The factors contributing to office politics at Campbell Soup Company

Office politics entail people’s strategies to attain an advantage for something that they support, or to get a personal gain. It has a negative implication as it discusses the strategies used by people to pursue their desires at other people’s expenses (Mayes, & Allen, 2015). Real or perceived power is employed in office politics for one to attain their desires. As such, they are inevitable because people are always on the move to grow in their careers. Campbell Soup Company undergoes many issues concerning politics. This is evident from their President, Douglas R. Conant, who addressed many concerns of office politics (“A Campbell’s Soup CEO on Office Politics”, 2011). Therefore, it implies that his company is under the effects of office politics. Office politics occur due to many factors to which the effective and ineffective leaders employ strategies to navigate, making them have an influential role in Campbell’s Soup Company political climate.

The politics at Campbell Soup Company are caused by many factors including insufficient resources like water. Each department aims at getting its share leading to manipulations and back-stabbing, which are the manifestations of office politics. Also, the work environment is competitive leading to office politics.  Competitiveness is not based on ability, skill, or production, but on the individual appraisal. As such, there is no work-life balance as most people consider working at night leading to high rates of burnout. Consequently, those unable to keep up with the competition might resolve to corrupt strategies to attain their goals.

Additionally, the leaders have an excessive desire to progress leading to office politics. Thus, they end up focusing on themselves and not their employees. They mainly focus on advancing to get a position or title. Moreover, Campbell is an old company with more than fifty years in operation. Hence, it has a strong organizational culture with deep roots in politics. As such, people pursue office politics as a norm with the notion that if they do not, others will take advantage of them. Similarly, Campbell is coupled with high rates of mistrust between the employees and managers. Thus, office politics are pursued for people to attain their goals maliciously. Promotions lead to office politics here. This occurs especially when senior positions become vacant (Pettigrew, 2014).

The colleagues who were once at peace would suddenly become enemies. The participation of managers like the production leader in the process of making decisions at Campbell Soup Company leads to office politics. Unlike in the past, where the delegation was unheard of, today the employees are influential leading to politics (“A Campbell’s Soup CEO on Office Politics”, 2011). They are involved in policy and instrument development, can arrange for coalitions, and they can protect their influence. Hence, other colleagues become jealousy of them.

The strategies that ineffective leaders use to navigate office politics

Effective leaders employ various strategies to navigate the office politics. This is the case of Doug Conant, the CEO of Campbell Soup Company. He gave the tactics that can be used to face off office politics. Therefore, he employed the same in the politics that occurred in Campbell. He aimed at being straight forward (Paul, 2017). As such, he told the employees the actions to be taken without hiding any issues. To handle office politics, Conant aimed at informing the stakeholders what he delivered because performance alone would not be satisfactory at convincing them of the company’s state. Also, effective leaders do not take part in water-cooler conversations. They discuss their employees like as if they are on the panel.

Hence, there would be no cases of back-stabbing implying the absence of office politics. As a leader, one is required to intervene in extreme cases of office politics. However, they should not participate, but ensure both parties are present to solve the case. Similarly, effective leaders do hold closed-door meetings with the offenders especially when the issue becomes personal (“A Campbell’s Soup CEO on Office Politics”, 2011). Consequently, the employees would be redeployed to performance. Likewise, the effective leaders aim at creating an environment that would honor people. Subsequently, the agenda of the organization would be upheld leading to contained cases of office politics. Finally, office politics can be navigated by understanding that an extremely political environment requires time to be transformed.

According to Maxwell, secure leaders are the only ones who can give in and handle the issue of office politics well. They aim at giving credit for a good performance, and they do not care about who gets it. This is according to the Law of Empowerment (Marjoram, 2011). Like Lincoln, effective leaders aim at giving their authority and power to their subjects. Lincoln was a secure leader as portrayed in the choosing of his cabinet (Fairholm, 2012). He selected leaders that united his party and conveyed strength using mutual challenge and diversity.  Despite many failures, he insisted on giving his leaders freedom and power, and in the case of failure of the generals he would take the blame.

