There is a misunderstanding that being an effective communicator equals political gaming of situations. That is possible with or without effective communications, and largely misses the point that effective communications is not playing games, it's avoiding them. It is not trying "to win", it is seeking shared understanding and consensus. If one's management is playing political games, they are failing in their communications, trying to win in some personal game, not for the betterment of the company.
> If one's management is playing political games, they are failing in their communications, trying to win in some personal game
Is this not A) ubiquitous, B) rich with incentives, and C) not downright implied in "They are masterful language and perception manipulators, in a strategic game of corporate dominance." and "the understanding of what makes others in their management circles feel good."
This is the very difficult part: people adept at manipulation tend to be highly intelligent. Simply spending time with a good manipulator is dangerous. The only good metric I know here is the old saying "the key purpose of an education is to be able to recognize one in others." Good communicators also sort out weasels via their lack of distinct language and similar tells.
