[bigcloud1299]

15 years in leadership worked at 3 jobs lead major transformations at retail where nearly 100B of revenue goes through what i built. Ran $55-$100M in a yearly budget… over 300 FTEs and 3x contractors under my or my budget,…largest retailer in google at that time…my work influenced GCP roadmap, Datastax roadmap, … much more all behind the scenes…. besides your capabilities and ability that had to be there to get you in those positions - but once you are in those positions - only that mattered is politics and asskissing. I know so many people smarter than me, always stayed lower b/c they didn’t know how to play politics. Only reason i never got higher was I didn’t know how to play politics and kiss ass any more or any better.

The top people are all who kissed each others ass and looked out only for their cohort (e.g. people who were in same positions as them in early 2013). So teach your kids to kiss ass and play poltiics.

[spicyusername]

    So teach your kids to kiss ass and play poltiics.

Or to stay far away and do something useful with their lives.

[euifii]

This is what I really don’t get about these types of folks. Do they really want to remember their life’s work as “kissing ass and playing politics”? I get the “work to live” and all that, but you’re basically tossing away half your life…for what, money? How much money do you need!?

[cherioo]

Because that's not how they perceive their works. Instead it is "advocating for one's own team and passion", "helping others advance their career", "networking and building long-term connections".

[anon84873628]

Well you can "work to live" in a nice big house, with a nanny, eating steaks, flying business class to ski in the alps or scuba in the Galapagos... I think it takes a lot of money before you feel like you don't need more money.

[mhss]

Not at all. Most people can be super happy with less than the average tech salary (at a point where they don't feel they need more if it comes at the expense of work life balance, time with family, job satisfaction, etc).

[wiseowise]

I’ll never understand this WHY X - BECAUSE Y - WELL Y IS TOO MUCH, Z IS MORE THAN ENOUGH comment trifecta. Obviously a lot of people are not super happy, otherwise they wouldn’t kiss asses and play politics to get more money.

[xnickb]

You are responding to a "money != happiness" comment with "people kiss asses to get more money because they're unhappy". Just saying.

[ktzar]

Just that all of those activities you mention feel like a useless life compared to spending time with your own children in a house big enough for everyone to have their space, but small enough to force you to feel you're living with each other, seeing them grow and thrive, and going around your closest nature patch.

Not much money is needed to have a fulfilling and worth-living life.

[BeetleB]

Other than the big house, which can easily be achieved in much of the country, nothing in the list above incentivizes me to either work harder or kids ass.

[anon84873628]

Sure, lots of people don't care about those things and therefore don't shape their careers to get them. But some do, and that's what we're talking about.

Though to be clear I should have said "it can take a lot of money..."

[therealdrag0]

It feels unsavory from the outside, but politics is also the art of getting stuff done. It’s not throwing your life away if you can point at an org chart and a roadmap delivered and say “I helped build that”. Leadership is just as important as implementation.

[H8crilA]

You need to have the right personality. Either actually enjoy the game, or have an unsatiable (fear-driven?) need for status, or something else of this sort. We don't get to choose our personalities, though some limited modifications are possible - see treatments for personality disorders, for example.

[BLKNSLVR]

> actually enjoy the game, or have an unsatiable (fear-driven?) need for status, or something else of this sort

Ie. Somewhat serious mental disorders as requisite for leadership.

I wonder how we got onto this darkest timeline?

[astrange]

If it's adaptive it's not a disorder.

[Aeglaecia]

sweet , a new way to justify addiction

[wiseowise]

Humans were like this since the inception of times. Chieftains, Khans, Czars, Kings, etc.

[H8crilA]

Evolution. It is a brutal process.

[botanrice]

I question this every single day. Constantly the argument arises that if I played politics and ass-kissed, I might receive more opportunities to create bigger impact to help people / entertain people / provide some valuable service or product. Yet it feels painful to have to self-promote (even if framing it as "documentation of your work").

