Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't avoid workplace politics

terriblesoftware.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 332 posts

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#271

Post by the_other »

mlsu wrote: post #14
amarant wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tribeless suits me just fine. The whole reason I avoid politics is because it's not solution oriented. I don't get the feeling people discussing politics are trying to solve any problems, they're just fighting a tribal war, to have their tribe win over the other tribe(s). Tribe cohesion seems to be valued waay higher than end results, and I'm a results-oriented person, so politics just isn't an attractive passtime to…

The counterpoint to this is that in order to motivate large groups of people to get stuff done, you need to be 'involved.' A good leader cannot be someone who says "we're above all of this" -- they have to be involved, they have to influence, and they use their influence to productive ends. You actually cannot be solution oriented without politics. If you are "not involved in politics," that means that politics is in…

If you're not involving people in the problem solving, you're probably solving the wrong problem.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#272

Post by [deleted] »

firesteelrain wrote: post #192
roarcher wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> org needs a system using New Buzzword, to show to VC's or others, and this is the opportunity to use New Buzzword, whether it makes sense here or not Oh lord, I have seen some nonsense built because some prospective investor wanted to see us "do something with AI" lest we be "left behind" somehow.

I am sure you could have came up with a legit use case for AI

[deleted]

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#273

Post by raxxorraxor »

languagehacker wrote: post #41

When Jeff Hodges gave a presentation of his "Notes on Distributed Systems for Youngbloods"[1] at Lookout Mobile Security back in like 2014 or 2015, he did this really interesting aside at the end that changed my perception of my job, and it was basically this. You don't get to avoid "politics" in software, because building is collaborative, and all collaboration is political. You'll only hurt yourself by avoiding lev…

Smalltalk and professional exchange aren't politics, the author is conflating the too.

When people say "no politics" they mean have a position on certain issues that mostly are off topic in a business environment.

For example if I have my group where nobody is religeous. You could rant about how stupid religeous people are because nobody would feel particularly attacked and some would nod along. Disregarding that the pittyful self-revelation from pointing at others calling them stupid, this is a political stance.

But we employ people from all over the world and viewpoints change. Some don't have the most dense main stream belief you find everywhere. You don't go into the next office and pronounce how atheism is the best thing. That is meant with "no politics". It is a requirement for multi-cultural exchange without immediate conflict. It is of course not restricted to religion.

The auther misunderstood what politics means. What he describes is office and relationship dynamics. There is quite a bit of overlap, especially when it comes to signal your viewpoints and perspectives in the hope to get recognition. I would be careful about that in a professional environment though. Depends on the company and how many cultures meet each other in random watercooler talk.

You can convolute the terms here, but it just blurrs the precision of any statement.

That said, relationship dynamics or "power play" leads to an effect where the most competent people often aren't the most well liked people. That is unfortunate and not very new. But the problem cannot be adressed by "talking more about politics". On the contrary, it would make things much, much worse.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#274

Post by fuzzfactor »

garciasn wrote: post #70
eawgewag wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the article is arguing that if you build the relationship, you can involve yourself into these conversations early enough to direct them the way that your idea would go. In your cases, for example: 1. Recognizing early enough that this Hot New Thing incentive is here and figuring out how your Good New Thing can live with the Hot New Thing 2. Helping show the Old Bad Thing is unworkable for your Good New Thing…

I think the article is great, in theory; it just NEVER works this way in practice, unless you may be in a technical organization. There are ALWAYS business reasons that cause technical projects to fail. We regularly see the articles about the failure rate of technical projects all the time on the front page. Why is this? Because the number and weight of the business folk almost always outnumber the technical. You can…

>There are ALWAYS business reasons that cause technical projects to fail.

I agree with this concept and what's worse is when a project is technically sound but still fails, or even when a complete high-performance accomplishment fails to be deployed.

But I'll bend the terminology of "always" and "business" because it applies even wider than that.

If you've ever worked for a 19th century company that is an actual bureau by definition, and has had literally over a century to develop from those roots into a much more resilient bureaucracy than could be accomplished in less time, you know what I mean.

What if it's not always a business reason for failure but a bureaucratic component that rises above a tolerable level?

i.e. a non-business reason for "businessmen" to fail.

In a pure bureaucracy that exists solely to maintain standards of some kind, the focus can not be on making money, or the standards could be compromised.

Others will fall by the wayside and only the most successful bureaucrats will prevail in their efforts. Handsomely rewarded sometimes through fees and taxes paid by the real money-makers whom the bureau has evolved to serve.

Yes, rewarded for their efforts, none of which are business-like at all and without any internal focus on making money whatsoever.

These organizations can be some of the most stable and long-evolved of all, plus set the most consistent example of political hierarchy that people in all kinds of places can tend to emulate when they don't have any better ideas.

So when bureaucracy creeps into a business where it has not yet made an incursion, it has to do so under the radar because it's the opposite of trying to make money.

People get good at this and move up in the hierarchy, and eventually there's nobody who's even good enough at actually trying to make money any more. It's a full-time effort just building & maintaining the bureaucracy.

You end up with people that "look" like businessmen, act the way they think businessmen should act, golf like businessmen, etc.

