5 ms·

I feel that a lot of the times conversations around this topic end up with some anecdote like "well, playing politics doesn't actually work because I work at a

by johnfn 1y ago

I feel that a lot of the times conversations around this topic end up with some anecdote like "well, playing politics doesn't actually work because I work at a dysfunctional company where decisions are made by morons". If you have a C-suite that makes decisions based on golf games, this advice is not for you. You have a different set of problems. You should absolutely address those problems. But that doesn't mean that this advice isn't for anyone, and coming and telling everyone that the advice is always meaningless isn't accurate. It's like two people discussing how to handle difficult conversations in a romantic relationship, and a third guy comes in and says "this conversation is irrelevant because every time I date someone they cheat on me". I'm sorry you're dealing with that problem, but it is not really related to the topic at hand.

harperlee 1y ago
I'd add that in my experience, when you are close to the action, the cynic "golfing nepotism" take is usually missing a point of view that is far more rational; just far from the developer/architect that is dismissing the decision. Perhaps not technically optimal, or fair, or even legal - but even so, more akin to "I know this person delivered in the past, and the alternative is also good on paper" or "I really need to save my ass" (nobody got fired by choosing IBM) or "business-wise, this technical recommendation I don't really care for". Perhaps I'm optimistic but in general I don't really think (or want to believe) that people are quick to wage their careers on an acquaintance that is clearly selling something as part of their job, unless the stakes are really not so high from their point of view. Then again, open a newspaper :)
- rizzom5000 1y ago
  This is just one example that was made public due to the federal case, but there is no doubt that this kind of activity is quite common in corporate America at all levels. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executive-convicted-receiving-bribes-and-kickbacks-companies-contracting https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... A solid understanding of behavioral psychology may make it obvious, but like you mention, one could also just open a newspaper.
obviouslynotme 1y ago
Except this is an article on how to perform technical politics in large organizations. Functional, intelligent, non-nepotistic leadership is the exception, not the rule. It has been this way for a long time, perhaps forever. Dilbert became one of the most circulated comics for good reason. This article is the third guy. Pretending that identifying stakeholders' needs, communicating the solutions, and delivering them are the keys to succeeding in corporate politics is a joke. It's our parent's telling us that we need to be good for Santa Claus. Human politics is an enormously deep subject, and a newbie will get trampled every single time. If you are sitting at a poker table and don't know who the sucker is within five minutes, congratulations, you are that sucker.
- johnfn 1y ago
  > Functional, intelligent, non-nepotistic leadership is the exception The majority of marriages end in divorce. This doesn't mean that I should treat all prospective partners as someone I will eventually divorce. That is not healthy for me, the people I interact with, or my future.
  - citizenpaul 1y ago
    Survivorship bias. Get burned a bunch of times and see where your strategy lies. You'd be a fool to keep sinking all your effort into things that devastate your life time and again.
    - johnfn 1y ago
      If I kept getting burned, I might think about the types of people I get into relationships with, the type of things I'm learning while dating, and I might talk with friends to see how their relationships are going and see if I could be doing something different. I don't think I would start telling everyone in a relationship to prepare for divorce.
      - garciasn 1y ago
        People change; especially over decades.
bluGill 1y ago
If the C-suite makes decisions "based on golf games" then you need to learn how to play golf. You don't have to be good, but don't be so bad that you slow up the game. It is okay to be 1-2 over par every hole, but you need to nearly always find your ball and not hit too far into the rough. Take some lessons if needed. (there are swings that don't have as much power but are a lot easier to be accurate - perfect for you who doesn't want you win, you just want to be good enough to play the game). Then make sure you are on the list of people who will "complete your four-some" when anyone is looking for someone to play. Nothing wrong with being good at golf above if you want to. However this is about politics and that just means good enough to play and talk about the game. edit: over par not under...
- wordpad 1y ago
  Respecting and engaging with company politics in order to push good engineering decisions is one thing, but learning and playing a sport, I think falls outside of "other duties as assigned" for an engineer.
- gnarlynarwhal42 1y ago
  Sorry to nitpick, and I know what you mean, but 1-2 under par on each hole you would be shooting ~45-55 which would basically be the best in the world :) 1-2 over par is shooting 90-100 which is much more achievable :)
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Thanks, fixed that.
- citizenpaul 1y ago
  Also how do you get invited? When the invitee is specifically inviting the CEO without you to circumvent your influence? Who is going to do your job while you stroke egos? Victim blaming as usual. The problem is you don't do the CTO's job in addition to your own....f-off with that hustle life nonsense.
  - 1y ago
mattbrewsbytes 1y ago
> If you have a C-suite that makes decisions based on golf games, this advice is not for you. You have a different set of problems. Another way to look at it is that your role isn't in the decision making circle, even if you are on a project that is supposed to help make a decision. I was in this role evaluating vendors solutions, in hindsight I can see how I conflated the involvement in the evaluation process with the decision making, those aren't the same. Think of it like buying a car. You could be on the project to evaluate car companies, features, test drive them and document findings but just because you did all of that doesn't mean you're a decision maker and shouldn't have any emotional attachment to whatever the decision ends up being. Yes if they make a decision with bad trade-offs, like a car with a lot of issues, you may be dealing with those and it may suck but that's your role. I think part of politics around technical decisions is recognizing if your role has any attributes of being involved with the decision making or if your input is just one of many, potentially minor, inputs.
- Maro 1y ago
  > shouldn't have any emotional attachment to whatever the decision ends up being This is really good advice for anyone working in a large corporation.

