Management Education and Development. Vol. 18. Pt. 1. 1987. pp.

3-19

Owl, Fox, Donkey or Sheep: Political Skills for Managers

SIMON BADDELEY AND KIM JAMES - Institute of Local Government Studies,

University of Birmingham

Abstract
This paper describes the development of a model the authors and their colleagues have been using to
develop political skills as an increasingly important element of management education. We suggest why
the teaching of political skills is still approached with some timidity, even in the field of local government
where there are increasing demands for officers to be 'politically sensitive’. We describe a model
containing two dimensions relating, first, to the skills of 'reading' the politics of an organisation and,
second, to the skills an individual is 'carrying' into situations which may predispose them to act with
integrity or play psychological games. The two dimensions are tightly integrated but allow us to
separate out four types of behaviour - innocent, inept, clever and wise which an individual may adopt in
different situations. That these are behaviours and not fixed traits is a critical distinction, helping us to
develop wise behaviour in managers by concentrating in our training on the way the dimensions of
'carrying' and 'reading' are combined.

Introduction

Political skill is the elusive and increasingly demanded ingredient of success and survival in
organisational life. This paper attempts to describe political skills and our approach to teaching them.
The animals in our title are intended to provide a vivid visual reminder of the context and content of
the four behavioural styles we shall be presenting. Hayes (1984) describes politically competent
managers as people 'who expect to experience resistance to their attempts to get things done, but
nevertheless keep on taking initiatives, carefully selected initiatives, in ways that eventually tend to
produce the results they desire'. By contrast politically incompetent managers 'behave like bulls in a
china shop, upsetting others and creating unnecessary resistance to their proposals'. We would add to
Hayes' definition of political competence Lee and Piper's (1986) view that this is a skill exercised in
the context of 'political pluralism'. From this perspective organisations are seen as being composed of
individuals and groups who pursue their own goals with the power at their command using strategies
which they perceive as appropriate. Since different goals are often incompatible, organisational
conflict is seen as inherent and neither 'good' nor 'bad'.

Examples of political incompetence include the manager with a reputation for dynamism, brought
into a large and unwieldy organisation to get it back on the rails, who soon resigns with the
complaint that he or she is not being allowed to manage; or the manager who blithely and
enthusiastically pursues a pet project without recognising the growing strength of a coalition of
opposition; or the manager who bluffs a resignation threat and finds it unexpectedly accepted.
Politically incompetent managers such as these may find that while they enter jobs fired with
enthusiasm they have a propensity to leave them the same way.

‘Politics' has become an enticing frontier for management education. The literature increasingly
states its importance. For example: "….growing attention has recently been directed to
organisational politics - tactics for seizing, holding and using power…." (Baron, 1983). 'The kind of
manager that prospered in the '60s and '70s will not necessarily do so well now. ….Political and
survival skills are likely to become increasingly prized amongst managers. If Management
Development is to maintain its place as a viable management activity it must adjust to the changing
trends' (Molander, 1986). But despite growing reminders of the need to be aware of politics there is a
scarcity of guidance on the actual skills involved. Unless management educators address the issue of
political skill, 'political incompetence', as a description of failure, may become a catch-all like 'pilot
error' - a phrase which locates the fault with someone who is often no longer around and gives the
semblance of understanding to a mystery.

