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?
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
-
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:
What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics?
Make your company a two man outfit. People invariably rub eachother up the wrong way sooner or later, it's in our nature. In a two man outfit that could turn into a disagreement, an argument or an all-out fist fight but it'll never be political. Get a third person in, however, and it will always be a political game as each side participating in the argument tries to convice this third entity of the rightness of their ideological position and why their oponent is a complete and utter arse-head.
print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?
-
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 prefer an iron-fisted dictatorship. any dissent or gossip is crushed mercilessly and the people work in perpetual fear of angering the boss.
-
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 are always politics in ANY company, because politics is knowing who you can and cannot call "dipshit" to their face during the course of a normal work day.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
i prefer an iron-fisted dictatorship. any dissent or gossip is crushed mercilessly and the people work in perpetual fear of angering the boss.
Yes, I was going to say that. "My way or the highway."
-
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:
But let's say you are starting a new software company.
Treat everybody as an equal. Treat everybody the same way - just because the receptionist doesn't cut code doesn't make them any less important than the star coder. Criticise in private and praise in public - and don't punish people for disagreeing with you; everybody is entitled to an opinion. Finally - no mandatory overtime. If you've got a problem with schedule slippage then it generally means that you've screwed up. Don't try to punish somebody else for your mistakes; suck it up and take it like an adult.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
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?
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics?
Can't be done. You have people with preferences; you have friendships and patronage; you have arguments and persuasion; you have bartering and favors and politics. All you can really do is choose where you work, who you want to work for, and, if you own the company, who will work for you (do they share your vision?). It's just like life, in general. You can't choose your relatives, but you can choose your friends.
m.bergman
-- For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
-
So 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
Jim Crafton wrote:
Why the obsession
the ideology of progress we always think bigger and more is better- and because we believe that with every fiber of our being, when we even think about "what is better", we automatically associate "bigger and more". the association is so quick and so powerfully convincing we don't even feel the need to pause and reconsider that conclusion. we just go with it. and that's not just business- that's pretty much everything. which house is better => the bigger one car => the SUV hardware spec => the one with more HHD, more RAM, more, more, more TV => the huge one company => the corporation and then consider the external priming. because *most folk think bigger is more, they spend easier with the brand name bigger company than they do with the little guy. in fact, even calling them the little guy or the unknown is a major clue. our language betrays reveals our conditioning. so the automatic thinking for a start up is to NOT be the little guy since that will equal less revenue. obviously, not everyone thinks and behaves that way. i know many who have a *small business and lead super-content, happy, fruitful and productive lives doing what they love doing and just getting on with it (and i would have to include myself in that group too :) i think as programmers, we (some of us, that is) have come to the conclusion that less is sometimes (if not always) more and hence better. or more accurately worded: sometimes "bigger" can be almost as good as "less"- almost ;)
<>< :: have the courage to use your own reason
-
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?
If you place your offices in North Korea, I am told that the Politics talk becomes non-existant. If it does happen, the employee becomes non-existent.
-
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:
But let's say you are starting a new software company. What kind of environment and hierarchy, do you think will have reduced politics?
Although I have not read this book, I did put it in my "Saved Items" at least, due to the great reviews at Amazon.com -- "Beautiful Teams: Inspiring and Cautionary Tales from Veteran Team Leaders" by Andrew Stellman + Jennifer Greene. I so love case-history-books, been-there-done-that beats untested theory. New at $35, the "41 used-and-new from $25" tends to confirm this, often the used-price is much lower.
pg--az
-
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?
Train people to follow Covey's advices in his book "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People[^]) And use Agile / XP values like simplicity, communication, feedback, courage, respect for everyone (not limited to software people) Cheers
gzo