Verified by 
Key points
- Politics in the workplace occur when there is a scarcity of resources and competing interests involved.
- Many people, especially those who are conscientious, prefer to ignore their workplace politics to their detriment.
- If you don't get involved in workplace politics, then other people wind up making the decisions determining who gets the resources—and burdens.
How many times have we all heard the phrase, “Politics as usual”? How many times have we said it or at least thought it? Try to think about the last time you might have thought it. Maybe it was when some proposed legislation passed or did not pass contrary to your preference. Or maybe, on a more personal level, it was when someone in your company who was unqualified got promoted over someone who was, and you thought to yourself, “This is exactly why I hate politics.”
By “politics” I don’t mean the kind that involves Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives. Specifically, I mean the kind of politics present in organizational settings—i.e., the business world. Even so, all the principles I’ll be discussing here today apply just as much to civic politics as they do to business. More importantly, however, if there’s anything that you’re unhappy with in either arena, if there’s anything that you want changed, you must begin by understanding these principles and adjusting your approach accordingly.
The distinction between politics and power/influence
Within an organizational context, let’s start by clarifying two important terms: politics and political skill. Politics is the exercising of influence to obtain preferred outcomes in organizations. It’s a process. Political skill is the ability to consciously direct that process in the directions you prefer (we’ll be looking more closely at political skill in the next blog post after this one).
Clearly, there’s a great deal of overlap here with power and influence, but power and influence are generally broader. Influence, for example, can be used by an advertising firm to get individuals to buy a product, or it can be used by a teenager to get his parents to let him borrow their car. These are situations that we don’t typically think of as being “political” (even though in some ways they are).
Situations we view as political are typically those in which there are scarce or limited resources and competing goals and interests all vying to exercise the greatest amount of power and influence—in other words, situations in which there is uncertainty, ambiguity, or disagreement. So, for example, there may be multiple departments within an organization competing for additional funding when only one department can receive it, or there may be multiple organizations competing against each other to land a new contract with a certain coveted client.
Take a moment now to think about the times we’re living in. Generally speaking, is there more certainty, clarity, and agreement in our society right now, or is there more uncertainty, ambiguity, and disagreement? Obviously, unless you’ve been living in a cave (and maybe even then), you already know the answer. Politics is always ubiquitous in human affairs, but it is even more intensely so during periods of instability and unrest.
Reject or ignore organizational politics at your own risk
The word “politics” has a lot of negative connotations to it, just like the word “power.” Readers of my last article may remember that whenever I ask a new group of students, “Who seeks power?” very few of them raise their hands, but when I reframe the question as “Who wants to be empowered?” then almost all of them raise their hands. It’s the same principle. The reason anyone who works in an organization should want to understand workplace politics, or at least respect it, is not so they can manipulate and exploit others but rather to protect their own legitimate concerns.
And yet, many of us have been conditioned to associate politics only with corruption, not protection. When someone in a company who lacks the right skillset gets promoted over someone who does have the right skillset, we attribute it to politics. Or when a new policy that a majority of employees want doesn’t get passed, we shake our heads in resignation and say, “It’s just politics as usual.”
This is partially correct, but only partially. Politics is a natural part of human society that’s always present whenever there are competing interests and limited resources—i.e., most of the time. As I often like to say, politics enters the room with the second person, and politicking is going to happen whether you recognize it or not, whether you like it or not. And while you have the option of ignoring it, remember that organizational politics includes the process of deciding which available resources will be used to confer benefits and impose burdens and on whom. That means that if you tune out, other people will decide who gets the benefits (it probably won’t be you) and who gets the burdens (it will probably be you).
When people express frustration or disgust towards politics, therefore, what they should actually be frustrated with are two things. One is the misuse of political skill, not politics itself. And, yes, the frustration here is justified. But the selfish people who misuse and abuse political skill aren’t going to stop just because others are angry or upset about it.
If you swear off the political process, you’re giving the selfish people free rein. One of the main points in my article about power was that everyone has access to one or more forms of power. When people disown workplace politics, they abdicate their power to influence the outcomes of decision-making, and that’s great news for those who want to push through their own agendas at the expense of others. As former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson once said, “Take part or get taken apart.”
The second thing that people who dismiss politics should actually be frustrated with is themselves, or rather their limited understanding of organizational politics. It’s not entirely their fault because there’s so much messaging in our society about “politics as usual” to which conscientious people may be more susceptible. But as I’ve argued here, politics itself is the wrong target. The correct targets are the misuse of political skills and a lack of understanding of workplace politics. My goal is to remedy the latter so that people can redirect their frustrations toward the former.
If you’re happy to let others determine your fate, then by all means sit on the bench. But if there’s anything that you want changed, you need to get off the bench and play ball. I’ll discuss the rules for playing ball in my next article.
Craig Barkacs, professor of business law and ethics in the Master’s in Executive Leadership and MBA Programs at the University of San Diego School of Business.
