[q-big]

First: there is of course an incentive not to admit this.

Second: I do believe that many people on HN really deeply care about technology/hacking topics and have detest for office politics. On the other hand, the people that the article discuss are good at office politics/marketing themselves and often don't have such a deep knowledge about programming. Thus, I would indeed assume that the typical HN reader/writer less likely fits into the "highly overrated people" pattern of the article.

[majormajor]

> Second: I do believe that many people on HN really deeply care about technology/hacking topics and have detest for office politics.

I think it's more accurate to say that they have a detest for dealing with people in ways that require persuasion, or more generally situations without an "objective" right answer.

You want to do A, someone else wants to do B, you can't do both, you both think you're right, boom, "politics."

[vinay_ys]

A lot of the time, the person who takes this stance tend to forget that execution matters more than the idea being objectively correct. Good "politics" is about persuading the actual people who have to own and execute that idea. There are bad situations where you find yourself opposite people who add little value that is obvious and yet demand they be persuaded or else they will stand the way of your idea. When the emotional burden of fighting such battles crosses a certain threshold you feel burn-out and give up. This threshold is high for people who can do office politics well and it is low for most self-described techies. This does not mean that latter kind of people don't create the same emotional stress for others through their own political schemings (yes, even without knowing consciously, we are all political animals in our own ways – we wield what powers we have to attain our agenda, in however good or bad ways we do it).

[paulcole]

The average HN reader is highly overrated for other reasons.

> have detest for office politics

The problem is that many people on HN believe any interaction with someone with an MBA, marketing background, manager, etc. is “office politics.”

[GoOnThenDoTell]

Any interaction with another human at work is politics

[cseleborg]

Oh, dear, I hope that was ironic?

There are so many interactions at work outside of politics, which I would define as the advancement of your personal agenda before that of the organization and of anybody else.

I have such rich interactions with my colleagues. Sometimes we work together on a project. Sometimes it's purely social, like the first few minutes of a meeting with someone I haven't talked to in a long time. Sometimes they need my support or I need theirs. And sometimes (rarely) it's about having an uncomfortable conversation because something didn't go well. But none of these is about politics. I love where I work, in big parts because of the lack of politics.

(Edit: Typo)

[paulcole]

Yes, but derisively referring any interaction with another human at work as “office politics” is the problem.

[serverholic]

It can turn into office politics fast. Maybe you say the wrong thing and now you and your coworker have an awkward tension.

IMO it's almost never worth trying to make friends with your coworkers. Be nice, be helpful, and do a good job but keep your friends and work life separate.

[meowmeowmoo]

Some of my best friends started as work colleagues. Very bonding working really hard with people you respect on problems you’re passionate about.

[dinosaurdynasty]

Not all of us are lucky enough to be paid to do things we are passionate about.

[serverholic]

In my experience most close friends vent about their jobs to each other. Something that I very rarely feel comfortable doing with coworkers. I think I've met about 2 coworkers in my whole career who I felt that level of comfort with.

[ilyt]

The other interactions like talking about your weekend aren't exacty something to comment on.

Also why it is a problem ?

[paulcole]

Where is the line for you? Is a meeting with a sales team “office politics”? What about a meeting with software developers?

The problem is that there’s no reasonable definition of “office politics” that frames it as a positive thing. You’re approaching every interaction negatively as something you can win/lose.

[tech_tuna]

Any interaction with another human is politics.

[q-big]

> The average HN reader is highly overrated for other reasons.

Possibly ... ;-)

[tech_tuna]

Shhhh. . .

[dickersnoodle]

It pretty much is. See https://devhumor.com/content/uploads/images/April2016/how-de....

[serverholic]

Yes because if you look at it objectively those people tend to be lying, manipulative people with big fake smiles on their faces.

People are so accustomed to our messed up society that they don't even realize how amoral "normal" behavior is.

[paulcole]

> Yes because if you look at it objectively those people tend to be lying, manipulative people with big fake smiles on their faces.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. There’s nothing objective about what you’re saying here. You just paint a huge group of people with a very broad (and very negative) brush.

If that’s what helps you feel superior to other people, I guess there’s not much I can do about it. But I’d encourage you to reexamine how you see the real people around you.

[serverholic]

You misunderstood what I was saying. What I meant was that lying and manipulating are generally considered objectively bad by most people. However, that behavior is considered normal in corporate cultures. It's even part of the job if you're in marketing or sales!

And no, I won't stop judging large groups of people who's jobs are built on deception. And I won't stop judging people who are naturally drawn to those jobs. I've had enough of this whole system and I'm done apologizing for saying negative things just because these behaviors and jobs are normal.

