In his book, Building Great Teams: Charting the Path of Organizational Politics (Book Surge, 2007), U.S. Marine turned business professional and university instructor Damian D. “Skipper” Pitts takes you inside one of the greatest team building organizations in the world – the United States Marine Corps – to examine and discover the strategies that business leaders must be willing to learn, use and employ for building ordinary groups into extraordinary teams; leading the right team of commandos who understand what it takes to win on the business battlefield and defeat workplace politics using warfare as the key to experience a significant win. He defines workplace and office politics as “the path to smart growth…using the power to accelerate the careers of high potential future leaders and teams power in the workplace.” He implies that office politics are not always negative, but offer opportunities for greatness. And while workplace politics aren’t necessarily avoidable, people can learn to understand their purpose, find their voice and understand how-to strengthen and build the teams dynamics and interpersonal communications skills – all while managing responsibilities with tact, poise, and polish. The game of politics, when understood how-to use it as a strategic weapon, helps to successfully chart the path of personal and professional growth as the essential task to achieve personal mastery from the results of peak performance. Organizational politics also offers the hidden treasures that allow people to stand-out from the crowd. They learn to demonstrate their ability to navigate the maze of successful team building – a task that is viewed as positive organizational behavior from the individual that is perceived as an extraordinary leader. This is the type of person that others seek to follow and emulate for the greatness they wish to develop for themselves.
Workplace Politics vs. The Battlefield Engagement
Just as in any military engagement, in order to win one must know the rules better than his/her competitor to outsmart them on the battlefield. It also is beneficial to be a part of the right team for controlling the elements of the battlefront. However, some might claim the workplace and the military are very different in many ways. Thinking from this approach causes significant missteps in organizational politics. There are significant issues that are similar in the workplace and on a military battlefield. For starters, the one constant is “people.” Any time that people are involved in a scenario, decision-making must play a role in the ability to win. Using the strategies from the United States Marine Corps, people are responsible for making critical decisions from the highest ranking officer down to the lowest ranking enlisted – and the decision could mean life or death. Well, the same goes for the workplace. People are responsible for making critical decisions that could mean that the organization acquires strategic assets (executive suite decisions) or that a customer is treated in a way that causes them to continue doing business with the organization. Both can be seen as life or death for the organization. As seen with Wachovia bank, a decision from the top level leadership was made to acquire Westgate Financial to boost their mortgage business. When the U.S. mortgage markets and industry imploded during the financial crisis, the organization was effected with incredible implications – it became the beginning of the end for one of the country’s largest banks and people lost careers and more. Similar to the likes of a military battlefield engagement and a series of wrong decisions made by leadership, loss of life was experienced.
But what most people fail to realize is that the workplace is too a battlefield. Business is warfare and those who understand how to navigate the politics always win. Consider the game of chess. Chess can be low-key and quiet, a friendly game between friends. Or it can be explosive and highly competitive, set amid a crowd of observers, where the ultimate winner reaps world-wide accolades. Consider the skill behind the game of chess. It requires well-planned strategy and a great deal of mental acuity and patience, not to mention years of practice to reach an elite status.
These are the same skills required by a great leader, one who has the ability to guide an organization and one who understands the world of workplace politics. On the other hand, while playing a game such as chess, there can only be a single winner where there often can be a more neutral outcome in the world of workplace politics. With the proper skills of negotiation and influence, savvy leadership might be able to create a win-win situation.
The Truth about Politics in the Workplace
Politics will always be part of an organization because people are people. The dynamic relationships of individuals who run a business enterprise play an important part in how the business operates: How the mission map, posture statements, vision, values and organizational culture is forged. And while the average Jane or Joe might feel like they are being run over by co-workers who manipulate the system, bully, gossip, backstab and brown nose to get what they want, there is more to workplace politics than those negative daily encounters. The quintessential aspect of organizational politics is the team. Building great teams’ hits at one of the most discussed topics in business media and the workplace: Organizational Behavior, transformational leadership, organizational renewal and inter-office politics. The day of the individual worker is over, as today’s business arena demands that workers possess the ability to effectively work as team units that consistently produce extraordinary outcomes from their performance. It is a scenario all top leaders and managers knows well: The organization, their people, and their systems all require efficient and effective processes to remain constant in its approach to move quickly toward new and innovative ways of reaching mission-critical objectives.
Good leaders are a thing of the past, as global economies now require more than good – they seek greatness and ordinary just does not fit the bill any longer. They now require the ordinary to be “extraordinary.” The new battlefield in the workplace requires the extraordinary leaders’ understanding of workplace politics and the accompanying landscape to be significant. They can no longer work in the old silos of the past that was developed by the silly political conflicts. No, these extraordinary leaders can no longer exhibit the behaviors that ultimately invite disaster. This is not to say that leaders of the past demonstrated the behaviors that put-up with negative politics that caused disastrous outcomes nor does it imply every good leader has found his/her way to the top of the heap by climbing over the bodies of crushed co-workers. It simply means that leadership understands workplace politics well enough to use them as “strategic weapons” to produce positive returns without the mud slinging and backsliding of unethical and immoral actions.
Understanding how-to chart the path of organizational politics means being able to maneuver using political warfare to enhance the organization’s ability to rise to the top of its industry, without leaving one of its warriors lying wounded on the battlefield. It means having a well crafted Battleplan, understanding the players, building positive alliances and coalition of forces, using the art of war as a significant warfighting strategy that all stakeholders understand and buy-in to for winning, and finally, developing a compelling case study for the associates of the organization to understand the comprehensive approach for integrating strategic human capital and team development initiatives into the fold.
