[sporkland]

As someone that has influenced company politics as an independent contributor (non-manager) repeatedly, I find you have to go through a lifecycle: 1. When you first join you need to show you can actually accomplish things, likely through code contributions / launching something. 2. After you do that you start becoming part of conversations and can start influencing directly. The key here is problem identification and bringing useful independent data. Whether we like it or not managers have built in leadership authority, IC's have to establish it by above, so usually the leadership group is dominated by managers, but if you can bring useful technical data / solutions and become a "voice of the people" if you will that lets managers not have to dig in and solve every problem you will start influencing politics.

Where I see a lot of folks fall down:

1. Focus on problems that aren't attached to either important issues: tabs vs spaces isn't gonna sink the company. If you start getting triggered about a technical thing and can't explain the impact in terms of availability, cost, productivity you'll quickly get tuned out. That isn't to say the work isn't important, it's just not workable at the political level, you just gotta fix it through influence with other IC's.

2. Inability to explain how the problem is attached to important issues: Similar to above, even if it's a real problem the ability to craft a narrative so the managers and other leaders can connect it up to real value that they'll see.

3. Discomfort with taking risks: No important problem / political problem is without risks / gaps, either in terms of timeline, impact, decision paralysis (as there are truly multiple ways to skin a cat). If you need 100% certainty to kick into gear it'll be hard to influence at the top levels as it often requires taking decisions and the inherent risks involved in signing up for those outcomes.