There is no shortage of definitions of organizational politics. Essentially, this type of politics focuses on the use of power to affect decision making in an organization, sometimes for self-serving and organizationally unsanctioned behaviors.42 For our purposes, political behavior in organizations consists of activities that are not required as part of an individual’s formal role but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization.43

This definition encompasses what most people mean when they talk about organizational politics. Political behavior is outside specified job requirements. It requires some attempt to use power bases. It includes efforts to influence the goals, criteria, or processes used for decision making. Our definition is broad enough to include varied political behaviors such as withholding key information from decision makers, joining a coalition, whistle-blowing, spreading rumors, leaking confidential information to the media, exchanging favors with others for mutual benefit, and lobbying on behalf of or against a particular individual or decision alternative. In this way, political behavior is often negative, but not always.

Interviews with experienced managers show most believe political behavior is a major part of organizational life.44 Many managers report some use of political behavior is ethical, as long as it doesn’t directly harm anyone else. They describe politics as necessary and believe someone who never uses political behavior will have a hard time getting things done. Most also indicate they have never been trained to use political behavior effectively. But why, you may wonder, must politics exist? Isn’t it possible for an organization to be politics-free? It’s possible—if all members of that organization hold the same goals and interests, if organizational resources are not scarce, and if performance outcomes are completely clear and objective. But that doesn’t describe the organizational world in which most of us live.

Maybe the most important factor leading to politics within organizations is the realization that most of the “facts” used to allocate limited resources are open to interpretation. When allocating pay based on performance, for instance, what is good performance? What’s an adequate improvement? What constitutes an unsatisfactory job? The manager of any major league baseball team knows a .400 hitter is a high performer and a .125 hitter is a poor performer. You don’t need to be a baseball genius to know you should play your .400 hitter and send the .125 hitter back to the minors. But what if you have to choose between players who hit .280 and .290? Then less objective factors come into play: fielding expertise, attitude, potential, ability to perform in a clutch, loyalty to the team, and so on. More managerial decisions resemble the choice between a .280 and a .290 hitter than between a .125 hitter and a .400 hitter. It is in this large and ambiguous middle ground of organizational life—where the facts don’t speak for themselves—that politics flourish.

Finally, because most decisions have to be made in a climate of ambiguity—where facts are rarely objective and thus open to interpretation—people within organizations will use whatever influence they can to support their goals and interests. That, of course, creates the activities we call politicking. One person’s “selfless effort to benefit the organization” is seen by another as a “blatant attempt to further his or her interest.”45