Politics is not always a dirty word. My trusty Oxford Dictionary has many definitions for it, most to do with the actual science of governmental politics, but it also defines the word as “activities concerned with the acquisition or exercise of authority or status.” With this comes many connotations of dodgy dealings, deceit, and deception in order to manipulate situations for one’s own advantage. And while this does happen, every day we all exercise authority in one way or another, and for the most part, with good intent.
With that background, a recent article caught my eye ‘The Politics of Influence in Top Management Team Meetings’ (Read it here) and I was very curious what direction it would take. The article reports on some research released earlier this year that analysed the interactions between the CEO and the other members of top management teams, noting how influence was used (in the good sense of the word politics).
The research found that rather than influence being based on longstanding alliances, “coalition-building in TMTs can also be in-the-moment and fluid”, which means members can form temporary coalitions with different members for each issue under discussion. This counters much of the research to date that highlighted it was pre-existing alliances that were dominant.
Five kinds of interaction patterns between the CEO and TMT members were discovered as follows:
- Congruous – CEO and TMT Members see eye to eye from the beginning
- Cooperative – CEO disagrees with everyone at the beginning, but through constructive discussion differences are resolved
- Spectating – CEO just acts as an observer while other members debate an issue
- Adversarial – Disagreement between the CEO and team members trigger adversarial dynamics from the start
- Undermining – CEO and a TMT member are in opposition and the CEO challenges and undermines the team member while others look on.
For each of these interactions, the article gives some practical advice on how to address or handle the situation at hand in order to deescalate any issues and facilitate an effective meeting.
What is important from this research is that these interactions can come and go throughout the meeting and that consequently the decision-making processes are much more dynamic. This means that how people use their influencing behaviours matters, and that tone of voice and body language play important roles. People who “can relate well and demonstrate situationally appropriate behaviour in a manner that inspires confidence and trust will get their way.”
This is an interesting and practical article that challenges established thinking for anyone involved in meetings.