5 ms·

This sort of stuff simply reinforces my own bias in the form of my two rules of professional IT work: 1.) If at all possible, don't take a full time job in a t

This sort of stuff simply reinforces my own bias in the form of my two rules of professional IT work: 1.) If at all possible, don't take a full time job in a technical org who's membership is greater than Dunbar's number (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) 2.) If at all possible, don't take a full time job in a technical org that is viewed as a cost center (e.g. the code you write/systems you maintain don't generate revenue). These are no guarantee of job stability, but the violation of rule #1 (e.g. big honkin' tech == dumb decisions & middle mgmt morons) or rule #2 (e.g. you are a cost to be managed & cut) are far more likely to lead to job instability. Jut my personal experience & $0.02USD.

cortesoft 11y ago
I assume for your first rule, it is only for a new job? I wasn't going to leave my startup job with the options right when we started to really grow and be successful.
- swagtricker 11y ago
  It's a ballpark feel for the org. An admitted problem with my theory is that I've only seen behemoths (massive, nasty publicly traded beasties) and start-up to mid/small orgs with only 1-200 ppl having access to source control and/or servers. If an org can grow beyond the tribal size & still maintain trust & agility - please share! I've got a good theory about how Spotify operates (see https://labs.spotify.com/2014/03/27/spotify-engineering-culture-part-1/ https://labs.spotify.com/2014/03/27/spotify-engineering-cult...) but I don't know if they've effectively crossed or exceeded this scope of personal trust & relationships.
freehunter 11y ago
The problem with that is there are certain parts of IT where you would never, ever, ever have a job if you adhered to that. Security, for example. If the company is under 150 employees, they probably don't have a security team. They probably aren't developing security applications or products. If they aren, they're probably not very successful (or are about to be bought out by a big company). And I would wager that 80% of all IT employment is done at companies where IT is not their main source of income. At that point, you're automatically a cost center. Your second rule is saying "never work anywhere that doesn't produce technology as their main business", which forces everyone to live in San Fransisco. Besides, IT is not a cost center for IBM, it's part of their core business. And they still lay people off.
- jayhuang 11y ago
  > which forces everyone to live in San Fransisco. SF is hardly the only place on the planet where tech is their direct business.
- borvo 11y ago
  I don't live in San Francisco and my tribe makes a good living out of software product development.
  - Phlarp 11y ago
    Backing this up with more anecdata, I have had zero problems finding excellent offers at firms where technology is "the product" not just a cost to be cut, and far from the valley at that!
    - freehunter 11y ago
      But because my anecdotes are just as good as anyone else's, the place where I started my career has plenty of 20-30 yr veterans in their IT department, and they are a warehouse company with an IT staff of over 200 people but their tech doesn't directly make them any money at all. That's a long stable career in IT in a department bigger than what he wants the entire company to be where IT is a cost center. If you're limiting yourself to tiny tech companies, you're missing out on a lot. Maybe company size and products sold aren't necessarily a good indicator of your career success...?
  - bogomipz 11y ago
    people who make knucklehead statements like "which forces everyone to live in San Fransisco", is one of the reasons why I don't live in SF.
- nekitamo 11y ago
  There are plenty of companies with under 150 employees who do solely security, and who develop security applications and products.
- gaius 11y ago
stoicform 11y ago
I think using Dunbar's number, a theory, to support an actual belief you have is a rather large mistake. It's akin to a confirmation bias, but even worse, because it's not even a fact you're relying on. Your point #2 is idiotic. There are 300K employees at IBM. It's essentially like hundreds if not thousands of mini-companies within IBM. I work at IBM in a division that generates revenue, a lot of it.
- swagtricker 11y ago
  My #1 goes to my personal experiences on group communication, trust, learning opportunities, transparency & "evolution of technology". I've ALWAYS had horrible experiences just even trying to do my job or make a small improvement with technology groups in large organizations. I've NEVER had problems getting my job done, improving things or finding an opportunity to do/learn something new in a "small" 1 ~ 200 member technology group. I don't see why #2 is idiotic. Simply put, don't look like a cost to be cut & you're less likely to be. Again, FWIW - these are my own personal and admittedly biased "rules" they've served me well. Your mileage may vary;)
- greggarious 11y ago
  Maybe a better one would be a team <150. Ex: You work on a project with ~20 people, 3 or 4 teams report to one manager.
arcanus 11y ago
>don't take a full time job in a technical org that is viewed as a cost center Completely agree. Just don't take a full time job in an org that is viewed as a cost center, period.

