2011 Book Review #35: Managing with Power

[jethrien]

Title:Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations
Author: Jeffrey Pfeffer
Genre: Textbook
Thingummies: 3

Synopsis: A discussion of the uses of power, from implementing ideas to creating power within an organization to how to avoid losing power.

Thoughts: The book makes the case that Americans have made power into a dirty word, and therefore avoid acquiring the influence necessary to actually get things done. It's a good argument. How many times do people insist on electing "outsiders" to political office, only to find that they are either completely ineffective or quickly become actual politicians? It's not because Washington is hopelessly corrupt (although there are certainly problems)--it's that one must use politics to actually get anything done. Politics and power are not inherently evil things.

However, there's definitely a solid streak of amoral Machiavellian-style plotting in this book. It's a strong contrast against the negotiation book from a couple weeks ago, where the author firmly believed in maintaining a moral high ground without losing effectiveness. If this book were a D&D character, it would be true neutral--the author does not seem particularly concerned with being ethical as long as you are successful, and firmly believes that the ends justifies the means. (One anecdote points out that Lyndon Johnson did everything necessary to accumulate power, voting against a lot of civil rights legislation, including an anti-lynching law. This enabled him to become president and acquire a strong power base, which he used to ram through more civil rights legislation than any other single person. The author quite admires Johnson's focus. While I agree his final actions in this case were admirable, I'm not quite so sure I agree that, say, the deaths of people lynched in the intervening years are justified by the ending triumph.)

There are a lot of anecdotes here, actually. It's helpful, both as concrete illustrations and as a way of breaking up political theory and keeping the reader interested. The particular anecdotes are of mixed usefulness, however. I found some of them to be very confusing and occasionally could not figure out what the intended point was. Others were merely horrifying and have convinced me I'm rather glad it's unlikely that I will ever be an upper-level officer of a large company.

A lot of this stuff isn't particularly new--it's more the codification of rules you kind of had already figured out in the back of your head, but had never been able to articulate. Some I think will be useful in the future. There's a certain datedness to the entire book, which is generally not much of a problem. Most of these power games have been played through history, and aren't likely to change in a decade or two. But I found the assertion that cloaking firings and layoffs in obfuscating language is a good way to soften the blow to be rather naive. I feel like most of the euphemisms have lost whatever cloaking power they once had and that many of them have become more insulting than merciful.

It's a useful set of information, but it's not always explained in the clearest or least distasteful way. Interesting, but not truly revelatory and a little discomforting.

Comments

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

But I found the assertion that cloaking firings and layoffs in obfuscating language is a good way to soften the blow to be rather naive.
I don't think anyone who has actually lost their job would believe this. It really doesn't matter what they call it. The end result is the same.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

It was not entirely clear whether they thought that the "softened" language was intended to benefit the people laid off, the people left behind, or the general public. I certainly don't think anyone fired will feel anything but fired no matter what they call it. I suppose in the past it might have helped not spook the horses, that is the investors or possibly the employees still at the company.

[firynze.livejournal.com]

I feel like the "softened" language is just to assuage any guilt felt by the person doing the firing...

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

It's possible in the real world. However, in the book, which was extremely blunt, there was no mention of this making it easier for the person doing the firing. There is very little sympathy, in fact, for people who are squeamish about doing what is "necessary" for the acquisition of power. I do not think the author thought of this method as being particularly useful for making the firer have an easier time with his/her conscience, just an easier time with other people.

[firynze.livejournal.com]

Ah, so classic sociopath behaviour. "Doing X will make it easier to interact with the normals."

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

This was the textbook for the Power & Politics class that I took last fall (that I posted a bit about). The thing is, the optimal methods of getting power do kinda require some sociopathy--you really need to be able to step back from thinking of people as people, view them as game pieces for a while, and then go back to viewing them as people when you need to understand their motivations and manipulate them. (The limits to sociopathy come from the problem of treating people like sophisticated I/O machines--you can predict and prod their actions to some degree, but without ever really understanding their motivations as people, your able to manipulate them is limited.)

[firynze.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that being a sociopath isn't useful in some situations, particularly the sort that i think are being referenced here. I'm just saying it's classic.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a prince! (heh)

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

It's a very interesting book, if only so you can understand why the real life power gamers do what they do. And also understand why it is that other people get ahead of you when they play the games. But the author definitely admires people for skill when I'm kind of horrified by them.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

This is how I see it as well. And I think all efforts to assuage the guilt of the rejector are inherently bad.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

In class, this got lumped in with the "effective communication" section--there's a fine line with bad news where you need to make sure the actual news is conveyed correctly, but you also presumably still need something from the person / people who are loyal to them. How you fire someone can affect the entire atmosphere of your organization. If you manage to fire one engineer on good terms, you might get the rest of the team to keep doing work, rather than updating their resumes and searching Monster on company time.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I've dreamed of writing up guidelines of how reject people better. Cause there are ways that feel a lot better. Some of my criticisms:
- Do not expect the person you are rejecting (firing/not letting into your group/dumping) to hang around for a bit afterwards to reassure you that they are fine
- If someone is interviewing/auditioning, give a deadline for when they will hear
- Stick to it
- If you cannot make it, notify them of the new deadline
- Do not get someone's hopes up about getting keeping a job if you're not sure you can deliver
- Don't tell them they'll land on their feet. It's not your job to comfort them, and, in fact, you can't.

Also for firings, things like not dragging out the news or doing it in a way that embarrasses them in front of their colleagues are important. And not expecting them to continue to care about your objectives. But the not pretending that this is any less of a disaster for the person than it actually is--that's a big one.

[firynze.livejournal.com]

Pretty much...