14 ms·

To author: you lost the political game. I busted my ass at a startup for years and also lost the political game. So I'm speaking from experience here. You can

To author: you lost the political game. I busted my ass at a startup for years and also lost the political game. So I'm speaking from experience here. You can either get all mad and worked up and pissed off about it, and waste years of your career (as I did) being pissed off, stubborn, and refusing to change. Or figure out how to play. I'd like to think there are places with better politics but I think it's pretty endemic of large organizations. I'd love to be proven wrong. The thing is, "working for yourself" is so flawed in so many ways. In the first place, nobody "works for themself". You might work for customers, or clients, or whatever, but not "yourself". Second, you're a lot better off working at a good company -- MUCH better off -- unless you have a pretty damn concrete idea of what you're doing. In addition to the income, the big company will provide better networking, more credibility for anything you do subsequently (whether a new job, fundraising, hiring--ANYTHING), it's an all-around better gig. I'm just trying to save you a lot of wasted years and time here. Take it or leave it.

debt 9y ago
“unless you have a pretty damn concrete idea of what you're doing.” This. But to take it further, you better be ready to hustle your ass off. Because you need to bring money in which means meeting new clients 24/7/365. Good luck. It’s an impossible amount of work to do alone so hopefully you have a good network.
- antonkm 9y ago
  I don't know if I agree. I work directly with clients together with another dev and I do most sales. It's not 24/7/365. I sell, network and meet new contacts maybe about 35-50% of my week during intense sale periods. I work 35 hour weeks. All year through I have about 4h per week in sales activities. The "trick" is being socially skilled and interested in others, to get them to trust you with jobs that are large enough so you don't have to be constant lookout for new assignments. (I do not mean to imply that you lack social skills). I have a small client pond (50-75 contacts on first name basis) where I'm becoming the big dev fish and people have started sending referrals my way nowadays. Your point about going it alone is valid - I chose to partner up because of the crazy amounts of context switching solo operations require.
white-flame 9y ago
> In the first place, nobody "works for themself". You might work for customers, or clients, or whatever, but not "yourself". Just to be pedantic, I'd say if you've got enough in savings to live without further work-based income & retire, then you are "working for yourself". You paid yourself via saving that money up to "work" on whatever you want. Even if it's just a tan & cirrhosis. :)
- draw_down 9y ago
  Yes, if you’re independently wealthy this doesn’t apply to you. Otherwise you’re in the same boat as everyone else. People who work for themselves have n bosses instead of one boss. You can prefer one or the other but it’s not really that different, I think.
whataretensors 9y ago
> Second, you're a lot better off working at a good company -- MUCH better off I disagree. There is a whole category of people who want high reward for their efforts. There exists no way to get high rewards or royalties outside of starting your own venture. The downside is the risk of course. I do agree that you shouldn't be angry, but there are so many new ways to exist and survive these days.
- eldavido 9y ago
  I completely agree. My point is opportunity cost. Unless you have a very clear idea of what you want to do/build--which many people do--you're better off with a day job. I see a lot of people essentially rage-quitting (let's be serious, that's what happened here) and then wasting years of their life working bottom-of-the-barrel contracting/crappy startup jobs because they "don't like big companies". I made this mistake and it's cost me enormously in money, time, and career development.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - madamelic 9y ago
    >I see a lot of people essentially rage-quitting (let's be serious, that's what happened here) and then wasting years of their life working bottom-of-the-barrel contracting/crappy startup jobs because they "don't like big companies" That's basically what I am doing for exactly those reasons. But I don't think my jobs are crappy. I traded stupid amount of money for more freedom to choose what I work on. I don't want to be a monkey on a keyboard nor do I want to put with the bureaucracy of a big corporation. Or am I getting it terribly wrong? My brief view of a large organization terrified me and I don't want to work in such a place. Are big places really that much better if I am basically paid the same amount of money?
  - nexus2045 9y ago
    Same here. At some point I was disillusioned with the idea of working in a corporate because I thought I was just "selling my soul out for golden handcuffs" (doesn't help to watch some Mr. Robot, Fight Club, etc.), but in reality I was just a junior dev who didn't fit much into social hierarchies. I tossed away a good 2.5 years at two startup jobs, one that I co-founded and died slowly (even though I had already read Lean Startup et al...), before slowly realizing I just wasn't making any meaningful amount of money nor progressing in my career because I didn't have a senior/mentor/best practices guiding me. Now I'm back at the cubicle but realizing there was so much I missed out on that wasn't obvious to my younger naive self before.
ithinkinstereo 9y ago
Working for yourself really does mean working for yourself. Yes, you might have customers to answer to, but you can always tell them to fuck off if you want. You suffer the consequences and reap the rewards. Your actions, small or large, matter. Yes, working for a corporation is safer and more stable. In the grand scheme of things, this is the risk-adverse, safe thing to do. The OP may waste years of his life, or he may not. He may end up poorer than when he left or he may not. You never know until you try. Take it or leave it.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  Doesn't the same exist for a workplace though?
  - ithinkinstereo 9y ago
    Not really. In a workplace you're forced to follow all sorts of rules. As an independent operator, you set your own rules. In regards to rewards vs consequences, my point is that in a workplace you're abstracted away from the direct results of your actions (as OP mentions in his post). You can be rewarded for other people's contributions (while having made no contributions of your own) and vice versa. When I worked in corporate, this lead me to experience a somewhat "wtf is the point" type of existential crisis. When you're running your own shop, you have a much more "direct" relationship to your actions and the resulting outcomes. Not just in terms of costs and rewards, but also in terms of just seeing the direct "value" your actions provide. I mean think of all the countless cubicle jobs or professional services jobs where the sum of your productivity is basically meaningless, just random filler designed to keep the machine moving... (think of all the business consultants spending 80 hours week at the client site putting together decks that no one will read or remember in a few months)
