![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
