Office politics: Difference between revisions

Office politics (view source)

Revision as of 14:56, 10 December 2022

1,333 bytes added , 10 December 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,229

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|work|{{image|Machiavelli|jpg|}}}}If we take it that office politics is basically an means for the neurotic to express themselves, there is a simple rule. The more important and measurable your contribution to the bottom line, the less scope there is for office politics: the less time, interest or inclination you will have for it and the more naturally immune you will be it.
+{{a|work|{{image|Machiavelli|jpg|}}}}
+{{D|{{PAGENAME}}|/ˈɒfɪs ˈpɒlɪtɪks/|n|}}
-It follows, therefore, that you can measure the degree of office politics by reference to the significance of the function comma and ''vice versa''. It is a bi-directional causal chain.
+A means for the neurotic to express themselves.
-The general proposition is that sales and trading will be the least political. Here you eat what you kill, all can be measured in in a p&L statement, bullshit artists are quickly found out, and there is little to be gained from passive-aggressive internal jiggery-pokery. What what internal manoeuvring there is will be swift and brutal. Expect to find its victims dumped in cupboards doubled over with a double-tap to the base of the skull, or wearing concrete sneakers and swimming with the fishes.
-Important middle office and risk functions like [[operations]], [[credit risk]] and [[compliance]] will be next. Here there ''is'' scope for ineffectual grandstanding, especially if you can attract enough attention to be promoted to [[managing director]] while avoid proper scrutiny while you do  — but in the main, fundamental weaknesses will be quickly found out.
+There is a simple rule. The more important and measurable your contribution to the bottom line, the less scope you have for office politics. The less time, interest or inclination you will have for it; the more naturally immune you will be to it.
-Then [[marketing]], [[legal]] and [[financial reporting]] — functions you can’t really avoid in this day and age but are not part of the front-line generation, and preservation, of money. (Sorry, [[legal eagle]]s, but it is true.)  Here [[subject matter expert]]s will suffer at the hands of those with a taste for the game, so that the “lions led by donkeys” syndrome is somewhere between prevalent and inevitable. If you want a job punching through equity derivative confirms, expect to need 5 years at a crack Freshfields special ops unit on your CV. If you want to be [[GC]] of a global universal banking group these days, D&I fit is imperative; financial services experience preferred but not essential.
+It follows, therefore, that the amount of office politics corresponds to the economic significance of the function, and ''vice versa'': the causal arrow is bi-directional.
-Last of all — on the spectrum but so far along it as to be all but out of sight will [[human resources]], which will be a vipers’ nest of nettlesome fear and loathing.
+=== The Machiavellian continuum ===
+Angsty behaviour sits on a continuum.
+==== Revenue generators ====
+Generally, in a bank, those who bring in business — [[sales]] — and those who extract revenue from it — [[trading]] — will be the least political. Here there is least scope for dark arts: you eat what you kill, all can be measured in in a [[Profit and loss|P&L]] statement, bullshit artists are quickly found out: there is little to be gained from passive-aggressive internal jiggery-pokery. What manoeuvring there is will be swift and brutal. Expect to find victims of a front office putsch dumped in cupboards, bent double with a double-tap to the base of the skull, or wearing concrete sneakers and swimming with the fishes. Expect, one day, ''not'' to find them, that is to say. No words will be spoken. No lamentations sung.
+==== Middle office engineers ====
+Next least political will be key middle office and risk functions like [[operations]], [[credit risk]] and [[compliance]]. Here there ''is'' scope for ineffectual grandstanding, especially if you tread the line between attracting enough attention for rapid promotion, while at the same time avoiding detailed scrutiny while you rise. There are tendentious [[Thought leader|thought-leader]]<nowiki/>s in [[operations]] and [[Credit officer|credit]], but they tend to be dim rather than malicious, and they are largely the exception. In the main, fundamental weaknesses will be quickly found, and rooted, out.
+==== Grandstanders ====
+There is sure to be a solid heft of perfidious manoeuvring among the softer, less effable back-office functions like [[marketing]], [[legal]] and [[financial reporting]] — functions you can’t really not have, in this day and age, but whose positive impact on the organisation is hard to gauge or even detect directly. They are not part of front-line generation, or retention, of revenue. (Sorry, [[legal eagle]]s, but it is true.)
+Here, earnest [[subject matter expert]]s will inevitably suffer at the hands of those with a taste for the game. The “lions led by donkeys” effect is somewhere between prevalent and inevitable.
+The skillsets required between the two modes are quite different for the most part contradictory. If you want a job as a transaction lawyer, supporting a desk, punching through [[equity derivative]] confirms, expect to have to prove you have at least 5 years action with a crack Freshfields special ops unit  behind enemy lines. But if you want to be [[GC]],  to get your seven million buck sign on bonus your [[Diversity and inclusion|D&I]] fit must be immaculate; financial services experience of any kind is preferred but not essential.
+==== HR ====
+Last of all — still ''on'' the [[Machiavellian continuum]], but so far along it as to be all but out of sight from any other vantage point — is [[human resources]]. HR will be a vipers’ nest of nettlesome fear and loathing, because HR’s main reason for existing is to persuade other parts of the bank it is needed, and it can only do this by a campaign of terror, espionage and misinformation.
 Now these divisions are not necessarily absolute —  and you can therefore rank which is the more important between department and roles by the relative degree of office politics in evidence.