  - andrewprock 9y ago
    The larger the company, the more process overhead there is. It's the process overhead that most people complain about. Instead of adding value to the company, much of your time is spent on managing process for the sake of process. For example, defining your work to maximize the chance of promotion may only correlate with company value.
madeofpalk 9y ago
Also it's amusing to consider that someone got fed up with the politics of a workplace to 'work for themselves' where they'll need to battle the politics of many different clients.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  It worked for me, mainly because I'm intolerant of the corporate bullshit, if I don't like a client then they will be fired. The thing that had the biggest impact on my quality of life since I left the corporate world is the ability to say no.
  - mostlyskeptical 9y ago
    Thanks for this A thread full of people talking about how bad working for yourself is had me questioning my upcoming decision to quit and try to do something for myself, and what you said is the biggest reason why I want to. I love hard work, but I don't love pointless work. I already do some low pay contracting on the side, but it's with a couple of small companies that trust me 100% so they never tell me "no". Don't get me wrong, they will question the hell out of my decisions and I've changed quite a few in response to the questions, but at the end of the day they trust me to do what's best for them. I already have the house paid off, have no other debt, and have low 7 figures in reasonably liquid investments. Working for myself has been a dream of mine as long as I can remember. I don't need much money, just enough to get by. Anyway sorry for the rambling. Just wanted to say thank you, you made me feel better about going into work today. Maybe I'll make today the last?
    - Torwald 9y ago
      What about making your current employer one of your clients? This could even be seen as "taking one for the team" in the course of some restructuring process in that company? Just a thought.
popcat 9y ago
As a junior engineer, what the best way to learn about and master the political game? I feel like it all goes way over my head. Does anyone have any recommended reading?
- freshfey 9y ago
  The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene is an absolute must, regardless of the position.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    Yes, all of Robert Greene's books are superb. Whether you buy into his philosophy and interpretations or not, there are many excellent, mind-expanding historical vignettes to learn. My favorite book by him is The Art of Seduction, because it chronicles human motive in its most direct, unfiltered form. All influence is really thinly-veiled seduction. To the grandparent, because I'm throttled on HN and probably won't be allowed to post much more, if this even goes through: the key to a successful career is the same as any other interpersonal success. Learn psychology and influence. Understand how other people see the world. However you see it, it's not how most other people see it. Resist the temptation to assume that your assumptions and defaults are valid for others. You have to accept the existence of the game to really have success, but you don't necessarily have to embrace it. Indeed, many successful entrepreneurs are successful entrepreneurs because their personal tolerance for the game is sufficient to make sales, but not sufficient to suck up to a cadre of bosses for years on end. Whatever you do, you will not be reasonably free until you get a baseline of "fuck you" money established and invested in a diverse set of safe, reliable instruments and institutions. Once this happens, take heed not to become too ostentatious and comfortable, or you will become Martin Shkreli; someone who didn't do anything actually wrong, but allowed himself to become the subject of the public's contempt. It is probably best to keep a low profile and live an unassuming lifestyle, grateful to be one of the few with freedom. ----- P.S., tried to post, and yep, throttled. I can't post for some more time now; this is because I was politically imprudent and criticized YC darlings, including some companies they've invested in, on HN. I will save this and repost later. Egalitarian facades from BigCo or PowerfulPerson are just that: a facade. And the people in power, no matter where their power lies, will be happy and cooperative as long as your conduct is biasing people in a direction that is favorable for them. But never expect them to sit idly by while you threaten or criticize them, even if the ultimate impact is small or indirect. They know that big collapses start out as small cracks, and they proactively and subtly work to stop these. Never mistake the cooperation, praise, or accolades of a group or establishment as representing anything other than their satisfaction that your conduct is helpful to them in the immediate moment. One of the most common and simultaneously most fatal mistakes I see is the assumption that satisfaction with one's conduct is implicit or automatic. That past positive responses guarantee future positive responses. The truth is, no one cares about you personally. They like your thing because it gave them what they wanted. If you disregard that for your next thing, they will have no qualms whatsoever about dismissing or disregarding you. Human response is a "hits business"; there is a formula that makes people happy. Meet that formula, and you will be rewarded. Deviate, and you won't. It is fickle, timing is important. Music, movies, and video games are all optimized "hits" businesses with billions of dollars at stake, and even they have misses more often than not. Everyone is irrevocably and intrinsically self-interested, as a biologically-dictated matter of individual survival. Do not expect anything else. Do not try to fight this -- you can't. You cannot undo the eons of evolution that have dictated it. Good system design understands and incorporates this unchangeable reality by triggering psychological phenomena that are biologically interpreted as pro-survival when they're acting in concert with the system, and not doing so when they aren't. Please note that despite the acknowledgment of this reality, this is not necessarily a nihilistic or pessimistic worldview. These things are not automatically bad. They are just components of the human psychological system that enables our survival. They can be used or abused, for good or for evil. An insistence on remaining ignorant of human action and motive based on the religious tenet that "people are nice" only leaves one liable to more manipulation. That is exactly what the worst, most ravenous predators want, because it allows them to operate virtually undetected. All the better if they can get the duped to engage in a hostile charge against those who are finding enlightenment (and they usually can). Anyone who wants to operate effectively within the system must know and understand it. Don't shy away from this reality. Accept it and use it for good. We have way too many timid people who have been programmed to take what they're given and shut up, and not to inquire into how the system works. It doesn't have to be that way.
