For many employees, “office politics” is shorthand for backstabbing, favoritism and quiet power plays in the corridors. Yet new research from King’s College London is challenging that assumption, suggesting that workplace politicking may not be the necessary evil it’s long been made out to be. Under the right conditions, the study finds, political behavior at work can support collaboration, strengthen networks and even improve performance – for individuals and their organisations alike.Far from being purely toxic, office politics, the researchers argue, can become a constructive force when it is clear, inclusive and aligned with shared goals.
Understanding how everyday office politics shape collaboration and trust at work
Far from being confined to smoky backrooms and whispered deals, the politics of the modern office now plays out in everyday interactions: who gets copied into emails, whose ideas are amplified in meetings, and how managers allocate scarce resources like time, budget and visibility. New research from King’s College London suggests these small, often subtle moves can either knit teams together or quietly erode cohesion. When employees feel they understand the “rules of the game” and see decisions as broadly fair, they are more likely to interpret political behavior as constructive influence rather than manipulation. That, in turn, strengthens collaboration, particularly in hybrid and cross-functional teams where informal networks frequently enough carry more weight than formal hierarchies.
Trust, researchers found, hinges less on the absence of politics and more on how transparently and ethically it is practised. Informal influencers who use their position to connect people and remove obstacles tend to be viewed as legitimate power brokers, not schemers.In high-trust teams,colleagues are explicit about motives,share credit and surface conflicts early rather of letting them fester in corridor conversations. Key behaviours that shape this climate include:
- Framing trade-offs openly – explaining why certain projects or people are prioritised.
- Backing others in public forums – using influence to spotlight quieter contributors.
- Negotiating interests, not alliances – focusing on shared outcomes rather than factions.
- Challenging rumours quickly – replacing speculation with clear, verifiable information.
| Everyday behaviour | How it’s perceived | Impact on trust |
|---|---|---|
| Sharing context before decisions | Strategic, inclusive | Trust increases |
| Selective information hoarding | Self-serving, opaque | Trust declines |
| Publicly crediting collaborators | Fair, others-focused | Trust spreads |
| Blocking ideas without reasons | Defensive, territorial | Trust fractures |
Why politically savvy employees are more effective and less likely to burn out
Researchers at King’s College London found that those who understand the unwritten rules of organisational life experience work very differently from colleagues who shy away from office dynamics. Rather of seeing every agenda, alliance or negotiation as toxic, they read them as information: signals about priorities, power structures and potential opportunities. This outlook allows them to navigate conflict with less emotional drag, protect their time and energy, and secure resources before crises erupt.In practice, politically skilled employees are more likely to frame difficult interactions as strategic challenges rather than personal attacks, which reduces stress and protects against chronic exhaustion.
Far from being manipulative, this kind of savvy often looks like quiet competence. Employees who are attuned to politics tend to:
- Build broad coalitions that offer support during high-pressure periods.
- Anticipate resistance and adjust plans before deadlines become overwhelming.
- Negotiate workload and expectations instead of silently absorbing extra tasks.
- Secure visible sponsorship,which brings clarity,feedback and recognition.
| Low political skill | High political skill |
|---|---|
| Feels blindsided by decisions | Reads signals and prepares early |
| Personalises conflict | Treats conflict as data |
| Works harder, often alone | Works smarter, with allies |
| Higher risk of burnout | More control, more resilience |
Practical strategies managers can use to channel office politics toward shared goals
Managers who want political energy working for the organisation rather than against it need to make influence visible, legitimate and tied to outcomes. One powerful move is to shift informal deal-making into transparent forums: regular cross-team huddles where people advocate for ideas in the open, not behind closed doors.Encourage employees to build coalitions around problems instead of personalities by asking,”Who else should be in this conversation?” and “What shared metric will this affect?” Practical steps include: setting clear decision rules (who decides,who’s consulted,who’s informed),making sponsorship explicit (who is backing which initiative and why),and rewarding constructive dissent so that challenge is seen as loyalty to the mission,not disloyalty to colleagues.
- Rewrite the rules of access: rotate who presents to senior leaders so influence is not hoarded by the same voices.
- Make alliances purposeful: ask teams to form short-term,cross-functional “political action” groups focused on a single shared goal.
- Track influence, not just output: recognize people who bridge silos, broker compromises and rescue stalled projects.
- Narrate the politics: explain why certain trade-offs were made, naming the interests balanced and the organisational benefit.
| Political Habit | Risk | Manager’s Redirect |
|---|---|---|
| Lobbying in private | Perceived favouritism | Move debates to open meetings |
| Exclusive cliques | Information bottlenecks | Mix teams on key projects |
| Backchannel complaints | Eroded trust | Channel into structured feedback |
| Hero leaders | Dependency on individuals | Share credit and decision power |
Steps individual employees can take to navigate workplace dynamics ethically and productively
Researchers at King’s College London highlight that informal influence at work is not inherently negative; it becomes harmful only when wielded without self-awareness or values. Employees can start by building a reputation as reliable “brokers” of information rather than gatekeepers. This involves sharing credit openly, clarifying intentions in sensitive conversations, and choosing transparency over gossip. Practically, that might mean turning corridor whispers into constructive feedback channels, or using your access to senior leaders to amplify quieter voices on your team. Small behavioural shifts,repeated consistently,create a personal brand of integrity that travels further than any formal job title.
- Map your network – note who you frequently collaborate with and who you avoid.
- Clarify your values – decide in advance what you will not compromise to “fit in”.
- Ask curious questions – understand others’ pressures before judging their motives.
- Document agreements – follow up verbal decisions in writing to reduce ambiguity.
- Practice “upward honesty” – flag risks early, framing them as shared problems to solve.
| Situation | Unethical Reaction | Ethical Response |
|---|---|---|
| Colleague’s mistake spotted | Use it to undermine them | Alert them privately, offer support |
| Rumour about restructuring | Spread speculation | Seek facts, share only verified info |
| Access to senior leaders | Promote only your wins | Highlight team contributions |
| Excluded from a key meeting | Retaliate or disengage | Ask calmly how to stay in the loop |
Wrapping Up
As organisations continue to grapple with hybrid working, economic uncertainty and shifting expectations of leadership, the King’s findings offer a timely reframing of a much-maligned workplace reality. Politics, the research suggests, is not an optional extra or an inherently toxic force, but a constant undercurrent that can be channelled towards more inclusive decision-making, fairer outcomes and stronger organisational performance.
Whether it becomes a weapon or a tool for progress depends less on its existence and more on how leaders and employees choose to navigate it. For organisations willing to acknowledge office politics openly, invest in political skills such as perspective-taking and coalition-building, and set clear ethical boundaries, the much-feared “game” of work may yet become a driver of trust rather than mistrust.
In that sense, the study does not simply rehabilitate office politics; it challenges employers to own it, shape it and, ultimately, use it for good.
