Is Political Savvy Gender Neutral?

I’ve coached corporate leaders across industries and cultures, and one thing I can definitely say is that Political Savvy is critical for everyone to master. I have not yet found the quantitative data for differences between men and women on Political Savvy, but recently read three articles that point out a double standard for women who’ve demonstrated political prowess.

“The plight of women in organizations and the reasons for this plight.” — Perrewe and Nelson

In 2004, Perrewe and Nelson addressed “the plight of women in organizations and the reasons for this plight.” (An interesting word, ‘plight’, which implies a difficult passage). They defined political skills as “an interpersonal style that combines social astuteness and the ability to execute appropriate behaviors in an engaging manner that inspires confidence, trust and genuineness.” They also measured men and women on their influencing tactics. Although the rating was not explicitly stated, men received a higher performance rating when they applied upward influencing tactics, such as building coalitions or managing up. This research shows the double standard applied to women who demonstrated political skills. The differential, as Perrewe and Nelson posited, is the “mixed messages given to women concerning what constitutes appropriate political behavior at work.”

“Women who display political behavior may be evaluated differently than men, or may be viewed negatively by men because of it.” — Bodla and Danish

Two other researchers, Bodla and Danish, explored gender differences of organizational politics a decade ago. Their findings were similar: “women who display political behavior may be evaluated differently than men, or may be viewed negatively by men because of it.” Bodla and Danish also found significant differences in how men and women viewed a ‘politicized’ environment. Women perceived it negatively, which resulted in higher stress levels and an intent to resign. Perrewe, Nelson and colleagues asserted the opposite: “when employees perceive their work environments as stressful, political skill can be used as a coping mechanism to reduce the negative effects.” In this regard, political skills provided a sense of being in control of their work environment. However, the double standard reinforces the reluctance to build necessary political skills.

Perrewe and Nelson found that a “political skill deficiency” could easily diminish corporate success and organizational effectiveness. They saw that any exclusion from informal networks was a formidable barrier for a woman’s career advancement. The informal network, rather than a formal organizational talent discussion, wields more influence on career trajectory. Visibility and connectivity within these informal networks are pivotal — not only for careers — but for idea generation and driving change.

In McKinsey’s “Unlocking the Full Potential of Women,” the word “politics” appeared most frequently in open-ended survey responses on poor retention and promotion of women. Most senior women in finance viewed “political savvy” as a more important component of success than did their male peers! Having coached women in leadership — senior managers, technical experts and emerging leaders — I hear “too much politics”, or “I spend most of my day ’politicking’ rather than working.” There was also research that showed “on average, women are promoted at a lower rate than men.” Thus, if entry-level women were promoted at the same rate as their male peers, the number of women at the C level would more than double.

“58% have left jobs, or are considering leaving, because of negative office politics.” — Randstad USA (2018)

Organizations have visibly evolved, but how we view savvy — negatively or positively — greatly affects our work. If the firm is perceived to be (negatively) political, we overlook the full picture. Randstadt USA (2018) found that “58% have left jobs, or are considering leaving, because of negative office politics.” My own research showed that participants said that the leading reason for not wanting a leadership role was “too much politics”, followed by comments such as “he or she is so political” or “I’ve heard that department is really political.”

Leadership strengths are, of course, both positive and negative. But be aware that any overused strength creates vulnerabilities.

For example, being “Action Oriented.” Positive: work hard and be ready for challenges. Negative: over-worked, over-managing, and potential burn out.

Or “Managerial Courage.” Positive: direct and actionable feedback, saying what needs to be said. Negative: may be overly critical, too direct, or heavy-handed when addressing issues.

It’s important to always bear in mind that there is, unfailingly, a positive side to politics.

Many of us don’t see-or don’t want to see- the positive side of Political Savvy, as it’s entwined with the negative. It doesn’t help that there are so many articles or books with predictable titles such as “Learn How to Play the Game”, “Knowing the Unwritten Rules” or rereading Machiavellian principles. When I facilitate a workshop, clients often insist I take out the word “political” and replace it with something more palatable. In reviewing a client’s competency framework, there’s almost always a reference to political savvy, political awareness, political intelligence, political agility. It’s important to always bear in mind that there is, unfailingly, a positive side to politics. Political Savvy isn’t a game. It is gender neutral, a leadership competency with skilled, under-skilled and over-skilled angles. The origin of the word “politics” is defined as building coalitions for the good.

Political Savvy is a mix of skills, with empathy at its foundation. Daniel Goleman recognized empathy as a core competency of good leadership. Under emotional intelligence, Goleman describes political awareness as “accurately reading power relationships and understanding the forces that shape views and actions of clients, customers or competitors.” Roman Krznaric defined empathy as “the art of stepping imaginatively into the shoes of another person, understanding their feelings and perspectives, and using that understanding to guide your actions.” Proficiency in savvy skills requires intuition and sensitivity to the needs of others, and to the diverse communities most leaders serve. Political Savvy skills should always place the good of those led over a leader’s self-interest.

If leadership rests on moral principles — inclusive, servant, purpose-driven — then political savvy is a visible force for good.

If leadership excludes the concerns of others, using savvy skills for self-interest, the negative side of savvy is easily seen.

Three years ago, Texas A&M researchers (Williams Jr, Brandon, Hayek, Haden, & Atinc) examined an intriguing combination of ‘servant’ leadership and political skill impacting workplace spirituality and employee creativity. In their framework, a servant leader appeals to a higher order of need; what’s best for the organization, rather than what was best for them. Servant leaders will ‘serve’ the organization, focusing on doing the right thing for the firm. If leadership rests on moral principles — inclusive, servant, purpose-driven — then political savvy is a visible force for good. Only a morally upright leader can use Political Savvy’s relational power, developing the service of others; stakeholders, teams, and clients.

Even more, those who can navigate complex political situations can also lead whole-scale change, create buy-in for innovative ideas, drive performance, and build careers. The first building block for such a skill is to see both sides of Political Savvy. I’ve interviewed many women in leadership roles — both in the private and public sector. Many felt it was critical to work with an executive coach to reframe perspectives, along with having an internal mentor to help navigate and connect with the informal, sometimes invisible, network of connections.

It is possible to be both Politically Savvy and do the right thing. To sweep it under the carpet with the worry that it’s divisive is a gross error, both for management and employee.

This article was originally published on Linkedin.com/in/JaneHoran.