Convert Uniqueness into Ultimate Power
The best leaders are the people that understand the nature of warfare in dealing with and overcoming workplace politics. These are the men and women who have a tone on the pulse of the workplace – internal and external – and know what it takes to remain on task “ethically” to lead others into greatness. Here are five important things to know about politically savvy leaders:
° They understand the critical importance of the team associates to be “LeaderShaped” into GREATNESS. They understand the “what” and “how” in developing a GREAT team.
° They make decisive decisions for the benefit of the Future Picture
° They understand the “culture” in the system that the team must influence.
° They know what it take to strategically “execute” and win as a team.
° They know how-to use the “Six Political Signs of Business Leadership” to achieve professional mastery to the people and organization: 1. a clear “Vision” of issues. 2. Understand the “Value” drivers within the team. 3. “Behavioral” influence of leadership to the Future Picture. 4. “Strategy” Modeling (Enterprise Decision Making). 5. Strategic “Execution” (Governance). 6. “Duplication of Protocol” (learnable-teachable methods for future engagements).
Engaging the battlefield that is influenced by workplace politics, for many, may mean asserting their power, pushing and shoving like the elementary school bully until they get what they want. But that’s really just the toxic behavior and conduct that eliminates the possibilities for leadership and the organization they influence to win. One of the best ways to lose power is to overtly use it. Instead, the best leaders know that power comes from influence – and influence is subjective to behavior, character and the value system that drives the people responsible for charting the pathway.
In this great read, Pitts also outlines how, in most cases, team leaders never hit their goals – not because they lack talent within the associate ranks, but because they are naïve to the complexities of team dynamics. He outlines the strategic-execution methods that smart leaders understand and use to determine what type of team model best suits their specific environment, what key skills to look for (and which to avoid), and how to coax top performances from everyone starting from day one.
Author Robert Dilenschneider explains in his book, Power and Influence: The Rules Have Changed: True power and influence means accepting responsibility, taking the heat and keeping your word. So even if someone supports the supposition that leadership is just another way of playing political games, it doesn’t necessarily mean this is a bad thing. When properly played, workplace politics can lead to great achievements and outcomes. Pitts believes that extraordinary teams that are great engage politics well. They are LeaderShaped and driven by extraordinary people who make a distinctive impact – they deliver significant and superior performance over a long period of time. There are some striking characteristics of great teams who achieve sustained success within their mission across its life cycle. They experience an increased level of professional mastery in developing and executing as great teams do. These teams have gone through a process; a process that is forged in a furnace of professional development, transformational thinking, and strategic-execution.
Workplace politics, good or evil, are a very real part of the work environment. Whether people subscribe to the belief that leadership is just another way of engaging the political battlefield or not, it is important to keep in mind that as long as there are people working together as great teams do, there will be politics, but the outcomes will be far different from the results of the past. Great teams are the way to successfully engage the battlefield – greatness from the team is how to engage politics well and win it using fair tactics.
By: Damian D. Skipper Pitts
About the Author:
Damian D. “Skipper” Pitts, A United States Marine turned business professional is the author of Building GREAT Teams: Charting the Path of Organizational Politics, Building GREAT Teams: The Monograph (Book Surge Publishing, 2007) and the co-author of Business WARFIGHTING For GREAT Teams (Book Surge Publishing, 2008) and Founder and Chairman of the Bison Group Corporation, a management consulting and training firm. He is the author The Process of LeaderShaping, a cultural transformational program and university course of study and has consulted or presented to numerous leading U.S. and foreign corporations, helping them to realize increased integrated talent management strategies, team building maneuvers, and decision-making skills to compete in today’s highly uncertain business environments. He has also authored four additional publications with his most successful title, The Art of Detachment: Breakthrough Principles to Transformational Leadership (Kendall Hunt, 2007). His works allowed him to be chosen as the technical, military and development specialists by the U.S. film industry to the feature film “Stateside” that released in theaters in May 2004 where he trained and acted onscreen with “A-List” talents Val Kilmer and Jonathan Tucker along with 75 -other actors, teaching them the principles of leadership, team development, and influence for the production. He is now teaching his programs at Temple University.
For additional information, please email Dpitts@thebisongroup.com.
Filed under Career Management by on Jan 23rd, 2010. 
Our Political System was a revelation in 1776, before
Hidden Microphones & Cameras,
Big Business,
Indoor Plumbing and Toilet Paper,
before Ethics was understood,
and
before the National Security Agency (NSA).
The actions of our political Representatives like George Washington were shaped by the ethics of honor instilled by the educational system and social awareness of that time. Ethics plays no large part in our present educational systems. Ethics should be a formal part of every class from pre-school to doctoral presentation. Instilled formally, the people would better understand how to predict consequences from any proposed action. The corrupt would die out with time and attrition.
Since the Declaration of Independence (and the first fights against taxation without representation), technology has allowed Special Interest groups (to include Terrorist Groups, souless Corporations, and corrupt politicians) to use the innate weaknesses of our political structure to undermine the basis for our Constitution; a modern form of racketeering and organized crime, jeopardizing national security.
