I'm always kind of shocked that people are so meek and enamored with the idea of stability that they just shoot themselves in the foot. The tech industry is the wild west and most people in it aren't very good because they either lack drive, talent or the backbone to rise above those who lack drive and talent.
A better outlook is to make IBM (or any other company) work for _you_.
Work there for a couple years. Be bold. Challenge inept management and others that are only looking for stability and a paycheck regardless of outcomes. When you get tired of being stonewalled, bail to a smaller business and poach the people you identified as top talent.
Nobody's looking out for you but you. It's silly to expect an impersonal thing like a corporation to always try and take care of you. Making the company work for you doesn't have any factor in leading an ethical and fulfilling career. You can still deliver real value for a while despite a bloated middle management culture that is scared of the idea of bottom up leadership.
This is especially true if you're in an organization as large and bureaucratic as IBM and not in a senior position. I think you overestimate how much influence you can really have on upper management. True story when I worked there as a GDF lead, talking to a senior manager.
Me: "Hey, I think I found an error in the formula we use to calculate one of the GDF metrics. This is creating garbage data."
SM: "Oh wow, you're right."
Later.
SM: "Actually, we made the formula that way on purpose. It's OK."
Me: "What? How? Why?"
SM: "It's OK, don't worry about it."
What am I supposed to do then? Escalate to a VP? On a regular basis? I did. A senior manager got in touch with my manager and delivered the message that I need to get in line. I quote: "No more complaining." Depending on the environment where you're working, it's not easy to be the devil's advocate. It's usually not easy in the first place. In certain environments, it's almost impossible, you might as well have not even joined.
edit clarification: GDF was IBM's attempt to create its own version of the Six Sigma program.
You're most often actually fighting a political battle masqueraded as something else, and a necessary shift is to recognize that early on.
Once you realize it, you can work on those obstacles. By-with-and-through: there will be friends, frenimeies, and enemies that you can use and be used by to advance whatever you set out to do. You can often play political factions against each other and ride between two or more to propel your own. If that sounds deviant, it's not - it's real leadership and starts at the lowest levels.
Set an aim point rather than specific criteria for success, so you may lose some battles but you can win you own long term campaigns.
As long as you are ethical and not simply an outright ass, the penalty for crossing the line is not really a penalty - maybe you get squeezed out of somewhere you don't want to be and are at least as valuable elsewhere. When you get some confidence, you'll find that the line is quite a bit farther than you expected once you enact this outcome based mindset that is in line with the real intent of the organization.
It will never be fun all the time. But you're there for some reason, and the alternative is at best purposeless mediocrity.
I understand what you're saying. But I have several reasons why I think it doesn't matter for what I'm saying. Perhaps we are not on the same page. Apologies if this is long.
1. I am claiming that for many of these battles, it's not simply political. It's a fight for the existential foundation of what the organization should be all about. When the web team at Microsoft went head-to-head with the Windows team in the late 90s, that wasn't simply a brouhaha over who should get power. It was much more than that. It was a question about Microsoft's future ability to dominate/survive/die. Yes, the weapons to fight the battles and the war are political in nature. But something at that level isn't simply about the politics.
> You're most often actually fighting a political battle masqueraded as something else, and a necessary shift is to recognize that early on.
Likewise, let’s not let the weapons being used mislead us to incorrectly conclude what the fight's really all about.
2. Once the strategy has been decided by the top, it's hard for one person, especially at lower levels, to change the momentum. The executive team is all in. If an executive is not all in, the executive is demoted, reallocated, or leaves the company. It's the CEO's job to get his/her executive team on the same page. He/she should have the political savvy necessary to accomplish this. It’s each executive's job to get their directors on the same page. It's each director's job to get their senior management team on the same page. It's each senior manager's job to get their managers on the same page. And it keeps trickling down until it reaches the bottom. A CEO who is not able to achieve this organizational buy-in cannot be considered someone who can lead the company. Someone at the bottom cannot and will not change the existential direction of the company, no matter how politically savvy he/she is.
