How to Deal with Undermining Coworkers and Other Office Enemies

Oh, the rotten smell of office politics. Politics are an unfortunate reality of all offices, and all forms of employment for that matter. Ideally people wouldn’t let petty matters interfere with getting work done and serving the organization and greater society. But people are flawed with egos and all matter of personal problems that they bring to their jobs.

Every time I’ve considered jumping ship for another company office politics has always been a compelling motivator.

I still hate politics, and despise participating but I’ve come to the conclusion that I need to dip my toe in the water in order to survive in corporate America.

When someone has decided that they don’t like you it’s near impossible to change their mind. Don’t ignore the problem. Acknowledge that you have an enemy.

Remember that old saying to “kill them with kindness”? Well, that won’t work with an office jerk, a sworn enemy, someone who won’t respond to reason. Instead, the focus needs to covering your ass and maintaining professionalism.

The higher up the ladder I’ve climbed enemies I’ve made. Some I can pinpoint the inflection point, others I have no idea how they came to oppose me.

If you don’t like someone that doesn’t automatically make them your enemy. Instead there are a set of standards that I use in identifying a foe.

Identifying enemies

• Whose role is naturally adversarial to mine? If you’re in sales it might be the folks in finance, if you’re a developer it might be QA or brand. If you’re an engineer it could be production or marketing people.
• Who shows adversarial behavior in meetings? Who always runs against you at meetings or blocks your motions? Who is disagreeable and tear apart your ideas? The people who do this in private are probably thoughtful people looking out for the organization. Those that do it publicly are the ones you need to be concerned about.
• Who is in a zero-sum game with my department? Organizations often have to choose between competing projects and interests. When one gets the funding it means that there is less funding for others. This is always a point of contention. (Note: some organizations with bigger coffers have more money to dole out so their reason for rejecting an idea may have more to do with it being a “bad” idea than them having money to invest in it.) If there’s one promotion open you may have vying interests for the same job. People may want to increase their chances by tearing you down.

Not all dragons need to be slayed

It can be tempting to want to rain down all kinds of hell on the person who makes your life miserable day in and day out. This isn’t always necessary. It can be cathartic but it can also be incredibly time-consuming and emotionally draining to take someone else down.

Sometimes just knowing who your enemies are and what they want is enough for you to circumvent them and go about your business as a professional. Anticipate your enemy’s wants.

The most effective thing, I’ve found is to focus on maximizing the amount that I get out of a scenario, instead of focusing on how much I can punish the other person by making sure they don’t get what they want. Can we both get what we want? If so that’s the path of least resistance.

Sometimes the best way is to keep your enemy close. Include them in communications. Seek out their opinions. If they’re naturally ego-driven then make them believe that it is their idea.

I sometimes put myself in their shoes and try to understand possible positions and actions that I would take to un-topple myself.

70% of your idea is better than 0%

Once I come up with an idea I tend to go nuts vetting it. I’m of the mindset that you shouldn’t verbally volunteer an idea until it’s gone through a mental filter or two. As such I’ve usually planned contingencies and all of the different elements and resources required for a plan to work. And it’s usually a distilled actionable plan ready-to-go.

Where I run into trouble is in all of this mental figuring I haven’t consulted other stakeholders. When an opponent steps into the ring with me who doesn’t understand the underlying mechanics try to take it down I don’t give an inch. Which, is the wrong way to do it.

Instead, I should give up 30% of the idea to the potential enemy or other stakeholders so that I can push it through and get it done. Here I have to be really honest with myself and ask the question “Is 70% of this idea better than 0% of it?” Many times it will be. Other times it will turn into a nasty watered-down goulash once everyone has a chance to add their own ingredients where it does not hit on the core performance goals.

Sometimes, to be extra preemptive when I know a public cut-down is imminent I will approach my detractor in public and attempt to get buy-in. I can give in some of the plans to them and allow them to place their mark and in turn their approval on it.