Many of us lament that power and "politicking" is something we prefer not to get involved in. In fact, some of us seem so steadfastly against politics in the workplace that we frequently proclaim that we "don't want to get involved". The implied messages are manifold—and seem, for the most part, quite simple. "I come to work to work, not to play games." "Politics in the workplace is a waste of time." "Politics is childish." And so on it goes.
Yet despite the implied messages we try to send to our co-workers, the "no involvement" stance is often a strong, deliberate attempt at wielding power. If, indeed, "power" is the ability of one person to influence another such that he behaves in a desired way, then excusing oneself from office politics is a demonstration of power. When you say "I don't want to get involved", you are probably saying more than you are consciously aware of.
Anna Freud, daughter of Sigmund Freud and progenitor of the concept of "defence mechanisms", might say that at the very simplest level, the non-involvement stance is thinly veiled passive-aggression. Passive-aggression is considered one of the "immature" defences, in which passivity and masochism are used to indirectly express one's aggression towards others.
An example might be the concerned employee who sees his co-workers being abused by management, but who, instead of directly expressing anger or taking an active political stance on the issue, repeatedly, emphatically, and dramatically issues the statement "I don't want to get involved". The aggression is in the angry tone of the repetitive statement and in the over-the-top theatrics. Yet this mode of emotional expression is quite impotent, because the employee shuts himself off from constructive political discourse and alienates himself from the very people he is concerned for.
It might also be said that the non-confrontational stance is an example of passive regression—in which not wanting to "get involved" is a regression back to childhood, when the parallel mantra was "It's not my fault!" The child who claimed no fault relinquished all responsibility for his actions, as does the grown-up who claims "it's not my place" to get involved in politics. While the content of the messages is different, the underlying result is the same—an invocation of the parent-child (employer-employee) relationship. When an employee can invoke this parent-child relationship, she can more effectively influence the employer to behave in a certain way. The idea is that when this relationship is invoked, the employer will be more prone to do what all parents do—give in to the child's (the employee's) obstinacy, fits, and temper tantrums.
I might also suggest that those who demonstrate a non-political stance in organisations are the very people who probably feel the strongest about political issues. I often hear employees declare their non-political stances with the complementary declaration that, "If I get involved, I won't be able to control my anger". The reference to control of emotions is significant because it implies strong political feelings. In this case, power is actively exercised through an approach-avoidance process. I invite conflict by expressing inability to control my anger on a given issue, yet at the same time push my opponent away by claiming I do not want to get involved in the issue. This pull-push game invariably exhausts my opponent, causing him to lose the game, give in to my demands, and behave in ways I desire.
Human beings seem, by nature, to be political creatures. To expect politics and politicking to be absent from the workplace is unreasonable. We can, however, make politics manageable and productive. The first step involves honestly reflecting on our own motivations for taking non-political stances. I will suggest that, yes, there are many people who truly do not care much for power and politics. But those who do might do well to shed their passivity and be more active in their political goals. Passivity and inaction can create a very tense, if not caustic, organisational environment. While political issues are by themselves difficult enough to manage, they become unwieldy when they are dealt with in a negative, closed, and emotionally disorganised environment. Avoiding passivity is not an easy task, but one that can reap tremendous benefits.
Copyright © 2002, by Eddy M. Elmer
Permanent URL: http://www.eddyelmer.com/articles/invsfu.htm