4 ms·

This is a "feel good" answer that is statistically very unlikely to work out.

by borplk 9y ago

cookiecaper 9y ago
I'm not the guy you replied to but I agree with him. It's not really unlikely to work out if you approach the problem deftly, he just states the plan in simplistic terms. Also, if you hop around a lot, you'll realize that these problems are not constrained to one bad company. You'll run across it basically everywhere if you wait long enough. You might have a boss who protects a "good culture", but when he's gone (voluntarily or not), it's gone. For career stability, you have to learn to play this game and operate within its constraints, or you'll spend your whole career on the proverbial run. The problem is that software people think empirically, as their job requires them to do so. Most other people do not do this, and in fact, most others would be disadvantaged if they did do so, so they have exactly the opposite incentives dictating their thought processes/structures. STEM-types like us assume that "convince people" means show them the evidence, make our most stringent and convincing arguments, and demonstrate the clear superiority of the approach we've advocated. Unfortunately, very few people are equipped to process such arguments from an objective or fair perspective. Advocacy for your theory's superiority is heard as "admit MY superiority". The theory and the personality proposing it are naturally and automatically conflated. Quite reasonably, colleagues are opposed to such admissions when that's the message they're hearing. Not only are there the standard tendencies to interpret such behaviors in this manner, but there is the additional factor that all of your peers/colleagues are also performing image calculations in the context of their own careers. Even if they know that your intentions are pure and that your arguments are solid, they still have to protect against the opponent who would walk in to the bosses and say "borplk embarrassed that guy really bad the other day", failing to observe and/or communicate the egalitarian/cooperative context. This is the part where people normally say "Well I would never work somewhere like that!" Yes you would. You do. It's unavoidable. You can't overcome human psychology (which is just a thin veneer on human biology). You must learn to cooperate with it. Once you internalize this perspective, you are a) finally operating on the same level as many of your peers (especially non-STEM peers), and their decisions make a lot more sense; and b) room to effect change becomes visible much more readily. The opening of the playing field is especially potent in software-heavy companies, because, as discussed above, most software devs are very naive when it comes to office politics. If you're willing to practice it, you can frequently crush with minimal serious opposition.
- rmah 9y ago
  Thank you for taking the time to explain what I meant in my overly terse terse post.
- borplk 9y ago
  I appreciate the explanation and I get it. My point still remains that from a practical standpoint you are statistically unlikely to be able to cause significant change as a low-level employee no matter how you go about it. A lot of these companies are intentionally and systematically dysfunctional. You can have all the charisma in the world, they are not interested in changing. And when your official role and purpose is not to shake things up, you wont be allowed to shake things up. Again, notice I said statistically, not absolutely.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    That's the defeatist perspective people are arguing against. It's like saying "there is a bug in this compiler; you won't be able to compile that." True, you won't be able to pursue exactly the same route, but you don't just accept that there's a bug. You find a workaround and get the result you need. People can and should do the same thing in the office. The entire point of politics is to navigate the hierarchies that impede access to what you want.

This is a "feel good" answer that is statistically very unlikely to work out.

by borplk 9y ago

This is a "feel good" answer that is statistically very unlikely to work out.

I'm not the guy you replied to but I agree with him. It's not really unlikely to work out if you approach the problem deftly, he just states the plan in simplistic terms. Also, if you hop around a lot, you'll realize that these problems are not constrained to one bad company. You'll run across it basically everywhere if you wait long enough. You might have a boss who protects a "good culture", but when he's gone (voluntarily or not), it's gone. For career stability, you have to learn to play this game and operate within its constraints, or you'll spend your whole career on the proverbial run. The problem is that software people think empirically, as their job requires them to do so. Most other people do not do this, and in fact, most others would be disadvantaged if they did do so, so they have exactly the opposite incentives dictating their thought processes/structures. STEM-types like us assume that "convince people" means show them the evidence, make our most stringent and convincing arguments, and demonstrate the clear superiority of the approach we've advocated. Unfortunately, very few people are equipped to process such arguments from an objective or fair perspective. Advocacy for your theory's superiority is heard as "admit MY superiority". The theory and the personality proposing it are naturally and automatically conflated. Quite reasonably, colleagues are opposed to such admissions when that's the message they're hearing. Not only are there the standard tendencies to interpret such behaviors in this manner, but there is the additional factor that all of your peers/colleagues are also performing image calculations in the context of their own careers. Even if they know that your intentions are pure and that your arguments are solid, they still have to protect against the opponent who would walk in to the bosses and say "borplk embarrassed that guy really bad the other day", failing to observe and/or communicate the egalitarian/cooperative context. This is the part where people normally say "Well I would never work somewhere like that!" Yes you would. You do. It's unavoidable. You can't overcome human psychology (which is just a thin veneer on human biology). You must learn to cooperate with it. Once you internalize this perspective, you are a) finally operating on the same level as many of your peers (especially non-STEM peers), and their decisions make a lot more sense; and b) room to effect change becomes visible much more readily. The opening of the playing field is especially potent in software-heavy companies, because, as discussed above, most software devs are very naive when it comes to office politics. If you're willing to practice it, you can frequently crush with minimal serious opposition.

rmah 9y ago
Thank you for taking the time to explain what I meant in my overly terse terse post.
borplk 9y ago
I appreciate the explanation and I get it. My point still remains that from a practical standpoint you are statistically unlikely to be able to cause significant change as a low-level employee no matter how you go about it. A lot of these companies are intentionally and systematically dysfunctional. You can have all the charisma in the world, they are not interested in changing. And when your official role and purpose is not to shake things up, you wont be allowed to shake things up. Again, notice I said statistically, not absolutely.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  That's the defeatist perspective people are arguing against. It's like saying "there is a bug in this compiler; you won't be able to compile that." True, you won't be able to pursue exactly the same route, but you don't just accept that there's a bug. You find a workaround and get the result you need. People can and should do the same thing in the office. The entire point of politics is to navigate the hierarchies that impede access to what you want.