adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Office Politics Don't Have to Be Toxic – HBR.org Daily

Published

 on


There’s no escaping office politics. It might get a bad rap, but the ability to network, build relationships, and influence others is critical in any workplace. Unfortunately, research has shown that all too often, office politics is a white man’s game, as women and ethnic minorities often have less powerful networks and benefit less from engaging in politics than their white, male counterparts do.

To make matters worse, attempts to address this inequity often focus on “fixing” the people who are excluded, encouraging them to develop their political skills, get more comfortable with politics, or temper their reactions, rather than acknowledging organizations’ roles in creating cultures of toxic, non-inclusive office politics. Of course, there’s certainly a place for this well-intentioned advice for individuals — but to make meaningful change, leaders must take action to foster more-inclusive cultures on an organizational level.

To explore what organizations can do to promote healthy office politics, we conducted in-depth interviews with 40 mid-career ethnic minority employees working in a wide range of industries across the UK. We asked them to describe their experiences of politics at work, and how their workplace environments influenced their own willingness to engage in politics. We then used a statistical model to analyze their responses and identify common profiles of more- and less-inclusive cultures.

Toxic cultures lead to disengagement from office politics

Unsurprisingly, many of the people we talked to shared extremely negative experiences with office politics. They told us stories of feeling excluded from informal relationships, being overlooked or pushed aside by managers, and witnessing underhanded behavior from their peers. One participant explained how it was “an impossible task to break into those cliques and establish yourself.” Another vividly described the brutality of their workplace, saying, “They’ll slit your throat in front of you over there. They’ve got no issues about that.” Others recounted times when they were scapegoated or stepped over: “I’d been sidelined because [the managers] took the credit,” one participant recalled.

Our analysis also demonstrated that toxic office politics cultures can be created and perpetuated at any level of the organization. One participant described how their manager “started bringing his friends in, so I got moved to a lower position,” while others described how their peers “played the game” that was “all about trying to get the other person down.”

In response to these toxic cultures, many of the people we talked to disengaged from politics, keeping their heads down and redoubling their work efforts rather than joining the political melee. For example, one interviewee told us that participating in their workplace’s office politics meant “you’re willing to bend the rules and you’re willing to bully, you’re willing to step on people, and morally, to me, I don’t agree with that, so I would not be part of that social club, so I haven’t [progressed].” Another explained, “I didn’t get involved in the politics; just did a good job and that was it.” Some even sought to leave their jobs entirely: “I wasn’t confident I would succeed because of the cliquiness of the organization,” a participant shared, “so I looked for jobs elsewhere.” These reactions are understandable — but the problem with avoiding the political arena is that it can lead employees to miss out on the vital development opportunities and relationships they need to get things done and advance their careers.

Inclusive cultures foster participation in healthy office politics

The good news is, not everyone we interviewed experienced office politics negatively. Some people shared stories of supportive cultures in which managers proactively included minority employees in the types of political activity necessary to build relationships, be effective in their jobs, and advance in their organizations. For example, one participant explained how their boss “ensured that [career growth] was made easier, because she had done the engaging with all the right stakeholders beforehand.” Managers in these workplaces actively nurtured employees, leveraging politics to build connections rather than keep people down: “Well, I wouldn’t like to use the word politics,” another participant reflected. “It’s more like having a proper and professional relationship with the people in authority; [they] understand where I’m coming from [and] appreciate me for who I am.” Other employees shared experiences in which both peers and managers used their clout to stand up for them or provide them with developmental opportunities: “There’s something about having the right support…I’ve been put forward for things and people have thought of me.”

Rather than feeling slimy or underhanded, politics in these organizations were openly acknowledged and even taught to newcomers. “You need to make sure that you’ve got supporters within the organization and that you know how to network well,” an interviewee explained, “and that’s sort of drilled home from a very early point once you join.” Similarly, others described workplaces in which an explicit “focus on involvement in relationships and connectivity [was] ingrained in the culture of the firm” in a way that was helpful and inclusive.

As a result of this approach, employees in these environments felt more comfortable engaging in politics. One worker shared that they used to hesitate to participate in office politics, but after experiencing a more supportive organizational climate, they became “a bit more political in the way I interact with people and recognizing that it’s not just about how well you do your work…it’s about how you go about doing it.” Another described a newfound appreciation for a bit of healthy self-promotion, recognizing that “you do need to get yourself known and recognized by people in a position to help you.”

