I used to work with major telecom accounts as a jr PM/analyst and saw first-hand vendor negotiations with multi-million dollar accounts (say, $10MM per year in

I used to work with major telecom accounts as a jr PM/analyst and saw first-hand vendor negotiations with multi-million dollar accounts (say, $10MM per year in spend with AT&T for example). These executives are well paid because politics/provider capture is highly important in accounts that large. They create a mini fiefdom around these accounts. Normally, if you see a huge change-over (say, AT&T for 10+ years, then show (my former company) that they have been over spending by 30% and cut the cost in half, the entire team will get fired from VP to Procurement. Many times, a $5MM account would have a Sr. VP (say, or Americas) involved if it looked like they could move away. It is not to hard to understand why politics are 1. necessary, and 2. valued, but, 3. positive AND negative towards companies. 3. refers to politics being necessary in companies, especially diverse/global firms. I performed some Organization Behavior research (which I don't have on hand), but, politics can create "positive" fiefdoms, in relation to protecting a team from outfall of higher-up politics, procure more resources for that team, and other positive effects by way of "good" politics by the manager. It flows both ways.