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.
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.