Of course, building an inclusive culture is easier said than done — but it is possible. Through both our interviews and our broader research on politics, leadership, and inclusion, we’ve identified five strategies to help organizations foster healthier office politics cultures, in which all employees are nurtured and supported:

1. Be transparent.

Talking about politics can be uncomfortable — but failing to do so only benefits those who already have easy access to the political arena. To ensure that all employees are included, it’s critical to be transparent about both the existence and the importance of politics. Leaders, managers, and employees at every level should be encouraged to talk openly about the value of building connections, and to make the informal practices of office politics visible through explicit onboarding processes, mentoring (both by peers and senior staff), talent development programs, employee affinity groups, and other initiatives. In addition, as remote and hybrid work become the norm, it’s important to consider where and how informal connections occur in online spaces, and make sure that all employees are aware of and have access to these structures as well.

2. Ensure access to informal career development resources.

Many organizations aim to foster diversity and inclusion through formal talent development programs. However, this approach doesn’t help when it comes to the informal, unofficial interactions that drive office politics. Indeed, in our prior research, we found that successful career growth requires a mix of both formal and informal resources, and minority employees typically have less access to vital informal resources. To close this gap, organizations should provide mechanisms such as mentorship, sponsorship, and support networks to ensure women and ethnic minority employees have access not only to formal professional development tools, but also to the informal processes that are critical for growth.

3. Reframe politics positively.

In our interviews, we repeatedly heard from employees that they felt it would be distasteful, perhaps even morally repugnant, to engage in office politics. This assumption — that politics are, at best, a necessary evil — can be deeply ingrained, especially among people who are used to being left on the outside. But it is also an assumption that can be challenged: Our prior research found that people’s views on politics can change significantly as a result of their professional experience. As such, leaders should explicitly push back against the view that politics can only be used for self-gain, and instead reframe it as a tool that can help everyone build connections, access opportunities, and get things done. This means finding ways to highlight the value of political behaviors such as negotiation, influencing, and relationship-building at every level of the organization, as well as including political skills alongside other core competencies that are prioritized in professional development programs.

4. Leverage politics to drive inclusion.

All too often, politics are seen as a system that’s designed to keep power with those who have it, and exclude those who don’t. But what if we instead used politics to disrupt entrenched inequalities? There’s no denying that managers play a key role in gatekeeping the political arena, but that also means they’re in the perfect position to encourage fairness rather than favoritism. Organizations should train managers and senior leaders to share their political know-how and leverage their political power across racial and gender lines. For instance, well-respected sponsors can be encouraged to get involved in leadership development programs specifically designed to support women and ethnic minority employees. This both improves employees’ access to senior leaders’ networks, and helps the sponsors better understand the barriers different employees face. They can then use these insights (alongside their political savvy) to advocate for their proteges and come up with more-effective strategies to address obstacles facing employees across the organization.

5. Share success stories.

It’s easy to look past the details of the journey once someone has made it to the top. To normalize politics as a typical component of a professional success story, organizations should formally and informally encourage employees who have “made it” to share their stories — and emphasize examples of times when they benefited from a helping hand, or leveraged inside information and relationships to get ahead or be more effective in their roles. Publicly sharing these experiences helps employees at any level envision a path forward for themselves in which politics plays a positive role.

Office politics has long served as a mechanism for exclusion — but it doesn’t have to. While the negative impact of toxic politics on ethnic minorities and women in the workplace is well known, our research shows that it is possible to build inclusive political cultures, in which politics are instead leveraged for common good. With a thoughtful, inclusive approach, organizations can help all their employees engage and reap the benefits of office politics.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights

Published

 on

 

CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.

The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”

Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”

He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.

Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.

Flip-flopping on Florida

On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”

Trump on vetoing a national ban

Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”

This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”

‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban

Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.

He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.

In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.

At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.

Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women

In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.

“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.

Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.

IVF and contraception

In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.

In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.

Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.

Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.

During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.

As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |

Published

 on

 

Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.

Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.

Election day is Oct. 28.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending