104. Why good work alone is not enough, understanding Office Politics is

Office politics is one of those subjects that most people speak about with discomfort. In many organisations, the moment someone says “there is too much politics here”, the assumption is that something is wrong with the workplace. Employees use the phrase when they feel opportunities are not coming their way. Managers use it when decisions do not happen in the way they expected. Leaders use it when they feel too many people are trying to influence outcomes.

But the truth is that office politics is not an abnormal condition. It is not something that appears only in badly run organisations. It is not something that can be removed by giving a speech, writing a policy, or telling people to “focus only on work”.

Office politics is an integral part of any organisation.

It will exist in a two-person organisation. It will exist in a three-person organisation. It will exist in a hundred-employee organisation. It will exist in a large organisation. The scale will change, the language will change, the sophistication will change, but the underlying behaviour will remain the same.

The reason is simple. Wherever human beings come together in a group, they begin to position themselves. People try to understand where they stand, how they are seen, how much influence they have, and whether they are better placed than others who may affect their own position. They do not only position themselves. They also position their teams, their colleagues, their groups, their projects, their tasks, and their environment.

This is not always negative. It is human. It is natural. If a person is doing some work, they want that work to be seen. If a group is working on a project, the group wants the project to receive attention. If a department is delivering something important, it wants leadership to understand its relevance. If an individual believes they have capability, they want decision-makers to notice that capability.

That is the starting point of office politics.

The mistake many organisations make is that they treat office politics as something to be eliminated. That is unrealistic. Office politics will always exist because people will always try to influence how they are positioned. The better question is not whether office politics exists. The better question is whether it is under control, whether it is helping the organisation flourish, and whether it is being handled through fair and transparent systems.

A decent degree of office politics is necessary for an organisation to flourish and grow. This may sound uncomfortable because most people have been trained to think of politics only as bad. But an organisation with almost no office politics may also have a problem. It may mean that people are not positioning ideas, not pushing projects, not influencing decisions, not marketing work, and not ensuring that relevant contributions come in front of people who can allocate resources.

On the other hand, too much office politics is also dangerous. When office politics becomes excessive, it starts producing unfair outcomes. It starts helping some people while damaging others. It starts pushing people without adequate skill into roles or projects that should have gone to more capable people. It starts shifting resources away from value and towards positioning.

So the issue is not whether office politics exists. The issue is the degree, the quality, and the system through which it is processed.

A useful way to think about office politics is to measure it on a scale of one to ten. On this scale, one means almost negligible office politics, and ten means very high levels of office politics. A reasonable organisation may sit around six or seven. That may surprise people, because many would assume that the ideal score is one or two. But if politics is almost negligible, it may mean that people are not influencing, not positioning, not marketing, and not pushing their work forward. That is not necessarily healthy.

A score of six or seven means politics exists, people are positioning themselves and their work, but the organisation hopefully still has enough systems to make sure that decisions are not completely hijacked by politics.

That is why HR practitioners need some way of understanding the level of office politics in an organisation. They should have a way to sense whether politics is healthy, excessive, or damaging. The point is not to make politics disappear. The point is to know where the organisation stands and why.

Office Politics Exists Because People Position Themselves

The core of office politics is positioning.

An individual tries to position themselves. A team tries to position its work. A group tries to position its importance. A project owner tries to position a project in the eyes of decision-makers. A department tries to position its relevance. A leader tries to position a task as important enough to receive attention and resources.

This positioning is what many people call politics.

If we remove the negative emotion attached to the word, office politics is often simply the act of making sure that the right people see, recognise, support, and resource what we are doing. In organisational life, visibility matters. A project that is not visible may not get support. An individual whose work is not visible may not get opportunities. A team whose contribution is not visible may not get resources.

This is why the idea that “work will speak for itself” rarely works in practice.

Many capable people believe that if they work sincerely, deliver good output, and remain straightforward, the organisation will automatically recognise them. They believe that their work should speak for itself. They may even take pride in saying, “I do not believe in politics.” They may see themselves as clean, direct, and honest because they do not position themselves or influence others.

The difficulty is that organisations are not machines. Organisations are groups of people. Decisions are taken by people. Resources are given by people. Opportunities are created by people. Recognition is given by people. Projects are approved by people. Roles are opened by people.

If the people taking decisions do not see your work, do not understand your work, or do not connect your work to the organisation’s larger priorities, then your work may remain invisible, no matter how good it is.

That is why work rarely speaks for itself.

Work needs to be placed in front of those who can recognise it. Work needs to be positioned. Work needs to be connected to outcomes. Work needs to be explained. Work needs to be brought to the attention of people who can make decisions or influence decisions.

In a simple way, this is like marketing.

A product may be excellent, but if it is never placed in front of the people who can buy it, the product may not succeed. In the same way, work may be excellent, but if it is never brought in front of those who can support it, the work may not receive recognition or resources.

When an individual positions their work, markets their contribution, or ensures that people see the value they are creating, they are engaging in what many people casually call office politics.

