The politics of proximity: When power rewards presence over performance
Why do the least capable sometimes climb the fastest? The answer lies in proximity politics, where loyalty beats talent, and presence outshines performance
In many workplaces across sectors—corporate offices, educational institutions, government departments, and even political parties—there exists a particular breed of individuals who seem to defy conventional logic. They are not especially skilled, they contribute little to no measurable output, and they lack the depth or capacity to lead initiatives. Yet, they thrive. They survive layoffs, they sit close to the seat of power, and they rise through the ranks. Their secret? Strategic proximity to authority.
This phenomenon is not new. Organisational psychology has long studied the dynamics of informal power structures, where influence and emotional capital often outweigh talent and output. In such settings, some individuals become experts at presenting themselves as indispensable—not by merit, but by perception management. Their primary work is not in files, strategy, or service delivery; it is in appearing loyal, emotionally available, and ever-present to the leader.
They position themselves as the emotional protectors of authority. They flatter, reassure, and echo the fears and concerns of the person in power. In doing so, they make themselves appear like loyal defenders of the system. But in truth, they often protect only their own interests.
These individuals tend to spend more time around the leader than at their own desks. They are quick to offer whispered concerns about colleagues, often sowing doubt and suspicion under the guise of care. Their expertise lies not in their field but in playing the game of perceived loyalty. They construct a version of reality where they are the only ones who truly understand or support the leader, and they subtly push the narrative that others might be threats or competitors. This performance becomes so emotionally persuasive that decision-makers, often under pressure and in need of comfort, begin to rely on it.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Leadership, after all, is not immune to emotion. Even the most rational leaders have blind spots. Especially in volatile or politically charged environments, where betrayal is a possibility and internal conflict is common, leaders may cling to those who appear most loyal, even if they are the least productive.
In many political parties, the same script is replayed. Those who align themselves with the supreme leader, echo slogans, and demonstrate visible loyalty are rewarded. Grassroots organisers who do the real work of mobilising people, designing policy ideas, or building dialogue are often ignored. Internal democracy is weakened as sycophants crowd out dissenting voices. Leadership becomes a stage for flattery rather than foresight. And over time, parties lose their capacity to evolve, adapt, or reconnect with the people.
From a management and leadership perspective, this reliance on proximity politics is deeply problematic. When emotional loyalty becomes the currency of advancement, organisations stagnate. Talented individuals leave or disengage. Innovation is replaced by imitation. Risk-taking dies. The energy that could be used for growth is instead spent on interpersonal manoeuvring.
It is a failure not just of leadership but of system design. When structures lack transparency and leaders isolate themselves from ground-level feedback, they unintentionally cultivate these dynamics. What results is a culture of silence and fear, where truth becomes dangerous, and flattery is rewarded. Organisations and political platforms alike become echo chambers, incapable of self-correction.
The psychological mechanism behind this is often rooted in insecurity. Many leaders, regardless of sector, seek affirmation and control. They value those who seem to offer loyalty, even if it is performative. Over time, they grow dependent on these individuals, allowing them to influence decisions, block information, and shape narratives. This creates a vicious cycle: those who are close become more powerful, and those who are competent but honest become increasingly marginalised.
True leadership requires breaking this cycle. Leaders must be able to distinguish between those who serve the institution and those who serve only themselves under the guise of service. They must value results over rhetoric, and dissent over dependence. Leadership is not about being emotionally protected. It is about creating systems where the best ideas win, not the loudest praises.
Equally, organisational culture must shift. Merit should not be something people have to fight to prove. Structures must ensure performance is tracked and rewarded independently of personal connections. Clear feedback loops, transparent evaluation systems, and participatory governance are essential tools in resisting the rise of flatterers.
This is particularly urgent in countries where institutions—whether political, educational, or administrative—are already under strain. The erosion of internal meritocracy leads to larger failures of governance. People lose faith in systems when they see incompetence rewarded and courage punished. The long-term damage of proximity politics is not just organizational inefficiency. It is the breakdown of trust.
The most dangerous part of all this is the illusion of indispensability that these individuals create. They craft the narrative that without them, everything will collapse. They often act as information brokers, gatekeepers of internal knowledge, and self-declared protectors of the leader. But in truth, they are often the source of dysfunction. When crises hit, they are the first to deflect blame, the first to disappear, and the least capable of leading recovery.
This is a call to reflect, not accuse. Many of us have seen these dynamics unfold quietly around us. This is not the story of a single organisation or a particular institution. It is a recurring pattern in systems where emotional security becomes more important than institutional strength.
It is time to ask ourselves: Are we rewarding the right people? Are we building spaces where truth can be spoken, where performance is measured fairly, and where leadership is supported by strength, not surrounded by sycophancy?
For our institutions to grow and survive the pressures of the future, we must move beyond the politics of proximity and towards the principles of fairness, competence, and courage.
Md Kawsar Uddin is an Associate Professor of English, with research interests in leadership, power dynamics, organisational psychology, and the ethical use of AI in communication. He can be reached at ukawsar@gmail.com
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
