How to have less or no politics in a software development company
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
Have a very, very small number of people? My guess would be that once you get beyond single digits, you'll have politics, no matter what your intentions, management style, hierarchy, or whatever other scheme you come up with. On second thought, making a concerted effort to use plain English, no buzzwords, no referring to anyone as a "resource" (my personal pet peeve), straight, honest talk, no matter the cost. Obviously that's largely impractical, but maybe if the effort were made, it might help reduce politics a little bit?
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
Politics is created by the talentless. Talented people usually derive their own hierarchy based on ability. Unfortunately, it is hard to find talented people and even harder to retain them because they will leave when forced to work with politics. The environments that do not breed politics, usually, have personally accountability for work accomplished and encourage mentoring among team members with hands on managers who know and understand the work but do not micromanage who are willing to stand-up to the higher-ups when necessary and willing to immediately jump on problems when they arise. To properly combat politics everyone has to be on board. Individuals who are an obstacle must be terminated (or fired depending on your country's laws) otherwise their attitude will spread to a team. Often the best solution when an entire team is infected is to fire them all and start over. The whole deal is rife with potential pitfalls. Nepotism, favoritism, seniority, management.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
-
Have a very, very small number of people? My guess would be that once you get beyond single digits, you'll have politics, no matter what your intentions, management style, hierarchy, or whatever other scheme you come up with. On second thought, making a concerted effort to use plain English, no buzzwords, no referring to anyone as a "resource" (my personal pet peeve), straight, honest talk, no matter the cost. Obviously that's largely impractical, but maybe if the effort were made, it might help reduce politics a little bit?
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
Jim Crafton wrote:
Have a very, very small number of people? My guess would be that once you get beyond single digits, you'll have politics, no matter what your intentions, management style, hierarchy, or whatever other scheme you come up with.
and if one is suffering [or enjoying] from Multiple Personality Disorder[^] politics can happen if you're physically just one!
If the post was helpful, please vote, eh! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
Politics is hard-coded into the human genome. It's how social groups work. Politics is seen in all primate relationships, not just human relationships. So what you ask is quite ridiculous.
-
Politics is hard-coded into the human genome. It's how social groups work. Politics is seen in all primate relationships, not just human relationships. So what you ask is quite ridiculous.
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
So what you ask is quite ridiculous.
How so? Did you read my full post? I said exactly what you said. While it is impossible to eliminate politics in some environments it is less and in some it is more. Surely some environments have low level of politicking. What are the characteristics of those environments?
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
Hi, I agree with you that a flattened hierarchy comes to mind, I worked with a firm were software devellopement had nothing to do with the business part of the firm and was working moreless like a restaurant were the orders came in and the team had to do it, the atmosphere was great and the company was florishing, i understood lately that the situation is still the same and I liked it their since it was pure develloping software and not much politics were going on, the only negative aspect was that I had no idea what the management side was thinking, but then again I didn't care what they thought also. So personally I would go for the restaurant approach, you have sales, you have a kitchen don't mix them, it's the task of the kitchen to do their job, it's the task of the sales to do theirs, thats it! Regarding the Kitchen I would say their is one Cheff, it's as simple as that, and the Cheff hands out the tasks to all the individual members of the kitchen and evaluates how a task in done and put's individual members on the position they are able to handle
With friendly greetings,:) Eric Goedhart
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
If you're dealing with humans, any time there are three or more people involved there will be politics. This you can't control. What you can control is the destructive nature of the beast. There is no org chart which will be immune. As for environment, much of it comes down to effective hiring, which is of course an incredibly hard task. You have to be able to get a feel for people and determine if they're gossipy / scheming / conniving types, positive and plays nice with other types and so on. Very difficult, and much more intuition than science. The biggest thing you can do to avoid detrimental politics, however, comes down to how you treat your people. Don't lie to or mislead them, obviously, but I do have one piece of advice that will fundamentally alter your environment. With each and every thing you do, and especially with every expectation you have of your people, walk over to the other side of the table, put on their shoes, and ask, "What's in it for me?" We work for money, and being human we also strive for status and power. The most common mistake companies make with their staff is expecting employees to selflessly perform all manner of tedious tasks, minor miracles and sacrificing of their personal lives, "for the good of the company." If you approach your people with that mindset, you deserve to go out of business for being stupid. Your employees care about one, and only one, thing: their own personal interest. It doesn't matter that they should care about the company. What they do care about is their own personal lives. If you base your expectations and plans on any other reality, you will fail. So where does the company fit into this? Easy. If you want people to care about the health and well being of your company, you have to show them how it affects them personally. E.g. if your competitors put you out of business, your employees' paychecks vanish as well. That's something they'll care about. If you're highly profitable, there's more money for you to spread around in employee perks, which is why they should care about keeping costs and waste down (this only works if you're honorable and actually give them more perks when you're profitable). In other words, if you want them to care about your company and minimize destructive politics, then show what's in it for them personally to be that way. Rama, through our conversations the past week or two I can see that you're up to something. :-D If it's going to involve hiring and managing people and running an operat
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
I don't know. However, the real question is how do you retain a flattened hierarchy as and when the new software company grows into a giant? MS used to have a flattened hierarchy and there used to be a very favourable comparison with IBM. Things are different today. I remember reading a tale about how the new Start menu in Vista was arrived at. May have been on the Joel site? Anyway, it wasn't pretty. :)
Kevin
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
Keep it small, perhaps? If there are fewer people, everybody has a large stake, and negative actions against someone you don't like will almost certainly affect you negatively as well. In a large organisation with thousands of people, stabbing a couple of people in the back will have next to no impact on the company (and, in turn, you). I am not claiming smaller companies will have no politics, just that it's less likely, and may not be as acrimonious.
