[pc86]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but there is nothing dysfunctional about office politics. Politics is how you get something done with a large group of people who have different individual goals, that's it. It's a necessity for achieving something greater than any of those people could achieve on their own.

[adrianratnapala]

> but there is nothing dysfunctional about office politics.

I think hyperpape was saying it is dysfunctional when "... functional communication" becomes office politics. E.g. if engineers have technical disagreement about, say, whether to use one or two thread pools in server XYZ, then they should be able to sort it out at the technical level.

Failure modes are when (a) someone decides to play politics in order impose their technical vision or (b) the technical discussion becomes a win-or-loose matter that somehow weighs on the balance of political power.

The bit about "rise in the corporate hierarchy" is because at high levels, you aren't making purely technical decisions; decisions will inherently involve steering people rather than things. That means it is right and proper for communication to deal with the political aspect that would be dysfunctional at a lower level.

[hyperpape]

It's a terminological difference, and I totally get your point of view. I also agree that some amount of politics is the cost of doing business (but per my point about rising in the corporate hierarchy, it shouldn't be something that impinges on the average employee's success).

Negotiation between people who have a shared idea of what goals are, but different ideas of how to get there is a good thing, and I can see how it makes sense to call it politics. Actively cultivating influence by undermining other people, shifting blame and only focusing on your own advancement is bad, and what I was referring to.

[noelsusman]

That's not how people typically use the phrase "office politics".

[sbergot]

My interpretation is that a junior should not expected to be good at office politics.