It is akin to musicianship in a sense. How many of the absolutely, obscenely, most talented musicians have you come across in completely obscured settings? At the pub, the hole-in-the-wall jazz club in a C-tier city, deep on the internet with 13 plays on SoundCloud. But we all know that pop music doesn't necessarily reward technical musicianship.

It's similar in life & career.

[febusravenga]

Well, I think that it depends on perspective and motivations.

Kissing asses/politics can be treated as skill used for different purposes. Imagine your ambition is to build bridge, skyscraper or fancy opera house.

To be chosen as the one for such projects, you must play many games including politics.

(I assume good intentions, selfish ones are possible too, but are they worth discussing?)

[lotsofpulp]

Depends where you want to live, but $5M to $10M would help with enough passive income to future proof one’s family and their kids.

[ap99]

For some, that's not only their competency but they enjoy it.

Is building relationships and status less worthwhile than building code or bridges or houses or painting pictures?

People get to choose the game they play.

[mirekrusin]

> …for what, money? How much money do you need!?

"more" seems to be the answer to many.

[zdragnar]

It isn't the highest paying path in life, but this is what I chose as well. Working for small companies with good people is infinitely better than working at massive companies with decent people. No matter how many good intentions there are, the politicking is utterly exhausting and unfulfilling.

Then again, I'm the kind of person who moved to the countryside to get away from the city life, so YMMV.

[sanderjd]

I've done both things, and they have their pros and cons. Big businesses can build bigger and more impactful things, and it is very satisfying to contribute to those things. The original poster is still clearly proud of the things they were able to build by "playing politics and kissing ass".

But (for me) there is definitely a certain ennui to being a little cog in a big machine, especially because everybody else there is doing the same thing. So being in smaller more cohesive companies definitely has its advantages.

The grass is always greener and all that!

[caffeinatedwo]

Why not both?

[maximinus_thrax]

> The top people are all who kissed each others ass and looked out only for their cohort (e.g. people who were in same positions as them in early 2013). So teach your kids to kiss ass and play poltiics.

After more than 20 years in big tech, I agree, this is basically it. Your work can only get you so far. If it makes you feel any better, you can reframe politics as 'people systems' and work on optimizing the relationships in the system. Or whatever. But the gist of it is to find a powerful group and try to become a member of that group.

[naijaboiler]

we are human being interacting with other human beings. what you call "kissing ass" is just learning to influence and work with other humans. It is by far the most useful skill to have in workplace. But don't worry. continue your disdain of it, includeing calling it negative names, and watch your career stagnate.

[yobbo]

> It is by far the most useful skill to have in workplace.

This might be defacto true in most workplaces, but defending "politics over competence" boils down to "I deserve the rewards from other people's work".

People oppose it because it is morally wrong, not because they think it is an inaccurate description of reality.

[toxik]

You say that as if politics is optional. It isn't, decisions need to be made and politics is the process of making those decisions: who decides, and why.

In academia, for example, there is less politics because the publishing system sort of becomes the decision process. You apply with your ideas in the form of papers, the referees decide if your ideas are good enough (and demonstrated well enough) for the wider audience to even get to see. Then some politics, a popularity contest. But crucially this system famously leads to a LOT of resources being wasted, good research that never goes anywhere because nobody cares about it, or bad research that does nothing but everyone cares (cold fusion).

Politics is just a name for how we decide things. And yes, it sucks, but that's because we suck.

[rswail]

With this understanding of academia, you are perfectly suited to doing software development for them, because if you think there is "less politics" in academia, you are being foolish.

Academia is notorious for politics, especially around tenure and grants, scholarships, etc.

Publication politics are just a small part of that, but even there, working out which name goes in what order of the authorship of the paper is political.

[toxik]

Academia is not more notorious for politics than a corporate job, in my opinion. I've done both. Academia tries its very best to be meritocratic if anything. There is of course some degree of politics, it is inevitable, which was the point I was trying to make.

