Last year, Paul Rivers* experienced what he calls a moment of extreme clarity. He solved a technical problem that had stalled his federal research department for months. Excited by the breakthrough, he presented the solution to his department head, Mike Fleming.* Fleming praised the idea and forwarded it to the division director, who approved and implemented it quickly. Rivers never received acknowledgement. Instead he watched Fleming accept the credit and later receive a promotion. Rather than being recognized as the problem-solver he felt he was, Rivers believes Fleming has since targeted him for potential layoffs to protect the new position.
This is not the stuff of a film-noir revenge fantasy; it is a common experience in office politics, where advancing one’s career often becomes the central focus. Philip McGee, Ph.D., coordinator of the master’s in human resource development at Clemson University, notes that business sometimes rewards competitiveness over niceness. With 17 years as a management and performance consultant before joining academia, McGee says that when people use information and power constructively it becomes skilled networking. When those maneuvers cost others professionally or personally, they cross over into politics.
Joel Mausner, Ph.D., a New York–based leadership consultant with Workplace Psychology, has worked with clients across corporate, nonprofit and health-care sectors. He explains that office politics mirror broader social power structures, which are fundamentally based on relationships. Power is necessary to accomplish group goals, and people differ in how they engage with it. Some seek influence; others prefer to rely on job skills and performance. Those who avoid relationship-building or group interaction tend to be disadvantaged when it comes to career advancement. People comfortable both in one-on-one relationships and group settings are better positioned to navigate workplace dynamics.
Corporate language often emphasizes teamwork, but companies remain made up of individuals with different ambitions. Hierarchies are inherent to organizational structure: those in higher positions typically hold greater influence. Judith Locke, a clinical psychologist and former HR director who trains executives and employees internationally, says hierarchy and teamwork can coexist. Teams perform best when all voices are heard, yet experience often merits consideration. New or less experienced team members can contribute creative solutions precisely because they approach problems differently. That requires senior staff who listen rather than demand agreement; where narcissistic tendencies dominate management, dissenting views are often shut down and “teamwork” becomes mere conformity.
“Politics,” as Hunter S. Thompson put it, “is the controlling of your environment.” When conflicts escalate, human resources professionals are often called in to mediate. Stephen Bronack, Ph.D., an associate professor of human resource development at Clemson, stresses HR’s role in supporting both the company and its people. In healthy organizations HR helps address interpersonal issues that negatively affect performance. Unfortunately, some organizational cultures foster an “us vs. them” mindset that undermines trust and cooperation, and HR must work to correct those dynamics.
The rise of virtual work adds new complexity. Remote teams and geographically dispersed colleagues change how power and politics play out. Tone can be misread in email, and avoiding conversations by claiming a dead phone feels different online than in-person slights during a boardroom presentation. Bronack points out that supporting remote employees often means rethinking tools and approaches: addressing online-only conflict requires different skills and standards than mediating issues in shared physical spaces.
How politics surface depends on many factors, including personality. Mausner observes that ambitious individuals tend to engage more in political behavior. Politics can take many forms—gossip, selective information sharing, and relationship-building with influential figures. While gossip can be destructive, it can also convey informal, often useful information about unwritten workplace dynamics. Those who resort to toxic politics are often insecure and doubt that their work alone will secure advancement. Some act consciously, even manipulatively; others unconsciously underestimate the harm their tactics cause. Narcissists may surround themselves with yes-people, which stifles creativity. Others rationalize their actions by convincing themselves they are simply as entitled as anyone else to play the game.
Economic pressures — downsizing, layoffs and job insecurity — worsen political behavior. Fear drives people to desperate measures that erode norms of fair play and cooperation. In environments where survival feels uncertain, ethical boundaries can weaken and competitive instincts intensify.
Still, succeeding in a competitive workplace does not require cruelty. Karen Selig, clinical director and co-founder of Psychological Services of St. Augustine, who has more than 30 years of experience coaching individuals and organizations, recommends strategies to stand out without playing destructive games. She advises consistently outperforming assigned tasks to demonstrate value, motivation and reliability, but urges doing so productively—without trampling colleagues. Seek mentors among senior staff, learn what they value and emulate those behaviors. Speak up, form thoughtful opinions, contribute constructively, and focus on improving outcomes.
Selig notes that some level of maneuvering is human nature, but whether it becomes political depends on organizational culture. The behavior modeled and rewarded at the top tends to cascade through the company: if political maneuvering is tolerated, it becomes normalized; if solid work is recognized, that standard prevails.
Experts agree that not all office politics are inherently harmful. Networking and relationship-building are essential career skills when used ethically. Locke advises people to clarify their goals and weigh the costs of engaging in workplace politics. If advancing requires compromising one’s integrity or stifling creative skills to merely curry favor, the personal and professional price may outweigh the benefits. For many, preserving the ability to contribute genuinely and develop their skills is more valuable than political ascent.
* Not the real names of the persons involved