The Citizens of the United States
require implementation of
State representation, including ALL states,
by a large and diverse Ethical Oversight Committee
to ensure the security of peoples Freedoms,
to manage National Security Agency (NSA) operations,
and
to determine how the information collected and derived by
the NSA shall best be used
as it relates to our Freedoms and Security,
and to “absolutely” restrict this information
from any other purpose.
Who are the ghosts behind the faces of our government, who continues to manipulate the world into a continuous chain of wars. A chain that has killed many millions of people, and that deters development? This is only one relationship the NSA should be informing the public about.
The NSA is soley controlled by the office of the President of the United States and only needs a single judge to obtain a warrant to covertly monitor any person or corporation (wire tapping, covertly breaking in to copy documents, copy by any means computer information, record in detail the habits and personal relationships of anyone, …).
Recently, President Bush took control away from that judge and even though the judge was ineffectual, the President now has absolute control over the NSA.
The President is a puppet of the same organization that controls the Federal Reserve. Therefore they control the United States, not the President, not the People, and certainly not ethics. The Fed encourages war to promote special interest prosperity. Loans with interest to both sides of every war. Interest paid on every dollar produced for the United States. Who benefits from the interest paid?
Current NSA warrants are meaningless and effectively allows the NSA to collect information without public scrutiny, while Presidential directives prevent the NSA from monitoring special interest group corrupt practices and disclosing those actions to the public
Under our current system a single judge would have to oversee thousands of covert transactions nationwide to adequately monitor national security issues, and to follow up to ensure those requests were legitimate. Further, since information collected by the NSA can be arbitrarily “classified”, the NSA can arbitrarily prevent the judge from monitoring the kinds of data collected.
The current system is not practical and therefore unethical, there is no reasonable way the judge would know what the NSA does with the information collected; and since the judge is controlled by the President, this is highly susceptible to corrupt practices. The current system allows for shielding corruption while promoting unscrupulous special interest activities.
The “Protect America Act” is unconstitutional. But a “simple change” to provide “REPRESENTATION by all States” in the covert collection and processing of data would make the Act Constitutionally sound.
The NSA must be managed by doctors of science (one parallel position for each State elected political representative; but with no affiliation) to evaluate all data collected and eliminate the useless requirement of warrant by a judge (presently coerced into signing off on any NSA warrant presented before them); and to require the NSA to monitor for corrupt political practices (terrorist activities, criminal activities, political practices that endanger National Security, …), with the mandate to notify the offending parties quietly to correct their unethical behavior, only then after they have failed to correct their actions adequately, their actions are publish on a NSA publicly available website.
We the people would then boycott corrupt representatives and their supporting corporations. The associated District Attorney would be notified, and be given the details to substantiate investigation. The District Attorney would then fully investigate and prosecute in accordance with the law. The NSA would at no time directly intervene, thereby limiting their power to nudging our political system away from corrupt activities.
The following details how to update our 200 year old political structure to provide representative governance that promotes the economy, desires of the masses, and ethical government practices; allowing the Government and the people to think as ONE. This same system can be seeded into other governments like Iraq to create an ethical environment for all peoples.
_______________________________________________________
To find & email your specific Congressmen and Senators:
Your State’s Congressmen
Your States’ Senators
To email Congressman all across the United States:
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
To talk directly with the staff of your representatives:
(202) 225-3121 for the House
(202) 224-3121 for the Senate
—————————————————————————————————
COPY & PASTE THE FOLLOWING to your Representatives
Subject: Create an “Oversight of NSA Ethics committee” (ONE) to manage NSA Data Collection, Assessment, and Directives in the United States
As your constituent, I request that you forward the following to all political delegates in every State of the United States, and that a Highly Ethical group of diverse people representing every State and its population be instated to provide ethical oversight and management of all National Security Agency (NSA) data collection, assessments, and directives.
Because this large representative body of individuals will act as a covert, but highly trained publicly elected governing body, this will allow the NSA to continue data collection without warrant. The Senate and Congress will provide “oversight and not direct control” of this new branch in our political structure, thereby providing the needed checks and balances.
The problem with our current political system is that Special Interests (Oil Companies, Defense Contractors, Big Business Corporations, Foreign Interests, …) actively and covertly influence our political representatives. Private research (to include Terrorist involvement with genetic engineering in all its forms, nuclear physics research, economic initiatives, social reform efforts, …) are potentially high risk threats to National Security, yet are largely unmonitored. Corrupt and Neglective influences are not ONLY the fault of our Representatives, they are the fault of our unupdated 200 year old political structure.
To correct this weakness in our Government, in addition to the Senate and Congress, create a new branch of State elected political representatives whose only purpose is to manage the National Security Agency (NSA), which did not exist at the birth of our political structure.
Candidates for these new positions must be doctors of science with proven understanding of ethical evaluation. Doctors of science are necessary because they need to understand and interact with the inner workings of computer software to continuously analyze the large amounts of diverse real world data collected.
Our present political structure does not have an ethical political component to effectively neutralize the criminal aspect of political pandering, coercive control over our Representatives, or Terrorist influences in our Society and in our Government, but we do have the resources to do so.
The National Security Agency (NSA) monitors ALL organizations: CIA, NIS, Air Force, Army, PLO, Al-Qaeda, Defense Contractors, Oil Companies, Greenpeace, ALL of our Politicians, and basically all organizations whether domestic or abroad. Anyone with this information controls the focus of our Nation, along with our Freedoms and Security.