[Sprotch]

It’s not politics over competence. It’s getting things done in the real world

[einpoklum]

(Every gang leader and dictator ever): That's right!

[pphysch]

The same applies to Universities and "democratic" institutions.

[dijit]

Sometimes.

Sometimes it's just bullshit.

Learn the lingo, the language, the proper way of posturing and the correct way to shirk responsibility and that's what matters in certain orgs.

I sound really bitter, but I'm not, I'm actually quite good at the game and I've proven that, I just don't really like the game because it doesn't translate into being able to take pride in what I've done. It's all about serving egos. Your own and others.

Every french multinational I've worked for is entirely built on this.

[geodel]

> I'm actually quite good at the game and I've proven that,

Good. I failed and very likely about to face consequences.

[dijit]

Nobody that actually matters will hold it against you.

Fuck the posers. Do real shit.

[BeetleB]

You're not wrong. You're just missing the thing people are complaining about: The existence of people who succeed in pushing for inferior solutions, and managing to leave before it becomes clear (which can take years in a large company).

My previous company is in a bad position and many such folks are finally being outed. But it takes lots and lots of screwing up before the fat is trimmed.

[rapidfl]

> The existence of people who succeed in pushing for inferior solutions, and managing to leave before it becomes clear

Guess this is just random evolution at play. Some companies will pay a bigger price than others. And not everyone even recognizes it and pinpoint it like you did.

But overall influencing people is on net good skill for the individual. And what is good for the geese is good for the gander??

[BeetleB]

> Some companies will pay a bigger price than others.

The problem is that typically a large company has one or a few golden geese. They can milk it for a long time because of an existing moat. The moat keeps shrinking, but it can sometimes take a decade or two for others to catch up.[1] That's plenty of time for such folks to make a career of playing politics well without contributing much.

Lots of people at that company left before things went bad and are poisoning other companies.

[1] Just look at Google and search. Or Microsoft and Windows. Or even Microsoft and Internet Explorer.

[dclowd9901]

I've literally never had the thought of "how do I influence other people." Why is that considered a valuable skill? It just sounds like a nicer version of "manipulation".

[anon84873628]

If other people are not smart enough to see why your ideas are superior then you need to explain it to them or otherwise convince them to go along somehow.

Most of my "influencing" is just repeatedly explaining things to people and letting them think through all the bad ideas and dead ends themselves.

[arkh]

> I've literally never had the thought of "how do I influence other people." Why is that considered a valuable skill?

If you're a software developer you must have thought "current priorities are not right, we should do X for the users / Y to get better quality" and tried to influence your management to get those priorities moved. Maybe by starting a campaign with your users so the demands come from multiple services and not just you, or by measuring quality indicators and showing how what you want to implement would improve them etc.

That's why you want to start getting coffee with people, maybe go outside with the smokers. It can take months of "work" to get people to propose the idea you want done.

But this kind of influencing won't help your career.

[kortilla]

Do you consider educating people “manipulation”?

[anthonypasq]

trying to make a convincing argument about anything is "influencing" people. its manipulation if you are trying to convince someone of something you know benefits you more than the person.

[ehnto]

I don't disagree with you, except that a career can stagnate. Maybe you are already working in your ideal role, solving cool problems every day. Maybe moving up the ladder nets you more money but less of what you actually want in life.

Less a comment for yourself and more for the reader by the way. It is important to know what you want and strive for that.

[ytoawwhra92]

Nah, people say this all the time but organisations where these sorts of gratuitous social games are absent tend to BTFO of organisations where they're present/expected.

[rester324]

Or continue being an ass and kissing asses, and watch the workforce unionize and see how the people YOU disdain shows you who has the real power

[rubzah]

This is OP's lesson 20: Eventually, time becomes worth more than money. Act accordingly.

I’ve watched senior engineers burn out chasing the next promo level, optimizing for a few more percentage points of compensation. Some of them got it. Most of them wondered, afterward, if it was worth what they gave up.

