By Eugene le Roux, FSAIRAC, and Eamonn Ryan
From defensive survival to constructive strategy.
The challenge is ensuring that influence is exercised with integrity, and that ambition does not eclipse character. Freepik.com
If politics is unavoidable, the question becomes: how do we navigate it constructively? Understanding the strategies of others can be more effective than reacting emotionally. Who influences whom? Who controls information flow? Where do decisions actually get shaped?
Careful observation provides insight without escalation. If misrepresentation occurs, addressing it calmly and factually with senior management may be necessary. One strategy is to request that any concerns raised about your work be clarified with you directly before conclusions are drawn. This frames your response as a commitment to accuracy, not defensiveness.
However, such steps must be taken thoughtfully to avoid appearing combative.
The human factor in projects
In a previous discussion on project management, much was said about systems, schedules, risk mitigation and resource allocation. Yet perhaps the most complex variable in any project is human behaviour.
Technical complexity can often be mapped and managed. Human dynamics are less predictable.
Tools such as the Belbin Team Roles model classify team members according to behavioural contributions – such as co-ordinators, implementers or innovators – helping create balanced teams. Similarly, personality frameworks like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator aim to understand individual cognitive preferences and interaction styles.
When thoughtfully applied, such methodologies can foster harmony and reduce friction. Yet in practice, they are often overlooked. Why?
One reason is resource scarcity. Organisations frequently assemble teams based on availability rather than behavioural balance. The urgent overrides the ideal.
But the cost of ignoring behavioural dynamics may be far higher than anticipated. Misaligned teams breed frustration, miscommunication and – inevitably – politics.
If teams are structured with awareness of behavioural diversity from the outset, many political tensions can be mitigated. Individuals who feel understood and appropriately positioned are less likely to resort to defensive manoeuvring.
Have you seen instances where behavioural frameworks were deliberately applied in team formation? And if so, did it reduce conflict – or simply add another layer of corporate jargon?
Principles for navigating workplace politics
- Build broad relationships early. Don’t wait for conflict to arise.
- Maintain integrity under pressure. Short-term gains from deception often lead to long-term reputational loss.
- Encourage transparency. Advocate for discussions that include all affected parties.
- Understand personalities and roles. Behavioural insight reduces misinterpretation.
- Document objectively. Facts, not emotion, are your strongest defence.
- Avoid retaliation. Competing in unethical tactics damages everyone.
A final reflection
Workplace politics is not inherently evil. At its best, it reflects the negotiation of ideas, resources and direction within a shared enterprise. At its worst, it becomes a theatre of manipulation and mistrust.
The difference lies in intention and conduct.
Success in organisations does not require abandoning ethics. But it does require awareness, strategic maturity and a refusal to be naïve about human nature.
The real challenge is not eliminating politics – that is impossible. The challenge is ensuring that influence is exercised with integrity, and that ambition does not eclipse character.
