Workplace politics is often misunderstood. In public discourse, “politics” evokes images of campaigns, persuasion, and the contest for power in governance. Yet within organizations, politics operates more subtly, embedded in everyday decisions, relationships, expectations, and perceptions. It is not something employees opt into; rather, it is something they inevitably encounter. And as many professionals will attest, it can either accelerate a career or quietly undermine it.
In complex institutions such as academia, workplace politics takes on an even more nuanced form. It is shaped not only by formal policies and performance metrics but also by informal norms, those “unwritten rules” that influence how contributions are evaluated and how individuals are perceived. Experts in the field, including Prof. Kris Marsh of the University of Maryland, describe this as a system where expectations can become a “moving target,” shifting depending on context, leadership, and, at times, identity.
One recurring insight is that performance alone does not always determine outcomes. As Prof. Marsh illustrates through experience, even when individuals meet explicit requirements such as publishing and productivity, the response may shift toward perceptions, being labelled “haughty” or “cocky”, rather than recognition of output. This inconsistency highlights a critical feature of workplace politics: it is not only about what is done, but how it is interpreted.
This has real consequences for how people experience work. When standards are applied inconsistently, even the most dedicated employees can feel overlooked or misunderstood, which can quietly drain motivation over time. It also makes the workplace less predictable, people begin to question what truly matters and how to position themselves. In that kind of environment, success is not just about doing the job well; it becomes equally important to understand how things actually work beneath the surface, both in terms of official rules and the unspoken dynamics that shape everyday decisions.
A key strategy that emerges from expert reflections is the deliberate use of institutional knowledge. Prof. Helen Arkorful from the University of Professional Studies, Accra, points to the importance of understanding what policies actually say, noting that leadership may rely on “interpretations” that do not always align with written statutes. In environments where practices are justified as “the way things have always been done,” professionals who can distinguish between actual policy and informal precedent are better positioned to advocate for themselves and make informed decisions.
Equally important is the role of networks. Workplace politics rarely unfold in isolation; it is mediated through relationships. Prof. Candace M. Moore, also from the University of Maryland, emphasises the need to build connections beyond one’s immediate unit, highlighting how professionals can become both “hyper visible and invisible” at the same time. In such contexts, networks provide visibility where it matters, creating opportunities, champions, and access to information that formal structures may not offer.
Experts also emphasise the importance of mentorship and knowledge transfer. Prof. Marsh spotlights the value of sharing experiences, describing how passing on “information and knowledge” equips others to navigate similar challenges. Rather than treating workplace difficulties as isolated events, they become part of a broader learning system that strengthens institutional capacity and prepares the next generation.
Another dimension of workplace politics is visibility and control of time. Prof. Moore advises that without a clear “strategy” for how one’s time is used, others will define it. This requires professionals to be deliberate about where they invest effort, how they engage, and how they balance competing demands, particularly in environments where expectations are uneven or evolving.
At a personal level, maintaining perspective is essential. Workplace politics can be “draining,” according to Prof. Natalie Williams, particularly when individuals feel drawn into dynamics they would rather avoid. Her approach, focusing on excellence, building strong relationships, and limiting exposure to unnecessary “hoopla,” reflects a broader strategy of engagement without overexposure.
There is also a strong case for cultivating support systems beyond the workplace. Prof. Marsh points to the importance of having networks outside institutional structures, spaces that provide clarity, reassurance, and perspective. This external grounding ensures that professional challenges do not become all-consuming, reinforcing the idea that work, while important, is not “everything.”
These insights matter in a very practical way for those leading organisations and managing people. Improving performance and retaining talent is not just about structures and policies on paper; it also requires paying attention to the everyday dynamics that shape how employees actually experience the workplace. When expectations are clear, standards are applied consistently, and leadership is inclusive in both tone and action, it helps ease the tension that often comes with internal politics and creates an environment where people can focus on doing their best work.
Workplace politics, in the end, is neither wholly negative nor something anyone can completely avoid. It is simply part of how organizations function. The real challenge is not its presence, but how individuals recognize, navigate, and respond to it. Drawing on these expert perspectives, thriving in such environments comes from blending awareness with thoughtful strategy, understanding policies, cultivating supportive networks, sharing insights with others, and staying rooted in one’s purpose and values.
In doing so, professionals do more than navigate the system; they contribute to reshaping it, creating workplaces where performance, fairness, and opportunity are more closely aligned.
