Chief Change Officer - Jennifer Selby Long on Growing Beyond Office Politics: Breaking Free from Toxic Cultures That Follow You - Part One

Episode Date: November 25, 2024

Part One. Ever left a toxic boss or workplace, hoping for a fresh start, only to land in the same chaos at your new job? It’s a frustratingly common cycle. The truth is, office politics are everywhere. From power plays and subtle maneuvers to that colleague who always seems to win, navigating workplace dynamics can be exhausting. In this two-part series, leadership expert Jennifer Selby Long joins me to unpack why office politics happen, how some people thrive in politically charged environments, and why others struggle. We’ll explore toxic cultures, power dynamics, and the hidden forces shaping your work life—and how to navigate them without losing yourself along the way. Feeling stuck or burned out? These episodes are packed with relatable stories and actionable insights to help you take your next step forward. Key Highlights of Our Interview: Finding Your Ally Among the Majority “In political environments, success hinges on securing a powerful ally. Aligning your interests with theirs and elevating them as a leader in your cause is essential if you plan to stay and thrive in such an environment.” When Conversations Clash, Progress Pauses “Business meetings often default to task-focused debates where differing perspectives turn into verbal standoffs. Rarely do teams pause to acknowledge the conflict and approach it constructively, missing opportunities to uncover deeper understanding.” No Permanent Friends, No Permanent Enemies—Just Interests “Drawing from the wisdom of Martin Luther King’s attorney, Clarence Jones: the game of politics is about aligning interests, not forging everlasting alliances. Understanding this can shift how you approach your workplace dynamics.” Assumptions: The Silent Saboteur “Most conflicts arise not from genuine disagreement but from unchecked assumptions about others’ motives or goals. Pausing to clarify and validate these assumptions can eliminate a significant portion of perceived conflict.” _________________________ Connect with us: Host: Vince Chan | Guest: Jennifer Selby Long Chief Change Officer: Make Change Ambitiously. Experiential Human Intelligence for Growth Progressives Global Top 3% Podcast on Listen Notes World's #1 Career Podcast on Apple Top 1: US, CA, MX, IE, HU, AT, CH, FI, JP 2 Millions+ Downloads 50+ Countries

Hi everyone, welcome to our show, Chief Change Officer. I'm Vince Chen, your ambitious human host. Our show is a modernist community for change progressives in organizational and human transformation from around the world. Today's guest is an old friend of our show, Jennifer Selby Long. Jennifer was with us in season 3, episode 7 and 8. In the last 30 years, Jennifer has been helping tech leaders navigate the waves of tech evolution, leading and managing organizational change. But leaders can't successfully drive organizational change without being a master of their own

personal transformation. So last time, Jennifer and I looked into the natural process of personal change. We also talk about how to manage self-doubt and self-sabotage. Jennifer, welcome back to Chief Change Officer. You are setting a new record for us. For one guest, you are going to have full episodes under your own name. Indeed. Thank you for having me. I so appreciate it.

At the end of our last conversation, we talked about something that really resonates with everybody. How some people, when making career moves, leave a toxic boss, or a harmful culture, or an environment that is so vested in office politics, only to find themselves in a similar situation at the new job. It's like running away from one problem only to land in another. That led us into a bordered discussion on toxic cultures and even the role office politics play in these dynamics. We also touched on how some leaders or managers might unknowingly struggle with their personality disorders, which can contribute to these environments. Today we are honing in on office politics specifically.

Let's be real, who hasn't faced them, whether it's subtle power struggles or outright maneuvering, is something everyone has encountered. Yet, when I type office politics into Google, I don't find as much as I expected. Maybe the term isn't as trendy, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real or common. People might call it power dynamics, workplace dynamics, but the underlying issue is universal. So Jennifer, let's start with a two-part question. In your view, why do office politics exist?

What factors contra-bill to the presence in the modern workplace? I think it's a very fair and valid question. Why do they exist and what are those factors that contribute to the prevalence of politics in our modern workplaces? In my practice, what I see are two main reasons that AUKUS politics exists. The first one is failure to build trust and cohesion, which is if you will, the subjective or personal reason. And the second one is failure to align on strategy or strategic direction, which is more the business side.

