Leaders rarely fail for lack of expertise. They often fail because they do not understand how power actually works in organisations.
That is not a provocation but an observation I have made again and again over 25 years around politics, public administration and business.
The central problem: the belief in rational systems
Many leaders believe, often unconsciously, that organisations are rational systems. They think that:
- formal hierarchies determine who decides
- better arguments prevail
- performance is recognised automatically
These assumptions fall short, and they can be costly. They lead brilliant leaders with excellent expertise to fail, not because they are incompetent, but because they apply the wrong rules of the game.
The reality: organisations are also political systems
Let me go through the three central misconceptions one by one.
Misconception 1: “Formal hierarchies determine who decides”
The reality: decisions often follow informal power structures.
The org chart shows who formally reports to whom. But it does not show who really has influence.
A typical case: the VP formally decides. But beforehand he asks:
- the long-standing colleague he trusts
- the adviser who has his ear
- the CFO who can advance his career
These people are not necessarily above him in the org chart. But they often have more influence on his decision than his entire team.
That is the informal network. It can be more powerful than any formal structure. Those who only see the org chart often do not recognise where power lies.
Misconception 2: “Better arguments prevail”
The reality: arguments often lose to hidden agendas.
You have the best solution. The data is clear. The logic is compelling. And still your proposal is blocked.
Why? Because decisions are not made by logic alone, but also by interests. The stakeholder against you is often not against your solution, but for his own agenda:
- He wants budget for his project.
- He fears losing power.
- He supports a competitor.
- He has a personal history with your sponsor.
These are not substantive arguments but political positions. And political positions can rarely be overcome by better arguments alone, but rather by better alliances.
Misconception 3: “Performance is recognised automatically”
The reality: performance needs political backing.
You deliver brilliant work. Your project is a success. Your team exceeds all targets. And still the promotion goes to someone else.
Why? Because performance alone is not enough. It must:
- be seen by the right people
- be interpreted in the right context
- be supported by powerful stakeholders
Without political backing, performance often stays invisible. In many organisations there are many people who deliver excellent performance, but only a few promotions per year.
The question then is not: who performs best? The question is: whom do the decision-makers support? And that decision is political.
Two more myths
“Good work will be seen.” In a system with a high density of information, often only what is actively made visible gets seen. Visibility is not a by-product of performance but a leadership task in its own right.
“Careers can be planned.” Careers are not linear staircases. They arise from the interplay of timing, strategic perception and resilient networks. Those who only “deliver” often miss the moment when the course is really set.
The consequence: shape or be shaped
Those who do not understand these mechanisms may be shaped instead of shaping things themselves. They react to decisions others have made. They are surprised by blockades they did not see coming. They fail at resistance they do not see through.
That is not your fault. But it is your responsibility. Political skill is not a side issue but part of strategic leadership.
What political skill means
Political skill does not mean:
- manipulation
- intrigue
- ruthlessness
Political skill means:
- understanding how power works in your organisation
- recognising which informal structures shape decisions
- navigating between conflicting interests
- building strategic alliances
- implementing your agenda ethically and effectively
It is the ability to lead in complex political systems without being naive and without becoming cynical.
The three steps
My method has three steps that build on each other:
See through: understand the power structures, recognise hidden agendas, analyse the informal networks.
Position: form strategic alliances, win sponsors, create political backing.
Navigate: implement your agenda effectively, overcome resistance, deliver results.
Conclusion: expertise is the entry ticket, political skill is the game
You need expertise to reach executive level. But you need political skill to be effective there.
Those who understand this and act accordingly shape their own careers. Those who ignore it leave the shaping to others.
If you are in such a situation yourself and are looking for support, write me a few sentences about what it is about: Request a consultation. I read every enquiry myself and usually reply within 24 hours on working days.
Do you recognise your situation?
Briefly describe your situation. I read every enquiry myself and usually reply within 24 hours on working days.
Request a consultationPersonal · confidential
