Office Politics
Tame suspicion to get along with fellow managers
Question
I recently joined a medium-sized company as a mid-level manager, and everything seemed to be going well. However, I have noticed a trend that risks stalling the company’s growth unless something is done urgently.
Whenever we have managerial meetings, a clique of individuals tend to remain behind at the end of the deliberations for a chat. This is not going well with many managers, who feel their contributions during the meeting are worthless. Could this show that sections of top management do not trust their own team?
Answer
Allow me first of all to advocate for the devil, because he is also entitled to a hearing. You are paranoid. That a group of individuals stay behind to discuss weekend football results does not mean the company is about to break up.
Next time they are left behind, ensure you go back to pick up the iPad that you left behind ‘accidentally’, and you will find them engaged in an animated discussion about the English Premier League.
This rather ridiculous piece of advice is intended to make you realise that the clique you suspect might actually be entirely innocent.
To push this line a little further, would it not be better for the clique to influence decisions in their favour by colluding beforehand rather than after the meeting? That is how strategy works. If indeed they are out to do things behind your back as you suggest, surely it would be better if they gathered in the evenings, in private, or over the weekends at their homes or clubs away from you. Consider carefully how those with harmful intentions might plan an action.
I suggest you abandon your suspicion. That said, I am happy to acknowledge that after ‘official’ meetings, some team members often stay behind and sometimes discuss issues that could lead to the detriment of the company.
In yet other cases, such behind-the-scenes discussions could benefit the company.
If, for example, those left behind are, as a common denominator, the founding members of the company and are conservative by virtue of their age, then their caucus could well focus on the problems they face, trying to understand why “our company” should merge with another.
They might view a proposed merger of two law firms as a leading cause of loss of control. In one instance during a loud discussion, a group like yours believed that one or more of the firm owners would ‘lose control’, while another group argued that in this day and age, a ‘one-stop legal firm that provides all the services to a client is what is demanded.’
One can imagine a scenario in which both arguments could have merit at the same time, leaving two groups engaged in active side discussions after the main agenda.
Alternatively, a group left behind after a formal meeting might be discussing the need for senior founding partners to step down in favour of younger, more energetic team members.
The ‘elders’ left behind might have noticed a particularly talented young team member they would consider ideal for mentoring as the managing partner.
Being left behind in these circumstances can only benefit the company. To make matters more complicated for you, remember that sitting in the same meeting with others does not make you equal.
To illustrate this further, consider the common terms ‘senior cabinet minister’ or ‘kitchen cabinet’. Both terms describe influential positions in public affairs management. If the Cabinet can have ‘senior’ members or even meet in the ‘kitchen cabinet room’, then similar structures must be possible for companies. Such arrangements can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on how they are managed.
If it concerns you enough, and you believe the company could suffer as a result, then, as a member of the board of directors, you have a duty to raise the issue at a board meeting formally. Remember, your role on the board is to promote and safeguard the company’s interests, not those of any individual or group.
