4 ms·

There is also the "positive" version of the politician. They have enough technical credibility, social skills, relationships with senior management, to remove o

There is also the "positive" version of the politician. They have enough technical credibility, social skills, relationships with senior management, to remove organizational log-jams. Other companies might hire a consultant to come and tell them what they already know they need to do (but can't organizationally agree to do) - but with this archetype, you can call them in and they will cut out the bullshit, somehow without upsetting everyone.

hayst4ck 4y ago
I think that description matches the articles "architect" archetype: > The Architect is responsible for the direction, quality and approach within a critical area, both today and stretching into the multi-year future horizon. They combine a deep knowledge of technical constraints, user needs, and organization level leadership. The reason I labeled it politician is because they are primarily using their position for self-gain. A general definition for politics is any time the inequality company > team > self is violated (at least in terms of compensated work). I generally agree with that definition. That is why I used the word politician.
davewritescode 4y ago
I have found myself in this archetype before. Management wanted a feature, went to the architects and got some INSANE estimate that couldn’t be justified by the revenue that would be coming in. Management felt like they were being told to fuck off with crazy estimates and they weren’t completely wrong. I was asked to review the proposal by a VP, came up with some simplifications, presented it back to the same architects and we delivered it for 10% of the anticipated cost and the feature was profitable in year 1. It’s had no defects because it was a simple design. Sometimes you need people who can speak to managers and engineers with credibility to get things done.
- qznc 4y ago
  Most people have a very cynical view of politics and I can emphasize. However, I try to stay more positive about it. Politics, for me, is about making decisions in groups too large to just talk with everyone. In such circumstances “bridge people”, like davewritescode, who can communicate with multiple factions are very valuable for progress. Sadly, especially in large “safe” enterprises people don’t want to learn this. Developers blame managers for “not understanding software” and managers blame developers for “lack of business understanding”.

hayst4ck 4y ago

I think that description matches the articles "architect" archetype: > The Architect is responsible for the direction, quality and approach within a critical area, both today and stretching into the multi-year future horizon. They combine a deep knowledge of technical constraints, user needs, and organization level leadership. The reason I labeled it politician is because they are primarily using their position for self-gain. A general definition for politics is any time the inequality company > team > self is violated (at least in terms of compensated work). I generally agree with that definition. That is why I used the word politician.

davewritescode 4y ago

I have found myself in this archetype before. Management wanted a feature, went to the architects and got some INSANE estimate that couldn’t be justified by the revenue that would be coming in. Management felt like they were being told to fuck off with crazy estimates and they weren’t completely wrong. I was asked to review the proposal by a VP, came up with some simplifications, presented it back to the same architects and we delivered it for 10% of the anticipated cost and the feature was profitable in year 1. It’s had no defects because it was a simple design. Sometimes you need people who can speak to managers and engineers with credibility to get things done.

qznc 4y ago
Most people have a very cynical view of politics and I can emphasize. However, I try to stay more positive about it. Politics, for me, is about making decisions in groups too large to just talk with everyone. In such circumstances “bridge people”, like davewritescode, who can communicate with multiple factions are very valuable for progress. Sadly, especially in large “safe” enterprises people don’t want to learn this. Developers blame managers for “not understanding software” and managers blame developers for “lack of business understanding”.