Management Education and Development. Vol. 18. Pt. 1. 1987. pp. 3-19

Owl, Fox, Donkey or Sheep: Political Skills for Managers

SIMON BADDELEY AND KIM JAMES - Institute of Local Government Studies,University of Birmingham

Abstract This paper describes the development of a model the authors and their colleagues have been using to develop political skills as an increasingly important element of management education. We suggest why the teaching of political skills is still approached with some timidity, even in the field of local government where there are increasing demands for officers to be 'politically sensitive’. We describe a model containing two dimensions relating, first, to the skills of 'reading' the politics of an organisation and, second, to the skills an individual is 'carrying' into situations which may predispose them to act with integrity or play psychological games. The two dimensions are tightly integrated but allow us to separate out four types of behaviour - innocent, inept, clever and wise which an individual may adopt in different situations. That these are behaviours and not fixed traits is a critical distinction, helping us to develop wise behaviour in managers by concentrating in our training on the way the dimensions of 'carrying' and 'reading' are combined.

Introduction

Political skill is the elusive and increasingly demanded ingredient of success and survival in organisational life. This paper attempts to describe political skills and our approach to teaching them. The animals in our title are intended to provide a vivid visual reminder of the context and content of the four behavioural styles we shall be presenting. Hayes (1984) describes politically competent managers as people 'who expect to experience resistance to their attempts to get things done, but nevertheless keep on taking initiatives, carefully selected initiatives, in ways that eventually tend to produce the results they desire'. By contrast politically incompetent managers 'behave like bulls in a china shop, upsetting others and creating unnecessary resistance to their proposals'. We would add to Hayes' definition of political competence Lee and Piper's (1986) view that this is a skill exercised in the context of 'political pluralism'. From this perspective organisations are seen as being composed of individuals and groups who pursue their own goals with the power at their command using strategies which they perceive as appropriate. Since different goals are often incompatible, organisational conflict is seen as inherent and neither 'good' nor 'bad'.

Examples of political incompetence include the manager with a reputation for dynamism, brought into a large and unwieldy organisation to get it back on the rails, who soon resigns with the complaint that he or she is not being allowed to manage; or the manager who blithely and enthusiastically pursues a pet project without recognising the growing strength of a coalition of opposition; or the manager who bluffs a resignation threat and finds it unexpectedly accepted. Politically incompetent managers such as these may find that while they enter jobs fired with enthusiasm they have a propensity to leave them the same way. ‘Politics' has become an enticing frontier for management education. The literature increasingly states its importance. For example: "….growing attention has recently been directed to organisational politics - tactics for seizing, holding and using power…." (Baron, 1983). 'The kind of manager that prospered in the '60s and '70s will not necessarily do so well now. ….Political and survival skills are likely to become increasingly prized amongst managers. If Management Development is to maintain its place as a viable management activity it must adjust to the changing trends' (Molander, 1986). But despite growing reminders of the need to be aware of politics there is a scarcity of guidance on the actual skills involved. Unless management educators address the issue of

political skill, 'political incompetence', as a description of failure, may become a catch-all like 'pilot error' - a phrase which locates the fault with someone who is often no longer around and gives the semblance of understanding to a mystery.

Problems of Developing Political Skill Why is political skill rarely a subject of training courses? We think it is because there are points of view which get in the way of developing models of the skills that are needed:

- The political arena of organisational life reflects a breakdown of managerial rationality. Thus Mintzberg (1983) writes: ' ...politics refers to individual or group behaviour that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, in the technical sense, illegitimate - sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise (though it may exploit any one of these)’. Management in these terms dislikes whim but abhors political whim.

- It is inept to discuss how one uses power: 'Those who know don’t talk, those who talk don't know' as Stokeley Carmichael said in the '60s.

- 'You either have political skills or you haven't'. You can’t train for 'nous'; it is not a technique.

- Political skills are inferior to interpersonal skills when one is trying to build a team - often a vital objective of management training. Thus David Casey (1985) argues that: 'It requires a huge effort to abandon politics, say what you mean, express feelings openly, engage in open warfare, trust your colleagues, speak your mind. ...’

