More than a decade ago, in an article that still draws readers, I made a straightforward observation: the difference between what people call politics and what they call influence is not the behaviour. It is whether the observer approves of it.
That observation was useful then. It is urgent now.
The structures of power in organisational life are shifting. Not gradually, not theoretically. The ground beneath established roles, established hierarchies, and established ways of getting things done is moving in ways that most professionals can feel before they can name. Those who built their position on competence, tenure, and trust are finding that these foundations, while still necessary, are no longer sufficient.
In that context, an unexamined attitude to politics is not a minor inefficiency. It is a liability.
The research I conducted in 2016 asked hundreds of professionals a simple question: is organisational politics a necessary evil or a waste of time? The responses revealed something more interesting than the question itself. Almost everyone was grappling with the gap between the work they wanted to do and the political reality they found themselves operating in. Very few questioned whether their definition of politics was accurate.
That definition problem has not gone away. If anything it has deepened.
The professionals most exposed in a shifting landscape are not those who lack capability. They are those whose attitude to politics is making strategic decisions on their behalf, without their awareness. ‘I don’t do politics’ is not a neutral position. In a stable world it carried a manageable cost. In the current climate it is closer to a standing down.
Power is shifting. The people who will shape the decisions that matter in the coming years are not necessarily those with the deepest expertise or the longest track record. They are those who understand the political terrain around them, who can engage with it constructively, and who have done the work of knowing precisely where their own boundaries lie.
That last point matters. Engaging with politics does not mean abandoning integrity. The two are not in conflict unless the attitude that keeps them separate has never been properly examined. As I explored in the original attitudes piece from 2014, the professional who can hold the word politics without a charge attached to it is in a fundamentally stronger position than one who cannot. Not because they are willing to behave badly. Because they can see the terrain clearly.
The professionals who get this wrong are not always the ones you would expect. Many capable people are, in effect, aiding and abetting the very political behaviours they most object to, simply by leaving the field clear for those who have no such reservations.
The upgrade this moment requires is not a new skill set. It is a clearer relationship with a word that has been allowed to do too much deciding.
Colin Gautrey, April 2026