Problems of Developing Political Skill

Why is political skill rarely a subject of training courses? We think it is because there are points of
view which get in the way of developing models of the skills that are needed:
- The political arena of organisational life reflects a breakdown of managerial rationality. Thus
Mintzberg (1983) writes: ' ...politics refers to individual or group behaviour that is informal,
ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, in the technical sense, illegitimate -
sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise (though it
may exploit any one of these)’. Management in these terms dislikes whim but abhors
political whim.
- It is inept to discuss how one uses power: 'Those who know don’t talk, those who talk don't
know' as Stokeley Carmichael said in the '60s.
- 'You either have political skills or you haven't'. You can’t train for 'nous'; it is not a technique.
- Political skills are inferior to interpersonal skills when one is trying to build a team - often a
vital objective of management training. Thus David Casey (1985) argues that: 'It requires a
huge effort to abandon politics, say what you mean, express feelings openly, engage in open
warfare, trust your colleagues, speak your mind. ...’
- 'Don't talk politics or religion at table'. It threatens conviviality.
- Engaging in politics, particularly if you have tied your credibility to professional expertise,
may be morally compromising. Thus Robert Lee and Peter Lawrence (1985) conclude their
book on the exercise of politics in organisational life with the sentence 'We hope you will find
the political insights gained in this text of use in your battles with those of lesser honour'.
- Politics may involve individual self-interest at the expense of the organisation. Thus, even
Hayes (1984), who argues for political competence in managers suggests 'managers can be
too political in the sense that they may pursue their self-interest without paying any attention
to the interests of others or to the survival and growth of the organisation'.
- There is an uneasy relationship between politics and psychology; one person's neurosis is
another person's political oppression. For example, women's behaviour labelled neurotic by
men, can also be viewed as individual expression of an invidiously powerless position in
society.
All of these beliefs or myths have an element of reality and truth but need not inhibit the
development of political skill. A model can be described which takes account of these objections and
which helps managers to survive politically. But being interested in political skills solely as a means
of survival is not enough. Being politically skilled means being able to manage the requisite variety
of your organisation. It means you can make the most of the multiplicity of experiences, abilities and
perceptions of the people you work with. Politics is not something to which you resort when
management fails. It is, on the contrary, at the very heart of management.

Perhaps one of the greatest inhibitors, though, is the idea that the political skill we are referring to is
the same as the behaviour of Politicians. It is not. Some Politicians are politically skilled. Some are
not. The same goes for managers. We are not looking for a model of some ideal politician but for a
model of political skill.
Local Government as an Arena for political skills
Local Government, where we do much of our work, provides a fascinating area for examining this
phenomenon. Because it has both real Politicians and professional managers, so managers have to
operate within an overtly political environment and also manage the usual organisational politics.
This is made even clearer by the current polarisation of local government politics which has
precipitated a professional crisis for many local government managers. They had become
accustomed to clear cut rules about the respective roles of officers and elected members. The
rational, professional, bureaucratic elements of local government which are an important source of
its reliability and strength, have encouraged the local government officer to remain innocent of the
need to become 'street-wise' about what is afoot. But as Sutherland (1986) has observed: 'Staff
employed within the system are squeezed between economic austerity and political hyperactivity,
and as a result more and more interest is being shown in the skills needed to marry the political
process to service delivery on the ground'. This distinction between being a Politician and being a
politically skilled manager is exemplified in the way Councillors have described what they want of a
politically sensitive officer. In this grey area the bemused manager is likely to be told that they
should be a number of things they might not have thought their contract required them to be.
Thus, Lady Porter, the Leader of Westminster City Council:
‘A politically sensitive officer is somebody who has breadth of vision…. who's interested in
what goes on…. who is broad in every sense, so that they are able to see that when they give a
response, or they act in a certain way in response to what the members ask for, they should
not be one-dimensional: they should realise "why are they asking me this? ….what a daft
thing to ask! ….. ah, no, of course it isn't, I realise that such-and-such is going on … that
concerns them”.’
Or Councillor Brian Green, Leader of St. Helens Council:
'You can sense when an officer is taking instructions from you and going away and working
quite hard at doing exactly what you want him to do. The reason you can tell the difference
between an officer who does that and one who is politically sensitive, not necessarily
sympathetic, is someone who'll go away and do what the members request of him…. but
equally think about what he is preparing and if any other options are spotted along the way
will actually come back and raise the question with members. You can very soon sense when
an officer is politically sensitive and also in fact, when he is politically sympathetic, but
sympathy shouldn't necessarily be confused with support.’