Also, the ineffective leaders have strategies that they employ to navigate the politics. First, they overlook the issue with the mentality that politics are dirty and can lead to their failure. Hence, they concentrate on performance due to its manageability. At times, they handle politics when the need arises, but they do it unwillingly (Vigoda-Gadot, & Drory, 2016). This is a poor decision because refusing to confront a situation can give one a hard day at work. Consequently, one lags behind in their long-term professional goals. Similarly, an ineffective leader fails to be involved in the relationships between their superiors and co-workers to handle politics. As such, they fail to catch the important chats that come with the relationships and communication (Andrica, 2016). For example, they fail to get the informal talk about the stock prices of their competitors. Another strategy by ineffective leaders is living without expectations. They spend less time anticipating, making them ignore the setbacks that others might bring. Also, they hold poor negotiations failing to win other people to their position. As such, their agendas always seem to have been forced on people.

The role that the leadership of Campbell Soup Company play in the company’s political climate

The leadership of Campbell Soup Company plays a significant role in the company’s political climate. There exist a complicated system of power, which requires one to be ethical to attain their dreams (David, 2014). The leaders aim at being accommodative to diverse situations and people. Therefore, they identify a situation and change their conduct accordingly. They aim at enhancing their political skills to attain confidence among their peers. This is because, the politically unintelligent can be fired, demoted, or fail in their career. By being politically savvy, the leaders work at pushing their employees up by building relationships and networks to acquire assistance and useful information. Moreover, these leaders are choosy on what fights to pick and what not to indulge in.

These leaders are aware that when dealing with politics, they are handling someone’s ego, financial security, sense of power, and self-worth. Therefore, they always aim at having the employees protected. Hence, they mainly lead instead of politicking. They avoid drama, but work best for their actions to speak for themselves. Their efforts are mainly driven by building strong associations reinforced by trust and humility (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2013). As such, they end up more successful, with many friends, and a high political capital. Thus, the Campbell Soup Company leaders aim at doing what is right, while concentrating on their surroundings for them to manage politics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, office politics involve the strategies by people to get an advantage for what they are in support of, or to acquire personal gain. Campbell Soup Company is affected by office politics due to insufficient resources, competitive work environment, excessive desire to progress, a long-term organizational culture of office politics, mistrust between the employees and managers, and the delegation of duties by the management. According to Doug Conant, a CEO of Campbell Soup Company, leaders must handle office politics head on to ensure effectiveness. The stakeholders would be informed of the ongoings in the company, avoiding water-cooler conversations, intervening in the extreme cases, and understanding that time is mandatory to transform the politics of the company. However, the ineffective leaders overlook the issue with the mentality that politics is a dirty game and can lead to their failure. The leaders at Campbell Soup Company aim at being accommodative to the diverse situations and people by identifying a situation and changing their conduct.                                                                                      

References

A Campbell’s Soup CEO on Office Politics. (2011). Leadership Freak. Retrieved 18 May 2017, from https://leadershipfreak.blog/2011/08/22/a-campbells-soup-ceo-on-office-politics/

Andrica, D. (2016). Handling Office Politics. Go.galegroup.com. Retrieved 18 May 2017, from https://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA54858844&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=07461739&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true

Chang, C., Rosen, C., & Levy, P. (2013). The Relationship between Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Employee Attitudes, Strain, and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Examination. Academy of Management. Retrieved 18 May 2017, from https://amj.aom.org/content/52/4/779.short

David, D. (2014). The role of Politics Power and perception in an organization. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Co8DAF0mw&feature=youtu.be

Fairholm, G. (2012). Organizational power politics (3rd Ed.). Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Marjoram, A. (2011). John_Maxwell_Law 12_The Law of Empowerment. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2pKRgopnUQ&feature=youtu.be&list=PLo082-ZICoQ8qEP46Byb4Pr-zZct-jk8q

Mayes, B., & Allen, R. (2015). Toward A Definition of Organizational Politics. Academy of Management. Retrieved 18 May 2017, from https://amr.aom.org/content/2/4/672.short

Paul, S. (2017). Handling Office Politics, 35. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED341820

Pettigrew, A. (2014). The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making (1st Ed.). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Drory, A. (2016). Handbook of organizational politics (1st Ed.). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Pub.