But that does not make the behaviour inherently bad.

In fact, if the work is valuable, positioning it can help the organisation. It can help good projects get attention. It can help useful ideas reach decision-makers. It can help capable people get opportunities. It can help resources move towards tasks that deserve resources.

This is the positive side of office politics.

The challenge is that many people do not understand this positive side. They see politics only as manipulation. They do not realise that influence and positioning are part of organisational functioning. They wait for the organisation to discover their work automatically. They keep saying that they are straightforward and that they do not believe in politics.

But very often, such people do not reach the roles, positions, or tasks they wanted. Not because they lacked ability, but because somebody else understood how to position a project, a task, or themselves better.

That is a hard reality, but it is an organisational reality.

It does not mean one should become manipulative. It does not mean one should play unfair games. It means that individuals must understand how office politics works and how they can influence their work in a proper way. They must know how to put their work in front of others so that others take notice, provide opportunity, and allocate resources.

An individual who does not understand office politics may lose to someone who does. That is not always because the other person is better. It may simply be because the other person is better positioned.

So from an individual point of view, the learning is clear: understand politics, understand positioning, and understand how to make your work visible. If your work is valuable but invisible, your career may not move the way it should.

Why Good Office Politics Helps Organisations Flourish

The positive role of office politics is often ignored.

A decent degree of office politics helps an organisation because it creates movement. It encourages people to push ideas. It encourages individuals to represent their work. It encourages teams to explain why they need resources. It encourages projects to come in front of decision-makers.

If nobody positions anything, decision-makers may not even know where attention is required.

In any organisation, there are many tasks, many projects, many employees, many groups, and many competing needs. Leaders and decision-makers cannot automatically know the value of every piece of work. They depend on inputs. They depend on representations. They depend on people bringing matters to their attention.

Office politics, when healthy, is one of the ways those inputs reach the decision-making layer.

A project owner may believe that their project can help the organisation. If they do not position the project, the project may remain under-resourced. A department may believe its work supports organisational growth. If it does not communicate that, the department may not receive attention. An employee may be capable of doing more, but if they do not make their capability visible, opportunities may not reach them.

So office politics becomes a way for people, groups, and tasks to compete for visibility.

Now, competition for visibility is not automatically bad. It can be healthy if the organisation has systems that evaluate the visibility properly. When people put forward their work, the organisation can assess whether the work has value. When teams position themselves, the organisation can assess whether the team deserves resources. When individuals market their contributions, the organisation can assess whether the contribution deserves opportunity.

In this sense, office politics becomes an input into decision-making.

That is why a reasonable level of politics, perhaps around six or seven on a scale of ten, may be useful. It means people are active. People are presenting. People are attempting to influence. People are ensuring that work does not remain hidden. The organisation has energy.

If politics is too low, people may become passive. They may wait for recognition. They may avoid positioning. They may fail to influence. Work may remain invisible. Decision-makers may receive too little information about what is happening.

But if politics is too high, the system may become distorted. The noise may be louder than the contribution. People may spend more time positioning than performing. Influence may become more important than value.

That is why the issue is balance.

Office politics is not good or bad by itself. It becomes useful or harmful depending on how it flows through the organisation.

The organisation must therefore not ask people to stop influencing. It must create systems where influence is tested, filtered, and evaluated fairly.

Good politics helps the organisation recognise what deserves recognition. Bad politics makes the organisation recognise what does not deserve recognition. The difference lies in the organisational systems that process the inputs.

If the systems are strong, politics can help the organisation flourish. If the systems are weak, politics can make the organisation unfair.

This is where the role of HR becomes important. HR practitioners must understand that office politics is not merely gossip or interpersonal conflict. It is a part of how power, visibility, and resources move inside organisations. If HR understands this, it can help the organisation measure politics, observe where it is healthy, and identify where it is becoming harmful.

Office politics cannot be removed, but it can be understood. It cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed. It cannot be denied, but it can be channelled.

That is the maturity required.

When Office Politics Starts Destroying Careers, Teams and Decisions

Office politics becomes harmful when the outcome is positive for one person and negative for another because of the politics itself.

This is the critical line.

If politics simply brings attention to good work, it is useful. If politics helps a deserving project receive support, it is useful. If politics helps a capable individual gain visibility, it is useful.

But if politics causes one person to gain at the cost of another person unfairly, the organisation has a problem.

This happens when political positioning starts producing distorted outcomes.

For example, a person who does not have the right skill may get the role because they are better positioned. A project that does not create relevant value may receive resources because its owner markets it better. A group that should not be prioritised may get attention, while another group with stronger work gets ignored.

This is when office politics becomes destructive.

It is also why many individuals who say “I am straightforward” suffer in such environments. They do not position themselves. They do not market their work. They believe their work will speak for itself. But somebody else positions more strongly, influences better, and receives the resources or opportunities.

At one level, the individual must learn how to position work. At another level, the organisation must ensure that positioning does not become more important than value.

