.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
Human Dynamics
- katrincharlton
- Jan 6
- 5 min read
This is a topic I’ve been meaning to write about for a long time.
Not because it isn’t important — quite the opposite. But because I needed time to properly get my own head around it first.
Questions about influence, power, and what happens beneath the surface come up again and again in my work with leaders and HR professionals.
Yet every time I tried to write about it, something felt off. Too neat. Too binary. As if it missed the lived complexity of what people were actually experiencing.
It took time — and a lot of listening — to realise why.
Because this isn’t really about behaviour.
It’s about what happens when the rules people relied on no longer quite work — and the quiet transition that follows.
When effort stops being enough
There was a time in my own career when I felt genuinely helpless at work.
I worked hard. I prepared thoroughly. I delivered what was asked of me — often more. And yet important conversations happened without me, decisions landed elsewhere, and outcomes didn’t always reflect effort or contribution.
What unsettled me most wasn’t the result itself.
It was the question underneath:
If this is how things work, do I have to become someone I’m not in order to belong or progress here?
That question rarely appears when everything feels stable. It tends to surface when something familiar is ending — but what comes next isn’t yet clear.
Why I’m not calling this “office politics”
You may notice I’m not using the term office politics. That’s intentional.
For some people, the word is mildly uncomfortable. For others, it’s tied to experiences that were genuinely harmful — environments shaped by manipulation, exclusion, or misuse of power. In those cases, the word itself shuts down reflection before it even begins.
Instead, I’ll talk about organisational dynamics:
the informal ways influence flows, decisions are shaped, and culture is reinforced alongside formal structures.
This distinction matters.
Because you can’t navigate what you can’t see.
Naming dynamics isn’t about excusing behaviour. It’s about understanding the system you’re operating in — especially when old assumptions stop working.
When this becomes genuinely hard
It’s important to say this clearly: for some people, navigating organisational dynamics is not just challenging — it is emotionally draining and, at times, deeply unsettling.
This is especially true in environments where:
transparency is inconsistent
trust has been eroded
speaking up carries risk
stated values and lived behaviour don’t align
HR professionals often sit right in the middle of this tension — holding care for people, responsibility for culture, and pressure from multiple directions at once.
If this resonates, it doesn’t mean you’re failing or lacking resilience. Often, it means the system itself is under strain.
Not everything can — or should — be solved by trying harder.
A distinction that changes how you see the situation
Here is the central point I want to make:
Healthy organisational influence is not the same as manipulation or toxicity.
They are not two ends of a spectrum. They are fundamentally different.
Healthy influence tends to look like:
trust built through consistency
transparent decision-making, even when outcomes are difficult
visibility of contribution without performance theatre
power exercised in service of people and purpose
Many leaders practise this every day.
Toxic dynamics, by contrast, often involve:
hidden agendas and power plays
fear-driven compliance
silencing of challenge
success measured by control rather than impact
These are not interpersonal issues to “manage around”.They are indicators of cultural risk.
And they are not the responsibility of the individual experiencing them.
A belief worth questioning
Many thoughtful people hold an unspoken belief:
If I stay out of organisational dynamics, I’ll protect my integrity. In practice, that belief can sometimes do the opposite.
Influence flows whether we like it or not — through relationships, trust, and credibility. And during periods of change, uncertainty, or role transition, informal dynamics tend to intensify rather than disappear.
So the real question becomes:
Not whether to engage — but how, and at what cost to yourself and others.
This is where maturity comes in.
Why this takes a toll (and why that matters)
Extended exposure to unhealthy organisational dynamics affects more than performance.
It narrows thinking, drains energy, and creates internal conflict — particularly for people who care deeply about fairness, people, and long-term culture.
This isn’t weakness.
When environments are unpredictable or misaligned with our values, the nervous system shifts into a protective state.
Vigilance increases.
Thinking becomes more reactive.
Energy is spent on monitoring risk rather than creating clarity.
This is the brain doing exactly what it’s designed to do under sustained uncertainty.
Understanding this matters, because it separates personal capacity from systemic pressure — and helps explain why simply “trying harder” rarely works in these conditions.
Often, the work isn’t to push through, but to pause, regulate, and choose more deliberately how to engage.
A more conscious way of engaging
This work isn’t about “playing the game”.
And it’s not about becoming tougher, thicker-skinned, or more political.
It’s about developing awareness — especially when things feel complex, emotionally charged, or unclear.
That awareness might involve:
recognising what is — and isn’t — within your remit
naming patterns without personalising them
setting boundaries around what you will engage with
choosing when to act, when to pause, and when to step back
Sometimes the most responsible move isn’t adaptation. It’s clarity.
The key takeaway
If there’s one thing I hope this piece offers, it’s this:
Understanding organisational dynamics isn’t about becoming someone else. It’s about seeing clearly — so you can choose how to act with integrity.
That choice becomes especially important during moments of transition, when old rules no longer apply but new ones haven’t yet formed.
A question to reflect on
Where in your work are you being asked to see more clearly, rather than simply try harder?
That question rarely appears when everything is stable. It tends to surface when something is already shifting.
A gentle invitation
If this resonates — particularly if you’re navigating a period where things feel less certain or more complex — you don’t have to work through it alone.
A confidential coaching space can help you think clearly, regain perspective, and decide how you want to engage next — with integrity and intention.
If it feels helpful, you’re very welcome to get in touch for an exploratory conversation.
A deeper dive
The reflections in this piece are shaped by lived experience, coaching conversations, and research into how influence, power, and decision-making actually work in organisations — especially during periods of change.
If you’d like to explore these ideas in more depth, the following perspectives are particularly helpful. You don’t need to agree with all of them for them to be useful. Sometimes clarity comes simply from seeing the terrain more honestly.
Power for All – Julie Battilana & Tiziana Casciaro
A grounded and ethical reframing of power as something relational and systemic, rather than positional. Especially useful if you want language for influence that doesn’t glorify dominance — and helps distinguish healthy influence from misuse of power.
Act Like a Leader, Think Like a Leader – Herminia Ibarra
A reassuring reminder that leadership clarity often emerges through action and experimentation, not before it. Particularly relevant when familiar ways of operating stop working and a transition is already underway.
Managing with Power – Jeffrey Pfeffer
A pragmatic — and at times uncomfortable — exploration of how influence really works in organisations. Not a values manifesto, but helpful if you want to understand the system clearly rather than idealise it.
Taken together, these perspectives reinforce a central theme of this piece: Understanding organisational dynamics is not about becoming more political.
Comments