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

91–100 of 332 posts

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#91

Post by hobs »

ionwake wrote: post #50

I disagree with the OP. This is my rebuttal about the nuance of being an employee. An engineer avoids "politics" - as a vital protection mechanism against getting himself fired. Often autistic ( my case ), technical, hard working, constantly exposed to poor decisions, lies, manipulations. The one thing the engineer can hold sacred is the technical truth. It is his one true avatar. To align himself with that, but not…

There's no way to avoid politics to avoid getting fired, it just means that when you get laid off you picked the wrong thing, and basically did it incidentally because you refused to forecast what project was going to be culled. Most software projects fail, and working harder on a failure won't get you anywhere.

If you find the personal part difficult then what I recommend folks dodo is pay attention to the flows of money, time, and communication that happen. Most of the time analyzing the patterns of how work is accomplished will tell you just as much about who is going to come out on top in a new paradigm as anything else.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#92

Post by amarant »

jitl wrote: post #8
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…

Did you read the article? > feeling people discussing politics are trying to solve any problems it's explicitly about how you need to work in political ways to solve problems at work. It's not about country-wide politics or something.

I actually was thinking specifically about the office politics at one of my previous employers when I wrote that comment.

Yes it's also applicable to the other kind of politics. The two are entirely too similar imo.

All the more reason to steer clear if you ask me.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#94

Post by dfjfklei »

rkomorn wrote: post #84
dfjfklei wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have yet to meet someone at a company you work for you who does one or more of the things I listed above to successfully advance their career?

I don't think that's their point. I think their point is that you can have influence without doing these things.

Then I was misunderstood as well.

As if anyone, myself included, would suggest that my listed items are the only way to influence your employer is a hilariously bad faith read.

I take issue with TFA framing the problem of people saying they hate "employment politics" as a you problem when I am of the opinion it is a leadership problem. Bad leaders fail to, or refuse to, see the things I listed as "bad politics".

Just take my supplements, bro. It'll fix your "soft skills", bro.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#96

Post by nitwit005 »

> It’s because the people with the right information weren’t in the room.

You can often disprove this idea by just asking about the decision. The objections are often raised. That doesn't mean people take them seriously.

People have all sorts of strange biases and irrationality.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#97

Post by circlefavshape »

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

So it's always business folks' fault, and never the nerds' fault? My experience has been different (full disclosure - professional nerd for 30 years)

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#98

Post by wat10000 »

rossdavidh wrote: post #24

"Think about the last time a terrible technical decision got pushed through at your company. Maybe it was adopting some overcomplicated architecture, or choosing a vendor that everyone knew was wrong, or killing a project that was actually working. I bet if you dig into what happened, you’ll find it wasn’t because the decision-makers were stupid. It’s because the people with the right information weren’t in the room.…

And even if it was because the right people weren't in the room, that's still a leadership failure. Part of the job of those decision-makers is to get the right people into the room

With good leadership, politics won't feel like politics. Everything this article describes as "good politics" is definitely good stuff to do, but none of it should feel like politics to your typical "I hate politics" engineer. Building relationships? That's just meeting interesting coworkers. Understanding the real incentives? That's keeping the big picture in mind, a standard requirement for any engineer. Managing up effectively? A good manager will treat you like the expert that you are and that happens automatically. Creating win-win situations? That's that big picture thing again. Being visible? Who doesn't like to share the cool stuff they've done?

I hate politics. I do all of those "good politics" things and I enjoy all of it. It might technically be "politics" but it's not what we think of when we say the word.

This article boils down to a semantic argument. They want to carve out a section of the job and put it under the label of "politics" when most of us would not put it there. That label may be right, it may be wrong, but I don't really care. It's just not an interesting argument. I think this article would be a lot better if it dropped the P word entirely and just explained why and how you should do the "good" things it lists.

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#99

Post by BeetleB »

rkomorn wrote: post #90
dfjfklei wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has employment politics ever meant "leveling up in soft skills"? Employment politics has always meant: brown nosing, throwing vulnerable people under the bus, posturing, taking credit for other people's contributions, blaming other people for your failures, and on and on. Or to use the language of TFA, "iNfLUeNcE".

I agree with your description of "politics" as a negative/pejorative thing. That's also the only way I'm used to hearing it. Hearing about "politics" in a neutral/positive way would be new to me.

> I agree with your description of "politics" as a negative/pejorative thing.

That's just a difference in framing between winners and losers.

If you get your way, you say it was due to influence, bridge building, teamwork, etc.

If you don't, you say "politics".

For every occasion someone says "politics" negatively, realize the other party is using the other framing.

More importantly: For every time you get your way, the other party is saying "Politics!"

Re: Don't avoid workplace politics

#100

Post by dilyevsky »

alphazard wrote: post #35

This is not a great take. Politics shows up as a failure to construct an aligned organization. There will always be some politics, but it should not be the most significant thing going on at a company. In a well designed org, it tends towards zero. In a positive sum environment, with incentives aligned with the shareholders, everyone is trying to make the business more profitable, and the "more" that everyone wants c…

I think you are missing the game theory aspect of it. Even in the positive sum game the spoils aren’t divided equally. Additionally not everyone behaves rationally, i find the opposite to be generally true
Post reply on HN