[neilv]

> So teach your kids to kiss ass and play poltiics.

Teach your kids to kick ass, and to distrust politicians.

[dclowd9901]

I agree -- the career advancement bent of this article is the most off putting aspect.

[sanderjd]

It does matter though. I also find it off-putting, but in the same way as lots of other stuff that I don't like about the reality of human society. The trick (I think) is to strike a balance between being open-eyed and realistic about unpleasant truths like "career advancement matters" without losing yourself to cynicism and self-interested gamesmanship.

I read this article as striking this balance pretty well. (Though it's certainly reasonable to quibble with it.) The one I struggled with was the one about not doing glue work just out of helpfulness, to conscientiously make it legible work instead of a personality. I hate this! This is totally my personality. I like being helpful and I like doing this kind of work and I really don't want to think or care about how it is reading to upper management.

But I also think he's pretty spot on about this. It's a very rare personality that can remain content in being the glue holding things together somewhere deep in the leaf nodes of a big organization, while seeing everyone around you graduate to bigger and better things because their work was more legible than yours. Very few people manage this without becoming bitter.

So I read Osmani's advice on this more as avoiding a common pitfall of resentment more so than as cynical careerism.

(Another unpleasant truth about "glue work people" like me, is that we aren't actually holding everything together, and the rest of the team can easily pick up the slack once it is documented and legible. This is exactly what Osmani suggests, instead of "helpfully" responding to all the DMs or requests for help about things, document what you would do in response to the common questions, and set up a rotation of people in charge of responding to them. This is a real bummer to me, because again, I really enjoy spending my time being the go-to helpful person on a team, but this is the much better approach for the organization, and ultimately for everyone including me.)

[caminante]

FWIW, from a stoic viewpoint, glue/coordinator roles are getting eviscerated by basic LLMs.

I feel the resentment is stronger if you ignore the game and get lulled into contentment when others are more transactional. It's all about interfaces and continuous contracting. And planning 2+ steps ahead.

[sanderjd]

Oh I disagree entirely with your first sentence. LLMs continue to be much better at writing lots of code than keeping track of how all the pieces of an organization actually fit together.

[caminante]

I'm pretty sure it's good at both.

>I like being helpful and I like doing this kind of work and I really don't want to think or care about how it is reading to upper management.

Coding aside, I'm afraid this is already falling prey to LLMs plugged into exec calendars and org charts. You're adding yet another non-human, digital layer.

[sanderjd]

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I think this seems like a misunderstanding of the kind of work I'm referring to. It's not clear to me how being plugged into exec calendars and org charts would help, so I think we're probably talking about different things.

But that the with is misunderstood and invisible to lots of people is the whole point of the thread! So it's an understandable misunderstanding :)

[sanderjd]

I think this is what leads a lot of people to want to run their own business. Of course, a lot of those people end up needing to (or falling into the trap of) kissing the asses of investors.

[kakacik]

Thats sociopathy in corporate world. Big companies have often 20-40% of such individuals, ie finance has way more (as I see daily) and concentration rises as you rise up in ranks.

The thing is - you don't have to play that game. Sure, you will miss some promotions to largely meaningless titles, much more stress and pressure in such work, and a bit of money but in most companies the money is not worth it (ie work 50% more to get 20% more compensation, in net income rather 10% more since extra income will be hit with high marginal tax bracket in most countries).

But main reason is - what you do 40+ hours weekly for decades (and especially how you do it) seeps back in into you even if you actively try to prevent that. Is it really worth tainting your personality permanently with more sociopathic behavior and thinking, with subsequent negative effect on all personal relationships and even things like personal happiness? I am old enough to see these trends among peers, they are very gradual but once you know what to look for, rather obvious.

When poor such a deal is easy to rationalize since poverty can be crippling, but once beyond that quality of life should be top priority, we are here for rather short time. Otherwise most probably regrets happen later, just listen well to old folks what they are proud of and what not so much.