An important point here is that collecting information is necessary and of little negative consequence in an ethical environment, what specifically is done with that information is extraordinarily important, especially in unethical and abusive hands. Currently, Special Interests unethically manipulate our country’s assets, despite “We the Peoples” desires. How many people and soldiers have died supporting a business interest rather than a national interest?
Greater than $12 Billion “lost” in Iraq, destruction of New Orleans, War in Iraq, manipulation of the media, greater than $12 Billion illegally allocated to Halliburton where they subsequently moved outside of our legal system to Dubai (Saudi Arabia), …
As a consequence of Special Interest actions, they erode human rights, leave our country unnecessarily exposed to security threats, and hinder commerce that would flourish were it not for unethical business practices of Special Interests and Large Corporations.
Each “Oversight of NSA Ethics committee” (ONE) delegate represents elected representation by certified highly ethical doctors and non-partisan control over our country’s human rights, freedoms, and security.
Together with Congress and the Senate, ONE delegates provide a tertiary and complementary system of representation, with each representative political faction having unique assets and control mechanisms. The combination of focused representation for business, the people, and ethics makes the system innately representative, well informed, ethical, and stable. Businesses will continue to sponsor individual Senators and Congressmen, however, all money contributed to ONE candidates shall go into a common fund to promote all potential ONE candidates equally within each State.
Because this large representative body of individuals will act as a covert, but highly trained publicly elected governing body, this will allow the NSA to continue data collection without warrant.
No longer will we need to have less Freedom to have more Security, or vice versa.
These highly trained elected personnel provide for independent maximizing of Freedoms and maximizing of Security for all citizens !!! While the Congress and Senate provide oversight and continues to control the military as part of the checks and balances to make this political structure stable.
Presently, special interests make Security and Freedom mutually incompatible. Many countries have the same political structure as we do and yet live in a police state where the individual has no recognized rights; we must prevent a similar situation from happening here in the United States. The current actions of the President’s Office are a prelude of worse things to come.
To take into account all perspectives and actual events to maximize both Freedom and Security for our entire country requires much more raw information than 10,000 people can amass, and assessment that would take these people many lifetimes to be just. But events happen concurrently every day that threaten our Freedoms and Security.
NSA computers process diverse data at great speeds to provide minute by minute evaluation of threats to our national security, and currently as directed by special interests. To stop the unethical use of NSA resources, a large group of persons extensively trained in ethical reasoning needs to create the “computer-based automated keys” (Directives) for unlocking relationships related to promoting BOTH Freedoms and Security.
Directives are computer software analysis functions that sift through real world information. Something like Antivirus programs for protecting your computer. When key relationships are found, a task is generated to cleanup that corrupt system. Ethical care must be taken to ensure good relationships are not disturbed, while corrupt activities are corrected. The concept being: “To do the least necessary to allow unhindered natural social development; while ensuring that repeated corrupt practices of the same types identified do not recur.
As Directives are developed that can be generalized for a particular class of social system, they can be shared amongst similarally structured nations. Thereby helping to reduce the development costs for all countries; and provide international peer review of all Directives developed. At no time will raw data be shared by various National Security Agencies of the different nations.
Computer systems have been used for similar purposes for many years with great success in economics to limit risks and promote investment diversity. By developing automated directives, this helps to provide integrity and consistent behavior of the NSA. The derived results can then be evaluated by this large team of elected Representatives using state of the art ethical evaluation tools; thus ensuring the information collected is used solely to independently promote the Freedoms and Security of ALL citizens.
Please instate a comprehensive “Oversight of NSA Ethics committee” (ONE) to manage the National Security Agency (NSA) as outlined below, a system allowing the Government and the people to think as one.
To maintain equitable representation of all peoples, each State shall publicly elect an Oversight of NSA Ethics (ONE) delegate paralleling each elected Congressman and Senator position; but having no affiliation.
The Constitution for each State shall act as the basis for the ethical perspective of each delegate.
The requirements for election as a ONE delegate are:
shall be a certified doctor from a nationally accredited school
shall have authored and published a paper related to ethics in a nationally distributed professional journal
shall be a permanent resident of that State
shall pass uniform but unique tests related to Ethics, Critical Reasoning, probability, and statistics
shall be free of a felony record
shall not be strongly biased regarding any special interests
shall forever be disallowed from ever discussing any information formulated or witnessed while in office; and shall teach ethical evaluation for two years after their term in office
shall submit themselves for lie detection and questioning periodically to prevent outside influence by any special interest
The delegates shall be relocated to the surroundings near the NSA and will be furnished Government owned housing while in office. Physical security for the delegates shall consist of NSA surveillance with an armed NSA controlled security force to control any attempt to access or disproportionately influence the delegate or their family.
Each delegate shall have a two person staff at the NSA and a two person staff in their home State to monitor, collect, and research information.
Each State shall have one highly trained field agent for each delegate for that State whom shall collectively implement directives from the NSA using legal resources.
All work surrounding NSA data collection shall be done in a secure facility protected from military threat.
Absolutely no raw data or interest specific data or interest specific directives shall ever leave the facility under penalty of treason related to all intentionally involved.
No interest specific data or interest specific directive shall be propagated outside of the confines of the NSA by delegate staff or agents under penalty of racketeering.
The ONE delegates shall poll their respective communities related to values and perspectives, but polls shall not contain any Special Interest specific information.
