4 ms·

We’ve found that people from big companies with a slower work pace and unclear project owners often find it difficult to adjust to a culture that expects them t

We’ve found that people from big companies with a slower work pace and unclear project owners often find it difficult to adjust to a culture that expects them to personally drive their own deliverables. This doesn't sound very compassionate to engineers leaving big, dysfunctional companies (which by the way preach the exact same ethos of personal responsibility). Basically, they are damaged goods who aren't expected to thrive in a better environment?

Clubber 9y ago
Agreed. Most people can adapt to their environments. I've worked at both and big companies tend to wear me down, but I can still work there. The problem with small companies is usually they are chaos and often cult of personalities. It's not their fault, it's their nature. They have to be able to pivot their business on a dime. That's tough on developers though, particularly when the thing you've been working on get scrapped on a pivot. What it boils down to is it's short sighted. He's professing like he's solved the interview process. I'll bet his success / failure rate is just like everyone else's.
albertgoeswoof 9y ago
More likely that people who are succesful at big companies don't leave as much, because there's a higher upside sticking where they are than joining a small startup that allows remote working. So the people they are hiring from big companies are usually the rubbish ones. Btw, if you're really good you can work remotely even in the largest companies. Just work your way up to your own P&L, hire a global team and away you go. Probably will have to check in a few times a year in person, but that's no big deal.
- Clubber 9y ago
  There are pockets of awesomeness in big companies. I worked for a company that sold for over half a trillion, and it was a great job until we got acquired. Small companies can be hellholes too, especially when runway is short, or competition is fierce. Like anything, it depends on the culture. As far as staying at big companies, inertia is a big reason. It's easy to justify staying at a place that pays really well, particularly if you have a family, a car payment, and/or a mortgage. 5 weeks of vacation is nice too; that comes with tenure and leaves as soon as you do. I have to constantly check myself to see if I'm miserable. I have scars for staying miserable for too long. It's bad for my career due to burnout. Not everyone has learned that lesson though.
  - eip 9y ago
    >I worked for a company that sold for over half a trillion Que? There are only a few companies worth that much in the world. The only (well known) company big enough to buy another company for that amount is Saudi Aramco.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      Sorry, over half a billion not trillion.
seaknoll 9y ago
Why should it be compassionate?
- eropple 9y ago
  Because we're all people? And people are important?
  - seaknoll 9y ago
    I don't see how that's relevant to assessing whether someone will be an appropriate hire.
FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>Basically, they are damaged goods who aren't expected to thrive in a better environment? He's probably generalizing for the sake of writing, but you can get some really lazy positions that really can rot your skills if you don't drive yourself. We're talking about companies that barely need more than for-loops and if-statements and some CRUD. If you try to go from that to a fast-paced startup then I agree you're chances of thriving are going to be much lower. You have to absorb all of the startup's knowledge in addition to not having enough technical skills "in cache".
- pc86 9y ago
  > We're talking about companies that barely need more than for-loops and if-statements and some CRUD. This is 99.9% of all companies, including startups. How many companies need developers to write a new sorting algorithm that is 15ms faster?
  - lotyrin 9y ago
    Few, but there are plenty that would benefit from an event sourcing model over a CRUD one, or that would benefit from thinking and implementing business logic as functions with their inputs and outputs rather than procedures with their loops and branches.
SmellTheGlove 9y ago
> This doesn't sound very compassionate to engineers leaving big, dysfunctional companies (which by the way preach the exact same ethos of personal responsibility). Basically, they are damaged goods who aren't expected to thrive in a better environment? Compassion aside, it also isn't the least bit accurate. If our process sucked that bad in large companies, then I shouldn't have the numbers to show for it. Somehow, though, we manage to be really profitable despite being lazy idiots. I've posted this elsewhere on HN, but if you find an engineer or manager with a history of accomplishment at large companies, you're lucky to have them. Not only can they get shit done, but they can get shit done even with the distractions and roadblocks from big company politics. Those folks would probably be very effective in a remote position given their ability to filter noise. But yeah, if someone sucked in a big company, they might suck in a startup, too.

Clubber 9y ago

Agreed. Most people can adapt to their environments. I've worked at both and big companies tend to wear me down, but I can still work there. The problem with small companies is usually they are chaos and often cult of personalities. It's not their fault, it's their nature. They have to be able to pivot their business on a dime. That's tough on developers though, particularly when the thing you've been working on get scrapped on a pivot. What it boils down to is it's short sighted. He's professing like he's solved the interview process. I'll bet his success / failure rate is just like everyone else's.

albertgoeswoof 9y ago

More likely that people who are succesful at big companies don't leave as much, because there's a higher upside sticking where they are than joining a small startup that allows remote working. So the people they are hiring from big companies are usually the rubbish ones. Btw, if you're really good you can work remotely even in the largest companies. Just work your way up to your own P&L, hire a global team and away you go. Probably will have to check in a few times a year in person, but that's no big deal.

Clubber 9y ago
There are pockets of awesomeness in big companies. I worked for a company that sold for over half a trillion, and it was a great job until we got acquired. Small companies can be hellholes too, especially when runway is short, or competition is fierce. Like anything, it depends on the culture. As far as staying at big companies, inertia is a big reason. It's easy to justify staying at a place that pays really well, particularly if you have a family, a car payment, and/or a mortgage. 5 weeks of vacation is nice too; that comes with tenure and leaves as soon as you do. I have to constantly check myself to see if I'm miserable. I have scars for staying miserable for too long. It's bad for my career due to burnout. Not everyone has learned that lesson though.
- eip 9y ago
  >I worked for a company that sold for over half a trillion Que? There are only a few companies worth that much in the world. The only (well known) company big enough to buy another company for that amount is Saudi Aramco.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Sorry, over half a billion not trillion.

seaknoll 9y ago

Why should it be compassionate?

eropple 9y ago
Because we're all people? And people are important?
- seaknoll 9y ago
  I don't see how that's relevant to assessing whether someone will be an appropriate hire.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

>Basically, they are damaged goods who aren't expected to thrive in a better environment? He's probably generalizing for the sake of writing, but you can get some really lazy positions that really can rot your skills if you don't drive yourself. We're talking about companies that barely need more than for-loops and if-statements and some CRUD. If you try to go from that to a fast-paced startup then I agree you're chances of thriving are going to be much lower. You have to absorb all of the startup's knowledge in addition to not having enough technical skills "in cache".

pc86 9y ago
> We're talking about companies that barely need more than for-loops and if-statements and some CRUD. This is 99.9% of all companies, including startups. How many companies need developers to write a new sorting algorithm that is 15ms faster?
- lotyrin 9y ago
  Few, but there are plenty that would benefit from an event sourcing model over a CRUD one, or that would benefit from thinking and implementing business logic as functions with their inputs and outputs rather than procedures with their loops and branches.

SmellTheGlove 9y ago

> This doesn't sound very compassionate to engineers leaving big, dysfunctional companies (which by the way preach the exact same ethos of personal responsibility). Basically, they are damaged goods who aren't expected to thrive in a better environment? Compassion aside, it also isn't the least bit accurate. If our process sucked that bad in large companies, then I shouldn't have the numbers to show for it. Somehow, though, we manage to be really profitable despite being lazy idiots. I've posted this elsewhere on HN, but if you find an engineer or manager with a history of accomplishment at large companies, you're lucky to have them. Not only can they get shit done, but they can get shit done even with the distractions and roadblocks from big company politics. Those folks would probably be very effective in a remote position given their ability to filter noise. But yeah, if someone sucked in a big company, they might suck in a startup, too.