The Politics of Software

Office politics isn't a side effect of bad people, it's the natural outcome when interpersonal relationships replace clear, objective decision rules. The article opens with a comparison to board games: Monopoly and Risk thrive on negotiation and alliances, while games with fixed rules like Chutes and Ladders leave little room for politics. This sets the stage for understanding why any workplace that lets personal connections dictate outcomes ends up political.

When teams have explicit metrics-sales commissions, bug-count targets, or transparent performance scores-the rules of the game are visible and the incentive structure is less open to manipulation. Even imperfect metrics give a baseline for discussion and reduce the need to guess who deserves rewards. In contrast, organizations that rely on self-organizing structures without clear reporting lines, such as Valve's holacracy, hand the reins to politics because the only thing left to decide is who gets what based on personal influence.

The author points to his own experience at Facebook and OpenAI, where the absence of public titles removed a major source of competition. When every engineer is simply a "Member of Technical Staff," there's no market for titles or salaries that fuels rivalry. He also notes how scarcity-like Microsoft's strict limits on Partner-level promotions-creates a zero-sum environment where alliances and back-stabbing become the norm, mirroring the dynamics of Risk.

Leaders who inadvertently nurture politics tend to reward presentation over substance, entertain personal grievances in one-ons, bend decision criteria for favours, and fail to punish political games. The piece argues that by setting clear rules, documenting performance criteria, and aligning goals across the organization, leaders can pull back the veil that lets politics thrive.

Finally, the article reminds senior leaders that politics intensifies with scale: larger decisions are harder to attribute, promotion slots shrink, and people problems dominate. Recognizing that political behavior often mirrors one's own actions helps leaders break the cycle and create a culture where merit, not maneuvering, drives outcomes.