How organizational politics is killing learning
Organizational politics don’t just slow things down, they quietly block the flow of truth, trust, and action that real learning depends on.
When people talk about organizational politics, they often imagine power plays and backroom deals. But politics can show up in subtler ways, and when it does, one of the first casualties is learning. Both the individual kind and the collective, system-level kind that helps organizations adapt and grow.
What do I mean by “organizational politics”?
At their core, “organizational politics” is informal, and often invisible, a way for people to protect their interests, sometimes at the expense of truth, collaboration, or long-term growth. It shows up in subtle ways:
Avoiding difficult conversations to keep the peace
Saying what leaders want to hear instead of what needs to be said
Prioritizing visibility over impact
Withholding information to maintain control
Rewarding loyalty over performance
Undermining others behind the scenes
Over-crediting the most senior voice
Avoiding accountability through ambiguity
How does organizational politics undermine learning?
The consequences for learning are serious:
Truth gets filtered.
In political environments, people quickly learn that speaking openly can come at a cost. So they soften the truth, bury uncomfortable facts, or avoid raising issues altogether. Leaders hear what they want to hear. Teams present only their wins. Over time, the organization loses its ability to see itself clearly because the truth has been edited to keep everyone comfortable.
Curiosity feels risky.
Curiosity fuels learning, but it also creates friction. Asking “why” might be seen as challenging authority. Suggesting alternatives might trigger defensiveness. In cultures where image and alignment matter more than progress, curiosity gets shut down not through policies, but through raised eyebrows, subtle pushback, or reputational consequences. So people stop asking, and the questions that could lead to better ways of working never get voiced.
Feedback becomes performative, not sincere.
When feedback is politicized, it stops being a source of insight and becomes a tool for self-protection or influence. People give feedback to manage impressions, not to help each other grow. They hold back what’s useful in favor of what’s safe. As a result, no one really knows how they’re doing or what to improve, because the feedback isn’t honest, and the trust required for real growth isn’t there.
Action gets blocked.
Even when someone sees a clear opportunity to improve, taking action often means stepping on toes or navigating unspoken power dynamics. If the change challenges a senior leader’s idea or threatens someone’s visibility, it might never happen. People weigh the politics before the impact. And in the end, it’s easier to do nothing than to risk backlash, so learning stalls before it turns into change.
Knowledge doesn’t flow.
In healthy learning organizations, insights are shared freely so everyone can grow. But in political cultures, knowledge becomes currency. Teams hoard what they know to stay indispensable. Failures are kept quiet to avoid blame. Even successes are selectively shared, depending on who “owns” them. That means learning stays isolated, and the same mistakes get repeated across the organization.
The Result?
You get the appearance of learning, workshops, post-mortems, “learnings” slides, but without the adaptation, openness, or shared understanding that makes learning real. Over time, that costs more than just performance. It erodes trust, creativity, and the organization’s ability to evolve.
If you’re finding this newsletter valuable, share it with a friend and consider subscribing if you haven’t already.