- 'Don't talk politics or religion at table'. It threatens conviviality.- Engaging in politics, particularly if you have tied your credibility to professional expertise,

may be morally compromising. Thus Robert Lee and Peter Lawrence (1985) conclude their book on the exercise of politics in organisational life with the sentence 'We hope you will find the political insights gained in this text of use in your battles with those of lesser honour'.

- Politics may involve individual self-interest at the expense of the organisation. Thus, even Hayes (1984), who argues for political competence in managers suggests 'managers can be too political in the sense that they may pursue their self-interest without paying any attention to the interests of others or to the survival and growth of the organisation'.

- There is an uneasy relationship between politics and psychology; one person's neurosis is another person's political oppression. For example, women's behaviour labelled neurotic by men, can also be viewed as individual expression of an invidiously powerless position in society.

All of these beliefs or myths have an element of reality and truth but need not inhibit the development of political skill. A model can be described which takes account of these objections and which helps managers to survive politically. But being interested in political skills solely as a means of survival is not enough. Being politically skilled means being able to manage the requisite variety of your organisation. It means you can make the most of the multiplicity of experiences, abilities and perceptions of the people you work with. Politics is not something to which you resort when management fails. It is, on the contrary, at the very heart of management. Perhaps one of the greatest inhibitors, though, is the idea that the political skill we are referring to is the same as the behaviour of Politicians. It is not. Some Politicians are politically skilled. Some are not. The same goes for managers. We are not looking for a model of some ideal politician but for a model of political skill.

Local Government as an Arena for political skills Local Government, where we do much of our work, provides a fascinating area for examining this phenomenon. Because it has both real Politicians and professional managers, so managers have to

operate within an overtly political environment and also manage the usual organisational politics. This is made even clearer by the current polarisation of local government politics which has precipitated a professional crisis for many local government managers. They had become accustomed to clear cut rules about the respective roles of officers and elected members. The rational, professional, bureaucratic elements of local government which are an important source of its reliability and strength, have encouraged the local government officer to remain innocent of the need to become 'street-wise' about what is afoot. But as Sutherland (1986) has observed: 'Staff employed within the system are squeezed between economic austerity and political hyperactivity, and as a result more and more interest is being shown in the skills needed to marry the political process to service delivery on the ground'. This distinction between being a Politician and being a politically skilled manager is exemplified in the way Councillors have described what they want of a politically sensitive officer. In this grey area the bemused manager is likely to be told that they should be a number of things they might not have thought their contract required them to be.

Thus, Lady Porter, the Leader of Westminster City Council: ‘A politically sensitive officer is somebody who has breadth of vision…. who's interested in what goes on…. who is broad in every sense, so that they are able to see that when they give a response, or they act in a certain way in response to what the members ask for, they should not be one-dimensional: they should realise "why are they asking me this? ….what a daft thing to ask! ….. ah, no, of course it isn't, I realise that such-and-such is going on … that concerns them”.’

Or Councillor Brian Green, Leader of St. Helens Council:

'You can sense when an officer is taking instructions from you and going away and working quite hard at doing exactly what you want him to do. The reason you can tell the difference between an officer who does that and one who is politically sensitive, not necessarily sympathetic, is someone who'll go away and do what the members request of him…. but equally think about what he is preparing and if any other options are spotted along the way will actually come back and raise the question with members. You can very soon sense when an officer is politically sensitive and also in fact, when he is politically sympathetic, but sympathy shouldn't necessarily be confused with support.’

That the need for a politically sensitive manager is not confined to local government is encapsulated by Michael Spungin, a leading Nottinghamshire Councillor who describes the politically sensitive officer as:

'Someone who would have risen to the top in almost any business he came to choose because he has got the intelligence to recognise the more delicate touches and also someone who is prepared to be - I won't say "rubberlike" - but certainly sufficiently resilient to bend with whatever political climate he's faced with'.

These statements1 provide clues, but are certainly not definitions of the skill we want to describe. They do not give clear guidance on what the manager is supposed to do. Yet, we may credit the overt Politics of local government for articulating, even to this extent, the concept of the political manager. In many businesses even these clues are absent. The expectations described by these councillors are often left unspoken.

1.These views were expressed during interviews by Simon Baddeley and Chris Game at the University's TV and Film Unit and in the case of Lady Porter in the Westminster Press Studio.

