if you are in the wrong, and you know it, apologize immediately, says Weeks.
“I’m sorry. I meant that to be funny.” That’s it, you’re done. Don’t keep piling on the explanation.
Just own it.

It’s not (often) possible to magically make a difficult conversation fun and happy and easy. That’s
why they’re challenging. But you can make them more productive by preparing yourself to get
through them better. The only way you’re going to get better at navigating difficult conversations,
says Weeks, is to have them. “You’re not going to get more skillful if what you do is step aside from
the issue,” she says. And worse, the issue that you think you’re sidestepping isn’t likely to go away,
setting up you or your colleague for a disproportionate blowup. But you can get better at handling
difficult conversations by preparing, staying neutral, and focusing on a solution that’s not only better
for you but also better for the company.
4 Strategies for Women Navigating Office
Politics
Kathryn Heath
JANUARY 14, 2015
 
SAVE


SHARE


COMMENT


TEXT SIZE


PRINT
4 Strategies for Women Navigating Office Politics