1. Think Collaboration, Not Conflict

When it comes to office politics, it is essential to redefine power, control, compromise, and competition through the lens of collaboration rather than conflict.

Power and control generally imply having some form of authority over something or someone, exercising restraining or directing influence over someone; you can have power and control over yourself or someone else. In contrast, demonstrating strength requires no competition, no aggression, but only the state of being strong—having and using great resources.

Using a prizefighter and a karate master as a metaphor for power and strength, the prizefighter is power, aggressive and dominant, pushing and demanding; the karate master is strength, working with personal competence, the environment, and increasing personal energy through self-awareness and self-confidence.

Compromise requires mutual concessions—you give up something, I give up something, and we meet somewhere in the middle. The problem with this process is that the middle may not be the best place to be, and that each person has to lose something in order to get there, opening the door to feelings of resentment or anger. Collaboration, however, allows you to focus on what is right, rather than who is right—no one gives up anything. Collaboration calls for each individual to check his or her ego at the door, operate outside of personal unmet needs, and focus on what is best.

Competition is defined as a contest between rivals—and that is exactly the problem. While competition has been used for centuries as a motivational tool, it often leads to conflict, forces people to prove that one is better than another, and requires a winner and a loser. With cooperation, common goals are determined, and people work together to accomplish them.

Through collaboration, Raj could have saved his reputation; through cooperation, Julie and Ann could have created a sales team that was unbeatable; and through compromise, I would not have been fired from my first job.

Collaboration, Compromise, and Cooperation at Work

David, a bank president for 8 years, had made his bank one of the strongest in the state. George, a member of the bank’s board of directors, had disliked David from the start, for reasons unknown to David. Over the years, George had done everything in his power to discredit David’s work, including obtaining bank records and pointing out each error, and spreading rumors about David’s abilities. Initially David had spent his energy defending his position by arguing, second-guessing George’s next move, retaliating, and finally hiding from George.

Once David began a collaborative approach to George, the relationship changed. David engaged George in clarifying and sharing information and resources on their mutual goals, asked him for his input on various projects, kept him updated on developments and events, and included him in additional committee work. Through cooperation and compromise, George was able to shift his critical, conflict orientation into a balanced focus on delivering results.

Shift your focus from win/lose to working jointly with others (not giving in or giving up); shift from defending your position to understanding the style of the political structure and the behavior of others, from pointing fingers and deflecting blame to accepting responsibility for spotting any opportunity to collaborate. Even the harshest critic will find it difficult to argue with someone who will not argue back (“Well, oh yeah?”), defend him- or herself (“Yes, but . . .”), deflect (“Look at John, he is worse than me . . .”), or hide.

You can initiate collaborative behavior by focusing on what is best (rather than on who is right). Asking, “What can we do to work best together?” is a great way to open the door to collaboration. It is difficult to respond to that question with a defensive, grandstanding, or blaming answer; however, if you receive a response that displays anger, use your boundaries to get a handle on the conversation, and move in a positive direction.