Developing a Model of Political skill

It is difficult to arrive at a model of competence in this area because of some basic conventions of management education; in particular the distinction made between cognitive and experiential learning. Skills teaching in management education uses experiential models and tends to treat cognition as an addendum. For example, the management of potential conflict would be taught differently by a psychologist and a political scientist. The psychologist tends to operate on the basis that human differences can be resolved by resort to a repertoire of interpersonal skills - the ability to listen, to be assertive, to manage feelings, to intervene appropriately while the political scientist might rely on an analysis which deals with relative access by the parties concerned to resources, to knowledge, wealth or class background, or, with government policies.

Given a conflict between a member of clerical staff and director in which the former says he or she is unable to negotiate properly over a difference of approach with the director, the political scientist may be addressing their relative position powers while the psychologist may be working on the director's listening skills and the clerical officer's assertive skills. Both approaches are equally valid, but the separation of academic disciplines tends to be carried over into course design. This leaves the choice of approach or the means of combining them entirely to the student. The obligation resting on management educators in teaching 'political skills' is to present a useful way of integrating cognitive and experiential learning. This is less a theoretical problem about explaining the real world than a problem of how management teachers have tended to chunk the real world to aid learning. Analysis can be an escape from feeling. But conversely, preoccupation with feeling can be an obstacle to political awareness.

The class of skills we need to develop must enable managers to address the following sorts of questions:

How do I deal with a manager from another department who will lose in a budget battle if I get what I want?

At what point in a meeting do I voice objection to a senior manager’s proposal? Is it stupid to do so?

How do I deal with a manager whose main interest is empire building? How do I work out how to plan and respond to situations of rapid change - such as a dramatic

shift of power in a Political group or Boardroom? How can I raise and keep alive what I consider an important issue which seems to have little

support or, worse, is treated with derision? How do I convey to a ruling political group with a clear mandate from the electorate that my

practical advice on implementing their manifesto is not professional procrastination to avoid doing what they want?

How can I work out what is going on in a meeting which is supposed to be an 'open discussion' when most of what happens seems predetermined? How can I get support for my plans or proposals without compromising myself?

How can I deal with the fact that the person I work with is simp1y incompetent?

We believe that the behavioural style people adopt in addressing these kinds of questions is a strong influencer of their survival and success, and we need a model which helps managers to tease out some of the options they have when such questions arise.

A Descriptive Model

Having presented ourselves with this problem we felt the need for a model which could describe the behavioural options. The model is made up of two dimensions. The first is the dimension of 'reading' which deals with the skills an individual brings to their understanding of the external world. The

second is the dimension of 'carrying' which describes the skills with which an individual manages their internal world. These are not the familiar distinctions of cognitive/experiential, objective/subjective or thought/feeling. We believe elements of all of these are present in both 'reading' and 'carrying’. For example managing your internal world means managing both thought and feeling and one can gain understanding of the external world through both feeling and thought. Nor do we place 'reading' and 'carrying' in opposition to each other. In fact a significant part of our descriptive model involves showing how 'reading' determines 'carrying' and vice versa.

The 'reading' dimension, with political awareness at one end and political unawareness at the other refers to the ability at one end to read an organisation, to read its decision processes, its overt and covert agendas, the location and bases of power inside and outside the organisation, one's own power bases and abilities to exercise influence, the organisational culture and its style, its political purpose and direction, its small and large 'p' politics. Political unawareness at the other end refers to either the unwillingness or the inability to recognise these things. This dimension alone seems to have something to say about two stereotypical behaviours. At the ‘unaware' end we can imagine 'innocent' behaviour. Innocence in this sense is typified by blindness to power and other organisational issues and is used by people whose emphasis is on professional and managerial rationality. These people may view political skill as, if not actually contemptible, at least ethically compromising. They are unhappy about the whole business of ‘politicking'. They believe expert power and position power are the only legitimate sources of authority and they will be constantly surprised at power exercised in contradiction to this. For example, the newcomer or the junior who has influence over key people is a source of puzzlement and grief.