[paulcole]

> It's even part of the job if you're in marketing or sales!

I know I’m not going to change your mind here, but I stress:

It really really isn’t.

Marketing and sales are about communicating some value to people who might need that value. You can find this distasteful if you like.

[serverholic]

Sexualizing products. Creating cute jokes during the super bowl. Implying that if you buy this product, you'll improve your social status.

Am I expected to believe that these things are about communicating value? I'm sorry but that's a steaming pile of BS.

Using power tactics with your customers during sales calls. Creating a sense of urgency. Bending the truth to make your product appear more favorable in general and vs competitors products.

Am I expected to believe that these things are about communicating value? I'm sorry but that's a steaming pile of BS.

[ilyt]

And people get so funny when you point that out to them...

[seattle_spring]

That seems like kind of a strawman, doesn’t it? I’m not convinced anyone really thinks what you are claiming.

[jpmoral]

I think the problem is that people think that all office politics is necessarily bad.

[emptybits]

I can't think of examples of positive activities in a workplace being best labelled office politics. Help me out?

I understand politics, outside of government, to suggest deception or manipulation with hidden motives.

[wwweston]

Understanding politics that way is common and understandable. It's also an unfortunate cultural construction of the term, because this understanding is deeply incorrect.

Politics is what happens when people disagree about what should be done, or how it should be done. That's it. That's what politics is.

There are principled and corrupt reasons for disagreement. There are forthright and deceptive/manipulative means of engaging disagreement. All of that is politics.

When someone is advocating for a better PTO policy either because they personally would like something more advantageous for themselves or because they think it'll boost morale and productivity, that's politics.

When someone manages their office relationships to increase their chances or being hired into a higher management position either because they personally would like to advance their career or because they think they can help the business run more effectively, that's politics.

When someone attempts to spoil management on tech stack X and talk up tech stack Y, that's politics whether it's because they know both well and are sure which will suit the business & problem domain better, or because their personal expertise is more with Y than X and it'll increase their value to the organization without further investment.

The problem with assuming "politics" refers to inherently underhanded activity is that it shirks the work of engaging disagreement productively and instead pathologizes disagreement in one way or another -- usually by either pathologizing an opposing position or class of people.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Good faith disagreements are not politics, they're negotiation.

Politics is when one person/group tries to sabotage/undermine another person/group out of self-interest, even though it harms the project and reduces value.

Their self-interest becomes their top goal.

My personal take is that there are two extremes of culture. One is dedicated to engineering and management excellence. Everyone contributes. Even if there's vigorous disagreement the engine runs smoothly and Things Get Done.

The other is a snake pit of back stabbing, drama, competitive ambition, and narcissism which spreads from the c-suite down. Things still get done, sometimes, but they're poor quality - or at least much poorer than they could be. If they make it to market they'll be overhyped and oversold. (Contempt for customers and employees alike is a good tell-tale.)

No org is 100% one or the other, but those are the competing tendencies, and - of course - they're very different to work in.

[wwweston]

Negotiation is a form of politics, not a separate thing from politics. Good faith negotiation is a principled and often relatively productive form of politics, but it remains politics nonetheless.

> out of self-interest

It's important to note that politics is as frequently driven by values as interests. This is true both in the office and in nation-states. And given that differing values often produce differing visions of excellence, a commitment to excellence doesn't spare people from the efforts/rigors of politics.

[NikolaNovak]

A lot of decent management books indicate politics are natural and your job as manager is to manage them. Pretending they don't exist or can be done away with is unrealistic and counter productive.

Politics in this sense is kinda negative but not really - acknowledgment that different people and groups may reasonably or unreasonably have different priorities, goals, perspectives, preferences, methodologies. I've spent most of my life under the Delusion of "reasonable people will agree if we just sit down and talk", but I no longer think that's the case (not the least because otherwise eventually you have to label everybody but yourself "unreasonable" :). As techies often we want full, comprehensive, correct unmutable requirements, full understanding for all issues encountered, and flexibility of schedule to reach out architectural and technical goals and standards, and everything else is "office politics".

Difference exists. Politics is trying to reconcile different perspectives priorities methods and goals. Hidden motives and deception are not necessary part of it.

[ilyt]

If it is good it is rarely long and rarely called "politics"

"ok we need this and that"

"we can deliver it by X, is that okay?"

"nope, we need that by Y"

"ok, we can cut this feature and it will be by then"

"that works, thanks"

is not "office politics", yet it is pretty common.

[srcreigh]

Lack of interaction is a strong participation in office politics as well.