That the need for a politically sensitive manager is not confined to local government is encapsulated
by Michael Spungin, a leading Nottinghamshire Councillor who describes the politically sensitive
officer as:
'Someone who would have risen to the top in almost any business he came to choose because
he has got the intelligence to recognise the more delicate touches and also someone who is
prepared to be - I won't say "rubberlike" - but certainly sufficiently resilient to bend with
whatever political climate he's faced with'.
These statements1 provide clues, but are certainly not definitions of the skill we want to describe.
They do not give clear guidance on what the manager is supposed to do. Yet, we may credit the overt
Politics of local government for articulating, even to this extent, the concept of the political manager.
In many businesses even these clues are absent. The expectations described by these councillors are
often left unspoken.
1.Theseviews were expressed during interviews by Simon Baddeley and Chris Game at the University's TV and Film
Unit and in the case of Lady Porter in the Westminster Press Studio.

Developing a Model of Political skill
It is difficult to arrive at a model of competence in this area because of some basic conventions of
management education; in particular the distinction made between cognitive and experiential
learning. Skills teaching in management education uses experiential models and tends to treat
cognition as an addendum. For example, the management of potential conflict would be taught
differently by a psychologist and a political scientist. The psychologist tends to operate on the basis
that human differences can be resolved by resort to a repertoire of interpersonal skills - the ability to
listen, to be assertive, to manage feelings, to intervene appropriately while the political scientist
might rely on an analysis which deals with relative access by the parties concerned to resources, to
knowledge, wealth or class background, or, with government policies.

Given a conflict between a member of clerical staff and director in which the former says he or she is
unable to negotiate properly over a difference of approach with the director, the political scientist
may be addressing their relative position powers while the psychologist may be working on the
director's listening skills and the clerical officer's assertive skills. Both approaches are equally valid,
but the separation of academic disciplines tends to be carried over into course design. This leaves the
choice of approach or the means of combining them entirely to the student.

The obligation resting on management educators in teaching 'political skills' is to present a useful
way of integrating cognitive and experiential learning. This is less a theoretical problem about
explaining the real world than a problem of how management teachers have tended to chunk the real
world to aid learning. Analysis can be an escape from feeling. But conversely, preoccupation with
feeling can be an obstacle to political awareness.

The class of skills we need to develop must enable managers to address the following sorts of
questions:

• How do I deal with a manager from another department who will lose in a budget battle if I
get what I want?
• At what point in a meeting do I voice objection to a senior manager’s proposal? Is it stupid to
do so?
• How do I deal with a manager whose main interest is empire building?
• How do I work out how to plan and respond to situations of rapid change - such as a dramatic
shift of power in a Political group or Boardroom?
• How can I raise and keep alive what I consider an important issue which seems to have little
support or, worse, is treated with derision?
• How do I convey to a ruling political group with a clear mandate from the electorate that my
practical advice on implementing their manifesto is not professional procrastination to avoid
doing what they want?
• How can I work out what is going on in a meeting which is supposed to be an 'open
discussion' when most of what happens seems predetermined? How can I get support for my
plans or proposals without compromising myself?
• How can I deal with the fact that the person I work with is simp1y incompetent?

We believe that the behavioural style people adopt in addressing these kinds of questions is a strong
influencer of their survival and success, and we need a model which helps managers to tease out
some of the options they have when such questions arise.
A Descriptive Model

Having presented ourselves with this problem we felt the need for a model which could describe the
behavioural options. The model is made up of two dimensions. The first is the dimension of 'reading'
which deals with the skills an individual brings to their understanding of the external world. The
second is the dimension of 'carrying' which describes the skills with which an individual manages
their internal world. These are not the familiar distinctions of cognitive/experiential, objective/
subjective or thought/feeling. We believe elements of all of these are present in both 'reading' and
'carrying’. For example managing your internal world means managing both thought and feeling and
one can gain understanding of the external world through both feeling and thought. Nor do we place
'reading' and 'carrying' in opposition to each other. In fact a significant part of our descriptive model
involves showing how 'reading' determines 'carrying' and vice versa.