At the other end of the dimension is the stereotype of 'clever’ behaviour. This stereotype is often viewed with suspicion by the 'innocent' manager. 'Clever' behaviour is typified by opportunism based on a shrewd understanding of how the system works. 'Clever' behaviour often achieves its ends without using the types of power 'innocence' regards as essential. Innocent may observe with bewilderment that 'she knows nothing about the subject yet they all listened to her'. People using clever behaviour will set up situations so that their own needs are met by the outcome, which may or may not coincide with what the organisation needs. Innocent, on the other hand, having internalised the organisation's needs may pursue his or her own needs and the organisation's simultaneously. Here lies 'innocent's' suspicion of the whole issue of 'political skill' because only the dimension of political awareness is taken into account. Kakabadse and Parker (1984) describe what we refer to as innocent behaviour as 'default reasoning' about politics. For example an otherwise competent manager who feels shocked or surprised by a particular policy or procedure or another's actions or motives will think ‘"I don't understand, it must be political". The 'default reasoning' operates -"political, ignore", "political, nasty", or "politics, can't play, won't play"’.

Even on this one dimension success in reading the organisation requires both cognitive and experiential learning. Being able to and having the inclination to locate and understand power in an organisation is not detached from one’s feelings about power. Here too lies a potent source of collusion with management teaching which keeps political awareness in the cognitive arena and so emotionally detached.

This dimension is inadequate by itself. As we described clever and innocent behaviour it became apparent to us that political awareness/unawareness was insufficient to differentiate clever from innocent. There seems to be something beyond their different levels of awareness. Cleverness seems to involve wiliness and self-centred behaviour. Innocence involves wide-eyed simplicity and guilelessness. Another dimension, that of 'carrying', is needed to describe the full range of human behaviour in this area. There are many psychological models which address some of the elements of 'carrying', such as the underpinnings of assertion-training, Personal Construct Theory and the notion of Locus of Control. The one we have found most useful so far is the idea of psychological game-playing taken from Transactional Analysis theory.

Let us imagine a dimension with integrity at one end and a predisposition to play psychological games at the other end. Let us distinguish these two things straightaway from other kinds of manoeuvring and manipulation of situations in organisations. There are at least two other ways of doing this:

(1) using written rules; (2) manoeuvring around the unwritten rules. Written rules are part of an organisation's 'standing orders', the means by which decisions are formally taken, the procedures that govern committee and board meetings and formal negotiation. To be politically skilled you need to know how to use these to make things happen. Unwritten rules are those which though not written down you also need to know in order to get things done. They include lobbying, getting items on to agendas, speaking to the right people, timing proposals correctly. Like written rules they vary with the culture and style of the organisation. Where these manoeuvres differ from those of the player of psychological games is that they are about knowing how the organisation works rather than about an individual predisposition. Knowing the written and unwritten rules requires the ability to read ‘who cares? who knows? who will?' in the manager's environment. Managers can use that ability and maintain their integrity or they can use it and play psychological games.

'Psychological game-playing' is taken from the Transactional Analysis model (see Harris, 1970; Berne, 1968). Integrity implies the absence of psychological game-playing based on a degree of acceptance of yourself and other people for what they are. Game-playing is self-oriented. Harris describes 'a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible with a concealed motivation'. The pay-off for playing a psychological game for the player is that the player's feelings about himself or herself and about the rest of the world are confirmed. In this process somebody ends up feeling bad. When people act with integrity in their dealings with others their behaviour does not involve the compulsion to engage in exchanges with this kind of pay-off. Putting these two dimensions together gives us further insight into 'clever’ and 'innocent' behaviour. Instead of solely being at opposite ends of the two poles, we can see that 'innocent' is both ‘politically unaware' and has 'integrity', whereas ‘clever' is 'politically aware' and a 'game-player’.

Figure 1. Descriptive Model of Political Behaviour

Politically aware

Politically unaware

Psychological game-playing

Acting withintegrity

CLEVER

INEPT

WISE

INNOCENT

CARR YING

RE

AD

ING

This leaves us with two seductively blank spaces for behaviour which reflects 'political awareness' and 'integrity' and for behaviour which involves being a 'game-player' who is 'politically unaware'. In the bottom left-hand corner of this diagram is a category of behaviour involving psychological game-playing and political unawareness. We call this behaviour ‘inept'. This combination of characteristics means that ‘inept' behaviour involves the same inability to read the political dimension as 'innocence', but rather than having internalised the organisation's needs, inept behaviour like 'cleverness' is wholly self-oriented. 'Inept' plays psychological games in the organisation which confirm all their worst feelings about themselves and others. As a consequence they often end up in a mess and this has a bad spin-off for their organisations. This is also true of 'clever' whose games are designed to show people in a bad light. In the top right-hand corner comes the behaviour we define as 'politically skilled'. This involves being politically aware while maintaining integrity. We describe it as 'wise'. Figure 1 shows the four behaviours and the two dimensions we have now identified. Defining characteristics of wise are 'creativity' and 'imagination' and an absence of preconceptions about how to handle each situation as it arises. It is easy to describe 'wisdom' by saying that it is not any of the other three behaviours. Here are some first attempts at some more active descriptions.