If people without skills can get resources, positions, and roles because of politics, while people with stronger skills do not get them, the organisation is failing.

This does not only hurt individuals. It hurts the organisation.

The wrong people may get the right roles. The wrong projects may get the right resources. The wrong tasks may receive priority. The organisation may believe it is making good decisions, but the decision input itself may be poor.

The danger is that such outcomes may not appear disastrous immediately. One decision may look harmless. One role may be filled. One project may be funded. One person may move ahead. But over time, these decisions add up.

Capable employees begin to lose confidence. Teams begin to see that influence matters more than contribution. People stop believing in fairness. Good work becomes less visible. Political skill becomes more rewarded than performance.

That is when office politics starts becoming a serious organisational problem.

It is important to understand that the problem is not that people are positioning themselves. That will always happen. The problem is that the organisation is allowing positioning to replace evaluation.

If politics becomes the deciding force, the organisation loses its ability to distinguish between value and noise.

This is where transparent systems become essential.

Without transparency, people do not know why decisions were made. Without fair processes, people do not trust outcomes. Without clear systems, political influence can easily turn into political distortion.

The negative impact of office politics is therefore not only emotional. It affects careers. It affects resource allocation. It affects project success. It affects organisational growth.

A high-politics environment without fair systems can create winners and losers based on influence rather than contribution. That is the danger.

When politics starts producing positive outcomes for some and negative outcomes for others unfairly, the organisation must intervene. Not by pretending politics should vanish, but by strengthening the systems through which politics is processed.

Fair and Transparent Systems: The Only Real Solution

The simplest and most straightforward way to manage office politics is to build fair and transparent systems.

This is the most important solution.

If an organisation has fair and transparent systems, office politics becomes an input into those systems. People may position themselves. They may market their work. They may influence decision-makers. They may bring projects forward. But everything still flows into a process.

That process then evaluates.

It tests.

It filters.

It separates good input from junk input.

The organisation may receive all kinds of inputs. Some may be strong. Some may be weak. Some may be genuine. Some may be exaggerated. Some may be well-positioned but not valuable. Some may be less visible but more valuable.

A fair and transparent system gives the organisation the ability to process all these inputs and still produce a clean output.

This is the ideal situation.

Politics exists, but it does not control the final decision.

Politics creates inflow, but the system determines outflow.

That distinction is critical.

If the organisation has fair systems, then office politics remains under control. It can help people put forward their work. It can help individuals receive opportunity. It can help resources go to good projects. It can help the organisation flourish.

But if the organisation does not have fair and transparent systems, then the input is bad and the output is also bad.

In that situation, negative office politics directly affects decisions. Poor inputs produce poor outcomes. Wrong positioning produces wrong resource allocation. Political strength produces career movement, even if capability is missing. Valuable work gets ignored because it did not have enough influence behind it.

That is when office politics becomes negatively impactful.

The real test of an organisation is therefore not whether politics exists. It will exist. The real test is whether the organisation has systems strong enough to handle it.

Fair systems and transparent processes are the filters.

They make sure that personality, influence, and positioning do not completely overwhelm value, skill, and contribution.

For individuals, this means understanding how to participate in organisation life. One must understand politics, not as manipulation, but as positioning. One must know how to bring work in front of others. One must learn how to influence properly. One must give visibility to contribution.

For organisations, this means building decision-making systems where politics can flow in, but fairness determines what comes out.

This is the balance.

Office politics should be allowed to flourish to the extent that it helps individuals, groups, tasks, and projects gain visibility. But it should not be allowed to reach a level where a section of the population is negatively affected.

That is the difference between mature and immature organisations.

In an immature organisation, politics decides.

In a mature organisation, politics informs, but systems decide.

That is the standard organisations should aim for.

When systems are fair and transparent, individuals get the ability to put forward their work. They get the opportunity to shape their career. They get resources when their work deserves resources. Teams get recognition when their work creates value. Projects receive support when they justify support.

In such organisations, office politics is not eliminated. It is channelled.

And that is exactly what should happen.

The purpose of managing office politics is not to create an organisation where nobody influences, nobody positions, and nobody markets their work. That kind of organisation is neither realistic nor necessarily healthy.

The purpose is to create an organisation where influence does not become unfairness, visibility does not replace value, and positioning does not destroy contribution.

Office politics is inevitable because organisations are made of people.

Office politics is necessary because work needs visibility.

Office politics is useful when it helps good work reach decision-makers.

Office politics is dangerous when it creates unfair positive and negative outcomes.

And office politics is manageable only when organisations have fair systems and transparent processes.

That is the real answer.

The question is not whether your organisation has office politics.

It does.

The real question is whether your organisation has the maturity to process politics properly.

If the answer is yes, politics can help the organisation grow.

If the answer is no, politics will slowly distort decisions, careers, resources, and trust.

So the organisational challenge is not to remove politics.

The challenge is to build systems strong enough that politics remains an input and never becomes the output.

That is when an organisation can flourish.

And that is when individuals can also flourish.