When Corporate Politics Get In The Way Of Good Product Development

Corporate politics is always a controversial, hotly debated topic. Yet, this corporate political game, in my experience, seems to only be known by those actively engaged with it. The ins-and-outs, the intentions of other players, the implications of certain decisions taken by high-level management, among other things.

This poses a very frustrating problem for those on the receiving end of a lot of those decisions: developers, marketers, team leads and experts. These people are the ones who do the bulk of the concrete work that goes into creating something new and interesting.

What political game is this?

I’m talking about the types of intrigue and discussions that usually stem from competition within departments or colleagues for budgets, spotlight, or a more significant say in the direction of the company as a whole.

I have worked with a lot of different products, but they were either internal products, to be used for workers of the company itself, or more niche product for a subset of the customers of an existing company. For this reason, a lot of the influence of these products was more department wide, rather than company wide. So I saw these types of dynamics often.

The “Because I Said So” Problem

When Logic Disappears

Very likely, when you were younger, you had your parents or other figures of authority telling you things like “you can’t do that.” and when you questioned “why?”, you got the very underwhelming response of “because I said so“.

This robs you of any logic or reasoning for the why certain options and decisions are better than others.

Of course the why can be hard or uncomfortable to explain. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be an attempt.

I’ve seen this happen a lot of times. The seemingly counterproductive decisions taken by someone so far up the ladder and far away from the daily reality of the low level work rarely had any sort of satisfying or logical explanation behind them. Because it was a decision not to improve the product as the users wanted or would help them with a problem, but rather to look better when it was presented to Department leads, or C-level management.

The Impact on Development Teams

So for development teams, having decisions that seem to stray away from what should be the main focus of their product (customer satisfaction), and their established vision for it, makes them less adaptable and afraid to commit to a vision or path forward. Because you never know when the management of the department will force another direction for the vision and roadmap. Everyone becomes less certain of what they are implementing, that the product vision is correct or relevant, and starts to lose the shining beacon which tells them “why are we building this”.

The Consequences:

• Loss of direction: Teams become uncertain about what they’re building and why
• Fear of commitment: Hesitation to fully commit to any vision or path
• Diminishing motivation: The “shining beacon” that drives innovation fades away
• Reduced adaptability: Constant fear of unexpected changes from above

Transparency is Key

Balancing Flexibility with Clarity

With all of this, I’m not saying that, once the vision or the roadmap of a product is established, it cannot be changed. Of course not. Quite the opposite.

It should be routinely checked to ensure it’s still relevant, and aligned with the goals of the company and product. But any adjustments should be done BY the team, not forced on them. Specially when the decisions for the pivots/changes are not clear to them, or do not agree with their way of working on a product.

The People Closest to the Problem

They are the ones in contact with the users of their product.

They are the ones closer to the issues that users have and want solved. And if they are not, they should be. When changes are needed, they should come from an analysis of the circumstances by the product owner, in my opinion, aided by the development team when needed. The product owner should also make it clear to the development team the reasoning behind their decisions, if they were not involved in the decision making process.

Key Principles:

• Team involvement: Decisions should be made WITH the team, not TO the team
• User proximity: Those closest to users should have the strongest voice
• Clear reasoning: All decisions must come with transparent explanations
• Increased ownership: Better understanding leads to greater team investment

Focus on What Adds Real Value

The Only Metric That Matters

The main driver of the direction of product development is “customer satisfaction”, not political gains in the department.

You want to solve pains that the consumers have. This is why a product is valuable to a user.

If anything else starts to have more influence on your product, then it’s a matter of time until customers stop using your product. And when that happens, any political game will become a lot harder to win without conflicts or letting people go.

The Bottom Line

By keeping the focus on what actually matters and drives the value of the product/department/company, everything will go a lot more smoothly.

Remember: When customers stop using your product, all the political maneuvering in the world won’t save the department or the political games that derailed you in the first place. The only sustainable strategy is building products that genuinely serve users.