A famous story which captures the behaviour for us is Christ's response to the question 'Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar?' This question is posed, apparently out of respect for Jesus’ authority, but really to draw out an answer which will offend either the sacred orders or Herodian politicians concerned to preserve the peace and avoid offence to Rome. Being against paying would expose Jesus to the charge of rebellion, being for paying implied degrading the Jewish theocracy; '…..but he perceived their craftiness', asked them to show him a penny and say whose image was on it. When they said 'Caesar's', he replied 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God’s. And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace'. (Luke, Chapter 20)

An example of skill in political manoeuvring, carried out with what we think was wise behaviour, came from a senior local government officer. Over a lunch before an afternoon meeting, during which members would be elected to an important committee, he had heard a comment by the Chair that Councillor X had been a weak and disruptive member of the committee last year and should not be re-elected. He thought he had seen a deal being struck and thought that the majority Party would soon be developing rifts and divisions of loyalty. He was therefore surprised at the election meeting when the Chair proposed that all existing committee members should be re-elected. The motion was seconded. There were then various proposals for new committee members and their merits were discussed, and proposals were seconded. It was left to an officer to point out a procedural problem: there were now too many people for the committee places. The next three-quarters of an hour were spent discussing the merits of the various people proposed. It became clear that a Councillor must be on the committee because of the constituency she represented, or another because of a particular expertise. Some were shown to be less suitable than they had first appeared and proposals were withdrawn. The meeting was left with one proposal too many. Not a word was said against Councillor X. The meeting seemed to be getting bogged down but at that point Councillor X rose to the occasion. He saw that there were real difficulties in deciding whose nominations should stand. He offered to withdraw from the Committee. The Chair considered this and after weighing up the offer, it was accepted. The whole meeting congratulated Councillor X on his magnanimous gesture. Everyone thought that he would be elected to a committee where his undoubted strengths would be utilised. In the way this problem was tackled, the Chair had managed to keep the group unity and the ousted individual had saved face. In some way everyone gained from what could have been a difficult win-lose situation with people's mutual respect and sense of personal worth at stake.

What is apparent to us about these two examples of wise behaviour is that the people who were wise did not get themselves out of difficult situations at the expense of others, except to let the clever or inept individuals fall into their own traps. They had to be nimble, and able to see things for what they are; in these instances, craftiness disguised as innocence, the way the organisational wind is blowing and a view of what is important for a particular institution. There is also, in wise behaviour, an understanding that surface exchanges hide important issues of principle which may engage the deepest emotions. Figure 2 shows all four behaviours - inept, innocent, clever and wise including, in each category, some phrases and attributes associated with each of them. We have talked, perhaps confusingly, about the behaviours within these dimensions as though they were the characteristics of individuals. This is not intended. We see them as behaviours not personality traits. Any individual can be wise, clever, inept or innocent depending on the circumstances, although some people, because of what they carry and how they read, have a propensity to use one style more than others. The task of the management educator is to help people develop the skills associated with being 'wise' so that people can spend more time using this behaviour. Whether you are predisposed to act with integrity or to play psychological games depends, as we have argued, on what you personally carry into the situations you face: whether you are politically aware or unaware depends on what you read when you turn your attention out into the organisation. One carries into situations the predisposition to play psychological games or to act with integrity. One's political awareness is determined by what one reads or fails to read in different situations. Of course the two dimensions are inextricably linked.

The Integration of the Reading and Carrying Dimensions

Wise behaviour, if it is to be the subject of training, comes from an integration of the reading and carrying dimensions. Although we have started by describing what an individual carries into a situation and their reading of that situation as though they were separate, they are not. What one carries determines what one reads. This connection is a strong one and can be a means of sustaining a tightly closed approach to understanding the world. If, for instance, you are carrying a predisposition to think of yourself as easily ignored by others you may read certain neutral behaviours by others as evidence that this is happening. By your behaviour you may create the situation feared. You can also carry from that situation confirmatory, but actually inaccurate, evidence that your reading of such situations is correct.