[k8sToGo]

>b/c they didn’t know how to play politics

Or they refuse to play that bs game

[geodel]

True. I used to count myself in that category. Do the work and stay away from games. I was also thinking of myself as clever, self-respecting by doing hard work and leaving daily politicking for others. And now sometime back I got like 2-3 dressing downs from managers, reason being I am not taking leadership feedback seriously enough and mending my ways. This despite I am only one with left with knowledge of legacy system. Clearly I am pretty dispensable while thinking otherwise all along.

No outside prospects considering market situation, miserable current workplace ultimately due to my choices. So in end just no winning for me by not playing game.

[toxik]

Politics and leadership is a responsibility. By avoiding it, you're setting a bad example. Once you know how an organization works, you should help lead it.

If we consider a family, you're essentially saying you'll only "do the work": brush teeth, feed kids, clean up, but not take on any responsibilities for the actual goals of the family. Not pushing to have your kids learn things, just executing somebody else's ideas, driving them to sports; not improving the living situation by perhaps investigating if you should get a bigger car. Nothing leading, only executing the ideas of your spouse.

I exaggerate of course, but there is something there.

[gwbas1c]

> And now sometime back I got like 2-3 dressing downs from managers, reason being I am not taking leadership feedback seriously enough and mending my ways.

It's important that you have relationships with your boss's boss. Some organizations call these skip-level 1-1s, other times it's just riding with your boss's boss in the car. This also is not politicking or CYA.

The reason is that managers are fallible, and when you have a relationship with your boss's boss, it helps get things back on track when someone (you, your boss, or your boss's boss) makes a mistake.

Getting back to the point: If you get a dressing down from your manager, your relationship with your boss's boss helps you know if you deserve it, or your manager made a mistake and your boss's boss has to intervene.

---

Quite tangible: A few weeks ago my manager gave me a dressing down. Earlier in the day I had a conversation with the CEO where he told me I was 100% in the right, so my manager was basically putting his foot in his mouth the entire time they gave me the dressing down. It's interesting to see where the situation is going to go, because everyone (me, the CEO, and everyone else in the company) really respects my manager and wants to continue working with them in a non-managerial role.

[caminante]

In your situation, it's end of year review time. He might be softening you up.

Why not mention to your manager that CEO supported you? Are they working with different data? I get these may not be fun to press on right before the holidays.

[gwbas1c]

Don't make assumptions. My employer does not do end-of-year reviews.

To make a long story short, my manager got angry because I wrote a quick and dirty tool that bypassed a lot of confusing abstraction layers, and is significantly easier to use than the tool the company currently uses.

When my manager got angry, I first told my manager that we shouldn't argue in front of the entire office. Then I went to the CEO for advice. The CEO gave me advice that I used on my 1-1 with my manager later that day. (The CEO was also quite happy that I made a quick-and-dirty tool that made peoples' lives easier.)

> Why not mention to your manager that CEO supported you?

I suggested that my manager discuss the issue with the CEO when they told me that he didn't think he could "sell my tool" to the CEO.

To make a long story short, this is a case where my manager started the company, and people / project management is not their strong part. The limiting factor is funding, otherwise we'd have hired a proper project manager and promoted my manager (the founder) to a thought leadership role.

[caminante]

>I suggested that my manager discuss the issue with the CEO

Point blank:

Why not tell your manager you already spoke with the CEO instead of

1. Not mentioning you already overstepped your manager

2. And the skip-level boss/CEO liked the idea.

This seems like potentially good intentions being easily perceived by your manager as passive-aggressive. Maybe your skip level told you to use that phrasing.

Regardless, good luck.

[naishoya]

"Teach your kids to kiss ass and play poltiics"(sic) ?

Does one have any significant quality time to spend with the children during the formative and developmental stages in their early lives, while engaging in major corporation sociopathetic ass-kissery?

