I would imagine in most human organizations, some more than others, that social interactions plays a definite part in advancement. Would you agree?
Yes.
Actually, I was about to write, "unfortunately, yes", - but, with some caveats.
Therefore, in my experience, different cultures (contrast Japan and the US - an extremely introverted and reserved social culture and society on the one hand and one that is the epitome of cultural extroversion on the other - to take two extremes, whereas Europe is a lot more introverted than the US, and a lot less so than Japan) - and different work places have differing requirements of what is considered 'social interaction'.
Some university departments - invariably those where the professor was accomplished, confident, exceptionally good and highly regarded as an authority in his field of expertise - (I had a few such bosses, and tended to get on well with them - they were reserved and meticulously polite by character, and expected - from those whom they employed - exceptional competence in the classroom, seriously solid academic achievement, integrity, and decency and fairness to students - and did not require schmoozing, though a dinner, glass of wine, or cup of coffee went down well, suggested by me or proffered - with reserve - by them - went down well) did not have a culture of 'brown-nosing'.
In my experience, the importance of social interventions for advancement was in direct proportion to how inept the head of dept was.
With the twenty twenty vision of hindsight, I recall when the mother of a man - who subsequently became my boss, one of the worst bosses I have ever had, a man who succeeded one of the best, who - as it happened - had been head-hunted elsewhere by an antique university - died. Most of the dept made the pilgrimage to the remote rural backwater where he had come from to drink for three days and mourn with him.
I was asked by a few colleagues (mostly male) whether I intended to travel to this funeral, and made it quite clear that I did not. I despised the man, he was a misogynist, a boor, - who brown-nosed wealthy US educational establishments & institutions but openly despised and was outrageously rude to those few academics from eastern Europe (invariably exceptionally well qualified) who had made their way west in the early 90s on EU funded schemes where I was involved with a few curriculum development programmes with eastern European universities - and a deplorably poor academic.
Anyway, there is a school of thought that I should have gone to that funeral; certainly, of those that did (especially the young, clean cut males) most received preferment subsequently (I don't think this was openly decided, or planned - rather, it was sub-conscious).
But, to this day, I despise that man, as a human being, as a man, as an academic, as a boss: Even now, knowing what I do, - and that attending that funeral might have served to perhaps enhance my career as an academic, I still would not have attended that funeral.
No, I only attend funerals where 1) I know, like and/or respect the corpse, or, 2) know and am friendly with - or, otherwise respect - the family of the corpse, or, 3) it is professional, and I am representing a professional body, or have some other professional reason to attend such a funeral.
So, sometimes principles, or personal preferences trump (all puns intended) professional pragmatism. However, then, you may be called upon to pay the price consequently.