Some people are ultra political by nature. They walk into a room at a crowded party and immediately get a feel for who is powerful and who is not. Worse, they brush by those who aren’t important to get at those who are. Eventually, the behavior gets noticed and discussed, and a reputation develops. A consensus forms that such a person is not to be trusted, and must be dealt with carefully.
Other people become political by experience. They learn the art of politics because they realize that being political is essential for achieving their objectives.
Perhaps they have observed others getting what they want and wondered “what do they have that I don’t have?” Maybe they are immersed in a highly political environment and must learn to swim or sink. Or, maybe they realize that position and authority don’t really influence people as much as one would hope; and learn to play the game differently in order to be more effective. In any case, being political is just one more weapon in the leadership arsenal.
Some leadership experts coach executives to be less political because they have a glossy, idealized, or politically correct view of what being a leader means. In reality, most organizations can’t afford their leaders to mute or restrain those political skills. Efficiency, aggressiveness, and effectiveness would be sacrificed as a result. Instead, coaches need to recognize that leadership is a contact sport, in which hands get dirty and noses are sometimes bloodied. It takes skill to be viewed as a leader who is not political while being politically astute. Despite what many may wish to think, leadership is a self-serving exercise which happens to benefit the organization as a whole. Political behavior that does not serve the leader’s vision or the organization’s direction is viewed negatively. Political behavior that does serve the leader’s vision is called “leadership.”
In the movie Power, Richard Gere plays an extremely successful political handler who has become tired of working for the highest bidder. So many of the well-financed politicians he helps get elected simply do not do any good once in office. To salve his conscience, he decides to select an honest candidate who really stands for something and help that person get elected by using his dark arts. The candidate Gere selects is thrilled to receive his help and guidance. Gere tells the man how he must change his image and message in order to get elected, but the man refuses. He wouldn’t have integrity if he did so. Richard Gere argues that the candidate cannot accomplish any good if he does not succeed in getting elected. Put aside your integrity for the time being, he advises, and you can return to it once you are in power.
It often seems, of course, that the political leaders we elect are rarely able to live up to their potential or best intentions. Once they have sacrificed integrity to be elected, they must continue to sacrifice integrity to be re-elected. Even a second term president or a retiring senator is still beholden to the interest groups and powerful individuals who saw them elected in the first place. There is a fear that being political can be an effective way of gaining power, and maintaining power, but at significant cost. Does this fear mean we should avoid being political at all? Or does it indicate that being political is a taboo ¾ and a luxury that effective leaders can’t afford?
Leaders who believe that they can stop being political once they reach the top are often deeply disappointed. In truth, being political will always be part of the game. Nevertheless, the skill set for being political changes as a leader rises in the ranks. A leader who is an up-and-coming middle manager will probably need to gain accolades and recognition from above, while creating supportive friends and allies all around, and not distancing or turning off anyone in the process. A leader at the very top of the organization might need to be viewed by followers as benevolent, compassionate, articulate and visionary. But do those attributes have to be real; or is perception more important than the reality? The question reeks of being political. To many of the world’s CEO’s, the answer is self-evident ¾ part of their job is to convince people of those perceptions, regardless of the truth. I doubt, however, that they would ever admit to that in public.
Anthony Smith is Co-Founder and a Managing Director of Leadership Research Institute and author of ESPN: The Company (Jossey-Bass, September 2009). He is also the author The Taboos of Leadership: 10 Secrets No One Will Tell You about Leaders and What They Really Think (Jossey-Bass, May 2007). This article originally appeared in different form in his book, The Taboos of Leadership.