thrownaway954 9y ago
"In the first place, nobody "works for themself". You might work for customers, or clients, or whatever, but not "yourself"." nail on the head... so many people don't get this simple fact that if you DO NOT have clients, you DO NOT have a business. You can't ever "pay yourself", some outside entity have to pay you for your product.
- bthrn 9y ago
  I know people who have quit full time jobs to write algo trading software for themselves to use -- the market pays them but I wouldn't call it a customer.
  - 0x445442 9y ago
    Interesting you went here. I've thought for a long time that trading your own money in the markets is the closest (urban) thing to leaving the cave in the morning, killing your food and dragging it back. The thought is appealing to me on so many levels.
  - thrownaway954 9y ago
    that's not a business... that's investing.
    - dx034 9y ago
      More like speculation. Algo trading usually exploits short-term inefficiencies on the market, not long term valuation opportunities.
- bambax 9y ago
  Not true! If you're doing b2b, yes admittedly you work for clients, yet a client is still very different from a boss (he can't order you around or give you "performance evaluations", etc.) BUT if you're doing b2c and selling something to many anonymous customers you don't interact with, you're truly working for yourself; that thing can be a piece of software, an object, a novel, etc.
dgreensp 9y ago
You can absolutely work for yourself. Google has customers too. If you work for Google, there is you, Google, and customers. If you work for you, there is you, you, and customers. You could metaphorically think of your customers as hiring and firing you, sure, in which case you have potentially millions of “bosses” and you can decide which ones you want to try to appeal to. Running a start-up can be a pretty good gig, too.
smsm42 9y ago
> Or figure out how to play. There's a third way. Don't go to Google. There are literally thousands of smaller places you can work for/in/with, some of them do pretty cool things. There'd be politics too, probably, but not as much as in Google, and you could control your destiny to a more significant degree. Small(er) companies - if you pick right - tend to have significantly better environment in that regard (not perfect, mind you, but better). Or, if you want that specific experience and line in your resume, and of course all that sweet cash and stock, do it with the open eyes - don't expect it to be a fairy land where unicorns crap out rainbows, expect it to be a humongous bureaucratic corporation where you will get exactly your share of care and agency - the full 0.001%. Approach to it transactionally, know what you came for to get and what you are willing to pay for it, and if playing exhausting games is not part of it, get what you can for the price you're prepared to pay, and move on. Don't let the fact that you can't get some things for the price you're prepared to pay get to you and make you think you're somehow unworthy. If the price for getting title X in Google is behaving like you'd hate to behave, then you can't get title X at Google. So what, there are probably tons of things you can't get and always will be. Don't let it bother you too much.
- eldavido 9y ago
  I thing I wonder is what role lifestyle factors play. If you're making 200k on your own terms vs 250 at Google, I wonder who's better off. At that level of income, things like how stressful your work is, how interested in it you are, the length of your commute, etc. seem to matter more than earning another 50k of income. Obviously everyone has their own circumstances but I think the obsession with earning as much cash salary as possible seems a little myopic.
  - jorblumesea 9y ago
    The difference between Google and others is far more than 25% when you factor in total compensation. At least in my area, the difference between Google and the big players is more like 50-60%. So it is a significant trade off.
    - 9y ago
jehlakj 9y ago
Any resources on upping my political game before I start at a company?
- Jare 9y ago
  Don't think only of the political angle. Think of your work as a product that needs clients, value, exposure, and which has to compete in a crowded market against similar products from other people. Understand the balance between work that is pleasurable to perform (challenging problems, etc) and work that others find valuable. Don't be cynical about all this, lest you become a dick (there are hints of this in the OP). Simply be realistic: the company will not be perfect, will not be accurate in assessing value, but it will not necessarily be evil about it. It will simply be imperfect, just like anyone else including yourself. There are always reasons why things work the way they do. The ability to understand and work with those reasons is a valuable skill that a CS program will not teach you.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Game of Thrones?
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    Where most character seem to end up dead.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      But, not the ones who know how to play politics. Tyrion is still very much alive, whereas Ned Stark, who was a very righteous man, who thought himself above politics, is dead.
q3k 9y ago
> Second, you're a lot better off working at a good company -- MUCH better off Working at Google ruined my mental health. Granted, it hasn't been great to begin with, but being in SRE made my absolutely miserable. Every night, coming intellectually wasted and couldn't even work on my own project because of draconian IP clauses in my contract. Quit half a year ago, went (back) into freelancing and I couldn't be happier. Don't care about the money or prestige anymore.
- TheArcane 9y ago
  > draconian IP clauses in my contract. Is this standard Google policy?
  - q3k 9y ago
    Yes. All intellectual property you work on, including in your spare time at home on your laptop, belongs to Google and you have to go through a reassignment procedure where they declare they're not interested in your work. Which is okay if you work on one personal project at a time, but breaks down if you hop from project to project with friends. Waste of everyone's time.
    - cloverich 9y ago
      Genuinely curious how enforceable it is, and how often it is enforced. That is, if you jump from project to project with your friends, on your own time and equipment, is there a legal case that despite whatever you signed its null? Similarly, how often does Google go after people like this?
      - q3k 9y ago
        I'd rather not end up in court against Google lawyers. Or generally have to work around agreements that I sign.
komali2 9y ago
As Horowitz writes in "The Hard Thing About Hard Things," if there even is a political game at your company, someone up top has fucked up.
- izacus 9y ago
