Employment politics has always meant: brown nosing, throwing vulnerable people under the bus, posturing, taking credit for other people's contributions, blaming other people for your failures, and on and on.
Or to use the language of TFA, "iNfLUeNcE".
Certainly the things you’re talking about are real, and particularly severe in some environments, but there’s a lot of room to improve your influence without engaging in any of that.
I think their point is that you can have influence without doing these things.
As if anyone, myself included, would suggest that my listed items are the only way to influence your employer is a hilariously bad faith read.
I take issue with TFA framing the problem of people saying they hate "employment politics" as a you problem when I am of the opinion it is a leadership problem. Bad leaders fail to, or refuse to, see the things I listed as "bad politics".
Just take my supplements, bro. It'll fix your "soft skills", bro.
If you want to significantly influence a lot of high-level strategic decision-making at very large companies, then you do probably need to engage in nasty things like that. But most of us don’t work at that scope.
Not OP but I honestly don't see how this comment/tone is warranted in response to what they wrote.
Hearing about "politics" in a neutral/positive way would be new to me.
That's just a difference in framing between winners and losers.
If you get your way, you say it was due to influence, bridge building, teamwork, etc.
If you don't, you say "politics".
For every occasion someone says "politics" negatively, realize the other party is using the other framing.
More importantly: For every time you get your way, the other party is saying "Politics!"
s/other than/in addition to/
That's the fundamental disagreement in this thread.
I agree in principle, but this whole topic needs some definitions so we're all on the same terms. "Politics" can have several different meanings.
"Bad politics" comes straight from the top.