Approval Ploys

Approval or denial of proposals or requests can have impact beyond the disposition of the issue at hand. It also has political impact. It can make or break a career, render other projects moot, or doom or create whole lines of business. Since so much can be at stake, approval seekers have an incentive to use all manner of techniques to enhance approval rates. Sometimes these techniques become habitual — they use them whether the stakes are high or low.

Approvers and recommenders would do well to recognize these techniques. When they do, they can be more alert to them, and better maintain objectivity. In a politically healthy culture, recommendations of the sophisticated approver are more likely to be based on the merits; in an unhealthy culture, sophisticated approvers are less likely to commit political blunders.

Here are some of the tactics of approval seekers.

Misrepresenting an approval deadline or the narrowness of a "window of opportunity"

When done to create a sense of urgency, this tactic helps them jump the priority queue. But it's also a way to claim resources before other projects are considered, or to reduce the time available for judicious consideration.

Hiding among sheep

Grouping the request with noncontroversial requests might make it look more innocent or less risky than it actually is.

Using misleading competitive intelligence

Exaggerating the validity or content of competitive intelligence is especially effective when the approver is fearful about the competitive position of the organization.

Appeals to personal interest

Appealing to the approver's personal interest often helps, despite the obvious implications about the approver's corruptibility. These appeals include implying that the proposal was the approver's idea, or that it was motivated by the approver's vision, or suggesting that it will help accomplish a political goal of the approver.

Overvaluing contributions to or synergy with other pet projects

This is another form of appeal to personal interest, but it enables the seeker to appeal (unreasonably) to the personal interest of political allies of the approver. Analogous attributes of alternative investments might also be misrepresented negatively.

Competitive champion character assassination

Underestimation and
misrepresentation are
probably the leading
causes of budget
and schedule overruns

When the integrity or performance of the champion of a competitive investment opportunity is suddenly called into question, it's indeed possible that misdeeds are afoot. However, the misdeeds might not be those alleged by the approval seeker; rather, in an ironic twist, they might be the allegations of the approval seeker.

Misrepresenting costs or time required

Underestimation and misrepresentation are probably the leading causes of budget and schedule overruns. Comments about costs and time required for alternative investments might also be misrepresentations. Subject all claims and estimates to close scrutiny.

Misrepresenting risks

Risks of the proposed effort, when misrepresented, are usually underestimated or omitted. But when the proposal includes analysis of alternative investments, risks of those alternatives can be exaggerated.

Sometimes I fear that articles like this serve as handbooks for people with dark motives. But I hope that shining light in dark corners makes the world a brighter place. My hopes conquer my fears.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

Stonewalling: I

Stonewalling is a tactic of obstruction used by those who wish to stall the forward progress of some effort. Whether the effort is a rival project, an investigation, or just the work of a colleague, the stonewaller hopes to gain advantage. What can you do about stonewalling?

Managing Non-Content Risks: II

When we manage risk, we usually focus on those risks most closely associated with the tasks at hand — content risks. But there are other risks, to which we pay less attention. Many of these are outside our awareness. Here's Part II of an exploration of these non-content risks, emphasizing those that relate to organizational politics.

Toxic Conflict in Teams: Attacks

In toxic conflict, people try to resolve their differences by eliminating each other's ability to provide opposition. In the early stages of toxic conflict, the attacks often escape notice. Here's a catalog of covert attack tactics.

Fear/Anxiety Bias: II

When people sense that reporting the true status of the work underway could be career-dangerous, some shade or "spin" their reports. Managers then receive an inaccurate impression of the state of the organization. Here are five of the patterns people use.

Toxic Disrupters: Responses

Some people tend to disrupt meetings. Their motives vary, but their techniques are predictable. If we've identified someone as using these techniques we have available a set of effective actions that can guide him or her toward a more productive role.

See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info