I'd speculate that it's less about politics and empires, and more about not getting too many cooks in the kitchen. It's easy to blur the vision for your product when you have opinions coming in from five thousand people, never mind having the entire world speculate and discuss the product that doesn't yet exist.

Think back to May 2007. Remember some of the iPhone mockups people were throwing around? Aside from being largely impractical and stupid, there was clearly no "right" way to do it that was obvious to everyone, as the mocks were so incredibly varied. At some point, you have to make a bet on what the best way to proceed is and go with it, or else you'll spend all day debating and not actually get anything done. That's far easier in small, "secretive" groups.

I've only worked at small (<100 employees) companies, so I guess I've just never run into this. It's a little sad to think that you could work alongside someone and have to consider them a threat rather than an ally.

> consider them a threat rather than an ally.

I think that's a cynical view of it. Like your sibling post from Firehed says, it's probably more about "not getting too many cooks in the kitchen" than being territorial, as well as preventing the poison of uninformed public opinion from killing a project before it was released.

You should look back through the history of http://minimsft.blogspot.com

Microsoft is worse than most because its ranking system actually encourages you to compete within your team not just outside.

In theory that is false, in practice it is less clear (at least to me). The ranking (and subsequent curve fitting known formally as calibration) is done across a level-band (bascially 'job title') across a much wider scope than a single team (i.e. across a division). The idea that your co-workers are actively plotting to somehow take some reward from you come review time is a poor caricature of reality. Does it happen? Possibly, Microsoft is a huge company. Is it common? Not based on my experience and conversations with others in different parts of the company. Anecdotally I have heard 0 credible stories about it from anyone willing to put their name behind it (i.e. I have seen anonoymous posts on minimicrosoft, but more on that in the next sentence). Also minimicrosoft has a clear selection bias as people don't go their to chat about how much they love various aspects of Microsoft culture. Citing that as evidence is like citing a Tobacco company research paper on the effects of smoking, questions on impartiality have to be considered. That said, and as I pointed out in my first sentence, I have no insight into the actual going-ons in stack-ranking meetings, so for all I know it could be horse-trading and petty-politics and curve-fitting on a per-team basis. That would be immensely stupid, and I don't get the impression that accurately models reality, though what the exact granularity between team of 10 and division of a thousand is, I don't know. There are other things about the Microsoft review system to dislike before curve-fitting, but it is certainly up there, and probably the most publically known aspect.

Can't you see that what you cite is exactly the problem? The people in your level band, including the ones in your hallway that you work with every day, are your competition.

I was a dev in Windows from 2008 to late 2011. Many comments from Mini MSFT resonated with me. My review history was never bad, but knowing precisely who in my peer group got more money (by watching title changes) and knowing which talented, hardworking devs got shafted (by private conversations) was really bad for my morale. Every review period I'd reliably see the same set of folks (manager's favorites) get regular title changes for doing crap work, and the same bright hardworking people doing the "real work" would be given some lame excuse (if not outright set up for failure) and told to just reach a little higher next year. It stings.

Never mind the outright stupidity of a system where a theoretical "dream team" of 10 hardworking, talented, best in class individuals would need to have 1 go without a bonus every year.

Maybe they'll be more diplomatic than what I'm writing, but I don't know anyone at Microsoft whose opinion I respect that won't concede these points or admit that there's a problem.

This is impossible to read. Please restructure it in some way that involves paragraphs, fewer parenthesis and doesn't reference it's own sentences.

Sorry it is so hard to read, most of my posts here are casual thought not elaborately structured rhetoric. Rewriting it to better please you is not high on my list of things to do at the moment, so, pass.

I felt the same way as the GP. It's not about better pleasing one person. It's about investing an extra minute or two yourself to save all of the readers a total amount of time that exceeds that. Writing unstructured text in a discussion forum isn't good netiquette.

I made it through. The trick is to breathe and take it one word at a time.