The Donkey, Fox, Sheep, & Owl | LSW#43
Which political animal are you?
Hey! It’s Sheril Mathews from Leading Sapiens. Welcome to my newsletter where I share strategies to help you get smarter at the game of work.
Last week’s edition highlighted the importance of organizational savvy in career success. In today’s edition, I share a classic model to help gauge your savviness.
ICYMI:
Political “animals”
A common term we use to dismiss manipulative folks in the workplace is “political animals”. But in many ways everyone is one. We just vary in our degree of understanding and how we go about using it. An especially useful framework that I use in my client work is from Kim James and Simon Baddeley. [1]
Their model lies along two key dimensions: level of awareness and our internal motivations in how we go around wielding that awareness. James & Baddeley call this “reading” and “carrying”.
Reading
“Reading” is your skill in understanding the world external to you and that you operate in aka your organization. This includes:
Knowing how decisions are made .
Being aware of the organization's obvious goals as well as hidden motives or plans.
Identifying who holds power, where they are located, and on what their power is based, both inside and outside the organization.
Recognizing your own position of power and how to influence others and processes.
Being aware of both the explicit ("large 'P'") politics involving formal organizational policies and the implicit ("small 'p'") politics that involve informal, behind-the-scenes aspects.
Carrying
Carrying is whether a person tends to behave honestly and ethically (integrity) or manipulatively ( 'psychological game playing').
Game playing is acting in ways that are mainly about serving one's own interests, even if it means being dishonest or manipulative.
In contrast, when we act with integrity, we interact with others in a straightforward and honest way, without trying to manipulate the situation for personal gain or to make someone feel bad.
The two extremes of the reading dimension are Political Acumen and Political Naiveté. The two extremes of the carrying dimension are Integrity and Manipulation. Combining these we get 4 distinct kinds of behavior.
The 4 Archetypes
What follows is a series of pointers from their paper to diagnose where you fall on that matrix.
Before we jump into the diagnostics, a few pointers:
The archetypes are less about personality traits and more of behaviors. The same person can be prone to different tendencies based on the situation. Nevertheless most of us have predispositions that restrict how we operate and creates blindspots that limit us.
STEM background folks, and especially technical experts often tend to operate from the sheep zone. There’s a certain way of thinking that comes from the hard sciences that makes people operate that way — politically naive coupled with high integrity. Their tendency to not understand other forms of power (outside of position and expertise) means they end up confused, and ultimately cynical.
The fox (clever) is politically adept but is also a “game-player” who uses it to manipulate people and systems around them. Many successful managers often have to correct from Fox to Owl territory later in the career as it starts restricting them.
Innocent behavior that is not politically aware leads to disenchantment and ultimately cynicism. Clever behavior on the other hand eventually gets caught out and often results ultimately in toxicity which is detrimental to everyone involved. What we need is competent folks with high integrity but who are also adept at reading the situation.
When someone says “I hate politics” their understanding is usually from the “sheep” zone and is delivering judgment on the clever, fox types.
👉An essential function of coaching (and my course) is to move you from the innocent and clever zones into the zone of the owl aka wise. Hopefully as a reader of this newsletter, you are firmly out of the donkey zone! Personally, I’ve been in all four :)
Use the below pointers to locate your own tendencies:
🫏 The Inept
not skilled interpersonally
unprincipled, unethical
hates to be ignored, likes to associate with authority
inner-goal oriented
doesn’t recognize “direction”, doesn’t appreciate political purpose
plays psychological games but doesn’t read those of others’
emotionally illiterate
concerned with own feelings rather than others’
predisposed to projection, attribution, and paranoia
makes judgments/decisions based on feelings rather than knowledge of the bureaucracy or organizational procedures
interpersonally inept at making alliances, coalitions
tends to say “shall we take a vote” in the wrong setting
doesn’t listen to others
tries hard to be nice but doesn’t know how
see things as “either-or”
not tuned into grapevine, blocked antennae
given to cliches: “you know me”, “with all due respect”
says things like:
“Let’s decide what we want and then make it look like what they want?”
“Well, we all know how he got his job, don’t we?”
“If the VP wants to come to our meeting we’ll just get together beforehand, won’t we?”
🐏 The Innocent
principled, ethical
tends to rely on authority
doesn’t appreciate political purpose
doesn’t network or know how to get support
listens but does not hear
sticks to ethical, organizational, and professional rules
understands content but not process of procedures
exaggerated respect for rationality, literal
believes in expert and position power
sees authority and power as congruent
believes you are powerful if you are right
doesn’t understand double messages
sense of loyalty
capacity for friendship
open, shares information
sees things as “either-or”
says things like:
“Could we get on with the main task of the meeting?”
“Well, in strictly hierarchical terms I think its X’s decision”
“If only they would simply tell us what they really want, then we could get on with it”
“In my professional opinion…”
🦊 The Clever
Interested in power and in associating with the locus of power
unprincipled, inner-goal oriented, and unethical
wants to be seen as powerful
thinks before speaking, aggressive but well masked, charming veneer
can simulate feelings, plans actions
doesn’t display feelings spontaneously
asks “what information do I have? what information do I need”?
checks gossip/rumor, is aware of others’ viewpoints
uses coalition, knows how the formal processes work
basically insecure, but well defended
always leaves jobs before mistakes are discovered
manipulates situations so as to appear never to make mistakes
can make procedures work for them, hustler, wide body, card sharp
knows how the formal and informal organization works
know “who cares, who can, who knows”
gets support, good at ingratiation, bargains, manipulates
likes games involving winners and losers
can recognize and exploit key weaknesses in allies and opponents
says things like
“Leave it to me, I’ll have a word with him, he’s terribly out of touch”
“I think it would be unwise for me to take this one, it’s very delicate, how about you… you know how good you are ?”
“I have discussed this very thoroughly already and we’re united in this” (actually rubbish)
“I share some of his/her feeling on this matter even if not so passionately”
🦉 The Wise
aware of purpose
interested in direction in association with power and purpose
can cope with being disliked, good interpersonal skills
personal values/ethics, thinks before speaking, assertive
tactful, emotionally literate, plans actions, checks gossip/rumor
excellent listener, is aware of others’ viewpoints
takes account of other people personally
uses coalitions, knows how the formal processes work
non-defensive, learns from mistakes, reflects on events
can make procedures work for them
sense of loyalty
capacity for friendship
knows the formal and informal organization
open, shares information
in tune with the grapevine
recognizes who knows, who cares, who can
gets support
negotiates/co-operates
likes win win situations
says thinks like:
“How are we going to sort this out?”
“I wonder what’s lying behind these ideas?”
“Let’s look at the ways we can speed this up, and get over the difficulties”
“Let me make sure I understand what you’re asking for”
“I don’t think I’ve been understanding you - can I have another go?”
Which one did you relate the most with? How can you adjust?
That does it for this edition! See you next week!
My cohort coaching program
References
Baddeley, S., & James, K. (1987). Owl, Fox, Donkey or Sheep: Political Skills for Managers. Management Education and Development, 18(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050768701800101