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?
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
-
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?
I think it was that ass Marc Cuban that I have to credit with this one but he said to avoid office politics, never have a managers managing managers. This makes a lot sense if you think about it. If a Vice President has 3 managers who run one section of the company, those managers are tempted to make the other look bad rather than working as a team.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
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 plenty of work to do, and do it. At least around here, the groups that seem the most political are those 1) attached higher-up in the org chart, 2) with policies in place that make it difficult to make changes without involving many, many other people, and 3) where most of the actual work is done by someone 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
BillWoodruff wrote:
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 being "harvested" and all they are getting is money. That goes to the key issue of hiring which is where you need all the skills you can muster, and, imho, is an area well worth paying for expensive outside consulation on or help with at the start.
This is so funny. That's why corporate America sucks so bad. Most of us get a small bonus (or nothing at all) if the company does well. Usually the rich guys at the top talk about the stake holders and profitability but this generally doesn't effect the working people. If my company makes 10M in profit or -10M my it makes little difference to me the everyday worker. I never understood why the brass at most companies act as if everyday people care about profitability. Why should they?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
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?
In my experience, flattened hierarchies don't work at all once you get above a certain size. The best organizations have a hierarchy with well defined responsibilities with each person being held truly accountable. It has to start at the top. A strong president/CEO who is willing to fire top level managers who don't perform or who play politics rather than do their job is the single most important thing. Nothing you do will compensate for a weak leader, even if they are very nice and intelligent.
-
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:
when the new software company grows into a giant?
Don't grow into a giant? Seriously, growing into a gargantuan company is a conscious choice that get's made by one or more people in the company, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Focus on your product, focus on your customers, and work within sustainable limits.
¡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?
A semi-flattened hierarchy is the only way to work it, with you at the top, and everyone else below. At the first sign of disagreement, shoot the lowly dog that disagrees with you. That should keep things under control for a while.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
when the new software company grows into a giant?
Don't grow into a giant? Seriously, growing into a gargantuan company is a conscious choice that get's made by one or more people in the company, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Focus on your product, focus on your customers, and work within sustainable limits.
¡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:
Don't grow into a giant? Seriously, growing into a gargantuan company is a conscious choice that get's made by one or more people in the company, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Focus on your product, focus on your customers, and work within sustainable limits.
I just said, almost exactly, this very thing, just the other day ... it is so very true.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL -
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.
Thanks.
Kevin
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Don't grow into a giant? Seriously, growing into a gargantuan company is a conscious choice that get's made by one or more people in the company, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Focus on your product, focus on your customers, and work within sustainable limits.
I just said, almost exactly, this very thing, just the other day ... it is so very true.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTLSo why the hell does no one seem to really bother giving it try? Why the obsession, note emphasis on "obsession" with being the absolute biggest company? Given all the evidence that things quickly go downhill, for the product, for the customer, for employees, etc, why do people insist on pursuing this as a long term goal?
¡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
