Because the op has pride in what he does. Because he cares more about getting it done than the political faffery.

That's a my take on it, anyway

Right, some people want to do a good job and also get recognized for it. Whereas other people want to use politics to prosper from the work and ideas of others. The latter type don't care whose idea it was, who implemented it and did all the work, as long as they the gamers get the credit and rewards for it.

That's just life right? Yes but the point is for the former type of people it is very frustrating to work with the latter type, because not only you have to do a great job, you also have to put in a lot effort to fight the politicians. It is often better to get the hell out of Dodge rather than stick around with the bandits.

But software engineering IS about politics as well! We always think that SE is only about tech and being right and smart... the reality is: one needs to be technically right AND play politics in order to achieve anything within a company. lmilcin was probably technically right, but he didn't play well the politics part of the equation. Result? He had to quit, and he company didn't get a better search solution.

Well said. A good piece of work is its own satisfaction, and a broken piece of code is misery for everyone. People who fix broken things just because they're broken and should be fixed are the lifeblood of any organization. Once they're displaced by people who don't know, understand, or care, the organization is basically a zombie.

> Because he cares more about getting it done than the political faffery.

I agree, 100%, but this sentence is also the problem with OP's approach. Like it or not, being effective as a software engineer isn't just about getting things done. First, you have to get the right thing done (sounds like OP has this covered, though).

But, perhaps even more importantly, if you want to actually have real impact, you need to make sure the things you've created actually get adopted in the organization. And, that's literally the definition of "political faffery."

There's a very real sense in which anything that involves more than 3 people is going to involve politics in some way, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm more referring to the definition in The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce, specifically the first part: "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."

As a mid-level or senior-level engineer, if you've been at the company for a few months, you should have some relationships that you can use to navigate the political landscape. As a staff or principal engineer, it's practically your job to have these relationships. As a junior, you should be looking to your manager, or higher level engineers on your own team to help you, should you get involved in a political mess, but, the best thing to do is to loop in your manager ASAP and avoid politically sensitive issues to the extent that is practical.

But, the bottom line is really just about power and numbers. If you don't have the right person or people on your side, if you try to bypass or undermine those people, or, sometimes, if a lot of people are really against you, it does not matter how technically great your project/service/process/whatever is. It simply will not get adopted, because you threatened entrenched interests.

If you're unlucky, and either don't have sufficient political capital, or you managed to expend most of it during this whole affair, this is where ignoring politics can ultimately lead to a not completely voluntary trip out the door.

I've seen projects that were brilliantly managed politically, and I've seen ones that weren't. Brilliantly managed projects aren't generally going to be the ones you notice, unless you're specifically looking for them and watching the politics of the whole affair. These projects often just look like projects that are succeeding, to the superficial outside glance. Even if there are technical delays, the fact that there is political buy-in for the project means that if you're championing such a project, you won't suffer for having your name attached to it.

Projects that weren't well managed politically can tend to start off well, but turn into shit shows later. Best case scenario for a project that doesn't achieve buy-in is that it gets shelved in favor of another approach. Worst case, the project is radioactive, and that's where it can lead to an involuntary trip out the door.

TL;DR: You can't care about getting things done to the exclusion of politics if you want to have any actual impact within an organization. Politics can easily make or break the success of a project, and it can be hard to tell if you're stepping on a political landmine unless you know the terrain well.