I was reading a book "Play Like a Man, Win Like a Woman", and thinking about politics and gender in the workplace. (This is not going to be a review of the book, but more of a brain dump of stuff I thought of as a result of the book.) And that people at my company often say "I don't play politics". The more I think about that, the more I think that the people who say that are either outright liars, or naive boobs who aren't going to get anything done.
Now, that sounds rather harsh. And maybe it is. But maybe it also comes from the idea that you can't get things done in the real world of business without playing politics. You either do it and don't realize it, or you do it and hate yourself for it (i.e the yes-man or person who sucks up to everyone), or do it and embrace it and make it yours. I'm trying to take the last road. I think it's important to put my own stamp on the way things work, and that my way of doing things is to take things for what they are (the workplace is political), and to change the way I do things to best take advantage of that fact.
I think it's expected that women read people's emotions better than men do. So is it a negative to use that trait/quality (whatever it should be called) to your advantage? If you know that you need something from Joe and that his style is X, is it manipulative to do things in X style so that you get what you need from him? (For the record, I'm not talking about using your sexuality or your attractiveness to get ahead, I'm talking about using emotions or a personal way of approaching things.) Who says manipulation (in that context) is bad? Is it only if one person is a winner and one a loser that it's bad? And if that's true, then if both people walk out of the encounter getting what they want/need (or at least not feelign taken advantage of), is the manipulation "bad"?
Why is the word politics so fraught? Its negative connotations are interesting to note. I suppose that to me politics means playing along with, or into or against people's natural reactions and ways of doing things. That sounds like manipulation, and maybe it is. But is it wrong or bad to manipulate if that's what it takes to win? There is not (usually) in men's minds a negative associated with winning, so why is it bad to do whatever it takes to win (or at least get ahead)?
I guess I'm just thinking that if I'm to succeed as a woman in a man's world, I need to know how the game is played (the central idea of the book). Then I need to choose how to interact in that world - either by fitting in to the men's ideas of how things work, or by manipulating that world with my style, my way of thinking and my way of acting. I think in general a mix of both is good. I've finally gotten to the point that I realize that if my emotionality is off-putting to some people, that it's their deal and not mine, and I am not changing that about myself. That said, it's still not appropriate to cry, or to have a PMS day and take it out on whoever is closest at work. I guess another thing to try is to get into the man's world and take it on my own terms, and then change it and set the stage for other women to follow behind me.
Posted by cshell at December 6, 2003 04:56 PM