TLDR; being an excellent (or sociopathic) ass-kisser is one way to the top; if alone at the top on your way to alone at the rest-home with kids, exes, and former employees who hate you is the desired outcome.

Are the techniques one must be adept at to manage an extensive cohort of subjects|employees|associates appropriate means of influencing the developmental progress of children, such that they can be actually happy and a beneficial influence on their own partners, progeny, and greater society?

Otherwise, does it only matter that they then have the capacity and rapacity to remain in a position to become or remain rampant over-consumers in pursuit of the most expensive visages of "happiness."

How about using the accumulated wealth in the betterment of those childrens' lives by teaching them to cooperate in meaningful adventures, to build strong and lasting relationships of kindness, to consume with regards to the full scope of the externalized costs of that consumption, to enjoy the act of creation and production of meaningful insight in art and science ?

If one's actual goal is the qualitatively and quantitatively better long term outcomes in the lives of those children; isn't a more stable and harmonious life with the reward of success measured by the reduction in suffering both within and around them by finding their own unique and innate power to imagine, cooperate, discover, and grow, all while contributing to the knowledge base and capability of humanity?

If the goal is: a widening clan of bickering, profit seeking, materialistic, continually dissatisfied workaholics with a series of divorces, early cirrhosis of the liver, to end their days spending down the accumulated wealth in a lonely senior-dementia-warehouse, well sir or madam, carry on.

The Longer part - a.k.a. "what the hell do I know about anything?":

FWIW, I am quite grateful that the fortune500 CEO/COO vater meins was principally unavailable or unable to instill most of his 'techniques' for success in my own early years. He was somewhat more present and it is debatable, malignantly, involved during more of the developmentally significant stages of my younger siblings. The results have been a mixed bag of world class success in the some arenas of life with world class catastrophic outcomes for the other arenas for at least 2/5 to 4/5 of his admitted progeny, depending on how one measures those arenas.

My own, albeit limited, advantage from milder exposure to his 'capabilities' has informed a strong aversion to the quest for infinite collateral resources and externalized risks through manipulation and deceit with and among others.

I wouldn't have it any other way, and have lived a life of immeasurable richness; having years spent with the freedom to ponder, opportunity to discover novelty, create opportunities for many to learn and participate in the arts and sciences. With the freedom to chose vainglorious poverty, indulging in a selfish amount of free time; nine years in total, doing nothing more than looking after goats and gardens in some of the wildest tropical jungle at the princely cost of less than $300 USD per month, all-in. Surviving on wild boar, feral oxen, gamefowl, marine and river fishing, all while living as prehistorically as we could imagine with my spouse and best friend. (Same person) No hot running water, barely any electricity, no petrochemical fuels, and the scarcest of rain shelter in one of the wettest places on earth. It was a kingdom unto itself, and we answered to no one for our daily needs.

Barter and trade of the product of our own two hands among the other, more civilized, inhabitants provided everything we could not make and do without. Occasional travel, by road, by air, and by sail were accomplished without needing a bank account or a land-line. We needed little, and wanted for nothing more than the continued opportunity to live among the tree frogs and roaring streams.

Tell me you're richer, without the ability to live and make lifelong friends through no hidden agenda beyond helping a community of your own choosing to do what is agreed by that community to be best for everyone; and I'll call you a fool with pockets full of money, wasting breath on children who will neither grow wise nor kind by your words and example.

Also, this isn't a sour grapes POV. I have managed a 30B PE fund, nominally in control of several hundred B worth of assets that produce significant percentages of US and global consumption of at least three commodities with properties and operations on 5 continents, and which holds patents in carbon negative and renewable power technologies and which controls some of the operations utilizing those patents. I have contributed personally to the concepts enabling bare-metal layer of hypervisor development, over 20 years ago when hardware and in-kernel virtualization were the dreams of a glorious future. I do know the difference between money and wealth, first hand. I'll take freedom over never-ending consumerism, all my live-long days.