The 'reading' dimension, with political awareness at one end and political unawareness at the other
refers to the ability at one end to read an organisation, to read its decision processes, its overt and
covert agendas, the location and bases of power inside and outside the organisation, one's own power
bases and abilities to exercise influence, the organisational culture and its style, its political purpose
and direction, its small and large 'p' politics. Political unawareness at the other end refers to either
the unwillingness or the inability to recognise these things. This dimension alone seems to have
something to say about two stereotypical behaviours. At the ‘unaware' end we can imagine 'innocent'
behaviour. Innocence in this sense is typified by blindness to power and other organisational issues
and is used by people whose emphasis is on professional and managerial rationality. These people
may view political skill as, if not actually contemptible, at least ethically compromising. They are
unhappy about the whole business of ‘politicking'. They believe expert power and position power
are the only legitimate sources of authority and they will be constantly surprised at power exercised
in contradiction to this. For example, the newcomer or the junior who has influence over key people
is a source of puzzlement and grief.

At the other end of the dimension is the stereotype of 'clever’ behaviour. This stereotype is often
viewed with suspicion by the 'innocent' manager. 'Clever' behaviour is typified by opportunism based
on a shrewd understanding of how the system works. 'Clever' behaviour often achieves its ends
without using the types of power 'innocence' regards as essential. Innocent may observe with
bewilderment that 'she knows nothing about the subject yet they all listened to her'. People using
clever behaviour will set up situations so that their own needs are met by the outcome, which may or
may not coincide with what the organisation needs. Innocent, on the other hand, having internalised
the organisation's needs may pursue his or her own needs and the organisation's simultaneously.
Here lies 'innocent's' suspicion of the whole issue of 'political skill' because only the dimension of
political awareness is taken into account. Kakabadse and Parker (1984) describe what we refer to as
innocent behaviour as 'default reasoning' about politics. For example an otherwise competent
manager who feels shocked or surprised by a particular policy or procedure or another's actions or
motives will think ‘"I don't understand, it must be political". The 'default reasoning' operates
-"political, ignore", "political, nasty", or "politics, can't play, won't play"’.

Even on this one dimension success in reading the organisation requires both cognitive and
experiential learning. Being able to and having the inclination to locate and understand power in an
organisation is not detached from one’s feelings about power. Here too lies a potent source of
collusion with management teaching which keeps political awareness in the cognitive arena and so
emotionally detached.
This dimension is inadequate by itself. As we described clever and innocent behaviour it became
apparent to us that political awareness/unawareness was insufficient to differentiate clever from
innocent. There seems to be something beyond their different levels of awareness. Cleverness seems
to involve wiliness and self-centred behaviour. Innocence involves wide-eyed simplicity and
guilelessness. Another dimension, that of 'carrying', is needed to describe the full range of human
behaviour in this area. There are many psychological models which address some of the elements of
'carrying', such as the underpinnings of assertion-training, Personal Construct Theory and the notion
of Locus of Control. The one we have found most useful so far is the idea of psychological game-
playing taken from Transactional Analysis theory.
Let us imagine a dimension with integrity at one end and a predisposition to play psychological
games at the other end. Let us distinguish these two things straightaway from other kinds of
manoeuvring and manipulation of situations in organisations. There are at least two other ways of
doing this:

(1) using written rules;

(2) manoeuvring around the unwritten rules.
Written rules are part of an organisation's 'standing orders', the means by which decisions are
formally taken, the procedures that govern committee and board meetings and formal negotiation. To
be politically skilled you need to know how to use these to make things happen. Unwritten rules are
those which though not written down you also need to know in order to get things done. They
include lobbying, getting items on to agendas, speaking to the right people, timing proposals
correctly. Like written rules they vary with the culture and style of the organisation. Where these
manoeuvres differ from those of the player of psychological games is that they are about knowing
how the organisation works rather than about an individual predisposition. Knowing the written and
unwritten rules requires the ability to read ‘who cares? who knows? who will?' in the manager's
environment. Managers can use that ability and maintain their integrity or they can use it and play
psychological games.