But haven't got a clue how to make a dollar from a functional technical success that's a complete no-brainer :\

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#275

Post by Izkata »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #273
languagehacker wrote: post #41

When Jeff Hodges gave a presentation of his "Notes on Distributed Systems for Youngbloods"[1] at Lookout Mobile Security back in like 2014 or 2015, he did this really interesting aside at the end that changed my perception of my job, and it was basically this. You don't get to avoid "politics" in software, because building is collaborative, and all collaboration is political. You'll only hurt yourself by avoiding lev…

Smalltalk and professional exchange aren't politics, the author is conflating the too. When people say "no politics" they mean have a position on certain issues that mostly are off topic in a business environment. For example if I have my group where nobody is religeous. You could rant about how stupid religeous people are because nobody would feel particularly attacked and some would nod along. Disregarding that the…

That's politics in the office, not office politics.

But you are right that the author is mixing things up: Office politics isn't collaboration as described in the article. Office politics refers to things like one-upmanship, taking credit for stuff, playing the blame game - making yourself look good and others look bad, to get raises or promotions. Or for a phrase used in the article, office politics is about becoming a scheming backstabber.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#276

Post by danaris »

Izkata wrote: post #275
raxxorraxor wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smalltalk and professional exchange aren't politics, the author is conflating the too. When people say "no politics" they mean have a position on certain issues that mostly are off topic in a business environment. For example if I have my group where nobody is religeous. You could rant about how stupid religeous people are because nobody would feel particularly attacked and some would nod along. Disregarding that the…

That's politics in the office, not office politics. But you are right that the author is mixing things up: Office politics isn't collaboration as described in the article. Office politics refers to things like one-upmanship, taking credit for stuff, playing the blame game - making yourself look good and others look bad, to get raises or promotions. Or for a phrase used in the article, office politics is about becomin…

It doesn't have to be.

It can also be the opposite.

Making yourself indispensable. Being the one who shows up for people (not as in "comes in and does a lot of unpaid work", but as in "helps out when other people need it"). Giving people credit where credit is due, especially the unsung heroes.

If you are well-known around the office as the person who is honest, kind, and helpful, the next time someone else tries to take credit for your work, make you look bad, or otherwise stab you in the back, it's much less likely to work—and when that kind of thing fails, it invariably makes the person who tries it look much, much worse.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#277

Post by drw85 »

danaris wrote: post #276
Izkata wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's politics in the office, not office politics. But you are right that the author is mixing things up: Office politics isn't collaboration as described in the article. Office politics refers to things like one-upmanship, taking credit for stuff, playing the blame game - making yourself look good and others look bad, to get raises or promotions. Or for a phrase used in the article, office politics is about becomin…

It doesn't have to be. It can also be the opposite. Making yourself indispensable. Being the one who shows up for people (not as in "comes in and does a lot of unpaid work", but as in "helps out when other people need it"). Giving people credit where credit is due, especially the unsung heroes. If you are well-known around the office as the person who is honest, kind, and helpful, the next time someone else tries to…

That's not politics, that's just being a good person/employee. Politics is when you try to look that way, no matter the cost.

Often times, doing the good stuff and building credit for that takes a long time and the right environment to identify and credit it.

Playing the politics game is much faster/easier and leads to quick results, because all you have to do is be visible as much as possible and manipulate a little bit here and there.

People aren't great at identifying the career manipulator and in the short term will give those guys the promotion/responsibility.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#278

Post by judahmeek »

xwolfi wrote: post #240
try_the_bass wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a wildly antagonistic take. It's apparent that the meaning of the quote is true to the parent commenter, regardless of whether or not the attribution is accurate. The attribution being inaccurate does not rob the quote of it's meaning. > I could have said the same thing. But you didn't, and would never have, until you saw the quote for yourself. To claim otherwise is to lie, which you seem pretty passionately…

[flagged]

What you're saying is that you're not fighting for the truth, but just for a better lie.

While I agree with the basis of your argument, I don't think anyone wants to agree with it.

Most people like to believe that they strive for getting as close to the truth as they possibly can.

To the practical subject at hand, I would argue that means that the attribution to Musashi is the actual lie, not the saying itself, although any saying regarding the qualities of truth may be called a lie.

For example, I call your statement that truth is fragile, unreachable, & invisible into question.

If the truth is indeed unreachable & invisible, then how could you possibly know if it is fragile?

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#279

Post by bartread »

xwolfi wrote: post #240
try_the_bass wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a wildly antagonistic take. It's apparent that the meaning of the quote is true to the parent commenter, regardless of whether or not the attribution is accurate. The attribution being inaccurate does not rob the quote of it's meaning. > I could have said the same thing. But you didn't, and would never have, until you saw the quote for yourself. To claim otherwise is to lie, which you seem pretty passionately…

[flagged]

Yeah, all right, calm down Satan.

You’re probably going to get the moral and societal collapse you yearn for without the need for all this shouting.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#280

Post by Mouvelie »

kakacik wrote: post #241
languagehacker wrote: post #41

When Jeff Hodges gave a presentation of his "Notes on Distributed Systems for Youngbloods"[1] at Lookout Mobile Security back in like 2014 or 2015, he did this really interesting aside at the end that changed my perception of my job, and it was basically this. You don't get to avoid "politics" in software, because building is collaborative, and all collaboration is political. You'll only hurt yourself by avoiding lev…

Succeed in which way? Some empty career in some soulless company that doesn't care about you? Some miniscule extra cash on the account? Those are not proper life successes in any meaningful way. Most of engineers are rather introverts with rich internal life and strong imagination. You can lose most of it and transform for more 'success' over time, but at great costs to yourself. I am not arguing against say better c…

What you wrote resonated with me, I think the same way and so, allow me the pushback. :) Does it have to be that way, a severance type of scenario where the work life is opposite of the "life" life ? I feel that it should, perhaps could, be different. Yeah, it depends on what you do for a living, your need for money and so on, but do people that win at career always lose at life ?
Post reply on HN