The NSA shall devise and maintain a relational database to allow delegates to productively relate all measure and kind of ethical issue to the vast amounts of information collected by the NSA.
The delegates shall formulate “Automated Directives” for automatically: flagging potentially destructive relationships, developing priorities, developing issued directives to field agents, monitor metrics to verify results, track long term effects and related relationships, provide for a continuously updated scores related to the qualities related to our freedoms and security at that moment in time, and provide simulations for anticipating the effects of issuing a proposed directive and how it would affect the freedoms and security scores, …
The creation of directives shall solely be governed by the ONE Committee. The President, Congress, the House, the Military, nor any other special interest group shall ever have any influence over the creation of directives, other than approved ethical channels of communication. Any attempt to do so outside of approved channels shall be considered treason within the confines of the NSA, and racketeering otherwise, and all involved shall share the same fate, regardless of political standing or financial backing.
Because the positions of the delegates are elected positions. Data would be provided by the NSA which tracks the number of hours each delegate actively performed research, the influence each delegate had on the overall freedom and security qualities, and the core generalized formulas for creating the Automated Directives would be publicly disclosed but would not relate delegate involvement nor the data or type of data that they relate. This is necessary to help ensure high-tech corporations do not fillfully subvert NSA monitored data. Each delegate would be allowed to create public announcements that do not violate that which is outlined above.
The ONE delegates shall govern themselves regarding inappropriate actions generated by a delegate, with periodic oversight by the Senate and Congress. A delegate that fails to use ethical reasoning in promoting a Directive and which benefits a special interest may be penalized and a State elected alternate may take their place.
The term of service for each Delegate shall be four years; followed by a two year mandatory position at an accredited University teaching related ethics topics involving analysis and software. The Delegate may then accept nomination for the following election cycle.
Classes in ethics for learning to create automated Directives shall use independently developed computer models and simulation systems. At no time shall any Directive from the NSA be directly analyzed. The simulated environment would cause errors inconsistent with NSA real world processing. However, relationships discovered can be submitted to the NSA for review through approved ethical channels.
Collectively, the ONE committee shall determine the information necessary to guide the President, Congress, Senate, and the Military. The President, Congress, Senate, and the Military will have continuous one-way input into the NSA as part of NSA data collection, without warrant, the feedback will be immediate, so there is no need for any political party or military component to have dialog with ONE delegates or the NSA data collection and assessment systems.
The Congress and Senate shall provide a team trained in ethical evaluation to periodically monitor (not control) the NSA and report back to the Senate and Congress.
The military remains under the control of the Senate and the Congress; and the NSA shall only be allowed restricted control over a military asset with minute by minute support of the majorities of both the Senate and Congress where time critical relationships exist.
Every political representative in the United States will be able to send their viewpoints to the NSA by sending an email to a NSA server, with only an automated response. But their views will be collected and processed automatically by the data collection system. The same applies for all citizens. All citizens shall have representation and voice.
The administrators necessary to manage the NSA regarding operations personnel, supplies, existing field agents, the budget, and all other aspects of the NSA shall answer to the ONE committee and shall provide a continuous and accurate assessment of resource managment to Congress.
As technology provides greater capabilities in diverse areas such as spy technologies, computer modeling of world economics, …, the NSA shall continue to evolve systems to better represent and anticipate the needs and desires of all citizens.
Under this system, the NSA shall collect and assess all information as practically possible worldwide, without the need for warrant in the United States.
Instate a comprehensive “Oversight of NSA Ethics committee” (ONE) to govern NSA data collection systems as outlined above; a system allowing the Government and the people to think as one.
By: James Dunn
About the Author:
Electrical Engineer
Businessman
Activist
Filed under Politics by on Jan 23rd, 2010.
When we hear the word ‘politics’, we naturally think of politicians, political parties, political strategies, and so forth. But have you ever considered the term ‘politics’ from a business point of view? When it comes to politics in business, the former means the difference between failure and success in the latter. And, more often than not, politics can define one’s personal career. You can enjoy benefits or suffer penalties as a result of the way politics influences every business. If you happen to be among the most appreciated employees, decisions may go your way, but if you are ‘invisible’ to your bosses or they have nothing but ill feelings for you, some penalties may be coming your way.
When it comes to business decisions or work environments, we often hear expressions such as ‘it was nothing but politics’ or ‘that place is very political’. What do these expressions mean? And how can you be part of the game, and know how to play your politics? When you have managed to build a strong relationship with your customers, you understand the business thoroughly, and you are respected throughout the organization, but your superiors still think that you’re not doing well enough, this could be a clear example of people using politics to drive their own personal agenda.
It’s only fair to say that there’s no business without politics, and that its level of sophistication depends on the size of the organization. It’s understandable that the complexity of politics is proportional with the size of the company, because, after all, politics means power, and the more players are involved in the game, the more there is at stake.
Like everywhere else, we can speak of bad politics and good politics in business. Good politics refer to building strong networks at all the levels of that company or organization, spending time with employees from all levels, having a solid understanding of the keys to the success of the organization, and so forth. Good politics in business is about sharing information and encouraging other people to do the same thing. Bad politics refers to exactly the opposite. In the end it all comes down to driving your own agenda, as mentioned before. However, deft leadership should not be confused with bad politics in business. The two are very different.
