In the mid-1990s I was working in South Africa as a researcher for a trade union. One of my most memorable assignments was being sent to Mossgas, a state-owned gas company, to support the union in resisting planned retrenchments.

ALSO READ: How far can you go? Turn goals into results in 2026

The union’s representatives had developed a clever strategy. During negotiations, we would demand severance packages so expensive that the company would be forced to abandon the retrenchment plan. On the first day of talks we presented the proposal and agreed to reconvene the following morning for management’s response.

ALSO READ: ‘You got this’ is hard to hear and even harder to say

When I arrived for the second day of negotiations, I was the only person in the room. Overnight, a deal had quietly been struck: the retrenchments would proceed, with the "unaffordable” packages awarded first to negotiators from both the union and management.

ALSO READ: Automate admin, not trust

Many organisations experience similar situations where decisions are shaped behind the scenes by personal interests. This is what we call office politics.

There are broadly two ways of thinking about office politics. The first, often described as the realist view, sees it as an unavoidable part of organisational life. Whenever people work together, informal influence, alliances and lobbying are bound to emerge.

ALSO READ: The risk of not delegating work

The second, more constructive view, holds that while politics may never disappear entirely, leaders can significantly reduce its impact by shaping behaviour through clear expectations, transparency and well-designed organisational processes.

From a realist perspective, relying on good work alone to progress is seen as naïve. Getting ahead requires learning how to "play the game” by building relationships with senior leaders, promoting your achievements and actively positioning yourself for opportunities. At the same time, employees are encouraged to remain alert to colleagues who may compete for recognition or influence outcomes in their own favour.

If the realists are right, life at work is inherently combative and unpleasant. In organisations where personal positioning matters more than contribution, motivation suffers and trust declines. Individual effort shifts from serving customers to managing internal perceptions, which compromises organisational effectiveness.

The constructive perspective takes a different view. While politics may never disappear entirely, leaders can significantly reduce its impact by role modelling transparency and establishing decision-making processes that are clear, participatory and well understood. This is particularly important for areas such as performance assessments, promotions and the allocation of resources and opportunities.

When leaders share information openly and explain how decisions are made, they reduce the space in which distorted or self-serving narratives can take hold. Well-designed processes reinforce this. For example, structured 360-degree feedback ensures that a range of perspectives are considered when evaluating performance, rather than relying on individual judgement or proximity to senior leaders.

Clear communication also reduces the risk that people will create their own explanations for decisions that feel unclear or threatening. In the absence of information, it is natural to assume political motives where none exist.

Constructive leaders counter this by encouraging people to assume positive intent and by creating space for open discussion. When individuals can ask questions and clarify intentions directly, misunderstandings can be resolved before they turn into suspicion.

As trust in these processes grows, behaviour begins to shift. Employees spend less time protecting their position or managing perceptions, and more time focusing on work that creates real value. Energy is directed towards winning business, improving customer experiences and strengthening the organisation.

Research I have conducted locally shows that leaders in Rwanda are generally highly constructive, with a strong focus on business achievement and staff development. At the same time, in difficult situations, they tend to encourage conformity and avoidance.

This can make it harder to challenge decisions or raise sensitive issues directly. As a result, difficult topics may be handled through private conversations rather than open discussion, leaving others to interpret intentions without full information.

This dynamic can make organisations more vulnerable to office politics. The antidote is to be deliberate: formalise communication, create structured forums where tough topics can be addressed safely, and train leaders to discuss difficult things in the open.

The emotions I felt as a young researcher observing our negotiators running off with their severance packages will be familiar to many. A few people came out ahead, but for everyone else the experience was disheartening. Our shared purpose was compromised, and we observed some distinctly self-serving behaviour up close.

Building constructive behaviours and processes is not easy, but it enables people to act in good faith, bring out the best in one another and deliver on their organisation’s higher purpose.

Christian Sellars is the founder of Transforming Engagements Ltd., a Rwanda-based consultancy specialising in leadership development and organisational culture.