'Psychological game-playing' is taken from the Transactional Analysis model (see Harris, 1970;
Berne, 1968). Integrity implies the absence of psychological game-playing based on a degree of
acceptance of yourself and other people for what they are. Game-playing is self-oriented. Harris
describes 'a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible with a concealed
motivation'. The pay-off for playing a psychological game for the player is that the player's feelings
about himself or herself and about the rest of the world are confirmed. In this process somebody
ends up feeling bad. When people act with integrity in their dealings with others their behaviour
does not involve the compulsion to engage in exchanges with this kind of pay-off.

Putting these two dimensions together gives us further insight into 'clever’ and 'innocent' behaviour.
Instead of solely being at opposite ends of the two poles, we can see that 'innocent' is both
‘politically unaware' and has 'integrity', whereas ‘clever' is 'politically aware' and a 'game-player’.

Politically aware
 Psychological CLEVER WISE Acting with
game-playing CARR YING integrity

READING
INEPT INNOCENT

Politically unaware
Figure 1.
Descriptive
Model of
Political
Behaviour

This leaves
us with two
seductively
blank spaces
f o r
behaviour which reflects 'political awareness' and 'integrity' and for behaviour which involves being
a 'game-player' who is 'politically unaware'. In the bottom left-hand corner of this diagram is a
category of behaviour involving psychological game-playing and political unawareness. We call this
behaviour ‘inept'. This combination of characteristics means that ‘inept' behaviour involves the same
inability to read the political dimension as 'innocence', but rather than having internalised the
organisation's needs, inept behaviour like 'cleverness' is wholly self-oriented. 'Inept' plays
psychological games in the organisation which confirm all their worst feelings about themselves and
others. As a consequence they often end up in a mess and this has a bad spin-off for their
organisations. This is also true of 'clever' whose games are designed to show people in a bad light.

In the top right-hand corner comes the behaviour we define as 'politically skilled'. This involves
being politically aware while maintaining integrity. We describe it as 'wise'. Figure 1 shows the four
behaviours and the two dimensions we have now identified.

Defining characteristics of wise are 'creativity' and 'imagination' and an absence of preconceptions
about how to handle each situation as it arises. It is easy to describe 'wisdom' by saying that it is not
any of the other three behaviours. Here are some first attempts at some more active descriptions.

A famous story which captures the behaviour for us is Christ's response to the question 'Is it lawful
for us to give tribute unto Caesar?' This question is posed, apparently out of respect for Jesus’
authority, but really to draw out an answer which will offend either the sacred orders or Herodian
politicians concerned to preserve the peace and avoid offence to Rome. Being against paying would
expose Jesus to the charge of rebellion, being for paying implied degrading the Jewish theocracy;
'…..but he perceived their craftiness', asked them to show him a penny and say whose image was on
it. When they said 'Caesar's', he replied 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's
and unto God the things which are God’s. And they could not take hold of his words before the
people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace'. (Luke, Chapter 20)

An example of skill in political manoeuvring, carried out with what we think was wise behaviour,
came from a senior local government officer. Over a lunch before an afternoon meeting, during
which members would be elected to an important committee, he had heard a comment by the Chair
that Councillor X had been a weak and disruptive member of the committee last year and should not
be re-elected. He thought he had seen a deal being struck and thought that the majority Party would
soon be developing rifts and divisions of loyalty. He was therefore surprised at the election meeting
when the Chair proposed that all existing committee members should be re-elected. The motion was
seconded. There were then various proposals for new committee members and their merits were
discussed, and proposals were seconded. It was left to an officer to point out a procedural problem:
there were now too many people for the committee places. The next three-quarters of an hour were
spent discussing the merits of the various people proposed. It became clear that a Councillor must be
on the committee because of the constituency she represented, or another because of a particular
expertise. Some were shown to be less suitable than they had first appeared and proposals were
withdrawn. The meeting was left with one proposal too many. Not a word was said against
Councillor X. The meeting seemed to be getting bogged down but at that point Councillor X rose to
the occasion. He saw that there were real difficulties in deciding whose nominations should stand.
He offered to withdraw from the Committee. The Chair considered this and after weighing up the
offer, it was accepted. The whole meeting congratulated Councillor X on his magnanimous gesture.
Everyone thought that he would be elected to a committee where his undoubted strengths would be
utilised. In the way this problem was tackled, the Chair had managed to keep the group unity and the
ousted individual had saved face. In some way everyone gained from what could have been a
difficult win-lose situation with people's mutual respect and sense of personal worth at stake.

