I witnessed workplace politics after being elected as a school head prefect in my high school… but did I even know it was really workplace politics, or did I just observe it? Workplace politics is often discussed in undertones, as if it were a forbidden subject, yet who has ever worked anywhere and not felt its presence? In every office, staffroom, ministry, or business, does not an invisible web of influence, alliances, rivalries, and silent negotiations shape decisions behind the scenes? Workplace politics is not a myth or a rumour; it is a natural social reality that emerges whenever people gather to work together, pursue goals, and seek recognition. If human beings are inherently diverse in ambition, personality, and perspective, should it surprise us that political dynamics arise wherever they interact?

Why, then, does workplace politics exist? Is it not partly because opportunities are limited and not everyone can be promoted at once? Do hierarchies of authority not compel employees to learn how power flows and how decisions are made? When expectations are unclear, do people not rely on influence rather than merit to secure their place? And when individuals bring different values, loyalties, and temperaments into the same environment, is it not inevitable that alliances form while tensions quietly develop? Seen in this light, workplace politics is less a sign of corruption and more a reflection of human nature operating within structured systems.

Yet must politics always be viewed negatively, or can it sometimes serve a constructive purpose? When an employee respectfully advocates for a colleague’s idea, is that manipulation or professionalism? When a team persuades management to support a beneficial project, is that scheming or strategic communication? In healthy workplaces, political skill often means emotional intelligence—the ability to read situations, communicate tactfully, and build authentic relationships. Without such skill, how would worthwhile ideas gain support, or how would individuals defend themselves against unfair criticism?

Still, what happens when politics shifts from strategy to selfishness? Have we not seen environments where gossip spreads faster than truth, where favouritism overshadows merit, and where some individuals rise not because of competence but because of connections? When colleagues undermine one another or claim credit for the work they did not do, can trust survive? And if trust collapses, what becomes of teamwork, morale, and productivity? A workplace dominated by toxic politics does not merely harm individuals; it weakens the entire institution, replacing cooperation with suspicion and progress with stagnation.

Faced with such realities, should one ignore workplace politics or learn to navigate them wisely? Is it not more practical to understand workplace dynamics than to pretend they do not exist? Those who manage such environments successfully often build credibility through consistent performance, communicate clearly, observe before acting, and form sincere—not opportunistic—relationships. They neither manipulate nor remain naïve; instead, they balance awareness with integrity. After all, is wisdom not the ability to act ethically while understanding the realities around you?

And what of leadership—does it not play the greatest role in shaping workplace culture? If leaders reward flattery instead of fairness, will employees not learn to flatter? If decisions are made in secrecy, will rumours not fill the silence? But when leaders practice transparency, accountability, and merit-based recognition, do they not reduce destructive politics and encourage healthy influence? Leadership, therefore, is not merely about authority; it is about setting a moral tone that determines whether workplace politics becomes a weapon of division or a tool for collaboration.

But can workplace politics ever be eliminated, or must it simply be understood? Since people will always bring ambition, emotion, and perspective into their work, politics will always exist in some form. The real question is not whether it is present, but how it is used. Will it be used to manipulate or to motivate, to exclude or to empower, to destroy or to build? Perhaps the wisest response is neither to fear workplace politics nor to embrace it blindly, but to approach it with clear judgment and firm principles—for is not the most enduring influence the one earned through credibility, fairness, and respect rather than cunning and deceit?