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
Recent activities: TV series: Friends, season 10 Books: Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Carpe Diem.
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
So what you ask is quite ridiculous.
How so? Did you read my full post? I said exactly what you said. While it is impossible to eliminate politics in some environments it is less and in some it is more. Surely some environments have low level of politicking. What are the characteristics of those environments?
If by "politicking" you mean "maneouvering for advantage and self-gain," then you'll see politicking if the company has at least two workers. If that's not what you mean by "politicking," then you have to make yourself more clear.
-
If you're dealing with humans, any time there are three or more people involved there will be politics. This you can't control. What you can control is the destructive nature of the beast. There is no org chart which will be immune. As for environment, much of it comes down to effective hiring, which is of course an incredibly hard task. You have to be able to get a feel for people and determine if they're gossipy / scheming / conniving types, positive and plays nice with other types and so on. Very difficult, and much more intuition than science. The biggest thing you can do to avoid detrimental politics, however, comes down to how you treat your people. Don't lie to or mislead them, obviously, but I do have one piece of advice that will fundamentally alter your environment. With each and every thing you do, and especially with every expectation you have of your people, walk over to the other side of the table, put on their shoes, and ask, "What's in it for me?" We work for money, and being human we also strive for status and power. The most common mistake companies make with their staff is expecting employees to selflessly perform all manner of tedious tasks, minor miracles and sacrificing of their personal lives, "for the good of the company." If you approach your people with that mindset, you deserve to go out of business for being stupid. Your employees care about one, and only one, thing: their own personal interest. It doesn't matter that they should care about the company. What they do care about is their own personal lives. If you base your expectations and plans on any other reality, you will fail. So where does the company fit into this? Easy. If you want people to care about the health and well being of your company, you have to show them how it affects them personally. E.g. if your competitors put you out of business, your employees' paychecks vanish as well. That's something they'll care about. If you're highly profitable, there's more money for you to spread around in employee perks, which is why they should care about keeping costs and waste down (this only works if you're honorable and actually give them more perks when you're profitable). In other words, if you want them to care about your company and minimize destructive politics, then show what's in it for them personally to be that way. Rama, through our conversations the past week or two I can see that you're up to something. :-D If it's going to involve hiring and managing people and running an operat
Christopher Duncan wrote:
then dust off that copy of Unite the Tribes
You gave me a copy of "Career Programmer", but I am going to buy and read "Unite the Tribes" any way. In the extra royalty you get, you can enjoy a Coffee from Starbucks:).
-
Keep it small, perhaps? If there are fewer people, everybody has a large stake, and negative actions against someone you don't like will almost certainly affect you negatively as well. In a large organisation with thousands of people, stabbing a couple of people in the back will have next to no impact on the company (and, in turn, you). I am not claiming smaller companies will have no politics, just that it's less likely, and may not be as acrimonious.
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
Recent activities: TV series: Friends, season 10 Books: Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Carpe Diem.
There's truth in what you say. The temptation is to build the largest international corporation the world has ever seen, but for the gazillions of dollars it brings in, it doesn't always put that much more in the owner's pocket. My personal feeling is that any time you have a company so large that you don't know each person then you've lost control of a very fundamental aspect of your operation. Microsoft is a great example of this.
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes In the US? Explore our Career Coaching.
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
then dust off that copy of Unite the Tribes
You gave me a copy of "Career Programmer", but I am going to buy and read "Unite the Tribes" any way. In the extra royalty you get, you can enjoy a Coffee from Starbucks:).
Crap! :doh: Thought I gave you Tribes... Oh, well. With the money I make on the royalty from your purchase of Tribes, I'll buy you a coffee from Starbucks next time we get together. :-D Speaking of which, if you want to come up to the Northern Provinces where I live sometime and hang out, I'll be happy to regale you with tales and offer any insights on what you're doing that might be useful to you. You know how to reach me. :)
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes In the US? Explore our Career Coaching.
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
-
There's truth in what you say. The temptation is to build the largest international corporation the world has ever seen, but for the gazillions of dollars it brings in, it doesn't always put that much more in the owner's pocket. My personal feeling is that any time you have a company so large that you don't know each person then you've lost control of a very fundamental aspect of your operation. Microsoft is a great example of this.
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes In the US? Explore our Career Coaching.
I know I told you I am not very keen on having my own business, but if I ever do it, I plan to keep it small. However, like you just said, nobody *ever* plans to do keep their business small, so maybe I am talking rubbish.