What is apparent to us about these two examples of wise behaviour is that the people who were wise
did not get themselves out of difficult situations at the expense of others, except to let the clever or
inept individuals fall into their own traps. They had to be nimble, and able to see things for what
they are; in these instances, craftiness disguised as innocence, the way the organisational wind is
blowing and a view of what is important for a particular institution. There is also, in wise behaviour,
an understanding that surface exchanges hide important issues of principle which may engage the
deepest emotions.

Figure 2 shows all four behaviours - inept, innocent, clever and wise including, in each category,
some phrases and attributes associated with each of them. We have talked, perhaps confusingly,
about the behaviours within these dimensions as though they were the characteristics of individuals.
This is not intended. We see them as behaviours not personality traits. Any individual can be wise,
clever, inept or innocent depending on the circumstances, although some people, because of what
they carry and how they read, have a propensity to use one style more than others. The task of the
management educator is to help people develop the skills associated with being 'wise' so that people
can spend more time using this behaviour.

Whether you are predisposed to act with integrity or to play psychological games depends, as we
have argued, on what you personally carry into the situations you face: whether you are politically
aware or unaware depends on what you read when you turn your attention out into the organisation.
One carries into situations the predisposition to play psychological games or to act with integrity.
One's political awareness is determined by what one reads or fails to read in different situations. Of
course the two dimensions are inextricably linked.

The Integration of the Reading and Carrying Dimensions

Wise behaviour, if it is to be the subject of training, comes from an integration of the reading and
carrying dimensions. Although we have started by describing what an individual carries into a
situation and their reading of that situation as though they were separate, they are not. What one
carries determines what one reads. This connection is a strong one and can be a means of sustaining
a tightly closed approach to understanding the world. If, for instance, you are carrying a
predisposition to think of yourself as easily ignored by others you may read certain neutral
behaviours by others as evidence that this is happening. By your behaviour you may create the
situation feared. You can also carry from that situation confirmatory, but actually inaccurate,
evidence that your reading of such situations is correct.

With the reminder that we are considering behaviours which can be recognised and changed rather
than fixed traits of personality we can show how an individual's reading of a situation can lock them
into a series of self-fulfilling prophecies. The clever individual's closed world may differ from that
of inept only in so far as clever's skills in confirming the validity of their version of the world makes
it more watertight than inept's. What they both have in common, and in contrast with wise or
innocent, is that they are never puzzled nor uncertain about other people, even when they are saying
things like 'I'll never understand what makes people tick' or 'you just never know what she'll do next'.
The message given is not innocent's genuine puzzlement but an element of sarcasm, the sense that
they really have everyone taped. The spoken words allow clever to fall back, if challenged, and
explain in mock innocence that they genuinely believe that 'there's nowt so queer as folk'.
Figure 2
Innocent's problem is that what he or she carries into situations tends to deprive them of the ability to
read the situation as assuredly as literacy may be hampered by bad eyesight. Because innocent is
confident that his or her authority derives from being right about information and procedure and
from sticking to the 'understood' codes of morality, innocent is incapable of reading the existence of
power derived from other sources, such as personality or physical strength. Innocent respects
authority but is predisposed by what he or she carries to read it as deriving from knowledge and
position. When that does not seem to be the case the innocent individual tends to criticise
themselves for not knowing enough about the circumstances. Innocent sees that the only way of
confronting or overcoming the potential power of another is by acquiring more knowledge, a higher
position and being a better person. Innocent, like inept and clever, creates a closed world, but
innocent creates it by attributing the inexplicable behaviour of others to their own fallibility rather
than the idiosyncrasies of others.

