Welcome to my first Ted talk.
Two types of politics pervade most workplaces. One is the politics of possibility, the idea that, through sheer persuasiveness and appeals to values, people can be recruited and motivated to work together for good. That their passions and their intellect can be encouraged to join forces in common cause for the betterment of all.
The other is sadly much more pervasive, the politics of power, which centers on the ego and the zero-sum game and relies upon the machinery of personal destruction. In this brand of politics, the we is never evoked but in service to the I. Accomplishments remain singular affairs. Even collaborative effort is merely the coming together of individuals in support of their individual interests. Practitioners of this political philosophy are the type who tend to claim most or all the credit no matter their contribution. For them, the betterment of the organization has no purpose but as a means or byproduct of the betterment of the self.
As a recovering academic, I have too much experience with the politics-as-a bloodsport crowd and the untold damage they inflict on individuals and institutions. Unfortunately, in most industries, the same politics of winner-take-all overwhelmingly dominates. Individuals seek to position themselves to protect their interests at the expense of their organizations, their clients, and even their missions. The ignoble and petty politics of ego and personal gain flourish and prevail with sometimes devastating consequences. For an object lesson, look no further than the many and mighty deep and wide travails of higher education.
So how about the politics of possibility, of getting things done, of maximizing and sharing the win? How can we assert the power of such politics in our organizations?
Talkin’ Ted: Ted Lasso vs Jamie Tartt
(With occasional translations for those whose first language is American)
In the first season of the television series Ted Lasso, two characters evoke two different world views for getting things done. On the one hand is Jamie Tartt a young football (soccer) star, noted for his brashness — hence the name Tartt. His idea of how to win games is to take control of the ball and charge toward the goal. The fact that he is a cracking (supremely talented) player means that his approach is relatively successful even if he is a bit of a prat (arrogant fool). When he scores a goal (point), he celebrates his accomplishment as a singularly personal event that just happens to benefit his club (team).
In the clubhouse (locker room), he is a self-interested bully who demonstrates his lack of respect for his club mates (teammates) through his nonstop expressions of self-regard. He does not encourage his club mates, nor does he celebrate their successes since, in his zero-sum mind, their success somehow dulls his luster. For Jamie, the team is merely an accessory to his glory, a means for a winner like him to take all. If the team wins, it is because of him. If the team loses, it is despite his dazzling and lone(ly) play. Jamie will even throw a wobbly (have a temper tantrum) at his club mates in order to deflect blame.
In the politics of the clubhouse, Jamie dominates by inspiring a bold mix of fear, hatred, and admiration in his mates (colleagues). If they do not openly adore him or, worse still, if they show him up, they will face his considerable wrath. His is the politics of power, ego, personal destruction, and self-promotion. For him, the club only exists to serve his needs. Elsewhere I have written of the overall deleterious effect of such beasts in the workplace.
The set-up of the series is that the new gaffer (coach), Ted Lasso, is a hyper-amiable American whose experience is limited to coaching American football (football) at a uni (college) in Kansas. Ted, of course, knows nothing about football (soccer). He, in fact, has unwittingly been brought in to fail and to scupper (destroy) the team.
As it turns out, though, Ted knows nearly everything about leadership and about clubhouse politics. His approach is relentless positivity enhanced by a distinctive cheekiness (slight irreverence), as he introduces the players to the power of possibility and ropes them in through sheer persuasion — hence the name Lasso. Eventually, instead of a team built in service of individual players and their performance on the pitch (field), these lads (men) begin to coalesce in service to the club. Ted’s approach confuses and frustrates Jamie, to be sure, but it also fascinates him.
Ted also knows that building a team is not about just collecting individual stars and sending them out onto the pitch. Instead, he slowly persuades those individual players that they are best when they work together in service to the club. His political approach is informed by his inherent human decency as it advances the art of the possible.
Ted Lasso’s clubhouse politics is expansive and optimistic, a world in which everyone can be a winner. Jamie Tartt’s is insular and self-serving and only allows for one winner. In life, the most brilliant (very good) leaders are builders, like Ted. They are patient and consistent and are not overawed by raw talent and drive. Armed with fortitude, courage, and resilience, they serve the team or organization and never the other way around.
In a world that demands quick results and instant gratification, the Ted Lassos are all-too rare. Rarer still is the environment that allows them to flourish. Instead, we most often see the Jamie Tartt philosophy of zero-sum individualism receive all the praise and resources despite its vapid and decidedly nihilistic outlook.
The politics of possibility can be challenging to implement and even harder to maintain. Such a political approach is marked by inclusiveness, collaboration, and personal humility. Society’s immediate rewards perversely go to the rugged individualist who gathers glory as though glory were a finite resource. Think about that. The politics of personal power, being a zero-sum game, regards glory and winning as finite. If you win, I lose, therefore…
How obviously and utterly dozy (wrongheaded)! Yet, we insistently and persistently laud such counterproductive behavior.
The politics of possibility is the antidote to the toxicity of personal destruction. Bad being stronger that good, it can be hard to break through by practicing the art of the possible, but the alternative is unacceptable. We need to be builders like Ted Lasso. Otherwise we will continue to live in a world overrun by gits (dipshits) like Jamie Tartt.
Thank you for attending my Ted talk.
Click here for an exceedingly gratifying four minutes of television.
Share your thoughts on this topic or participate in a discussion by leaving a comment below or by contacting me directly by email:
You must register with Substack to leave a comment, which stinks but is painless and risk free.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Post this essay on social media or send it by email to someone you want to inspire/annoy.
Subscribe to receive my weekly newsletter and special editions directly to your mailbox.
You can improve your ability to achieve your organization’s mission.
Visit my website and reach out to me to learn how.
Politics at Work