I do think politics are part of a human condition and they always have been. Now, there is a newer factor that I think can contribute today, and that's the global and virtual nature of many businesses combined with what I'm going to boldly call a certain willful blindness on the part of nearly everyone to accept some of the hard realities and trade-offs of that situation or condition. So fundamentally, what we know is even in today's more virtual environment, people who need to make difficult decisions together in a complex business environment actually

need to be together in person far more often than most of us realize. So the resistance to this comes from both employees who've now gotten used to working at home, they're resisting traveling to get together for off-sites, resisting coming to office locations to work together in person, and from senior leaders who wince at that travel and entertainment budget that's going to be needed to bring people together who aren't in the same city, certainly quite a bit more than once a year. Now Vince, would you like a recent example? Yes, please.

An example would be nice. A leadership team that I worked with over several years now, and they used to work together really well. In fact, when I first started working with them, we didn't even do any sort of team effectiveness assessment because I assessed informally, this team is very effective. That's not what they need my help with. But as I watched them over the past year, they were beginning to feel threatened by each other. There was backbiting,

there was bickering, there were power struggles among this team, and this became very concerning to me. Now their membership had started to change a little bit. A key team member was leaving to retire, and the responsibilities that a team and the pressure on them had broadened considerably. They were leading a type of business transformation that had never been attempted before. And so you got to start asking what is going on here that this team is becoming, if you will, political. They're getting in these power struggles with each other and these battles. And this was rolling on down through the organization to where all of the people in their organization were starting to complain and say, you seem to be battling with each other all the time. We're not ever sure quite what to do. You

don't move as one anymore like you used to. In this situation, I really needed to get this team together in person to work through this, but the T&E budget had been slashed to basically zero in that organization. In my opinion, that would where we would call a penny wise and pound foolish decision to cut those T&E budgets across the company because the team all agreed once we were able to get together to push hard, for an exception to that T&E budget situation, that we did the work that they really needed to do with a vigorous and proper assessment of what is going on, what is in the way, why has the team performance deteriorated, and why were they in a split battle. Why has the team performance deteriorated? Why were they in a split battle?

It was an incredibly powerful time that we spent together, but we all agreed it should have been six to nine months earlier, but there was this sort of resistance to make getting an exception to this teeny budget flash to getting on a plane to fly for this meeting. I do think the resistance comes from both sides, but one of the things that we do have to accept

in today's more virtual, more global world is you might not feel like getting on that plane. I certainly know I don't at times, but you do need to make complex decisions together and you need to deal with team dynamics together in person. I really think most leadership teams probably need to be together at least once a quarter in person, despite the personal hardship and the extra cost associated with this. Now, I will say separately, I don't think that the cause or the contributions to politics are as simple as these little catchphrases like power corrupt.

Because I see too many leaders who are not corrupted by power, and I see too many ambitious people who maintain their ethics and integrity all the way up the ladder as they go. And so I don't believe it is as isn't as simple or as tried as something like power corrupt, that it, what I'm saying sounds completely nightly to some of your listeners, I would say to those listeners most emphatically, you have been working at the wrong places in a 30 plus years have been coaching and advising leaders. I have a clear, I'd certainty around this. The majority of leaders are not political animals, if you will.

In fact, some situations that seem political on the circus are not as political as they seem, but they're more a matter of complete lack of alignment around strategy and not dealing with that. And some of that stems from people lacking any kind of understanding of how to solve conflict effectively. Read other people's signals. Adapt to their needs. Read situations.

Lead and inspire people to change. These are the more advanced interpersonal skills, and I will say certainly those are likely at the top, but tends to trickle down as well, and feed these power battles and these political dynamics. And if any of that sounds familiar or makes sense, Vince, from your point of view, just the other week, I said in a coffee shop, I overheard several groups, dissecting what had gone wrong in their respective offices. It made me think, maybe I should bring this show to a coffee shop.

