Workplace politics makes people angry, or at least frustrated. It gets in the way of work, creating delays, disagreements and bad feeling. Back in 2005, with 21 Dirty Tricks at Work, we made a valiant attempt at codifying the mayhem.
What that work confirmed, and years of subsequent observation have reinforced, is that most people regard office politics as any act in pursuit of personal gain, especially where manipulation or dishonesty is involved. The feeling it provokes tends to fall into one of two camps: necessary evil, or complete waste of time.
If either of those descriptions feels familiar, there is a problem worth examining.
It shows up in familiar phrases. ‘I don’t do politics.’ ‘Doing a good job should be enough to get on.’ ‘I don’t have time for these games.’ ‘I don’t believe in manipulating people.’ Each one sounds reasonable. Each one is a position that costs something.
Holding any of these views hands a significant advantage to the game player, the manipulator, and those with little concern for their colleagues. The person who regards politics as a necessary evil engages reluctantly and late. The person who regards it as a waste of time does not engage at all. In both cases the outcome is the same: outmanoeuvred by someone who engaged earlier and without the same reservations.
This is not an argument for moving to the dark side. It is an observation about what happens when capable people opt out.
The professionals who handle this most effectively share a few characteristics. They study the subject rather than avoiding it. At its core, organisational politics is simply the personal decision-making processes individuals use to meet their needs. Nothing more, nothing less.
They examine their own attitude honestly. If they cannot defend a position, or cannot get decisions to stick, that has a direct cost on results.
They get curious rather than frustrated, treating the organisational landscape as a puzzle worth understanding. They are also clear about where they stand. Curiosity does not require abandoning integrity. What it does require is knowing precisely where your boundaries are before you need them.
And they get moving. Seeing politics as a necessary evil guarantees half-hearted engagement. Deciding to engage well, on your own terms, is a different posture entirely.
The returns are not trivial. Harvard Business Review identified playing politics with integrity as one of the five characteristics of high-potential CEO candidates. That finding has not dated.
There is a version of this that is necessary evil. There is a version that is waste of time. And there is a version where a capable professional decides to understand the terrain they are already operating in, whether they acknowledge it or not.
The cost of these positions has risen considerably since this was written. Upgrading Your Attitude to Politics and Influence examines why.
Colin Gautrey, June 2017. Updated April 2026