It is sad that being an engineering manager in the vast majority of tech companies is about politics not about engineering. A lot of engineers who opt for the management root learn this the very hard way.
The big persuasion missing from the list is persuading, both upwards and downwards, who should work on what.
It sounds super cynical but it is important to park the unproductive people on the unimportant work else nothing works. It is usually counterproductive to actually release people (the EM is rewarded for number of reports above all else) etc so you have to put the good people on what is important and somehow lend the bad people to the projects and competing teams to hamper them etc.
Sad but super true.
These aren't persuasion methods but techniques to exploit common cognitive biases. One thing I learned by reading Cialdini's "Influence" book is to call out such tricks when exposed to them. Hopefully, none of this is required when working in an organization which hires for cultural fit and shared vision.
So to sum up the "methods" listed:
1. Curry favour with stakeholders separately in advance of a big joint decision
2. Lie about estimates
3. Use filters like "falls for reverse psychology" to find subordinates that are easy to manipulate
4. Many engineers hate conflict, so you can just make decisions for them
5. See point #1
edit: clarified my takeaway for #3
That decoy pricing trick is not a good strategy. It's very easy to see through, and will seriously annoy whoever you try it on. Somebody once produced a build vs buy analysis for me, and it was so obviously biased towards their preferred option (build, because it's more fun and expands their personal empire) that I knew I couldn't trust them with anything else after that.
Just do the task honestly and well.
I am very tired of managers thinking they outsmart anyone with such tricks. I've heard other "tricks" too, like "intentional intimidation of subordinates", "being brutal in 1:1s and pretending to be a saint in public"[0], etc. They are often left unchallenged because no one feels equipped to handle the fallout, defensiveness, and retaliation that usually follow when a controlling personality is challenged. Not because they outsmart everyone.
The real "trick" is honesty, consistency, integrity, wisdom, and other golden virtues. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. At the very least, you'll live a life you can be proud of.
> I often use Reverse Psychology during hiring. My favorite part of hiring sell-calls is listing reasons why the candidate shouldn’t join my team! This always leads to some superstar hires who join because they are eager for the challenge!
The author calls honesty in interviews "reverse psychology". The broken clock is right twice a day and all that.
For persuasion to work effectively, trust is the foundation. If there is no trust, any sort of persuasion will fall flat. For managers, it is about creating psychological safety where people can easily share their ideas, opinions, and disagreements.
Think about it, if your manager asks you something, do you feel comfortable sharing exactly what's on your mind? If not, then whatever your manager says, you will take it without fully embracing it. It goes the same way with your team.
True persuasion comes with an open, honest, and candid dialogue.
Now that we have this list, we should pay close attention to its use. If someone uses these especially for personal gain, and especially at the company’s expense, it should be addressed. A company should value truth. We should not rely on persuasion tricks.
Fuck. That article gives me a real feel for working at Google and what it takes to succeed. It's a full time job to game the system!
Sadly the cookie banner is impossible to get rid of on Safari (mobile). Makes it very hard to read the content.
I don't understand why any of these except hiring is persuasion. Engineering managers don't pitch projects. They shouldn't be persuading leadership to give them resources, they just lay out timelines for what is possible with now, with more. Maybe even with less.
As an engineer and engineering leader in my career I've never had to persuade or be persuaded to do the tasks I'm assigned. They're the job. Sometimes they're boring. I think about that during planning and make sure people get some variety and ask them what they like working on.
Why would you need to persuade a cross team lead to help you? Are they not doing their job? I've never asked and been told "you have to persuade me" and if I was told that I'd ask leadership for clarification on priorities.
This sounds like organizational dysfunction and fiefdom building.
Oh wow, I appreciate this post as vivid reminder for how I grew to loathe being an EM at Google. Folks like this are pervasive in the org these days.
> Some may see this as manipulation
Because it is the dark art of manipulation for middle managers. This art boils down to creating a false reality to everyone who matters: you tell one set of lies to Bob, tailored to his personality, another set of lies to Jon, yet another set of lies to Jim, and when they come together, their vision is blurred by the lies you've skilfully created and they arrive with the decision you want.
You can up your game with tricks such as: backroom deals (give me what I want and I'll give you what you want) and blackmail (here is what I can do to you, so give me what I want). This dark art is an endless pit that to fully master you need to descend to hell.
What is the point of being great at persuading if one is persuading peers, reports, and leaders to do the wrong thing? Persuasion is necessary but it should be second to the suggestion actually being a step in the desired direction.
The fifth point is the same as in 'Ask for no, don’t ask for yes'
I think it’s important to add that nemawashi is not some concealed manipulation. It is used openly and explicitly in Japanese companies. It is even taught to employees as a procedure. This makes it very different from some of the concealed manipulation mentioned by the OP.
The only method that works long term is being honest about what you want from people and honest about the diff between your expectations and their output.
In a previous company many times new managers asked me how to approach a subject with their reports and usually they wouldn't consider just saying it exactly as they described it to me. Just say what you mean, it'll help all your relationships, not even just work ones.