  And if you think there's no political games in your company then you're very naive. Your either not seeing it (which is bad for you) or its being hidden from you (which is also bad).
  - komali2 9y ago
    Why do you believe there MUST be a political game?
    - Tsagadai 9y ago
      Politics is how people organise and group. There are always ploys for control and expansion. Politics is practically biology, there is a pecking order and it is inescapable. What determines in and out group varies but it is always there if there are three or more people present.
      - komali2 9y ago
        I think what you're describing, I'd describe as "organization," rather than "politics." When I refer to "politics" in this conversation I mean something along the lines of "performing actions that are not company-goal-optimized, or, potentially detrimental to other employees, in order to advance oneself."
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    I suspect you are right, especially with the nature of our work. If I employ a brick layer I can easily judge the quality and rate of their work, it's easy to compare with the guy I hired last week. Contrast that to programming where there is no physical artefact, it's not like we can measure lines of code or numbers of files and derive some value, in most cases less lines of code is better. People know this so instead of doing good work they start to play games to get ahead. That's not to say a good leader can't fight against it but to think it's not there is naive.
swat535 9y ago
I think you are misunderstanding the definition of "Work for yourself" in this context. I believe it more resonates with the fact that your livelihood does not depend on a SINGLE SOURCE. Sure, a business is responsible for it's clients (notice the plural here), and if some of them leave, it may lose profit, yet it does not completely goes under. Whereas an employee is fully at the mercy of the employer.
tomp 9y ago
> You might work for customers, or clients, or whatever, but not "yourself". The difference is, you don't have one boss... So your risk(s) are well diversified (or, at least better than if you're an employee).
- sumanthvepa 9y ago
  In theory... yes you are diversified. Which why being a successful businessman is always more rewarding than being an employee. The keyword here is 'successful'. Diversifying your customer base to the point where you are not dependent on a few 'bosses' is really hard. Exciting yes. But hard.
justherefortart 9y ago
Working for yourself is fantastic. Having one boss that can fire you sucks, having 100 clients that can fire you is fantastic (you can also fire them). Now it is difficult to get to your necessary X number of clients (I'm 44 and on startup #8). But not having to deal with stupid inane bullshit incessantly while working is like winning the lottery. My current full time employment is run like a middle school popularity contest. The company is so shittacular I don't think I've been at worse in my ~30 years of working. This is saying a lot as I've also worked in fast food, construction, healthcare, my own shitty startups, a MLM, among many others.
bps4484 9y ago
[Manager here] I don't really see what the political game is here that he lost. What I think he failed to do was show impact in a clear a visible way. Don't get me wrong, there is salesmanship required here in terms of clearly demonstrating your value, but it's not like Google was giving the promo to some other guys who always went out to dinner with his boss and sucked up to him, or the guy the boss went to college with, or the guy who throws his team under the bus to make himself look good. that is politics, "politics" being defined as acts that make you look good but are detrimental behavior to the team and the company. And I think that's what google is trying to avoid with their promo panels where you get feedback from peer, peer team managers, and make the judgement as an impartial panel. Also I see this as a manager failure. Clearly this manager isn't well calibrated, because he continues to get "strongly exceeds expectations" and yet can't get you the promotion you obviously deserve if you strongly exceed expectations. They also should be helping you both with your promo packet so that you're putting your best foot forward, and talking to you about how you can improve and demonstrate your value when you do your work to make sure you can get an even strong promotion packet the next time. Given this manager failure, I'm not surprised the employee quit.
- antoinevg 9y ago
  As an engineer my job is to engineer. As a manager it's your job to figure out what my impact is. If you make it my job to show what my impact is I (and everyone else you are responsible for) will simply spend my time coming up with ever more creative ways of doing this instead of engineering. But hey, maybe I'm being silly and your company has no problems finding competent engineers, all your projects ship on time and under budget etc. etc. etc.
  - bps4484 9y ago
    First, just to make sure we are on the same page, are you in agreement that this wasn't politics, but perhaps a disagreement in the roles and responsibilities of a manager and an engineer and what an engineer is expected to do at google? I just want to make sure we're on the same page on that, which was the crux of my point. But as to your point, on the roles and responsibilities of managers and engineers, I mostly agree with your comment about the role of a manager, which as I said before should be responsible for working with the engineer both to show their impact, but also making sure they're actually doing impactful work. I disagree that if it's your job as an engineer to show what your impact is that you'll come up with creative ways of doing this. You can try to come up with creative ways of showing impact, and maybe a promotion panel will agree with you, but maybe they won't and you'll be left without recognition (I've seen this happen before). To your last comment about competent engineers, I don't know what company you work at, but at mine, shipping projects on time, and under budget, especially when they are large in scope and involve complex technologies or large teams that you've led, and especially when those projects have impact on the company's bottom line, those project are considered major impact and and those engineers are amply rewarded.
billf1953 9y ago
Slightly snarky cliffs SWE did good work, got passed over for promotion several times, got mad and quits cushy software job to freelance. Everyone sympathizes because everyone thinks they do promotion-worthy work.
hi41 9y ago
>You can either get all mad and worked up and pissed off about it, and waste years of your career (as I did) being pissed off, stubborn, and refusing to change I can relate to this. I became bitter and angry when I did not get promoted several times and was told that the company expects "more". I became a person I am not proud of. My question is how does one extricate onself from such a bad place?
real-hacker 9y ago
- you're a lot better off working at a good company -- MUCH better off -- unless you have a pretty damn concrete idea of what you're doing. What makes so sure? Have you started your own thing? Glad to hear about your story/lessons learned.