Wise differs from all the other three in being conscious of the human tendency to create closed
worlds of explanation and recognising the possibility of being able to learn one's way out of them,
however emotionally costly this may be in the short run.

What does this say about what and how wise carries and reads? Wise exercises integrity because he
or she is not predisposed unconsciously to play games, or even if so predisposed, has or is
continually seeking the self-knowledge that will recognise the root programming of such behaviour.
Wise recognises that it is easier and often more comfortable to play games because these provide an
element of predictability to one's understanding of the world and one's place in it.

Wise knows the importance of drawing on experience to understand the elements of a situation, but
knows also the dangers of relying on experience without analysis. Wise knows one may be blind to
those aspects of a situation that make it unique. The distinction between clever's prejudice and wise's
insight may depend on your point of view - indeed whether you are perceiving their behaviour with
the eyes of clever or wise.

For someone 'innocent', not reading the political dimension, it may be impossible to distinguish
between clever and wise behaviour, since both involve political awareness which innocent
automatically associates with lack of integrity. Similarly, inept or clever, both having a tendency to
see situations in terms of their opportunities for self-centred game-playing may find it difficult to
distinguish between wise and innocent, assuming that people who maintain their integrity are
politically unsophisticated. We have slipped so easily into speaking of individuals instead of
behaviours, and yet we know from experience how easy it is to be wise before or after rather than
during an event. As we contemplate or remember a particular difficult situation our reading skills
may seem quite adequate and our ability to think it through inhibits any tendency we may have to
play games. Once involved our game-playing can be hooked or our reading skills abandoned.

Helping Manager’s learn Political Skills

We began this article by saying that many people talk about the need for political survival skills but
that few address it as an important element of managerial training.

As a result of the development of our understanding and of our model of political skill, we2 have
designed a one week skills programme for local government managers called 'Managing in a
Political Environment' based on the READING/CARRYING model. For local government officers,
2 The Behavioural Group. Inlogov.
a large part of the READING dimension involves developing their understanding of the new Politics
of local government; for example, trends in the way Politicians are becoming involved in the
management of local authorities, how authorities have learned to operate when changes in
administration to left or right have occurred after many years of one party dominance, or a new and
growing phenomenon, the 'hung' or 'balanced' authority. For private sector managers, an
understanding of the social, political and economic forces moulding their environment and a picture
of company policy trends on issues such as decentralisation is likely to be just as essential to an
enhancement of political skills as the 'new politics' is for local government. For all managers, the
skill of analysing power in the organisation, the culture of the organisation and its constituent parts,
the procedures which can be used to facilitate or hinder action are examples of the elements which
go into the part of the programme where the READING dimension is dissected.

Understanding the CARRYING dimension requires the development of awareness of psychological

game playing. Psychological game playing needs careful distinction from the tactics of manoeuvring
needed for wise behaviour. In both these dimensions participants can first learn the rudiments on
'out-there' examples, recognising what happens in other organisations or how others have a
propensity to behave. They are then ready to develop their analysis of their own organisation and
their self awareness.

The issue that has teased us most in developing our model as a practical training tool is the
development of the participant's ability to increase their use of wise behaviour, which requires the
integration of the two dimensions. As we have seen, a person's current awareness will influence their
understanding of what wise behaviour is and so this is a crucial ingredient of the training. Indeed we
have heard, 'hard-nosed' officers who 'know' that political skill depends on the ability to stop being
'inept' and to get 'clever', to view 'wise’ at first as soft and too good to be true. Similarly, we have
seen professionals persist in confusing 'wise' with 'clever' because they cannot yet accept that it is all
right to be political. For this reason, the model needs time to be dissected, developed and digested
by course members. We have developed several training devices for facilitating this process of
understanding and integration.

