[obviouslynotme]

Except this is an article on how to perform technical politics in large organizations. Functional, intelligent, non-nepotistic leadership is the exception, not the rule. It has been this way for a long time, perhaps forever. Dilbert became one of the most circulated comics for good reason. This article is the third guy.

Pretending that identifying stakeholders' needs, communicating the solutions, and delivering them are the keys to succeeding in corporate politics is a joke. It's our parent's telling us that we need to be good for Santa Claus. Human politics is an enormously deep subject, and a newbie will get trampled every single time. If you are sitting at a poker table and don't know who the sucker is within five minutes, congratulations, you are that sucker.

[Aeolun]

> Pretending that identifying stakeholders' needs, communicating the solutions, and delivering them are the keys to succeeding in corporate politics is a joke.

I don't think that's actually true. Identifying the stakeholders' needs is absolutely something that will lead to success in corporate politics. Just don't expect their needs to be about building decent products.

[johnfn]

> Functional, intelligent, non-nepotistic leadership is the exception

The majority of marriages end in divorce. This doesn't mean that I should treat all prospective partners as someone I will eventually divorce. That is not healthy for me, the people I interact with, or my future.

[qu4z-2]

Do factor in that people in a healthy marriage don't have a lot of marriages.

[johnfn]

For first-time marriages, the number is still quite high (~40%)

[citizenpaul]

Survivorship bias. Get burned a bunch of times and see where your strategy lies. You'd be a fool to keep sinking all your effort into things that devastate your life time and again.

[johnfn]

If I kept getting burned, I might think about the types of people I get into relationships with, the type of things I'm learning while dating, and I might talk with friends to see how their relationships are going and see if I could be doing something different. I don't think I would start telling everyone in a relationship to prepare for divorce.

[garciasn]

People change; especially over decades.

[Maro]

I've been divorced once. That in itself doesn't mean I go around telling people to not get married.

But, it does mean that I forced [1] my 2nd wife to sign a pre-nuptual agreement, and I go around recommending others to do so as well.

[1] she initially refused to sign it, I told her the wedding's off if she doesn't, so she did; she's still unhappy about this and hates me for a day whenever she's reminded of it; this was 5 years ago, we're still married and not divorcing currently; while I know it doesn't sound romantic, it was the right thing to do because people and life circumstances change _a lot_; I hope we will stay together forever and get buried next to each other, but I had the same hope with my 1st wife and then she cheated on me when my then-startup was failing, so now, much wiser, I can see a 1000 ways for such hopes to fall apart

[mlrtime]

Brother, I'm in the same boat as you.

This unhappiness that your wife has will not go away and you will deal with situation at some point. These hard conversations have a way of finding you.

I won't tell you to tear up the pre-nup, but I highly recommend coming up with a compromise (over time) that meets both of your needs.

[Maro]

I know what you mean, I do think about how to soften this situation often. It'd be easier if she'd be rational about it, but she's not the rational type — which is even more reason to have the pre-nup..

[Chris2048]

> I told her the wedding's off if she doesn't

Did you tell here beforehand (earlier in relationship) you wanted a prenup, or only after proposal?

[lupusreal]

Judges toss prenups all the time. You best keep her happy.

[Maro]

This is not in the US.

[mlrtime]

So? That means they're all worthless?

[lmm]

> The majority of marriages end in divorce. This doesn't mean that I should treat all prospective partners as someone I will eventually divorce. That is not healthy for me, the people I interact with, or my future.

You should be aware that it's a possibility and act accordingly. Pretending divorce is impossible is what's unhealthy; preparing for the possibility will make for a healthier marriage and a better future, whether you ultimately divorce or not.

[jbm]

> The majority of marriages end in divorce

This is pedantic, but if I understand correctly, this is not true anymore. Moreover, this number is inflated by a set of people getting divorced multiple times.

[lupusreal]

Respectfully, what you should do is first make sure you don't live somewhere that recognizes common law marriage, then commit to that person without actually legally marrying her.

[harrall]

I think these discussions always miss a nuance.

I work at a big company. There are parts that are nepotistic and there are parts less so. I just utilize the parts that work.

It’s like a restaurant that has bad food. Do I avoid the restaurant? No I still go and get the 1 good dish.

Why would I deprive myself because the restaurant doesn’t tick every box? On the other hand, why would I go in ever thinking it’s a good restaurant?

[Mentlo]

If your c-suite is idiotic or nepotistic you can absolutely still influence them with good politics, you just need to understand their incentives and frame your arguments that way. You need to understand that you’re not playing meritocracy and get your outcomes done in the system you are playing.

In this case that means being in that golf game or figuring out a way how you can use corruption to get good outcomes done.

Or, more likely if your moral compass is sound, quit and find an organisation that isn’t like this.

While I agree with you that random corporate world does behave this way, companies where founders are still around - don’t - because they’re mission driven.