debt 9y ago

“unless you have a pretty damn concrete idea of what you're doing.” This. But to take it further, you better be ready to hustle your ass off. Because you need to bring money in which means meeting new clients 24/7/365. Good luck. It’s an impossible amount of work to do alone so hopefully you have a good network.

antonkm 9y ago
I don't know if I agree. I work directly with clients together with another dev and I do most sales. It's not 24/7/365. I sell, network and meet new contacts maybe about 35-50% of my week during intense sale periods. I work 35 hour weeks. All year through I have about 4h per week in sales activities. The "trick" is being socially skilled and interested in others, to get them to trust you with jobs that are large enough so you don't have to be constant lookout for new assignments. (I do not mean to imply that you lack social skills). I have a small client pond (50-75 contacts on first name basis) where I'm becoming the big dev fish and people have started sending referrals my way nowadays. Your point about going it alone is valid - I chose to partner up because of the crazy amounts of context switching solo operations require.

white-flame 9y ago

> In the first place, nobody "works for themself". You might work for customers, or clients, or whatever, but not "yourself". Just to be pedantic, I'd say if you've got enough in savings to live without further work-based income & retire, then you are "working for yourself". You paid yourself via saving that money up to "work" on whatever you want. Even if it's just a tan & cirrhosis. :)

draw_down 9y ago
Yes, if you’re independently wealthy this doesn’t apply to you. Otherwise you’re in the same boat as everyone else. People who work for themselves have n bosses instead of one boss. You can prefer one or the other but it’s not really that different, I think.

whataretensors 9y ago

> Second, you're a lot better off working at a good company -- MUCH better off I disagree. There is a whole category of people who want high reward for their efforts. There exists no way to get high rewards or royalties outside of starting your own venture. The downside is the risk of course. I do agree that you shouldn't be angry, but there are so many new ways to exist and survive these days.

eldavido 9y ago
I completely agree. My point is opportunity cost. Unless you have a very clear idea of what you want to do/build--which many people do--you're better off with a day job. I see a lot of people essentially rage-quitting (let's be serious, that's what happened here) and then wasting years of their life working bottom-of-the-barrel contracting/crappy startup jobs because they "don't like big companies". I made this mistake and it's cost me enormously in money, time, and career development.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- madamelic 9y ago
  >I see a lot of people essentially rage-quitting (let's be serious, that's what happened here) and then wasting years of their life working bottom-of-the-barrel contracting/crappy startup jobs because they "don't like big companies" That's basically what I am doing for exactly those reasons. But I don't think my jobs are crappy. I traded stupid amount of money for more freedom to choose what I work on. I don't want to be a monkey on a keyboard nor do I want to put with the bureaucracy of a big corporation. Or am I getting it terribly wrong? My brief view of a large organization terrified me and I don't want to work in such a place. Are big places really that much better if I am basically paid the same amount of money?
- nexus2045 9y ago
  Same here. At some point I was disillusioned with the idea of working in a corporate because I thought I was just "selling my soul out for golden handcuffs" (doesn't help to watch some Mr. Robot, Fight Club, etc.), but in reality I was just a junior dev who didn't fit much into social hierarchies. I tossed away a good 2.5 years at two startup jobs, one that I co-founded and died slowly (even though I had already read Lean Startup et al...), before slowly realizing I just wasn't making any meaningful amount of money nor progressing in my career because I didn't have a senior/mentor/best practices guiding me. Now I'm back at the cubicle but realizing there was so much I missed out on that wasn't obvious to my younger naive self before.

ithinkinstereo 9y ago

Working for yourself really does mean working for yourself. Yes, you might have customers to answer to, but you can always tell them to fuck off if you want. You suffer the consequences and reap the rewards. Your actions, small or large, matter. Yes, working for a corporation is safer and more stable. In the grand scheme of things, this is the risk-adverse, safe thing to do. The OP may waste years of his life, or he may not. He may end up poorer than when he left or he may not. You never know until you try. Take it or leave it.

madeofpalk 9y ago
Doesn't the same exist for a workplace though?
- ithinkinstereo 9y ago
  Not really. In a workplace you're forced to follow all sorts of rules. As an independent operator, you set your own rules. In regards to rewards vs consequences, my point is that in a workplace you're abstracted away from the direct results of your actions (as OP mentions in his post). You can be rewarded for other people's contributions (while having made no contributions of your own) and vice versa. When I worked in corporate, this lead me to experience a somewhat "wtf is the point" type of existential crisis. When you're running your own shop, you have a much more "direct" relationship to your actions and the resulting outcomes. Not just in terms of costs and rewards, but also in terms of just seeing the direct "value" your actions provide. I mean think of all the countless cubicle jobs or professional services jobs where the sum of your productivity is basically meaningless, just random filler designed to keep the machine moving... (think of all the business consultants spending 80 hours week at the client site putting together decks that no one will read or remember in a few months)
- andrewprock 9y ago
  The larger the company, the more process overhead there is. It's the process overhead that most people complain about. Instead of adding value to the company, much of your time is spent on managing process for the sake of process. For example, defining your work to maximize the chance of promotion may only correlate with company value.