cortesoft 11y ago

I assume for your first rule, it is only for a new job? I wasn't going to leave my startup job with the options right when we started to really grow and be successful.

swagtricker 11y ago
It's a ballpark feel for the org. An admitted problem with my theory is that I've only seen behemoths (massive, nasty publicly traded beasties) and start-up to mid/small orgs with only 1-200 ppl having access to source control and/or servers. If an org can grow beyond the tribal size & still maintain trust & agility - please share! I've got a good theory about how Spotify operates (see https://labs.spotify.com/2014/03/27/spotify-engineering-culture-part-1/ https://labs.spotify.com/2014/03/27/spotify-engineering-cult...) but I don't know if they've effectively crossed or exceeded this scope of personal trust & relationships.

freehunter 11y ago

The problem with that is there are certain parts of IT where you would never, ever, ever have a job if you adhered to that. Security, for example. If the company is under 150 employees, they probably don't have a security team. They probably aren't developing security applications or products. If they aren, they're probably not very successful (or are about to be bought out by a big company). And I would wager that 80% of all IT employment is done at companies where IT is not their main source of income. At that point, you're automatically a cost center. Your second rule is saying "never work anywhere that doesn't produce technology as their main business", which forces everyone to live in San Fransisco. Besides, IT is not a cost center for IBM, it's part of their core business. And they still lay people off.

jayhuang 11y ago
> which forces everyone to live in San Fransisco. SF is hardly the only place on the planet where tech is their direct business.
borvo 11y ago
I don't live in San Francisco and my tribe makes a good living out of software product development.
- Phlarp 11y ago
  Backing this up with more anecdata, I have had zero problems finding excellent offers at firms where technology is "the product" not just a cost to be cut, and far from the valley at that!
  - freehunter 11y ago
    But because my anecdotes are just as good as anyone else's, the place where I started my career has plenty of 20-30 yr veterans in their IT department, and they are a warehouse company with an IT staff of over 200 people but their tech doesn't directly make them any money at all. That's a long stable career in IT in a department bigger than what he wants the entire company to be where IT is a cost center. If you're limiting yourself to tiny tech companies, you're missing out on a lot. Maybe company size and products sold aren't necessarily a good indicator of your career success...?
- bogomipz 11y ago
  people who make knucklehead statements like "which forces everyone to live in San Fransisco", is one of the reasons why I don't live in SF.
nekitamo 11y ago
There are plenty of companies with under 150 employees who do solely security, and who develop security applications and products.
gaius 11y ago

stoicform 11y ago

I think using Dunbar's number, a theory, to support an actual belief you have is a rather large mistake. It's akin to a confirmation bias, but even worse, because it's not even a fact you're relying on. Your point #2 is idiotic. There are 300K employees at IBM. It's essentially like hundreds if not thousands of mini-companies within IBM. I work at IBM in a division that generates revenue, a lot of it.

swagtricker 11y ago
My #1 goes to my personal experiences on group communication, trust, learning opportunities, transparency & "evolution of technology". I've ALWAYS had horrible experiences just even trying to do my job or make a small improvement with technology groups in large organizations. I've NEVER had problems getting my job done, improving things or finding an opportunity to do/learn something new in a "small" 1 ~ 200 member technology group. I don't see why #2 is idiotic. Simply put, don't look like a cost to be cut & you're less likely to be. Again, FWIW - these are my own personal and admittedly biased "rules" they've served me well. Your mileage may vary;)
greggarious 11y ago
Maybe a better one would be a team <150. Ex: You work on a project with ~20 people, 3 or 4 teams report to one manager.

arcanus 11y ago

>don't take a full time job in a technical org that is viewed as a cost center Completely agree. Just don't take a full time job in an org that is viewed as a cost center, period.