Organizational Politics

Hares and hounds shall not race against each other

-Atul Mohan

Any organization or its sub-group goes through its life cycle. With initial set-up and growth, few more join the group as the time progresses. The new entrants and old timers of the group always face a tussle in terms of polarization of power, clash of ideology, sharing of thoughts and setting up of vision for the group. The internal dynamics is like a nuclear reaction, which if used well, can be a boon for the organization or else, it is an explosion in waiting. 

“Every company has two organizational structures: The formal one is written on the charts; the other is the everyday relationship of the men and women in the organization.” -Harold S. Geneen

Long ago, the might of a group was often proved by proving their superiority in any of the free hand outdoor sports and amongst all the sports, a race across an open natural terrain was perhaps the most common way. One such race was known as ‘hares and hounds race’, perhaps from which our modern day relay races have originated. First group of the runners, called hares, used to start out in ordinary running costume with canvas bags filled with paper cut in pieces of size of about an inch square. The paper pieces which is symbolic to scent of hare, was scattered profusely along the course, so that it can be easily followed by hounds. Five minutes later, the second group, known as hounds had to break away. They were headed by the Master of Hounds, whose duties were to set the pace for the group and keep the men together. The trail had to be followed at all times except where there is water, in which case the runners can go around the stream or cross it, as they choose. The hares run much faster than the hounds, hence the hares had to clock a time they chose.

The hares run much faster than the hounds, hence the hares had to clock a time allowance of extra seven minutes; that is, the hares had to arrive at the finish-point twelve minutes before the arrival of the first hound, or else they are hunted and they lose. After the hares have run in a circuitous and sufficiently long route, ranging anything from five to ten miles, they used to throw a profusion of paper on the ground as the signal for the "break." When the hounds reach this point, they need to line up, wait for a while for all the hounds to reach and then start, racing for finish line. The first and second hounds at the finish were appropriately rewarded.

A ‘Hare’. - Scattering Scent while on run.

The hare were rarely caught and were mostly victorious because much loss of time by the hounds. Sometimes the wind used to blow away part of the scent, and the small boys along the route often used to pick up the bits of paper and lay a false trail. Thus much time may be lost in discovering the true course. The desire for prizes has sometimes caused the hares to lay double trails and resort to other unsportsmanlike means to deceive the hounds.

The same hare and hound race happens in every organization or group when any new group is formed. The initial people have the same advantage as ‘hares’ and lay their own trail while they run while those who join the group later are like hounds, following hares and trying to catch up. ‘Hares’ start running early, start running in the way they want to, and leave the ‘scent’ behind for ‘hounds’ to follow.  The ‘hares’ have full choice on which course to follow, the luxury ‘hounds’ do not have. The ‘hares’ with the advantage of starting early, also need to consolidate their lead as even a maintaining of time difference is not considered as success for them.  With this pressure on them always, few, out of their human tendency, try to play in unsporting manner, throwing the ‘scent’ in wrong direction-in a way laying the foundation of perhaps one of the most unwanted term in organizational behavior; Organizational Politics. The operational definition of being politically savvy in an organization is ethically building a critical mass of support for the idea you care about. Unfortunately, business politics is generally driven underground leaving people to fend for themselves. As consequence, in most cases such behaviors make people a shark, feeding on success of others. However, mastering the art of politics is a crucial aspect of successful leadership but we often tend to mistake being unethical as being player of politics. Hence we also tend to miss out on the fact that we still can be strong influence without losing our ethics.