The first is a video which we commissioned. 3 It depicts the four styles of behaviour through the use
of four characters; all are managers who are seen in a number of situations together. The differences
with which the characters react to problems and people, both in terms of their perceptions and their
behaviour, enables the viewers to identify the four styles and elaborate their understanding of the
options open to them. The second is a set of short case incidents which illustrate ethical dilemmas
with which senior managers can be faced. Discussion of these can again illustrate the range of
options which can be used in such tricky situations. They can be used to explore participants’ views
of each and develop their understanding of the styles of operating. Another is an exercise in which
each participant practises under the eyes of the camera and colleagues on the programme. Role plays
are used which address the problem of acting wisely in a situation when there are conflicting or
ambiguous expectations and the issues at stake are recognised to be sensitive and crucial to one's
reputation as a politically skilled manager. We are currently developing more training material,
particularly that which can draw upon the real concerns of a particular organisation where the
training is done in-house. No doubt as our understanding of the model develops in discussion with
other managers, trainers and academics, more training ideas will be generated.

To help managers keep the model at the forefront of their thinking we use animal symbols to
represent the four behavioural styles. Shown in Figure 3, they are rapidly becoming a logo for the
course and our ideas.
3 Counter-productive - a film made by Pantechnicon for Inlogov. - Out of Print 2002

Figure 3. Owl, Fox, Donkey or Sheep

Conclusion
In a world which requires expertise exercised with integrity there is a predisposition among many
managers to steer clear of anything which appears 'political'. This is not a good stance for personal
survival. It is not good for one's profession nor for one's dearest projects and enthusiasms, nor for
the life of an organisation, nor indeed for Politics.

In our society most Political goals are achieved through the application of managerial and
professional expertise. Indeed a part, though of course not all, of political success involves
understanding the managerial feasibility of choices about how human beings should live. In this
context innocent, or inept, managers are dangerous individuals, capable of serving malign policy-
makers who depend on their expertise. As Hannah Arendt observed in response to Adolf Eichmann's
claims about the non-criminality of his inner life, 'politics is not like the nursery; in politics
obedience and support are the same'.

No less dangerous is the clever manager whose awareness and enjoyment of power carries
indifference to its use. In discriminating between this and wise behaviour we have attempted to
show a less crooked route from innocence to political awareness than the one that is often assumed.

References
ARENDT, H. (1963), Eichmann in Jeusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil, New York: Viking Press.

BARON, R. (1983), Behaviour in Organisations, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

BERNE, E. (1968), Games People Play, Harondsworth: Penguin.

CASEY, D. (1985), 'When is a team not a team?', Personnel Management, Vol 17, No.1, pp.27-29.

HARRIS, T. (1970), The Book of Choice, London: Jonathan Cape.

HAYES, J. (1984), 'The politically competent manager’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 10, No.1, pp.
24-33.

KAKABADSE, A. and PARKER, C. (Eds.) (1984), Power, Politics and Organisations, Chichester: John
Wiley.

LEE, R. and PIPER, J. (1986), 'How views about the nature of management can affect the content of
management education programmes: the advance of the political approach', Management Education and
Development, Vol. 17, Part 2, pp. 114-27.

LEE, R. and LAWRENCE, P. (1985), Organisational Behaviour: Politics at Work, London: Hutchinson.

MINTZBERG, H. (1983), Power in and around Organisations, Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

MOLANDER, C. (1986), Management Development, Lund, Sweden: Chartwell-Bratt.

SUTHERLAND, W. (1986), 'Decision and action in public life - Skills needed for survival in a political
jungle', Local Government Studies, March/April, pp. 1-13.

Author contacts: Simon Baddeley, Institute of Local Government Studies, J. G. Smith Building, University of
Birmingham, PO Box 363, Birmingham, B15 2TT. E-mail: s.j.baddeley@bham.ac.uk 00 44 (0)121 554 9794
and k.james@cranfield.ac.uk