Once Microsoft settled that Windows would be their focus and won the browser wars with IE6, they sat on that for years. It would not have mattered how politically talented you were, you were not going to convince Microsoft to invest into improving IE for a long, long time. Pretty much the only way to win at this is to be a super genius and create something fantastic on your own time in secret from the organization. Like the story of how OSX was ported to x86. http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3077651/apple-intel-mac-os...
Otherwise, you need a concerted effort from multiple parties and sponsorship and political protection from a very senior level.
3. > It will never be fun all the time. But you're there for some reason, and the alternative is at best purposeless mediocrity.
Or you can leave if you can’t find any reason to stay. Staying can also mould you into purposeless mediocrity, whether or not you resist it. Let’s not underestimate our environment’s ability to influence our life, mindset, and behaviour. When I was graduating from university, I asked a prof which job offer I should take. He said whatever I choose, be careful if I choose the larger corporations. He said they’re like zoos. If you stay in them too long, you become tame and become unable to survive in the wild again.
Another piece of advice I received from a very senior engineer who had run his own fairly successful company was to always be aware of companies where decisions and promotions are made based on politics instead of data and merit. In such organizations, the people who stay and get promoted are the ones who are the most politically savvy, not necessarily the ones who are correct/capable. Sometimes there’s overlap. Often, there isn't. Ultimately, I think we have to decide if we’re more interested in becoming good at politics or good at doing our real jobs. Politics are supposed to be a means to an end, not the final product that a customer receives. As such, it’s better to have people who are good at product, and it’s just a nice bonus if they’re also good at politics because politics are inevitable, especially as an organization grows. But the focus should never be on politics primarily.
Note: I've never worked for Microsoft, I've only cited their examples here because their history is so well-documented through various books and media, especially due to their monopoly trial. I just chose the example that I thought would best get my point across. I have worked in other large corporations where my job was to create organization-wide disruptive change. We actually won an international award for it. But nobody would relate to that stuff. ;) My thoughts are mostly taken from those experiences, Microsoft is just the vehicle to convey those thoughts.
Dead on. So many companies have modeled themselves after IBM that this type of bureaucracy is pervasive in most large tech companies that aren't Google, Facebook, etc. Nobody wants to rock the boat. Nobody wants to jeopardize the gravy-train. If something is blatantly stupid and you aren't directly responsible for it look the other way. Hell even if you are responsible but as long as it isn't too visible you're encouraged to keep quiet. What if you're given the go ahead to fix it but your team can't do it? What if corporate doesn't like the mistake to begin with? What if you're tasked to fix it but not allocated any time or resources? Nah, just keep your mouth shut.
Honestly I too would hate "that guy." This isn't his fault though it's corporate's fault. Just know this is how things work in tech.
Thanks for linking to that. I currently feel like I'm the toxic asset currently working at a big medical company. I just wanted to actually make progress and get stuff out the door instead of (not exaggerating) redoing the same work 4 times now...
Yeah but that society is rare right now. Again, the only person you _know_ is looking out for you is you.
Remarkably, really caring about outcomes does make you exceptional in a mid to large size business. Most people's vision begins and ends with not rocking the boat and group think of the way things are and always have been.
The more willing you are to do the right thing per outcomes regardless of self-assessment of "keeping a job", the less likely you will worry about finding employment there or somewhere better down the line. Good managers can taste this zeal and will seek you out.
A better outlook is to make IBM (or any other company) work for _you_.
Work there for a couple years. Be bold. Challenge inept management and others that are only looking for stability and a paycheck regardless of outcomes. When you get tired of being stonewalled, bail to a smaller business and poach the people you identified as top talent.
Nobody's looking out for you but you. It's silly to expect an impersonal thing like a corporation to always try and take care of you. Making the company work for you doesn't have any factor in leading an ethical and fulfilling career. You can still deliver real value for a while despite a bloated middle management culture that is scared of the idea of bottom up leadership.