Unfortunately, it seems that bad politics has got its share of businesses, and we see more of that than of good politics, because there are more bad politicians than there are good, and the former still continue to make the rule. But, in the end, it is up to you how you play the game.
If you want to find more information on different business or politics subjects please visit http://www.articletimesonline.com
By: Groshan Fabiola
About the Author:
If you want to find more information on different business or politics subjects please visit http://www.articletimesonline.com
Filed under Business by on Jan 23rd, 2010.
What is art?
What is politics?
By: mehuligan2001
About the Author:
Filed under Other - Arts & Humanities by on Jan 23rd, 2010. 4 Comments.
What developments occurred in East Africa?
By: yo
About the Author:
Filed under History by on Jan 23rd, 2010. 1 Comment.
I have to write a two page essay on this. I already have things, but I’m running out of things to say.
By: carly
About the Author:
Filed under Homework Help by on Jan 23rd, 2010. 1 Comment.
Why did the parliament vote for this early election date? There are more than one answer to this. The front runners for president see a threat in a new rising candidate which will gain by more time, and they want to cut him short of this so he does not win to much votes. Another explanation is that the Ukrainian politicians up till now have not shown much strategic leadership and lack of crisis management, and this is not only limited to the top leaders in Ukraine, but the whole parliament.
Ukraine is in a need for a change in political leadership as the present leadership consisting of the president and prime minister does not provide the leadership Ukraine needs at this moment.
Ukraine present political crisis is a struggle between two heads of power and Ukraine’s future as a European Parliamentary Democracy. In addition there is an ambitious opposition with the party of regions leader, who will do his best to get into power, mostly because of personal ambitions. An opposition leader which has a scandal filled background in Ukrainian politics.
Razumkov Center performed a poll in the period from February 2th until March 5th 2009 revealed six potential presidential alternatives amongst the population, these were;
Viktor Yanukovych,
Yulia Tymoshenko,
Arseniy Yatseniuk,
Volodymyr Lytvyn,
Petro Symonenko, and
Viktor Yuschenko
Amongst these candidates there is only one real choice for a visionary leadership which will contribute to form the independent strong Ukraine which gives the population hopes for the future.
This candidate is the 34 year old economist and lawyer Arseniy Yatseniuk.
He is the candidate which has risen fastest in popularity in the last few months and gains terrain towards his opponents for every day towards the presidential election in January 2010. The other candidates have not demonstrated the ability to unite Ukraine either in power position, nor as opposition politicians. More of the same medicine will not work any longer for Ukraine. Like the international crisis, there is a need for new tools that will prevent Ukraine having the same problems over and over again.
ARSENIY YATSENIUK STANDS FOR BUILDING A NEW UNITED UKRAINE
Arseniy Yatseniuk can build a new sense of national unity that will bring relatively scandal free politics forward and he represent the next generation of a new post-partisan Ukrainian leadership.
He represents the transformational figure which emerges in the Ukrainian political landscape that captures the imagination and majority of Ukrainian voters towards the January 2010 national elections.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk is the one leader who is uniquely positioned to save Ukraine from itself. His meteoric rise is altering the political terrain of the upcoming elections in Ukraine.
Since Yatsenyuk has entered the race, he will have a challenging race towards presidency. But he can also campaign and spur optimism in Ukraine and bring hope back to the distressed population.
Ukraine is required to present balanced governmental budgets. The president must ensure that all politicians, regardless of fraction work together towards a common goal – saving Ukraine. In order to achieve this the new leader must be ready to take actions within the energy politics, especially Naftogas and its inability to present positive capital results as well as be able to open up its operations to be able to control its use of capital. Another issue the president needs to take care of is to handle the level of corruption in Ukraine.
Yushenko and Tymochenko have demonstrated lack of coherent leadership and ability to present a common political platform. They have therefore as I see it, disqualified themselves as candidates to be the needed future visionary political presidential leader of Ukraine.
The apparent lack of proper political craftsmanship in the formation of the Orange Coalition between Yushenko and Tymoshenko has lead to disagreement on virtually everything since they took the power in 2004.
The inability of the opposition leaders to present a real alternative to the present day leadership also disqualifies them from taking part in the new leadership of Ukraine. Today the major opposition party, party of regions is more occupied with criticize the existing government and president for not making a crisis plan and anti-crisis solutions, instead of cooperate with the leadership to create one.
BUILDING A UNITED UKRAINE WITH A VISIONARY MODERN LEADER
The new President to be elected in October 25th needs the trust by vast numbers of Ukrainians and not seen as part of the problem and not fatigued by a constant fighting within the political leader collegium’s of the President, Prime Minister and the chairman of Verkhovna Rada. The new Ukrainian leader must muster enough parliamentary seats and nationwide support to forge an effective coalition government and lead a genuine reform movement.
Yanukovych is facing a backlash in his party and polls for fumbling the last attempt to depose Timoshenko from the prime ministers office.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk can break out as a uniting force to save Ukraine.
The political fighting between Yushenko, Yanukovych and Tymoshenko demonstrate their inabilities in proper visionary political leadership on the cost of retaining personal powers.
Ukraine is sinking and Yatsenyuk’s poll numbers and popularity are rising.
As a former banker, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Speaker of the parliament, the 34 year-old Yatsenyuk is experienced and respected in Ukraine’s political arena. He is young, relatively scandal free and has the best chance to represent the next generation of a new post-partisan Ukrainian leadership.