With the reminder that we are considering behaviours which can be recognised and changed rather than fixed traits of personality we can show how an individual's reading of a situation can lock them into a series of self-fulfilling prophecies. The clever individual's closed world may differ from that of inept only in so far as clever's skills in confirming the validity of their version of the world makes it more watertight than inept's. What they both have in common, and in contrast with wise or innocent, is that they are never puzzled nor uncertain about other people, even when they are saying things like 'I'll never understand what makes people tick' or 'you just never know what she'll do next'. The message given is not innocent's genuine puzzlement but an element of sarcasm, the sense that they really have everyone taped. The spoken words allow clever to fall back, if challenged, and explain in mock innocence that they genuinely believe that 'there's nowt so queer as folk'.

Figure 2

aware of purposeinterested in direction in association with power and purposecan cope with being disliked, good interpersonal skillspersonal values/ethics, thinks before speaking, assertive, tactful, emotionally literate, plans actions, checks gossip/rumourexcellent listener, is aware of others' viewpointstakes account of other people personallyuses coalition, knows how the formal processes worknon-defensive, learns from mistakes, reflects on eventscan make procedures work for themsense of loyaltycapacity for friendshipknows the formal and informal organisationopen, shares informationin tune with the grapevine recognises who knows, who cares, who cangets support negotiates/co-operateslikes win-win situationssays things like:

"How are we going to sort this out?""I wonder what's lying behind these ideas”"let's look at the ways we can speed this up, and get over the difficulties"“Let me make sure I understand what you're asking for”“I don't think I've been understanding you – can I have another go?”

Interested in power and in associating with the locus of powerunprincipled, inner-goal oriented, not ethicalwants to be seen as powerfulthinks before speaking, aggressive but well-masked, charming veneer can simulate feelings, plans actionsdoes not display feelings spontaneouslyasks "what information do I have? What information do I need?"checks gossip/rumour, is aware of others' viewpointsuses coalition, knows how the formal processes workbasically insecure but well defendedalways leaves jobs before mistakes are discoveredmanipulates situations so as to appear never to make mistakescan make procedures work for them, hustler, wide boy, card sharpknows how the formal and informal organisation works knows "who cares, who can, who knows" gets support, good at ingratiation, bargains, manipulateslikes games involving winners and losers can recognise and exploit key weaknesses in allies and opponents says things like:

'Leave it to me, I’ll have a word with him, he’s terribly out of touch" “I think it would be unwise for me to take this one, it’s very delicate, how about you, you know how good you are?”I have discussed this very thoroughly already and we’re united in this" (actually rubbish) "I share some of her/his feeling on this matter even if not quite so passionately”.

principled, ethicaltends to rely on authority does not appreciate political purposedoes not network, does not know how to get supportlistens but does not hearsticks to ethical, organisational and professional rulesunderstands content but not process of proceduresexaggerated respect for rationalityliteral believes in expert and position powersees authority and power as congruentbelieves you are powerful if you are rightbelieves flavours of the month were here to stay would not know a double message if hit between the eyes by itsense of loyalty capacity for friendshipopen, shares information sees things as "either - or" says things like:

'Could we get on with the main task of this meeting?” "Well, in strictly hierarchical terms I think it's X's decision”

"If only they would simply tell us what they really want, then we could get on with it”"In my professional opinion…”

not skilled interpersonally unprincipled hates to be ignored, likes to associate with authority inner-goal orienteddoes not recognise "direction", does not appreciate political purposeplays psychological games but does not read those of others emotionally illiterateconcerned with own feelings rather than others' predisposed to projection, attribution and paranoia makes judgements/decisions based on feelings rather than knowledge of the bureaucracy or organisational proceduresnot ethicalinterpersonally inept at making alliances/coalitions tends to say "shall we take a vote?” in the wrong setting docs not listen to otherstries hard to be nice but does not know howsees things as "either - or" not tuned into grapevine, blocked antennae given to clichés: "You know me”.. “with all due respect" says things like:

“Let's decide what we want and then make it look like what they want”“Well, we all know how he got his job, don't we?”“If the chairman wants to come to our meeting we'll just get together beforehand, won’t we?"

clever wise

inept

Politically aware

PsychologicalGame playing

Acting with integrity

Politically unaware

innocent

Innocent's problem is that what he or she carries into situations tends to deprive them of the ability to read the situation as assuredly as literacy may be hampered by bad eyesight. Because innocent is confident that his or her authority derives from being right about information and procedure and from sticking to the 'understood' codes of morality, innocent is incapable of reading the existence of power derived from other sources, such as personality or physical strength. Innocent respects authority but is predisposed by what he or she carries to read it as deriving from knowledge and position. When that does not seem to be the case the innocent individual tends to criticise themselves for not knowing enough about the circumstances. Innocent sees that the only way of confronting or overcoming the potential power of another is by acquiring more knowledge, a higher position and being a better person. Innocent, like inept and clever, creates a closed world, but innocent creates it by attributing the inexplicable behaviour of others to their own fallibility rather than the idiosyncrasies of others. Wise differs from all the other three in being conscious of the human tendency to create closed worlds of explanation and recognising the possibility of being able to learn one's way out of them, however emotionally costly this may be in the short run. What does this say about what and how wise carries and reads? Wise exercises integrity because he or she is not predisposed unconsciously to play games, or even if so predisposed, has or is continually seeking the self-knowledge that will recognise the root programming of such behaviour. Wise recognises that it is easier and often more comfortable to play games because these provide an element of predictability to one's understanding of the world and one's place in it.

Wise knows the importance of drawing on experience to understand the elements of a situation, but knows also the dangers of relying on experience without analysis. Wise knows one may be blind to those aspects of a situation that make it unique. The distinction between clever's prejudice and wise's insight may depend on your point of view - indeed whether you are perceiving their behaviour with the eyes of clever or wise.

For someone 'innocent', not reading the political dimension, it may be impossible to distinguish between clever and wise behaviour, since both involve political awareness which innocent automatically associates with lack of integrity. Similarly, inept or clever, both having a tendency to see situations in terms of their opportunities for self-centred game-playing may find it difficult to distinguish between wise and innocent, assuming that people who maintain their integrity are politically unsophisticated. We have slipped so easily into speaking of individuals instead of behaviours, and yet we know from experience how easy it is to be wise before or after rather than during an event. As we contemplate or remember a particular difficult situation our reading skills may seem quite adequate and our ability to think it through inhibits any tendency we may have to play games. Once involved our game-playing can be hooked or our reading skills abandoned.

Helping Manager’s learn Political Skills

We began this article by saying that many people talk about the need for political survival skills but that few address it as an important element of managerial training.

As a result of the development of our understanding and of our model of political skill, we2 have designed a one week skills programme for local government managers called 'Managing in a Political Environment' based on the READING/CARRYING model. For local government officers,