Organizational politics can be of different forms, between two sub functions, between individuals, for power and control etc but here we will focus on new employees and old employees and their dynamics. The old employees or the hares may not be very receptive to new ones or the hounds for certain reasons and try to mislead them from the path to success. These reasons may be due to a sense of ownership of the group which they have developed over a period of time. The time and effort devoted by them in nurturing the group leads to unwillingness to share the group which they have ‘built’. They are like possessive mothers who just cannot leave their child on mercy of a maid. In many cases, they also do not want to see people coming even close to them in terms of influencing the decision making process. They want to create that extra seven minute difference so that they are the winner, in terms of power, respect and control. Hounds or people joining later, need to really put in that extra bit to come closer. They have the disadvantages of starting late, a laid guideline to follow and also need to cope with adversities like wind blowing away the scent or unsporting behavior of hares. To top it all, like a true pack of hounds, they need to be there in the group and midway down the line have to ensure that pack is united again. With a levy of extra seven minutes, the hounds have something to cheer. This tussle between hare and hounds of any organization can lead to development after another which for any organization, may not be appropriate. Kenneth Gergen in his simple framework has described the reasons behind politics and depending on what one is looking for in professional environment; he or she will have their respective coordinate in this 3-D framework of agreement on a topic, relevance of topic to personal goals and controlling power.

First problem which is most apparent is polarization of power to chosen few and subsequent growing discontent in others. In cases where the decision is not collective, the chances of other people turning rebellious increases and like a wild fire, this disgruntlement just spreads. Gradually, the group is structured as group of isolated islands with no connectivity between them, missing the beauty of what others have in them. People are reluctant to share new ideas as all likely any radical idea will not be welcomed by people already having the control, no matter how good they are. Hence not only few possibly great ideas are nipped in the bud but also this also creates an ever widening gap in between. The other subsequent problem is succession planning. Every employee has to retire one day. When a group of similar people who start any group, retire at the same time or within a short span, the group faces a sudden jeopardy and loses the direction and focus as leadership transformation or handing over the baton could not take place appropriately. An example to this particular scenario could be that of Harold Geenen who built the German electronics giant ITT in 1970s. However, the company could not survive once Geenen decided to step down as there was no second rung of leadership ready. He entrusted others very little with decision making responsibilities and had entire control and authority in his hand. On the contrary, the arch rival company Matsushita Electronics, which believed in inclusive culture, is still a global name in field of electronics. Matsushita always believed in including new members and hence new ideas. Thus, they always had a next rung of leadership ready who had ideas to nurture and at the same time knew the organization and its philosophy.

Third problem happens when ‘hares’ try to misguide ‘hounds’ by giving them ‘scent’ in wrong direction. A wrong communication of business philosophy and vision can always lead to certain misalignment between people and ultimate business objectives. These can always be held against people and hence non sharing of the control of the group. For example, the leaders can give an exercise to their next level. However, that exercise would have been done in past and result was not in favor of overall development of organization and hence was dropped midway. With historical data unavailable to them, the new group starts enthusiastically but loses its way down the line. This unproductive act is always held against them for rest of their life. Another problem with hounds is that midway down the trail, they need to re assemble and then move again. This slows down their movement as a group but at the same time this assures that no hound loses the way initially. After half way down, it is left to individual hound to perform and win. However, till a certain point, they need to be together to ensure a certain amount of success for all which if left to perform as individuals, might not have come.

This hound and hare race is not an unseen phenomenon in any organization. The problem has been there always. However, we always forget that when we are talking about an organization, we are not running as individuals but we have to run together as a group. The success of group does not depend on success of an individual. So if that is the case, what shall hares do? Are we trying to say that hares or old timers only are accountable for any failure of group and hounds are always victimized?

People starting any group always have the advantage of knowing that group, its vision and mission the best. At the same time, they should also realize that they are not running against a destined finish line. This is an ongoing journey which needs to go on and hence they need to always let others come closer and learn about the course which they have already traveled over. Gradually they will exit, hounds will step into hare’s shoes and new hounds will follow tomorrow. At the same time, hounds have the strength of size compared to hares. A group started by a handful of people eventually grows and new people gradually outnumber old timers. With this strength of volume favoring hounds, the hares will always have the insecurity of being hunted and this feeling will not go until a signal of assurance comes from hounds. The key here is hare and hounds need to end the race and at the same time need to wait for each other forgoing the desire to retain or take over the control of the group. Hares need to wait for hounds, the leader hound should wait for others and hounds should not hunt hares if they come too close. Unless hare and hounds decide to be harmonious and do not see each other as rival group posing threat, perhaps the ultimate business objective may not be fully met.

