By Douglas K. Smith

What is not understood, however, by people in newsrooms, marketing, technology, ad sales, human resources, finance, and executive offices of news organisations is that politics also determines the sustainability of their jobs, livelihoods and aspirations.

No. Not the negative politics of market democracies. Rather, organisational politics, a politics that traces back to Aristotle’s original conception of politics: the ways people govern the affairs of their polis (city-state).

To Aristotle, the ultimate aim of politics is fostering happiness and justice for the people who live in the polis. In the same way, how politics play out in news enterprises now determines the sustainability of journalism itself.

Most people tend to think narrowly about organisational politics, limiting it to individualistic career and power struggles. What goes missing is the crucial question of “we”: how can we best manage our affairs to ensure that what we do makes a difference to those we serve as well as ourselves?

‘No habit, no chance’

Today, journalistic and financial sustainability of news enterprises depend on user (readers, listeners, viewers) habit. As we say in TSE, “No habit, no chance.” Absent an endless supply of money from an ego-driven billionaire or a government out of touch with taxpayers, news enterprises – like all organisations – must get needed cash from those they serve. And, even if the revenue model is ad driven, the same mantra applies: no user habit, no chance.

Today, journalistic and financial sustainability of news enterprises depend on user (readers, listeners, viewers) habit. As we say in TSE, “No habit, no chance.”

We also know user habits depend on delivering value that makes a difference to users themselves. “Too much information” was not a 20th century phenomenon: people who sought access to news – especially local news – had to subscribe or regularly buy the paper. Not today. No matter how much any journalist dreams otherwise, anyone anywhere on the planet can stay informed without ever visiting that journalist’s website.

That is why the newsroom IS the business. Helped, of course, by technology, marketing, HR, finance and so on, only the newsroom can deliver value to users. Marketing can create attractive offers. But, without persistent value – value in the form of information, news and connectedness that foster habits – attractive offers become churn.

Helping people work together to make their communities better

These habits, though, cannot happen if journalists think or act as if they themselves are special islands of wisdom and insight that people must visit to stay informed. That’s laughable. Unless the newsroom – every day – understands who they serve and helps those folks solve the necessities of their lives (e.g., find affordable housing), enhance the quality of their lives beyond necessities (e.g., foodies), and especially helps folks work together to make the places they live better (e.g., what can we do where we live to adapt to climate realities?), then conventional journalism’s future will end up in a museum.

Helping people navigate their real lives depends on distinguishing audiences from the “general public” or “general citizenry.” Good journalism – reporting grounded in facts, double checking sources, remaining fearless in the face of power and interest – matter as much as ever. Those, however, are necessary but not sufficient.

All of this means profound change from what journalists – and their colleagues in other silos as well as executives and owners – often equate with “journalism.” And that’s where the politics of news enterprises matters. A lot.

The politics of how news enterprises manage their affairs encompass a wild number of choices: job definitions, workflow processes, management information, data, mergers, acquisitions, transparency, many, many technologies (CMS, paywall, social, search, mobile, web, print, AI), who gets hired, promoted, laid off, strategies, visions, branding, product management, revenue streams, cost standardisation, downsizing, distribution, video, audio, text, graphics – and on and on and on.

Meanwhile, those who own news enterprises have a range of purposes. Some believe in the value of news to communities. Others – whether for family reasons or more contemporary billionaire-type ego reasons – want a “seat at the table of power.” Many executive or managing editors also want a seat at tables of power. They want to set the metanarratives for whether and how elections get determined, climate gets addressed, migration and geopolitics gets addressed and so forth.

Delivering value to differentiated audiences

For others, the primary objective – indeed, only objective – is profitability. When this happens, strategy turns to standardisation and cost reduction – which, in turn, makes it nearly impossible to deliver value every day to differentiated audiences.

Politics also happen among folks in news enterprises who are deeply concerned about delivering value to users. Advocates of user needs battle those promoting personas – and both compete with other approaches to audiences.

All these political realities can – and do – disrupt the rhythms and persistence demanded for real change.

Consider what happens when folks who have worked hard for months or a year or two to transform their news enterprise wake up one morning and learn they have a new owner. Or, that the Board hired a new CEO – or new Executive Editor or head of technology. Or, that group headquarters is announcing a fundamental reorganisation that will affect every single job. Or, the CEO and her/ his team have decided to change major technology systems. Or, who come to work and learn a powerful senior leader is exhibiting cult-like behaviours tied to a deep faith that AI will dramatically lower costs.

Understanding the range of interests of different audiences

Or, who hear that yet one more initiative and special project is THE key to EVERYTHING!! Yet, whose experience suggests this shiny new object will have a short duration as the “favourite child” or “fad of the month.” Or, the reverse, it will continue for a long time along with an ever-growing number of other initiatives and projects (including TSE!) that, truth be told, no one in the organisation – not even the CEO – can make any sense of.

All this happens. Often. And, it has serious effects. Sometimes, just to delay transformations underway. Other times, to derail the transformation. Every time, though, such things make people pause, slow down, and “wait and see.”

This is the picture of politics in the news enterprise. It raises an essential question that too few ponder: how can folks – folks like you – contribute to a constructive politics of sense making and change? A politics that helps leaders throughout the news enterprise shape and share a coherent story about changes underway that focus – individually and crucially together – to serve the best interests of all those to whom the news enterprise’s best future matters.

How can folks – folks like you – contribute to a constructive politics of sense making and change?

This search for coherent purposes demands that you contribute to a constructive politics of change.

You need to understand the range of interests that different folks have. You need to work with others to identify when interests overlap in mutually reinforcing ways, and when they don’t.

You must keep your eye on the degrees of freedom you and like-minded colleagues have to persist in the changes you know are necessary. You should listen to the motivations and dissatisfactions of others and work to help them find constructive pathways to link those motivations to the what’s, why’s and how’s of positive change.

You need to lead. Regardless of your job or position. And, you need to ground your leadership in embracing, not shunning, the actual politics of your news enterprise – because that is the only way to keep moving forward with the best future for journalism and all the audiences whom journalism serves.

• This article is an excerpt from “Navigating sustained newsroom transformation,” our report with case studies and lessons learned from the fifth round of Table Stakes Europe, a WAN-IFRA initiative in collaboration with the Google News Initiative. Download your copy of the full report HERE.

About the author: Douglas K. Smith is the architect and chief coach of the Table Stakes Europe programme and the co-CEO of Strategic Doing Networks. He is acknowledged as one of the world’s leading management thinkers and advisers and has contributed to performance results, innovation, strategy and change in scores of organisations across more than 60 industries in all three sectors: private, government and non-profit. Doug is the architect of the principles and design for Challenge-Centric, Performance-Driven Transformation Programmes (TM), guiding leaders to use a focus on performance results to drive innovation, capacity-building, and growth in organisations and communities undergoing profound disruption.