Navigating the Power Maze: Mastering the Dynamics of Office Politics in Corporate Organizations

Office politics has been given a bad name.

In many cases, it is our understanding and experience that give words the meaning we ascribe to them. I am convinced that office politics is the way to get ahead within corporate organizations, just as politics is the way to progress ideas within civil communities.

Every society has rules, many unwritten, and the people who are able to interpret and play by these rules often find a way to get ahead. Within communities we are governed by politicians, and somehow, we find reasons to complain about the personality of the people who rule us. We find that they are not always the brightest, or the smartest. In most developing countries, the smartest avoid politics, and for good reasons. The depressing occurrences we read about make it difficult for good people to think that they have a chance at fixing the mess. This unfortunate perception only keeps us in the vicious cycle:

“Misfits continue to go into politics and occupy sensitive positions.

To secure those positions they surround themselves with people who think like them.

These appointees make lousy policies that affect everyone.

The “good” people complain about the bad policies, but only do so from a distance.

The few who do go into politics are stifled and prevented from making any real change.

They leave office frustrated, without making lasting impact, and thus create room for more ineffective players.”

And thus, the cycle continues, because real change will only come from having enough of the right people playing the game.

Office politics is the same, with one subtle difference: It is true that most organizations try to hire the “right” people; And by this, I mean that the quality of people who work for most organizations should generally be good enough to help the companies achieve their goals. In trying to advance their careers, these people will use all the available enablers that the organization provides. Depending on the culture, office politics will be played to different degrees. If everything we have described above as EI/EQ is actually the way to get ahead, then these individuals are merely progressing within the set rules.

The reason I describe the kind of politics played in most developing countries is because it helps us understand that you will find such extremes in organizations as well. Where an organization has devolved into politics of this nature however, you can be sure that it is just in its dying throes. History has shown that no organization or country for that matter, survives long with such a toxic culture.

In many instances, you will find a mix of the good, and the bad. There may be attempts to maintain a healthy culture, but you find bad players who take advantage of monitoring gaps or bad Bosses to create an uncomfortable work environment within certain units or departments. You might also have a phase during which an unhealthy work environment has developed, and the organization goes through a purging of sorts to get itself back on track.

If on the average the environment is such that it allows for the “best” to thrive and grow, then you will agree with me that office politics has just been given a bad name because of the meaning we have attributed to it (caused mainly by some bad experiences).

By design, if civil societies function through a political system, corporate organizations function through the office politics system.

“actions and behavior involving competition for status or power in a workplace.”(Dictionary definition of office politics)

For people who seem obsessed with office politics, our working definition suggests that this is all they do. Thinking about it, it does appear that way for some. We find them in deep discussions with colleagues within their circle, visiting and attending every gathering, and overtly taking sides in conflicts. They spend considerable amounts of time building allies, plotting career progression moves for their mentors and protégés, and doing everything except the job they were hired to do.

Now can you survive in an organization by just “working your way to the top?” I mean that you give the bare minimum to your day job, and spend huge amounts of time building networks and positioning yourself for a promotion, or making yourself the Boss’s favorite for projects and tasks that make you visible?

The answer is not a direct Yes or No.

Let me break it down; it takes work, a lot of work to grow to lead any serious organization. First off, there is stiff competition, and the pressure is relentless; then you have to do all this with the whole organization watching and tracking your every move. This is in addition to the shareholders’ expectations, government and regulatory bodies’ demands, tax authority’s surveillance, audit requirements and your competitors breathing down your neck to steal your lunch. The perks at senior levels are to die for, but the work required to stay successful at those levels cause many to battle psychological breakdown and depression.

It is also lonely.

The reason I have described the lives of Senior Executives in such dire terms is simply because I want to help some people understand that it is not all yachts and jets. There’s a lot to enjoy, yes, but it comes at a heavy price. Now that you’ve seen the amount of work it takes to survive at the top, do you honestly think that people can rise and stay there just by “playing politics?”

For smaller organizations, maybe yes. It is possible for one to rise and be hidden under the apron of a “Sponsor,” and even then, it is hard to remain there when you no longer have the protection. Except the organization is owned by such an individual, if one seeks to rise to the very top and be truly successful, one’s true character will be exposed at some point, and the fall from grace will be catastrophic.

People who see others building networks and growing their social influence as “playing politics” usually don’t understand what office politics is. They erroneously think that these people do nothing else but try to get ahead by using their connections.

I know this because I was a skeptic. I couldn’t understand why promotion wasn’t automatic and simply performance based. As far as I knew, something was wrong when one couldn’t climb to the top by abilities alone. Why did I need to be friends with all these people? I didn’t quite like them anyway. If the criteria for career growth was social capital, then they might as well include that in our annual performance agreements.

This view deprived me of the opportunity to develop my EI skills. I resented the decisions my superiors made and did not understand how important those group lunches and dinners were. Those informal gatherings are used to strengthen networks and build relationships. Bosses need those meetings to size people up and observe their behaviors in more relaxed settings. This is how they gauge what you will most likely do when you are saddled with leadership responsibilities. If you think about it, they have no better opportunity to do this.

How you behave at work, under the supervising eye of your superior is not always your true nature. We try to put our best foot forward, and for some, it may appear like an act. Being in a non-work situation will usually reveal the real you. This is interestingly the case with politics in the civil space. People need to see how you react to diverse “temptations” before they can trust you.

This is because the responsibility of leadership will expose you to things beyond your capacity to handle and will stretch you to your limits. At this level, your colleagues would not like to be surprised. They want to know to a degree of certainty, who you are, and how you will handle yourself. This is what makes them comfortable with having you on the “boat” with them. Those non-work settings are perfect for them to gather these bits of information about their staff.

When you find someone who balances his/her performance at work with building these connections, you have found someone who will rise quickly in their career. If however such an individual is only focused on “politics,” and pays little or no attention to their work results, such emptiness will be revealed at some point; and if not, that person will create a toxic work culture as a leader.