Yatsenyuk represent the sober visionary leader who can impart a new sense of realism that implores Ukraine to clean up its own financial house.
He has charisma enough to inspire Ukrainians to take their destiny in their own hands and not look to Europe or Russia for salvation or blame them when things go wrong.
He must challenge the reign in Ukraine’s oligarchs who have ravaged the country in the same way that Russia’s oligarchs did during the transition from state ownership to free enterprise.
Yatsenyuk has the ability to craft a sensible forward-leaning Ukrainian energy policy that modernizes its infrastructure, energy policy reforms and restores its credibility in Europe.
Yatsenyuk articulate a vision that bridges the cultural and religious divide between Ukraine and Russian nationals.
He has demonstrated the capability to lead a parliament to get things done, and should therefore be able to govern a parliament with a significant numbers of members from the Tymoshenko Bloc and the Regions Party on his side.
The Ukrainian people are in a desperate search for new leadership as his political rival’s incessant infighting makes him a more attractive alternative.
POLITICAL STRATEGY – CHANGE UKRAINE THROUGH ITS CITIZENS
Yatsenyuk gives a clear and compelling vision of a new Ukraine, and a new theory of nation-building that departs with the failed attempts of the past.
Yatsenyuk has the ability to find alliances that will assist him in rise funding for his campaign for his newly formed party called Change Front Citizens Initiative.
Yatsenyuk will form a program for Ukraine’s resurrection.
His political strategy will be innovative, and be the consensus in the Ukrainian population as well as within the political circles. His party will present solutions that not only split the political difference between the major parties, but being radical pragmatists proposing solutions that benefit all Ukrainians struggling under severe economic conditions. He will not allow his party to become a soft centrist alternative which tries to be all things to all Ukrainians.
Yatsenyuk is seen as a political threat to established politicians like Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko, who have started attacking Yatsenyuk instead of ignoring him. This will provide an excellent development that provides him greater opportunities to highlight policy differences and new reforms, rather than engaging in personal smears.
Yatsenyuk can and will have to be tough in taking on his detractors; he cannot be equally as dirty.
Yatsenyuk stated recently: "I have ambitions as a politician – I want to change entire country and I do not want to change the National Bank".
Yatsenyuk’s new organization the Change Front Citizens Initiative will build its own independent base of disaffected citizens and Ukraine’s youth that are anchored to his core vision. He will break off sections of Ukraine’s other major and minor parties on principle and policy to forge a winning coalition as the January 17 elections draw near.
Yatsenyuk’s path to victory will be the end of the political rancor between the Region’s Party and the Tymoshenko Bloc, and build a new sense of national unity.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk represents the change that will build the modern democratic Ukraine with the initiative of the Ukrainians themselves.
By: Stig Kristoffersen
About the Author:
He has a background as civil engineer and geoscientist. He has worked mainly within the oil and gas industry from the mid 1980s. He has written a few fictional novels as well as being the author of some professional litterature within oil and gas sector, he is now an editor of some web sites.
Filed under Politics by on Jan 23rd, 2010.
Why did the parliament vote for this early election date? There are more than one answer to this. The front runners for president see a threat in a new rising candidate which will gain by more time, and they want to cut him short of this so he does not win to much votes. Another explanation is that the Ukrainian politicians up till now have not shown much strategic leadership and lack of crisis management, and this is not only limited to the top leaders in Ukraine, but the whole parliament.
Ukraine is in a need for a change in political leadership as the present leadership consisting of the president and prime minister does not provide the leadership Ukraine needs at this moment.
Ukraine present political crisis is a struggle between two heads of power and Ukraine’s future as a European Parliamentary Democracy. In addition there is an ambitious opposition with the party of regions leader, who will do his best to get into power, mostly because of personal ambitions. An opposition leader which has a scandal filled background in Ukrainian politics.
Razumkov Center performed a poll in the period from February 2th until March 5th 2009 revealed six potential presidential alternatives amongst the population, these were;
Viktor Yanukovych,
Yulia Tymoshenko,
Arseniy Yatseniuk,
Volodymyr Lytvyn,
Petro Symonenko, and
Viktor Yuschenko
Amongst these candidates there is only one real choice for a visionary leadership which will contribute to form the independent strong Ukraine which gives the population hopes for the future.
This candidate is the 34 year old economist and lawyer Arseniy Yatseniuk.
He is the candidate which has risen fastest in popularity in the last few months and gains terrain towards his opponents for every day towards the presidential election in January 2010. The other candidates have not demonstrated the ability to unite Ukraine either in power position, nor as opposition politicians. More of the same medicine will not work any longer for Ukraine. Like the international crisis, there is a need for new tools that will prevent Ukraine having the same problems over and over again.
ARSENIY YATSENIUK STANDS FOR BUILDING A NEW UNITED UKRAINE
Arseniy Yatseniuk can build a new sense of national unity that will bring relatively scandal free politics forward and he represent the next generation of a new post-partisan Ukrainian leadership.
He represents the transformational figure which emerges in the Ukrainian political landscape that captures the imagination and majority of Ukrainian voters towards the January 2010 national elections.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk is the one leader who is uniquely positioned to save Ukraine from itself. His meteoric rise is altering the political terrain of the upcoming elections in Ukraine.
Since Yatsenyuk has entered the race, he will have a challenging race towards presidency. But he can also campaign and spur optimism in Ukraine and bring hope back to the distressed population.