Imagine all the real, raw discussions that could spark these lunch hours and coffee shop conversations. These lunch hours and coffee shop conversations, I call them unscripted, water-cooler moments, where the true pulse of the office comes alive, is where colleagues vent their frustrations, share unfiltered truths about the team, the boss, and all the office politics in play. Now about leaders who treat the workplace like a chessboard, where employees are nothing more than pawns, moved or discarded depending on their usefulness. It's not so much about corruption as it is about cold, calculated strategy. For these leaders, it's not personal, it's frankly business.

They justify their actions in the name of efficiency, or the bottom line. If someone quits, they see it as an opportunity to reduce headcount, not a problem to solve. They don't lose leap over being called toxic. What's more, some leaders intentionally create competitive,roat environments. They think pitting people against each other will drive results. For employees, it often means distrust and endless office politics. That kind of culture impacts morale, collaboration, and long-term success. Jennifer, have you worked with clients who purposely plan the seats of office politics as part of the management strategy?

As part of the management strategy? Or have to advise clients who have to navigate such politically charged environments? How do you help someone survive and even thrive in a culture that is shaped so intentionally and sometimes ruthlessly by leadership? Yes, both actually. And it's interesting to build for most businesses, to build a strong team, to build trust among that team, and to not have people competing against one another but working against the competition, right, directing their competitiveness there. We have ample evidence that promotes businesses. That is the way to build your leadership team, right, and not the way in which you're just

looking at each person as a chess piece. And so at times in those situations, you may have someone who is in fact a narcissist, right? That is that thing that is beyond our control. You may have someone who learned that from a prior boss, from their schooling, from their family of origin. I still think a lot of leaders out there are running around with what I would consider to be an outdated notion of leadership, that it is somehow about results versus teamwork, when what we see largely is that the stronger teams get the better results.

And so the two are not holding, but in fact, the one enabled the other. And so I can say, certainly I've had some clients who were pretty mercenary when I first started working with them and they became some of the most dedicated and devoted clients in the long run, but I really had to crack them open or crack them over the head in a matter of speaking to get them to see this huge, quite naive disconnect that they were making between people and results.

And so some of those folks have become some of our best clients and some of our highest performers over the years. Now, as far as what someone would want to do in a situation like that, if they're not, they believe that they're not contributing to these power dynamics, but they're just on the receiving end of them, is a little bit different. And that's where I think you do need to take a look

at how you want to approach this, what is most important to you. I think there are five things that you really need to look at how you want to approach this, what is most important to you. I think there are five things that you really need to look at. And I think you want our duties more or less in sequence. The first one, interestingly, is to stop fighting and you won't believe those vents, but stop venting to not solve problems. And in fact, staying in that load of benting and raining about situation actually feeds the neural networks that don't resolve anything. Right? It feeds the neural

networks that are more survival based, right? To keep you in that more survival based mode, but actually staying in that mode doesn't help you to be a better problem solver. Right? And if you think of politics as a problem to be solved like any other, you really need to get your brain going with every possible strength that it has. The second one is step back and analyze with a certain curiosity and even some empathy. Be curious about it versus some frustrated by it, even if you can only maintain that curiosity for a few minutes as an alternative to your frustration and anger. And so say, I'm really curious. I wonder why someone would think that would produce a good result. I wonder why someone would behave in that way. I

wonder what's going on with them. I wonder what kind of situation they're in. I wonder what they've been instructed in. And continuing to just stay in this furious mode could give you some insights into the interests of these various people in power. And then you need to look at how are your interests aligned with the interests of these people in power. Right. And if you do have interests that are aligned with some of these people in power, that's when you need to find yourself an ally among those other people. And get that person to become a co-reader with you in whatever it is that you want to happen,

whatever change it is that you want to happen, whatever change it is that you want to happen. That's not just someone who says they agree with you, but someone who would step up, put some skin in the game, co-lead with you, someone who would get as much credit as you get for maybe solving the problem that people were in a power struggle over. And maybe that person will get even more credit. I've put myself in situations like that, even though it's not particularly fair. It does, if it does help to break down those power dynamics,

having that ally who is really a co-meeter, it is pretty important. Let's stay focused on the outcome that you want and the interests and needs of the people involved. That's really the last real ongoing thing in that little approach that I recommended because the interest and the needs of yourself and the others are what drives really just about everyone's behavior and staying attuned to those becomes pretty vital to lessening the power struggles, right, and to keeping them at bay over the long time.

