Comment by YZF
3 years ago
It doesn't hurt but I got a great career out of just being a hands-on kind of technical developer. I tried, and mostly succeeded to avoid places where politics play a big role. That said working well with others is important and I also do that well (If I may say so myself ;) ). Politics as in scheming for power are a total turn off for me. Never been interested and not interested in working with others that operate that way. Incredibly lucky to be able to pick and choose.
"Politics as in scheming for power are a total turn off for me."
Most people don't actually scheme for power in an organization. Not directly, anyway. Most people who appear to do that are coming from the perspective of "my (and my team's) needs are the most important here for the business' success"; the purpose isn't actually power, but to get their perceived needs met.
Playing politics, then, is being able to understand those needs, how they interplay and interfere with your own, and how to participate in a way that gets people agreeing on how to move forward, while feeling their needs are met. It is, in fact, exactly what you say of "working well with others". The difference is can you work well with people whose perceptions and needs are completely different than yours (but who are still pushing for what they feel to be the best thing for the company)?
Those few who are just trying to get ahead, without actually advancing the needs of their team are indeed a cancer, and -no one- wants them. Some orgs may not know how to recognize it or to get rid of such people though (or have perverse incentives to encourage such behavior). But their incentive isn't that different; they're still looking to meet their own needs, but it's -their own- needs, rather than that of benefit to the business. I.e., "I want to be perceived as the source of success so that I get promoted, even if that robs my team of recognition" rather than "I want to make sure my team's success is recognized and compensated, so that our morale and performance can stay high, and so the org will trust us with greater responsibility".
I think it's a good default to think "this person is acting in good faith and believes their success is aligned with the company's success", but also recognize pretty quickly when people aren't arguing in good faith and not cling to the good-faith notion for so long that it prevents you from navigating the conflict situation effectively.
> Most people don't actually scheme for power in an organization.
There is some about IT in large enterprises/banks that for all intents and purposes, groom you to do exactly this
> Those few who are just trying to get ahead, without actually advancing the needs of their team are indeed a cancer, and -no one- wants them.
It is a spectrum, not black and white. The person you responded to just have lower tolerance for self serving bullshit.
I wonder if there's a Maslov pyramid hidden in there. That is, people are first optimizing for their own comfort, then for the comfort of their team, and only then, for company goals.
People will fight their own company, throw other people under the bus, to ensure they're not being overworked and scapegoated, that they have enough budget to operate, some autonomy and say in the things they're working on. Conversely, when they don't feel threatened and aren't in the "survival mode", they'll start helping other teams and talk more about organizational goals, become proactive - whether because they care about the higher goals, or want to earn more status, autonomy or power.
There are, of course, sociopaths everywhere, but my gut tells me that for most people, it may be as simple as the model described above.
Sort of, but I don't think I agree fully.
That is, if someone feels they'll be able to find a job outside of their current company, or that they have enough money to be out of work for a while, or that they're safe in the company even if they make waves, then they can optimize for their team's comfort above their own, and I'd contend that if you've ever had a manager you liked, they were doing that (even if it seemed like they weren't doing much).
So, sure, first it's Maslov's hierarchy of needs, but it's the one we're already familiar with; if someone feels their basic financial needs aren't contingent on people pleasing, then they can afford to not people please, and good employees, and good environments, encourage empowered individuals...but a bunch of empowered individuals may still have different priorities, which requires 'politics' to navigate.
If people -don't- feel their basic financial are guaranteed, then yeah, all bets are off.
Those who don't do politics get done by politics.
What you found are orgs with win-win (nonzero) cultures, where everyone's incentives were better aligned.
Identifying those safe harbors is a great skill.
Politics is inherent to any system comprised of human beings. There is no avoiding it and it always plays a big role.
We can abstract your statement slightly by saying that it is "scheming to meet a desired objective". Then, in a way you also played "politics" by crafting path in your career to the way you like; in a different way; likely without impacting life of others.
Overall, not all politics are bad.
The simplest situation when politics is going to bite you is when your solution competes with a technically inferior plan backed by vindictive and greedy people who see your arguments as an attempt to undermine their careers.