Political Maneuvering (Jeongchijil)

Jeongchijil is a Korean expression derogatorily referring to political maneuvering and power struggles over power and interests.

Political Maneuvering

Overview

Political maneuvering (Korean: 정치질, jeongchijil) is a Korean expression used derogatorily to refer to the tug-of-war, power struggles, and taking sides waged over power or interests for political purposes. It is observed not only on narrow political stages such as the National Assembly or political parties, but in all human groups where power and interests are intertwined, including workplaces, organizations, and online communities. Etymologically, it is a combination of 'politics' (政治) and the suffix '-jil,' which is used to lower the act, strongly carrying the negative connotation of calculated scheming for private gain rather than legitimate political activity.

Main Content

Concept and Connotation

The suffix '-jil' is a suffix that disparages or mocks a particular act, as in 'yokjil' (swearing) or 'paesyeonjil' (fashion obsession). Thus, jeongchijil contemptuously defines the act of 'doing politics' itself. Therefore, the same act can be classified as 'political skill' or 'jeongchijil' depending on the evaluator's standpoint, usually determined by legitimacy and publicness. That is, coordination and compromise for the benefit of the many are classified as 'politics,' while behind-the-scenes maneuvering for private or factional interests is classified as 'jeongchijil.'

Background

Jeongchijil inevitably occurs in organizations where resources are limited and the authority to distribute them is concentrated in a few. If the process by which members form coalitions, control information, and check rivals over scarce resources such as budgets, personnel authority, and decision-making power is not institutionalized, it degenerates into jeongchijil. It is especially frequent in organizations where rules are unclear or evaluation criteria are subjective, and where the rules of the game for promotion or assignment are opaque.

Major Types

Factional politics: Creating 'sides' around a particular person and distributing personnel and budgets mainly to one's own side.
Queueing and fence-sitting: Reading the direction of power and attaching oneself in advance to the powerful. The characteristic is that the object of loyalty becomes a person, not a value.
Information politics: Monopolizing, distorting, and circulating information, and shaping public opinion to suit the interests of a particular force.
Black propaganda and mata-doro: Techniques that damage an opponent's credibility with unfounded rumors or distorted frames.
Blaming and muddying the waters: Shifting responsibility for failure onto others and obscuring interests to delay judgment.

Jeongchijil in Organizations

The more hierarchical an organization is—companies, bureaucratic organizations, schools, the military, religious groups—the more easily jeongchijil becomes rampant. Whenever personnel season comes, 'lines' and 'sides' are reshuffled, and if the perception spreads that relationships rather than performance determine promotion, members spend their energy on reading the room and social maneuvering rather than their actual work. This lowers organizational productivity, causes capable talent to leave, and ultimately exhausts the organization's entire stock of trust capital.

Harmful Effects

When jeongchijil becomes chronic, first, the quality of decision-making declines. This is because political interests overwhelm technical and rational judgment. Second, trust collapses. If relationships are reshuffled based on 'who is on whose side,' cooperation becomes difficult. Third, a culture of avoiding responsibility takes root. As causes of failure are attributed to people and factions, opportunities for learning and improvement disappear. Fourth, if it leaks outside, the organization's reputation is damaged.

Boundary Between Politics and Jeongchijil

It is difficult to define jeongchijil as simply negative. In democracy, coordination and compromise of interests are essential, and sometimes this is stigmatized as 'jeongchijil,' shrinking legitimate political activity itself. Therefore, what matters is not the presence or absence of the act, but whether it takes place within open rules, whether it conforms to the public interest, and whether mechanisms of checks and transparency are functioning.

Responses and Solutions

At the organizational level, first, evaluation and personnel criteria must be clearly and transparently disclosed. Second, the decision-making process must be documented and records kept to clarify where responsibility lies. Third, bottom-up feedback and anonymous reporting channels must be institutionalized to detect problems early. At the individual level, defensive strategies include avoiding emotional responses, communicating based on facts and evidence, and steadily building trust with stakeholders.

Recent Trends

Entering 2024–2025, jeongchijil has changed significantly, centered on online and social media. First, 'digital jeongchijil,' combining algorithms and public opinion manipulation, has emerged. As distortion of public opinion through bot accounts, organized comment operations, and deepfakes or synthesized images has repeatedly become a problem in elections and major issues, countries continue discussions on regulating disinformation and strengthening platform responsibility. Second, with the spread of generative AI, the cost of producing political messages has dropped sharply. While voter-tailored messages and microtargeting become more sophisticated, the risk of unverified content being circulated has also grown. Third, in organizational culture, as more companies advocate 'organizations without jeongchijil,' a trend is spreading to make transparent personnel systems and psychological safety key indicators. Fourth, in domestic politics, camp confrontation and intra-party factional conflict still act as major variables, and the expression 'jeongchijil' itself is frequently mobilized as a frame to undermine the opposing camp. As such, jeongchijil continues to change at the intersection of institutions, technology, and culture, and the importance of transparency and checks to reduce its harms is growing.