First, it involves acknowledging that there is competition among individuals or departments to access and secure the resources managers need to implement actions required to achieve their objectives.
If, as some experts proclaim, we are moving towards less hierarchical organizations, engaging in politics becomes—even more—a necessity. Collectives still operate as dense networks of multiple influences. Fewer directives mean more persuasion!
If a manager does not engage in politics, what will they do? In the era of artificial intelligence, it’s crucial to reflect on the manager’s added value. It clearly lies in solving complex problems, which itself requires collaboration. To achieve this, managers must use both technical and relational skills. Political acumen is one of these skills: knowing how to use formal and informal rules and practices appropriately, delivering messages at the right time, in the right way, and to the right people to maximize impact.
Contrary to popular belief, engaging in internal politics is not "dirty"! When competition for resources is well-reasoned and properly debated, it enhances awareness of others’ priorities. In some ways, it increases collective intelligence. This, of course, presupposes a shared understanding of the company’s goals among all stakeholders. It also requires individuals to demonstrate flexibility in negotiations. These are not battles to win at all costs; they are arguments aimed at convincing others for the greater good of the company.
If the participants in these discussions prioritize the common good, one could even argue that internal politics facilitates the optimal allocation of resources. Who can better advocate for the need for a resource than the actor requiring it? Certainly not an allocation arbitrated from above—or worse, one based on reproducing the proportions or levels of commitment from previous years.
Comentarios