2 The Behavioural Group. Inlogov.

a large part of the READING dimension involves developing their understanding of the new Politics of local government; for example, trends in the way Politicians are becoming involved in the management of local authorities, how authorities have learned to operate when changes in administration to left or right have occurred after many years of one party dominance, or a new and growing phenomenon, the 'hung' or 'balanced' authority. For private sector managers, an understanding of the social, political and economic forces moulding their environment and a picture of company policy trends on issues such as decentralisation is likely to be just as essential to an enhancement of political skills as the 'new politics' is for local government. For all managers, the skill of analysing power in the organisation, the culture of the organisation and its constituent parts, the procedures which can be used to facilitate or hinder action are examples of the elements which go into the part of the programme where the READING dimension is dissected. Understanding the CARRYING dimension requires the development of awareness of psychological game playing. Psychological game playing needs careful distinction from the tactics of manoeuvring needed for wise behaviour. In both these dimensions participants can first learn the rudiments on 'out-there' examples, recognising what happens in other organisations or how others have a propensity to behave. They are then ready to develop their analysis of their own organisation and their self awareness. The issue that has teased us most in developing our model as a practical training tool is the development of the participant's ability to increase their use of wise behaviour, which requires the integration of the two dimensions. As we have seen, a person's current awareness will influence their understanding of what wise behaviour is and so this is a crucial ingredient of the training. Indeed we have heard, 'hard-nosed' officers who 'know' that political skill depends on the ability to stop being 'inept' and to get 'clever', to view 'wise’ at first as soft and too good to be true. Similarly, we have seen professionals persist in confusing 'wise' with 'clever' because they cannot yet accept that it is all right to be political. For this reason, the model needs time to be dissected, developed and digested by course members. We have developed several training devices for facilitating this process of understanding and integration. The first is a video which we commissioned. 3 It depicts the four styles of behaviour through the use of four characters; all are managers who are seen in a number of situations together. The differences with which the characters react to problems and people, both in terms of their perceptions and their behaviour, enables the viewers to identify the four styles and elaborate their understanding of the options open to them. The second is a set of short case incidents which illustrate ethical dilemmas with which senior managers can be faced. Discussion of these can again illustrate the range of options which can be used in such tricky situations. They can be used to explore participants’ views of each and develop their understanding of the styles of operating. Another is an exercise in which each participant practises under the eyes of the camera and colleagues on the programme. Role plays are used which address the problem of acting wisely in a situation when there are conflicting or ambiguous expectations and the issues at stake are recognised to be sensitive and crucial to one's reputation as a politically skilled manager. We are currently developing more training material, particularly that which can draw upon the real concerns of a particular organisation where the training is done in-house. No doubt as our understanding of the model develops in discussion with other managers, trainers and academics, more training ideas will be generated.

To help managers keep the model at the forefront of their thinking we use animal symbols to represent the four behavioural styles. Shown in Figure 3, they are rapidly becoming a logo for the course and our ideas.

3 Counter-productive - a film made by Pantechnicon for Inlogov. - Out of Print 2002

Figure 3. Owl, Fox, Donkey or Sheep

Conclusion In a world which requires expertise exercised with integrity there is a predisposition among many managers to steer clear of anything which appears 'political'. This is not a good stance for personal survival. It is not good for one's profession nor for one's dearest projects and enthusiasms, nor for the life of an organisation, nor indeed for Politics.

In our society most Political goals are achieved through the application of managerial and professional expertise. Indeed a part, though of course not all, of political success involves understanding the managerial feasibility of choices about how human beings should live. In this context innocent, or inept, managers are dangerous individuals, capable of serving malign policy-makers who depend on their expertise. As Hannah Arendt observed in response to Adolf Eichmann's claims about the non-criminality of his inner life, 'politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and support are the same'.

No less dangerous is the clever manager whose awareness and enjoyment of power carries indifference to its use. In discriminating between this and wise behaviour we have attempted to show a less crooked route from innocence to political awareness than the one that is often assumed.

CARR YING

RE

AD

ING

Politically aware

Politically unaware

Acting with integrityPsychological

game-playing

References ARENDT, H. (1963), Eichmann in Jeusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil, New York: Viking Press.

BARON, R. (1983), Behaviour in Organisations, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

BERNE, E. (1968), Games People Play, Harondsworth: Penguin.

CASEY, D. (1985), 'When is a team not a team?', Personnel Management, Vol 17, No.1, pp.27-29.

HARRIS, T. (1970), The Book of Choice, London: Jonathan Cape.

HAYES, J. (1984), 'The politically competent manager’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 10, No.1, pp. 24-33. KAKABADSE, A. and PARKER, C. (Eds.) (1984), Power, Politics and Organisations, Chichester: John Wiley. LEE, R. and PIPER, J. (1986), 'How views about the nature of management can affect the content of management education programmes: the advance of the political approach', Management Education and Development, Vol. 17, Part 2, pp. 114-27.

LEE, R. and LAWRENCE, P. (1985), Organisational Behaviour: Politics at Work, London: Hutchinson.

MINTZBERG, H. (1983), Power in and around Organisations, Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

MOLANDER, C. (1986), Management Development, Lund, Sweden: Chartwell-Bratt. SUTHERLAND, W. (1986), 'Decision and action in public life - Skills needed for survival in a political jungle', Local Government Studies, March/April, pp. 1-13.

Author contacts: Simon Baddeley, Institute of Local Government Studies, J. G. Smith Building, University of Birmingham, PO Box 363, Birmingham, B15 2TT. E-mail: s.j.baddeley@bham.ac.uk 00 44 (0)121 554 9794 and k.james@cranfield.ac.uk