Let the Games Begin

No discussion of office politics is complete without coverage of the ever-popular turf wars. While very few people will readily confess that they have instigated or participated in a form of turf war, I have seen a great number of people who have indeed witnessed, engaged in, or been victims of some form of turf war.

Think of your company’s organization chart as a map of Bizaro World, with little fiefdoms of sales, accounting, operations, human resources, and so on. Each has its own sovereign leader, its own rules, its own culture, its own territorial boundaries, and even a language all its own. Any change or new initiative, especially in an organization with a right/wrong orientation, is viewed as a territorial invasion. Now, looking at things this way, do you recognize any of these typical, yet destructive, games?

• The Snub: Socially excluding an individual in a way that clearly brands him or her an outcast

• The Squirrel: Withholding or deliberately misinterpreting information in an effort to prevent any change from moving forward

• The Duplicitous: Agreeing up front to take action or cooperate, then waiting until the last minute to back out

• The Interfering: Monopolizing all resources (people and time) so that they are unavailable to work on any project involving change

• The Filibuster: Holding meeting after meeting, conference call after conference call, in an effort to waste time, so that the desired change cannot even start

These types of games tend to involve groups of employees who own decision making, who own information, or who own influence in an unconstructive, negative terrain. This sets up a very different method for determining who will succeed, who will survive, and who will fall away in an organization. These games feel personal, and that often leads to needs-based reactions, like those described in Chapter 2.

Natalie has a personal need for approval. She is a bright woman who is intent on doing a great job in her new position at an insurance company. She enjoys participation in brainstorming meetings, and she did so in early in her tenure at the company. The questions she asked and the opinions she shared were counter to those of the “in crowd”; as a result, she was branded a traitor and shunned by the majority of her coworkers. Her rejection by her associates conflicted with her need for approval, and her behavior changed from thoughtful and collaborative to victim. She became more and more withdrawn, and she did not speak up in a meeting again.