Ukraine is required to present balanced governmental budgets. The president must ensure that all politicians, regardless of fraction work together towards a common goal – saving Ukraine. In order to achieve this the new leader must be ready to take actions within the energy politics, especially Naftogas and its inability to present positive capital results as well as be able to open up its operations to be able to control its use of capital. Another issue the president needs to take care of is to handle the level of corruption in Ukraine.
Yushenko and Tymochenko have demonstrated lack of coherent leadership and ability to present a common political platform. They have therefore as I see it, disqualified themselves as candidates to be the needed future visionary political presidential leader of Ukraine.
The apparent lack of proper political craftsmanship in the formation of the Orange Coalition between Yushenko and Tymoshenko has lead to disagreement on virtually everything since they took the power in 2004.
The inability of the opposition leaders to present a real alternative to the present day leadership also disqualifies them from taking part in the new leadership of Ukraine. Today the major opposition party, party of regions is more occupied with criticize the existing government and president for not making a crisis plan and anti-crisis solutions, instead of cooperate with the leadership to create one.
BUILDING A UNITED UKRAINE WITH A VISIONARY MODERN LEADER
The new President to be elected in October 25th needs the trust by vast numbers of Ukrainians and not seen as part of the problem and not fatigued by a constant fighting within the political leader collegium’s of the President, Prime Minister and the chairman of Verkhovna Rada. The new Ukrainian leader must muster enough parliamentary seats and nationwide support to forge an effective coalition government and lead a genuine reform movement.
Yanukovych is facing a backlash in his party and polls for fumbling the last attempt to depose Timoshenko from the prime ministers office.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk can break out as a uniting force to save Ukraine.
The political fighting between Yushenko, Yanukovych and Tymoshenko demonstrate their inabilities in proper visionary political leadership on the cost of retaining personal powers.
Ukraine is sinking and Yatsenyuk’s poll numbers and popularity are rising.
As a former banker, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Speaker of the parliament, the 34 year-old Yatsenyuk is experienced and respected in Ukraine’s political arena. He is young, relatively scandal free and has the best chance to represent the next generation of a new post-partisan Ukrainian leadership.
Yatsenyuk represent the sober visionary leader who can impart a new sense of realism that implores Ukraine to clean up its own financial house.
He has charisma enough to inspire Ukrainians to take their destiny in their own hands and not look to Europe or Russia for salvation or blame them when things go wrong.
He must challenge the reign in Ukraine’s oligarchs who have ravaged the country in the same way that Russia’s oligarchs did during the transition from state ownership to free enterprise.
Yatsenyuk has the ability to craft a sensible forward-leaning Ukrainian energy policy that modernizes its infrastructure, energy policy reforms and restores its credibility in Europe.
Yatsenyuk articulate a vision that bridges the cultural and religious divide between Ukraine and Russian nationals.
He has demonstrated the capability to lead a parliament to get things done, and should therefore be able to govern a parliament with a significant numbers of members from the Tymoshenko Bloc and the Regions Party on his side.
The Ukrainian people are in a desperate search for new leadership as his political rival’s incessant infighting makes him a more attractive alternative.
POLITICAL STRATEGY – CHANGE UKRAINE THROUGH ITS CITIZENS
Yatsenyuk gives a clear and compelling vision of a new Ukraine, and a new theory of nation-building that departs with the failed attempts of the past.
Yatsenyuk has the ability to find alliances that will assist him in rise funding for his campaign for his newly formed party called Change Front Citizens Initiative.
Yatsenyuk will form a program for Ukraine’s resurrection.
His political strategy will be innovative, and be the consensus in the Ukrainian population as well as within the political circles. His party will present solutions that not only split the political difference between the major parties, but being radical pragmatists proposing solutions that benefit all Ukrainians struggling under severe economic conditions. He will not allow his party to become a soft centrist alternative which tries to be all things to all Ukrainians.
Yatsenyuk is seen as a political threat to established politicians like Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko, who have started attacking Yatsenyuk instead of ignoring him. This will provide an excellent development that provides him greater opportunities to highlight policy differences and new reforms, rather than engaging in personal smears.
Yatsenyuk can and will have to be tough in taking on his detractors; he cannot be equally as dirty.
Yatsenyuk stated recently: “I have ambitions as a politician – I want to change entire country and I do not want to change the National Bank”.
Yatsenyuk’s new organization the Change Front Citizens Initiative will build its own independent base of disaffected citizens and Ukraine’s youth that are anchored to his core vision. He will break off sections of Ukraine’s other major and minor parties on principle and policy to forge a winning coalition as the January 17 elections draw near.
Yatsenyuk’s path to victory will be the end of the political rancor between the Region’s Party and the Tymoshenko Bloc, and build a new sense of national unity.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk represents the change that will build the modern democratic Ukraine with the initiative of the Ukrainians themselves.
By: Stig Kristoffersen
About the Author:
He has a background as civil engineer and geoscientist. He has worked mainly within the oil and gas industry from the mid 1980s. He has written a few fictional novels as well as being the author of some professional litterature within oil and gas sector, he is now an editor of some web sites.
Filed under Politics by on Jan 23rd, 2010.
By: briek24
About the Author:
Filed under Politics by on Jan 23rd, 2010. 2 Comments.
By: christina rose
About the Author:
Filed under Higher Education (University +) by on Jan 23rd, 2010. 8 Comments.