madeofpalk 9y ago

Also it's amusing to consider that someone got fed up with the politics of a workplace to 'work for themselves' where they'll need to battle the politics of many different clients.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
It worked for me, mainly because I'm intolerant of the corporate bullshit, if I don't like a client then they will be fired. The thing that had the biggest impact on my quality of life since I left the corporate world is the ability to say no.
- mostlyskeptical 9y ago
  Thanks for this A thread full of people talking about how bad working for yourself is had me questioning my upcoming decision to quit and try to do something for myself, and what you said is the biggest reason why I want to. I love hard work, but I don't love pointless work. I already do some low pay contracting on the side, but it's with a couple of small companies that trust me 100% so they never tell me "no". Don't get me wrong, they will question the hell out of my decisions and I've changed quite a few in response to the questions, but at the end of the day they trust me to do what's best for them. I already have the house paid off, have no other debt, and have low 7 figures in reasonably liquid investments. Working for myself has been a dream of mine as long as I can remember. I don't need much money, just enough to get by. Anyway sorry for the rambling. Just wanted to say thank you, you made me feel better about going into work today. Maybe I'll make today the last?
  - Torwald 9y ago
    What about making your current employer one of your clients? This could even be seen as "taking one for the team" in the course of some restructuring process in that company? Just a thought.

popcat 9y ago

As a junior engineer, what the best way to learn about and master the political game? I feel like it all goes way over my head. Does anyone have any recommended reading?

freshfey 9y ago
The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene is an absolute must, regardless of the position.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Yes, all of Robert Greene's books are superb. Whether you buy into his philosophy and interpretations or not, there are many excellent, mind-expanding historical vignettes to learn. My favorite book by him is The Art of Seduction, because it chronicles human motive in its most direct, unfiltered form. All influence is really thinly-veiled seduction. To the grandparent, because I'm throttled on HN and probably won't be allowed to post much more, if this even goes through: the key to a successful career is the same as any other interpersonal success. Learn psychology and influence. Understand how other people see the world. However you see it, it's not how most other people see it. Resist the temptation to assume that your assumptions and defaults are valid for others. You have to accept the existence of the game to really have success, but you don't necessarily have to embrace it. Indeed, many successful entrepreneurs are successful entrepreneurs because their personal tolerance for the game is sufficient to make sales, but not sufficient to suck up to a cadre of bosses for years on end. Whatever you do, you will not be reasonably free until you get a baseline of "fuck you" money established and invested in a diverse set of safe, reliable instruments and institutions. Once this happens, take heed not to become too ostentatious and comfortable, or you will become Martin Shkreli; someone who didn't do anything actually wrong, but allowed himself to become the subject of the public's contempt. It is probably best to keep a low profile and live an unassuming lifestyle, grateful to be one of the few with freedom. ----- P.S., tried to post, and yep, throttled. I can't post for some more time now; this is because I was politically imprudent and criticized YC darlings, including some companies they've invested in, on HN. I will save this and repost later. Egalitarian facades from BigCo or PowerfulPerson are just that: a facade. And the people in power, no matter where their power lies, will be happy and cooperative as long as your conduct is biasing people in a direction that is favorable for them. But never expect them to sit idly by while you threaten or criticize them, even if the ultimate impact is small or indirect. They know that big collapses start out as small cracks, and they proactively and subtly work to stop these. Never mistake the cooperation, praise, or accolades of a group or establishment as representing anything other than their satisfaction that your conduct is helpful to them in the immediate moment. One of the most common and simultaneously most fatal mistakes I see is the assumption that satisfaction with one's conduct is implicit or automatic. That past positive responses guarantee future positive responses. The truth is, no one cares about you personally. They like your thing because it gave them what they wanted. If you disregard that for your next thing, they will have no qualms whatsoever about dismissing or disregarding you. Human response is a "hits business"; there is a formula that makes people happy. Meet that formula, and you will be rewarded. Deviate, and you won't. It is fickle, timing is important. Music, movies, and video games are all optimized "hits" businesses with billions of dollars at stake, and even they have misses more often than not. Everyone is irrevocably and intrinsically self-interested, as a biologically-dictated matter of individual survival. Do not expect anything else. Do not try to fight this -- you can't. You cannot undo the eons of evolution that have dictated it. Good system design understands and incorporates this unchangeable reality by triggering psychological phenomena that are biologically interpreted as pro-survival when they're acting in concert with the system, and not doing so when they aren't. Please note that despite the acknowledgment of this reality, this is not necessarily a nihilistic or pessimistic worldview. These things are not automatically bad. They are just components of the human psychological system that enables our survival. They can be used or abused, for good or for evil. An insistence on remaining ignorant of human action and motive based on the religious tenet that "people are nice" only leaves one liable to more manipulation. That is exactly what the worst, most ravenous predators want, because it allows them to operate virtually undetected. All the better if they can get the duped to engage in a hostile charge against those who are finding enlightenment (and they usually can). Anyone who wants to operate effectively within the system must know and understand it. Don't shy away from this reality. Accept it and use it for good. We have way too many timid people who have been programmed to take what they're given and shut up, and not to inquire into how the system works. It doesn't have to be that way.