It's hard enough trying to convey what you mean clearly, adding shenanigans that you'll also be bad at on top is not going to help.
Weirdly this is one of the few "Machiavellian" articles that actually reflects the ground reality at G than the sugary "we are a family and every means well" kind of LinkedIn posts!
I see a lot of people here saying "be honest" etc... but that simply doesn't work in real life.
I suspect that all of those "be honest" people never actually did this in real life: if they did they would realize that once you get to ~10+ people in a company it simply doesn't work.
There is a reason that politics exists: we humans aren't rational. We are emotional and "exploiting" the biases in the article is not manipulation, since the human who is being "manipulated" isn't rational in the first place.
So who is it to blame? The one doing "manipulation" since that person sees that actual benefit can be had or the "poor manipulated target" who actually can't see past his biases and that his stuborness and blindess is having a negative effect on the company?
If the "just be honest" and "actually being heard" worked there would be no need for politics etc..
From my experience and what I heard from others in real companies at least 50% of people aren't "rational" enough for this to work.
They also have their own reponsibilities and stress and now having to reimplement someones idea (which might be good or totaly shit) is the last thing they want to stress out about: they want to go home to their families.
Even if this "great idea" works will they get a increase in salary and a bigger bonus? In 95% of cases they won't. So why bother?
Humans are incentive based creatures.
This is total self-help drivel, engineering management is
1. Focus on and understand the details. 2. Compromise in the right way.
The rest is just some art of the deal crap about empire building and getting headcount so you feel safe because someone else is there to do the work and take the rap.
Uhh, yeah, you can do this, yes, this works, but I wouldn't do any of this.
Life is not about scores. It's about living it like you want it. If you want to get the scores, that's fine, but not everyone are like that. If I learned that my coworker stalked me into the plane I'd move away ASAP.
Sure, it's a game, but I rather lose and stay human, than game the system. And those who do - there are many more social hacking techniques one could use.
There's this last "conundrum" on pulling the offer for that completely weird scenario, where new hire comes in next week, there's no contract, they quit and then offer is withdrawn. Outside of complete absurd context there's one solution - bite the bullet. Either by free lunch for 6 months or so, or just taking hire in. Reputation damage from doing this kind of stunt would be much higher than a single salary.
But in such management as a game context, score can be given for "sucks to be you, make sure to sign the contract first".
One more to the list: We persuade reports to tackle tasks that they know are useless but will need to get done to appease some moron with power.
I worked in a company where the author was brought in as fractional CTO and later advisor for a few months. The company was small size (about ~40 developers, total being around 200).
There was hardly any "politics" in the workplace before, but there many instances my manager had to do so, to get the work done. Worst part was he was being appreciated for gaming systems. (I find it worse, I don't know how my manager felt it)
to add, as a fractional CTO, the author was just terrible. Lacked vision, foresight or could offer anything on technology. Just a glorified manager who could smooth talk with management and the investors
thankfully, we got a CTO later, but soon after I left the company for different reasons.
so yeah, I wouldn't take anything seriously about the author. Pretty much a grifter
Working at Google (and similar companies) seems to be such a chore is what i got from this article.
As a previous EM at a FAANG, I'm very conflicted by this post. On one hand, it is quite useful and representative of some of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans that I wish I was aware of at the time that would've made my life easier. On the other hand, it is representative of the time and effort wasted on political bullshit at big tech that could certainly have been put to better use. TL;DR: Thanks, I hate it.
Something irked me about this post as a long term EM, and then reading the final part actually provided the clarity: The author is a sociopath.
Stalking your superiors is insane. Most of the behaviour here is insane. Decoy cup size? Present the option that is best for the business and be done with it.
This is a sign of a sick company.
It's kind of fascinating to see how persuasion in American professional culture can sometimes come across as borderline manipulative or sociopath. Wouldn't it be better if things were approached with clear planning, mutual respect, and a bit more order?
One underrated trick? Listening without trying to solve right away. I’ve seen engineers open up more when they feel heard rather than redirected. That alone can shift team dynamics faster than most “leadership frameworks.”
A few years ago, I pitched an internal developer tool that would've saved hours of manual QA work. I had data, a working prototype, and even initial support from a couple of engineers.
It went nowhere. Why? I didn’t do any pre-alignment. I presented it cold in a leadership meeting and watched people nod politely… then forget about it the next day.
Reading about Nemawashi and Engineered Serendipity now makes it painfully obvious what I missed: those informal 1:1s, quiet pre-chats, and planting the seed before the meeting.
[dead]
[flagged]
I don't usually judge articles by their "form", but this reads like the posts people share on LinkedIn and I don't like it. I'm glad I don't have to resort to some of these shenanigans in my org (point 2, 3 and 5). I try to make the best case based on the reality, stay open to compromise and usually the outcome is fair. I understand it could be different in an org where there are strongly divergent interests including some that go against the company. I feel my opinion of a colleague would be diminished if they pulled some of these tricks on me, I'd expect someone in sales to do these but not our tech department.