Christopher Duncan wrote:
My personal feeling is that any time you have a company so large that you don't know each person then you've lost control of a very fundamental aspect of your operation.
Exactly. Also, while this isn't possible in a big company, you must know every person two levels (possibly three) below you, otherwise you are not doing a very good job.
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
Recent activities: TV series: Friends, season 10 Books: Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Carpe Diem.
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
So what you ask is quite ridiculous.
How so? Did you read my full post? I said exactly what you said. While it is impossible to eliminate politics in some environments it is less and in some it is more. Surely some environments have low level of politicking. What are the characteristics of those environments?
On further reflection, I see the larger context of what you're asking. I agree that destructive politics can be mitigated by the right setting, and the right motivators. So what you're asking is not ridiculous, just wasn't clear to me at first. :-O
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
I don't know. However, the real question is how do you retain a flattened hierarchy as and when the new software company grows into a giant? MS used to have a flattened hierarchy and there used to be a very favourable comparison with IBM. Things are different today. I remember reading a tale about how the new Start menu in Vista was arrived at. May have been on the Joel site? Anyway, it wasn't pretty. :)
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I remember reading a tale about how the new Start menu in Vista was arrived at. May have been on the Joel site?
he linked to it... http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html[^]
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
-
If you're dealing with humans, any time there are three or more people involved there will be politics. This you can't control. What you can control is the destructive nature of the beast. There is no org chart which will be immune. As for environment, much of it comes down to effective hiring, which is of course an incredibly hard task. You have to be able to get a feel for people and determine if they're gossipy / scheming / conniving types, positive and plays nice with other types and so on. Very difficult, and much more intuition than science. The biggest thing you can do to avoid detrimental politics, however, comes down to how you treat your people. Don't lie to or mislead them, obviously, but I do have one piece of advice that will fundamentally alter your environment. With each and every thing you do, and especially with every expectation you have of your people, walk over to the other side of the table, put on their shoes, and ask, "What's in it for me?" We work for money, and being human we also strive for status and power. The most common mistake companies make with their staff is expecting employees to selflessly perform all manner of tedious tasks, minor miracles and sacrificing of their personal lives, "for the good of the company." If you approach your people with that mindset, you deserve to go out of business for being stupid. Your employees care about one, and only one, thing: their own personal interest. It doesn't matter that they should care about the company. What they do care about is their own personal lives. If you base your expectations and plans on any other reality, you will fail. So where does the company fit into this? Easy. If you want people to care about the health and well being of your company, you have to show them how it affects them personally. E.g. if your competitors put you out of business, your employees' paychecks vanish as well. That's something they'll care about. If you're highly profitable, there's more money for you to spread around in employee perks, which is why they should care about keeping costs and waste down (this only works if you're honorable and actually give them more perks when you're profitable). In other words, if you want them to care about your company and minimize destructive politics, then show what's in it for them personally to be that way. Rama, through our conversations the past week or two I can see that you're up to something. :-D If it's going to involve hiring and managing people and running an operat
"The most common mistake companies make with their staff is expecting employees to selflessly perform all manner of tedious tasks, minor miracles and sacrificing of their personal lives, "for the good of the company." If you approach your people with that mindset, you deserve to go out of business for being stupid." Amen
-
Let me get it straight first: Wherever there are people there will be some kind of politics? I also sincerely feel that some environments breed politics much more than some other environments. But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics? Flattened hierarchy comes to my mind first. What else?
Namaste (or Vannacum), Sri Rama, I find myself interpreting your use of the word "politics" here to really refer to what I call "group dynamics" which I personally believe are an "innate," almost "instinctual" part of our primate, human nature. What would surprise me would be to ever find a group that on some level was not establishing a communal sense of hierarchy, in which issues of dominance and "territorality" were not played out on both conscious and unconscious levels, where there was not competition, as well as altruism, where people didn't take on "roles" and, at times, lose the distinction between the "role" they play and what their job is supposed to be. When you look at group dynamics in the workplace, you are able to focus your analysis more closely since there are metrics, measurable consequences : how much money did you make, what is the rate of employee turn-over, is your product(s) designed and built in a way that it is extendable and viable as future technologies are adopted. But there are also other "social satisfaction" metrics like : at the end of two years of this "culture" are we all going to hate each other, and feel like we've wasted our lives ? Even though George Homans is long dead, and his research at Harvard on work-groups and "emergent behavior," is now out of fashion, I can't think of any better way to prepare yourself with a conceptual vocabulary about group dynamics in the work-place than his model of "emergent" culture and behavior in the workplace : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Homans[^] Another "oldie but goodie" is the concept of "residual norms" as developed by Thomas Scheff. To put it very briefly "residual norms" are often unstated, even unconscious, not codified. They come out in behavioral patterns : for example, you visit one company and no one ever uses "swear words" in meetings : vist another and people vie to see who can "out-curse" each other. Personally, I think the best way to have a company is to have the workers have a direct financial stake in its success : i.e., they are shareholders, and shareholders at a level where they feel that if the company "wins big" they will "win big." And of course you want to hire people you feel will perceive the company as a "growth path" for them personally and/or future-career wise, not a "dead end" where some skill or knowledge they have is bein