thrownaway954 9y ago

"In the first place, nobody "works for themself". You might work for customers, or clients, or whatever, but not "yourself"." nail on the head... so many people don't get this simple fact that if you DO NOT have clients, you DO NOT have a business. You can't ever "pay yourself", some outside entity have to pay you for your product.

bthrn 9y ago
I know people who have quit full time jobs to write algo trading software for themselves to use -- the market pays them but I wouldn't call it a customer.
- 0x445442 9y ago
  Interesting you went here. I've thought for a long time that trading your own money in the markets is the closest (urban) thing to leaving the cave in the morning, killing your food and dragging it back. The thought is appealing to me on so many levels.
- thrownaway954 9y ago
  that's not a business... that's investing.
  - dx034 9y ago
    More like speculation. Algo trading usually exploits short-term inefficiencies on the market, not long term valuation opportunities.
bambax 9y ago
Not true! If you're doing b2b, yes admittedly you work for clients, yet a client is still very different from a boss (he can't order you around or give you "performance evaluations", etc.) BUT if you're doing b2c and selling something to many anonymous customers you don't interact with, you're truly working for yourself; that thing can be a piece of software, an object, a novel, etc.

dgreensp 9y ago

You can absolutely work for yourself. Google has customers too. If you work for Google, there is you, Google, and customers. If you work for you, there is you, you, and customers. You could metaphorically think of your customers as hiring and firing you, sure, in which case you have potentially millions of “bosses” and you can decide which ones you want to try to appeal to. Running a start-up can be a pretty good gig, too.

smsm42 9y ago

> Or figure out how to play. There's a third way. Don't go to Google. There are literally thousands of smaller places you can work for/in/with, some of them do pretty cool things. There'd be politics too, probably, but not as much as in Google, and you could control your destiny to a more significant degree. Small(er) companies - if you pick right - tend to have significantly better environment in that regard (not perfect, mind you, but better). Or, if you want that specific experience and line in your resume, and of course all that sweet cash and stock, do it with the open eyes - don't expect it to be a fairy land where unicorns crap out rainbows, expect it to be a humongous bureaucratic corporation where you will get exactly your share of care and agency - the full 0.001%. Approach to it transactionally, know what you came for to get and what you are willing to pay for it, and if playing exhausting games is not part of it, get what you can for the price you're prepared to pay, and move on. Don't let the fact that you can't get some things for the price you're prepared to pay get to you and make you think you're somehow unworthy. If the price for getting title X in Google is behaving like you'd hate to behave, then you can't get title X at Google. So what, there are probably tons of things you can't get and always will be. Don't let it bother you too much.

eldavido 9y ago
I thing I wonder is what role lifestyle factors play. If you're making 200k on your own terms vs 250 at Google, I wonder who's better off. At that level of income, things like how stressful your work is, how interested in it you are, the length of your commute, etc. seem to matter more than earning another 50k of income. Obviously everyone has their own circumstances but I think the obsession with earning as much cash salary as possible seems a little myopic.
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  The difference between Google and others is far more than 25% when you factor in total compensation. At least in my area, the difference between Google and the big players is more like 50-60%. So it is a significant trade off.
  - 9y ago

jehlakj 9y ago

Any resources on upping my political game before I start at a company?

Jare 9y ago
Don't think only of the political angle. Think of your work as a product that needs clients, value, exposure, and which has to compete in a crowded market against similar products from other people. Understand the balance between work that is pleasurable to perform (challenging problems, etc) and work that others find valuable. Don't be cynical about all this, lest you become a dick (there are hints of this in the OP). Simply be realistic: the company will not be perfect, will not be accurate in assessing value, but it will not necessarily be evil about it. It will simply be imperfect, just like anyone else including yourself. There are always reasons why things work the way they do. The ability to understand and work with those reasons is a valuable skill that a CS program will not teach you.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Game of Thrones?
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Where most character seem to end up dead.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    But, not the ones who know how to play politics. Tyrion is still very much alive, whereas Ned Stark, who was a very righteous man, who thought himself above politics, is dead.

q3k 9y ago

> Second, you're a lot better off working at a good company -- MUCH better off Working at Google ruined my mental health. Granted, it hasn't been great to begin with, but being in SRE made my absolutely miserable. Every night, coming intellectually wasted and couldn't even work on my own project because of draconian IP clauses in my contract. Quit half a year ago, went (back) into freelancing and I couldn't be happier. Don't care about the money or prestige anymore.

TheArcane 9y ago
> draconian IP clauses in my contract. Is this standard Google policy?
- q3k 9y ago
  Yes. All intellectual property you work on, including in your spare time at home on your laptop, belongs to Google and you have to go through a reassignment procedure where they declare they're not interested in your work. Which is okay if you work on one personal project at a time, but breaks down if you hop from project to project with friends. Waste of everyone's time.
  - cloverich 9y ago
    Genuinely curious how enforceable it is, and how often it is enforced. That is, if you jump from project to project with your friends, on your own time and equipment, is there a legal case that despite whatever you signed its null? Similarly, how often does Google go after people like this?
    - q3k 9y ago
      I'd rather not end up in court against Google lawyers. Or generally have to work around agreements that I sign.

komali2 9y ago

As Horowitz writes in "The Hard Thing About Hard Things," if there even is a political game at your company, someone up top has fucked up.