I think we talked a little bit about how sometimes very sort of average people seem to excel in these environments that are politically charged. And one of the surprising reasons is there's been 25 to 35% of the general population that has a natural temperament that's just generally not bothered as much by political clashes. They just aren't. They just naturally get very interested in quickly assessing the situation, figuring out how to get to the goal. And I would imagine those people aren't even listening to this podcast. They're not even interested in it.

And so there are some people who are just, they're built in a way that they just have a natural buffer against it. So sometimes someone might look very, I don't know, cold to you if you're bothered by the power struggles that are underway because they're not particularly bothered by them and stuff. Doesn't really trouble them too much, but they seem to do fine and not be troubled by that. In fact, I think I mentioned in our last conversation, Vince, about a client who came in first time C-suite executive walked into and not the senior of a C-suite, the next level down.

So he walked in to this brand new role in a different industry and he found that he was in the middle of a colossal political battle that he had with Thunder. It only annoyed or troubled him to the extent that it triggered him being a little judgmental. And so all we really worked on was keeping that judge at bay and bringing forward his best self so that he could just step back, empathize with all of the people involved, and navigate to a solution that was a win, and very much the win that his organization needed in terms of budget, in particular for more head-downs.

People were grossly overworked, and he was able to do that. And to this day, in that same organization, probably four out of five clients there will periodically sigh and complain to me, oh wow, it is a densely political environment, but it doesn't faze him at all. He's just naturally built in a way that's not going to be worth too much.

So I think in my tips that I just gave, to some extent I dissected the way those people do think and behave. Do you think having a hybrid work model might actually help manage office politics? Or does it make things worse? On one hand, with less in-person interaction, people aren't constantly grouped together, which might reduce some of the tension that can build in enclosed quarters. It creates a bit of balance. You're not always in the office, so those dynamics don't dominate your entire day.

But on the other hand, there's the behind-the-scenes factor. Those who want to curry favor with the boss could still do it privately, in ways others might not even notice. notice, is a different kind of polyticking that could still cause issues, just less visibly. I imagine researchers are already looking into this shift and its impact on workplace dynamics. What's your take on how hybrid or remote work influences office politics? Does it shift the balance? Or do you think human nature finds a way to keep the same patterns alive just in new formats?

Yeah, I think it's a great question because it is very much our current situation for many businesses and I wish the answer were super simple. It's not quite as simple as I wish it were because it does depend a little bit on your situation. In the hybrid work model, are people going into the office to just work on their own work? If so, I'm not sure you're going to get huge

benefit out of that in terms of lessening politics or political alliances, because they're not really interacting that much. Nor do I think you're going to get much of the benefit of obviously working on very complex problems together if you're not really there to work together. The other particular challenge I'll play you in is most of the clients that we work with are distributed not throughout one metropolitan area, but across the globe. People who are lonely at work and don't feel connected. It's a big problem.

It's a big problem in a lot of places. It causes a lot of additional problems. And from my point of view, it feeds notions of politics because there are people who feel connected and people who don't benefit. So I think that this is one we need to keep observing, assessing, and experimenting with across time. It's a super new way to work when you look at how very many years people work together in person. And it's really only been the last few where the majority do not work together in person.

Just now, we explored the root causes of office politics, why some thrive while others struggle, why some thrive while others struggle, and how leadership behaviors often shape these dynamics. Tomorrow, in our next episode, we'll continue a series on office politics. If you've ever wondered why the smartest or hottest working people aren't always the ones who succeed? Or why the best ideas don't always win? Or why politics seem unavoidable? Tomorrow's episode is for you. Come back and join us. Thank you so much for joining us today. If you like what you heard, don't forget, subscribe to our show, leave us top-rated

reviews, check out our website, and follow me on social media. I'm Vince Chen, your ambitious human host. Until next time, take care.