Relevance to an organization

Most of the organizations are seeing some changes in last couple years. The focus has metamorphosed from initiating new business objectives a few years back, into deriving power from core strength and consolidation of business.  To mitigate the risk generated due to uncertainty in business environment, the needle is shifting towards generating revenue from non-linear business model, yet maintaining the identity of core business. Also this is the time when some new era industry like e-commerce are mushrooming. These industries had new flavor as they provided new modality to age old industries, be it travel, retail, learning or banking.  When old industries like IT go for consolidation of their business and seek non-linear growth, ‘fresh thoughts’ are generally inducted. Similarly the new age organizations though have young and dynamic leaders shaping up novel ideas, they also need to get the old war horses in who have battled through time. They have all the knowledge about industry, consumer, supplier, financer, people and anyone else who significantly impact the performance of the organization.  Hence, what the organizations see; is genesis of two heterogeneous set of people, sometimes even poles apart coming together, sometimes harmoniously but most of the times not as desired.  

Let us consider a matured organization who is trying to infuse new ideas or platforms to deliver. There will be a set of people who have spent decades with the organization. Thus they can be good people leader who know their people. However they need to include the fresh ideas and people as the idea behind new business or new markets is to get new ideas shaping into revenues. New people do not have baggage of historical ways, successes and failures and hence generally tend to have an open mind. People, who have devoted their numerous years working in a particular ecosystem, sometimes are unable to break the shackles of conventional thinking and ways to do the business. Yet their role cannot be negated considering that they know how the system functions. They are also aware of historical data regarding any particular initiative and also of reasons for failures if any. This can be good and bad both depending on how it is taken. The most important advantage old timers have is that they are the brand ambassador of the organization owing to decade plus of service they have rendered to the organization. Hence the two set of people bring in two sets of competency to the table. One brings in ideas and agility while other brings in the execution and modus operandi.

A new age revolutionary organization are generally are started by handful of risk taking ‘IIT-IIM’ pass outs. They are young, innovative and want to do something path breaking. However, their path breaking initiatives are mostly confined to age old business but done in different and more efficient way. Travel booking sites, e-retailers, second hand product markets are top of the mind recall of such companies we see around these days. However, the core issue of mixing industry experts or veterans with tech-savvy youngsters remains a concern. Started by youngsters, these organizations have a certain DNA which veterans may disapprove of. To go beyond a garage run start-up, they need experts with salt and pepper hairline. To let go the control by the ‘parent’ of his/her growing kid which the ‘parent’ has incubated and nurtured till now, is never easy. And this extra-possessiveness about their organization leads to conflict be it veterans accepting fresh faces or youngsters accepting industry veterans. 

Most of the failures of startups were not because of lack of ideas but their inability to take it to the desired level of execution and penetration in the customer base. The ideas have to meet functionality; the plan needs to meet execution and two schools need to meet. Some old timers have gained expertise by spending time in the industry and seeing numerous incidents of various nature. Each incident was new challenge once but later became reference points for matured decision making.  The big names of corporate world command a certain level of respect in the outside world because of their strong business fundamentals, attaining a status of being timeless and legendary figure of the corporate world. On the other hand, few people are ‘just right’ for their respective era. They have got the exact pulse of the business for that particular time. Today, most of the global markets reflect sentiments of youth.  In this era of digitization, a young mind can capture the digital beats of young market much more efficiently than most of the old world analogs. If rightly utilized, their ideas can reap benefits multifold of the normal steady state, provided they are energized properly. We just need to understand that the success of the organization depends on fact that whether the current time meets its timelessness.

References

http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/organization_flat.html

http://organizationalpolitics.org/

http://chestofbooks.com/sports/athletics/Outdoor/Hare-And-Hounds-Runs.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_J._Gerge