izacus 9y ago
And if you think there's no political games in your company then you're very naive. Your either not seeing it (which is bad for you) or its being hidden from you (which is also bad).
- komali2 9y ago
  Why do you believe there MUST be a political game?
  - Tsagadai 9y ago
    Politics is how people organise and group. There are always ploys for control and expansion. Politics is practically biology, there is a pecking order and it is inescapable. What determines in and out group varies but it is always there if there are three or more people present.
    - komali2 9y ago
      I think what you're describing, I'd describe as "organization," rather than "politics." When I refer to "politics" in this conversation I mean something along the lines of "performing actions that are not company-goal-optimized, or, potentially detrimental to other employees, in order to advance oneself."
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I suspect you are right, especially with the nature of our work. If I employ a brick layer I can easily judge the quality and rate of their work, it's easy to compare with the guy I hired last week. Contrast that to programming where there is no physical artefact, it's not like we can measure lines of code or numbers of files and derive some value, in most cases less lines of code is better. People know this so instead of doing good work they start to play games to get ahead. That's not to say a good leader can't fight against it but to think it's not there is naive.

swat535 9y ago

I think you are misunderstanding the definition of "Work for yourself" in this context. I believe it more resonates with the fact that your livelihood does not depend on a SINGLE SOURCE. Sure, a business is responsible for it's clients (notice the plural here), and if some of them leave, it may lose profit, yet it does not completely goes under. Whereas an employee is fully at the mercy of the employer.

tomp 9y ago

> You might work for customers, or clients, or whatever, but not "yourself". The difference is, you don't have one boss... So your risk(s) are well diversified (or, at least better than if you're an employee).

sumanthvepa 9y ago
In theory... yes you are diversified. Which why being a successful businessman is always more rewarding than being an employee. The keyword here is 'successful'. Diversifying your customer base to the point where you are not dependent on a few 'bosses' is really hard. Exciting yes. But hard.

justherefortart 9y ago

Working for yourself is fantastic. Having one boss that can fire you sucks, having 100 clients that can fire you is fantastic (you can also fire them). Now it is difficult to get to your necessary X number of clients (I'm 44 and on startup #8). But not having to deal with stupid inane bullshit incessantly while working is like winning the lottery. My current full time employment is run like a middle school popularity contest. The company is so shittacular I don't think I've been at worse in my ~30 years of working. This is saying a lot as I've also worked in fast food, construction, healthcare, my own shitty startups, a MLM, among many others.

bps4484 9y ago

[Manager here] I don't really see what the political game is here that he lost. What I think he failed to do was show impact in a clear a visible way. Don't get me wrong, there is salesmanship required here in terms of clearly demonstrating your value, but it's not like Google was giving the promo to some other guys who always went out to dinner with his boss and sucked up to him, or the guy the boss went to college with, or the guy who throws his team under the bus to make himself look good. that is politics, "politics" being defined as acts that make you look good but are detrimental behavior to the team and the company. And I think that's what google is trying to avoid with their promo panels where you get feedback from peer, peer team managers, and make the judgement as an impartial panel. Also I see this as a manager failure. Clearly this manager isn't well calibrated, because he continues to get "strongly exceeds expectations" and yet can't get you the promotion you obviously deserve if you strongly exceed expectations. They also should be helping you both with your promo packet so that you're putting your best foot forward, and talking to you about how you can improve and demonstrate your value when you do your work to make sure you can get an even strong promotion packet the next time. Given this manager failure, I'm not surprised the employee quit.

antoinevg 9y ago
As an engineer my job is to engineer. As a manager it's your job to figure out what my impact is. If you make it my job to show what my impact is I (and everyone else you are responsible for) will simply spend my time coming up with ever more creative ways of doing this instead of engineering. But hey, maybe I'm being silly and your company has no problems finding competent engineers, all your projects ship on time and under budget etc. etc. etc.
- bps4484 9y ago
  First, just to make sure we are on the same page, are you in agreement that this wasn't politics, but perhaps a disagreement in the roles and responsibilities of a manager and an engineer and what an engineer is expected to do at google? I just want to make sure we're on the same page on that, which was the crux of my point. But as to your point, on the roles and responsibilities of managers and engineers, I mostly agree with your comment about the role of a manager, which as I said before should be responsible for working with the engineer both to show their impact, but also making sure they're actually doing impactful work. I disagree that if it's your job as an engineer to show what your impact is that you'll come up with creative ways of doing this. You can try to come up with creative ways of showing impact, and maybe a promotion panel will agree with you, but maybe they won't and you'll be left without recognition (I've seen this happen before). To your last comment about competent engineers, I don't know what company you work at, but at mine, shipping projects on time, and under budget, especially when they are large in scope and involve complex technologies or large teams that you've led, and especially when those projects have impact on the company's bottom line, those project are considered major impact and and those engineers are amply rewarded.

billf1953 9y ago

Slightly snarky cliffs SWE did good work, got passed over for promotion several times, got mad and quits cushy software job to freelance. Everyone sympathizes because everyone thinks they do promotion-worthy work.

hi41 9y ago

>You can either get all mad and worked up and pissed off about it, and waste years of your career (as I did) being pissed off, stubborn, and refusing to change I can relate to this. I became bitter and angry when I did not get promoted several times and was told that the company expects "more". I became a person I am not proud of. My question is how does one extricate onself from such a bad place?

real-hacker 9y ago

- you're a lot better off working at a good company -- MUCH better off -- unless you have a pretty damn concrete idea of what you're doing. What makes so sure? Have you started your own thing? Glad to hear about your story/lessons learned.