by johnfn 1y ago

harperlee 1y ago

I'd add that in my experience, when you are close to the action, the cynic "golfing nepotism" take is usually missing a point of view that is far more rational; just far from the developer/architect that is dismissing the decision. Perhaps not technically optimal, or fair, or even legal - but even so, more akin to "I know this person delivered in the past, and the alternative is also good on paper" or "I really need to save my ass" (nobody got fired by choosing IBM) or "business-wise, this technical recommendation I don't really care for". Perhaps I'm optimistic but in general I don't really think (or want to believe) that people are quick to wage their careers on an acquaintance that is clearly selling something as part of their job, unless the stakes are really not so high from their point of view. Then again, open a newspaper :)

rizzom5000 1y ago
This is just one example that was made public due to the federal case, but there is no doubt that this kind of activity is quite common in corporate America at all levels. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executive-convicted-receiving-bribes-and-kickbacks-companies-contracting https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... A solid understanding of behavioral psychology may make it obvious, but like you mention, one could also just open a newspaper.

obviouslynotme 1y ago

Except this is an article on how to perform technical politics in large organizations. Functional, intelligent, non-nepotistic leadership is the exception, not the rule. It has been this way for a long time, perhaps forever. Dilbert became one of the most circulated comics for good reason. This article is the third guy. Pretending that identifying stakeholders' needs, communicating the solutions, and delivering them are the keys to succeeding in corporate politics is a joke. It's our parent's telling us that we need to be good for Santa Claus. Human politics is an enormously deep subject, and a newbie will get trampled every single time. If you are sitting at a poker table and don't know who the sucker is within five minutes, congratulations, you are that sucker.

johnfn 1y ago
> Functional, intelligent, non-nepotistic leadership is the exception The majority of marriages end in divorce. This doesn't mean that I should treat all prospective partners as someone I will eventually divorce. That is not healthy for me, the people I interact with, or my future.
- citizenpaul 1y ago
  Survivorship bias. Get burned a bunch of times and see where your strategy lies. You'd be a fool to keep sinking all your effort into things that devastate your life time and again.
  - johnfn 1y ago
    If I kept getting burned, I might think about the types of people I get into relationships with, the type of things I'm learning while dating, and I might talk with friends to see how their relationships are going and see if I could be doing something different. I don't think I would start telling everyone in a relationship to prepare for divorce.
    - garciasn 1y ago
      People change; especially over decades.

bluGill 1y ago

If the C-suite makes decisions "based on golf games" then you need to learn how to play golf. You don't have to be good, but don't be so bad that you slow up the game. It is okay to be 1-2 over par every hole, but you need to nearly always find your ball and not hit too far into the rough. Take some lessons if needed. (there are swings that don't have as much power but are a lot easier to be accurate - perfect for you who doesn't want you win, you just want to be good enough to play the game). Then make sure you are on the list of people who will "complete your four-some" when anyone is looking for someone to play. Nothing wrong with being good at golf above if you want to. However this is about politics and that just means good enough to play and talk about the game. edit: over par not under...

wordpad 1y ago
Respecting and engaging with company politics in order to push good engineering decisions is one thing, but learning and playing a sport, I think falls outside of "other duties as assigned" for an engineer.
gnarlynarwhal42 1y ago
Sorry to nitpick, and I know what you mean, but 1-2 under par on each hole you would be shooting ~45-55 which would basically be the best in the world :) 1-2 over par is shooting 90-100 which is much more achievable :)
- bluGill 1y ago
  Thanks, fixed that.
citizenpaul 1y ago
Also how do you get invited? When the invitee is specifically inviting the CEO without you to circumvent your influence? Who is going to do your job while you stroke egos? Victim blaming as usual. The problem is you don't do the CTO's job in addition to your own....f-off with that hustle life nonsense.
- 1y ago

mattbrewsbytes 1y ago

> If you have a C-suite that makes decisions based on golf games, this advice is not for you. You have a different set of problems. Another way to look at it is that your role isn't in the decision making circle, even if you are on a project that is supposed to help make a decision. I was in this role evaluating vendors solutions, in hindsight I can see how I conflated the involvement in the evaluation process with the decision making, those aren't the same. Think of it like buying a car. You could be on the project to evaluate car companies, features, test drive them and document findings but just because you did all of that doesn't mean you're a decision maker and shouldn't have any emotional attachment to whatever the decision ends up being. Yes if they make a decision with bad trade-offs, like a car with a lot of issues, you may be dealing with those and it may suck but that's your role. I think part of politics around technical decisions is recognizing if your role has any attributes of being involved with the decision making or if your input is just one of many, potentially minor, inputs.

Maro 1y ago
> shouldn't have any emotional attachment to whatever the decision ends up being This is really good advice for anyone working in a large corporation.