The negative aspect of organisational politics occurs when individuals drive their own personal agendas and priorities at the expense of the broader company agenda.
The motivation for this kind of politics is partly personal advancement up the “greasy pole” and partly the lust for power that a number of us (yes I’m guilty of this too!) have to regulate resources, selections, folks and outcomes. Of itself this want not essentially be a unhealthy issue, it only becomes that when it jeopardizes the corporate strategy and (in my view a lot of importantly) damages people.
In a very silo-structured organisation, the politics of the purposeful managers that develop protective ways of their own “fiefdoms” becomes counter productive and frequently obstructive to the objectives of a modification initiative that is aligned to a corporate vision and strategy.
As Patrick Lencioni observes in his book “Silos, Politics, and Turf Wars”, the place where the blame lies for silos and politics is at the prime of the organisation: “Each departmental silo will ultimately be traced back to the leaders of those departments who have failed to perceive the interdependencies that must exist among [the departments]”
One amongst the various reasons I strongly favour a programme management based approach to change is that the great nature of the approach focuses on the achievement of the organisational strategic vision by making certain that the envisaged organisational edges are literally realised. This is often an organisation-wide perspective that transcends the interests of any explicit fiefdom.
Shifting the balance of power
However this is often only potential if the CEO and other directors and senior management take – and stand by – the hard decision to shift the balance of power and support the modification programme. This implies empowering the modification management leadership and team to own authority over useful management within outlined and limits and terms of reference. This is often what I call: “sponsorship with balls, bottle and teeth”!
The four elements of the terms of reference
These terms of reference embody four parts:
(one) A simple clear vision that consists of a single purpose of focus that is shared by the complete leadership team and, as Kotter suggests, a minimum of 75% of the management team. This point of focus is what drives the amendment management leadership and team for the duration of the change programme.
(2) A blueprint that defines and clarifies precisely what’s meant by the vision, in alternative words, specifically how the organisation will be different once the vision has been realised.
(three) This in the course of a press release and definition of the organisational edges that can be realised through the modification initiative stating the nature of the advantages, where and after they will arise and the way they will be measured.
(4) And at last, the availability of a statement that outlines the change methodology that will be applied by the amendment management leadership and team. It includes the programme level implementation and therefore the tactical task level implementation that translates the vision into sensible actionable steps.
Kitty Cooper been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in change management ,you can also check out her latest website about:
Lace Up Pumps Which reviews and lists the best