4 ms·

>If your work is so full of those people that you really don’t like turning up every day, then finding a different job is a better reaction than getting too wou

>If your work is so full of those people that you really don’t like turning up every day, then finding a different job is a better reaction than getting too wound up about it. Honestly, I'm approaching this point myself. The problem isn't chemistry or letting go or whatever. The problem is when the other side is extremely inflexible and has a position of power over you. They get to comfortably sit in an ivory tower and tell you what's wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it. Its extremely soul-crushing and trying to fight it with their higher-ups is generally a waste of time for a myriad of reason (cargo cults, echo chambers or simply pride aka "surely this senior knows better than his subordinate!"). And 9 out of 10 times, these discussions are absolutely trivial in nature and only break the flow of the person waving at the ivory tower along with incurring the cost of switching contexts. Rarely, if ever, do I get a discussion which results into an actual new insight or actual transfer of knowledge. And at the end of the day, the company wonders why they can't keep any employees or why their workforce is burned out, yet somehow they still manage to survive despite making these poor choices. Of course, this is just personal experience and is by no means a generalization.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
If you can leave a situation like that, you absolutely should (unless there’s some other major benefit that would make you want to stay). > yet somehow they still manage to survive despite making these poor choices. Sometimes when you leave a company like that, you’ll get the pleasure of watching them go down in flames. But usually not. The thing to keep in mind is that all companies have an incredibly broad set of responsibilities to maintain. To be a successful company, they really only have to be actually good at a few of those things (even less to just survive). Most companies are actually quite bad at most of the things they do. So I wouldn’t get upset when you see a company with terrible practices continue to tick along. The only thing it really means is that those practices haven’t completely obstructed them from delivering whatever value they do deliver to their customers (yet). In any case. The more important thing to worry about is your own happiness.
- BlargMcLarg 7y ago
  > To be a successful company, they really only have to be actually good at a few of those things (even less to just survive). Most companies are actually quite bad at most of the things they do Yeah, laws and the nature of the job in particular protect the company I work at really well. Specifically, no international players see reason to compete which helps their position (any American startup with an ounce of competence would steamroll our feature set within a year), as well as the customers themselves putting massive emphasis on security over quality. A case of sunken cost fallacy from the customers and first-mover advantage. > If you can leave a situation like that, you absolutely should (unless there’s some other major benefit that would make you want to stay). You're right. Case of risk-adversity kicking in and laziness, along with lack of opportunities presented, but those are personal obstacles and to a large degree, poor excuses.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

If you can leave a situation like that, you absolutely should (unless there’s some other major benefit that would make you want to stay). > yet somehow they still manage to survive despite making these poor choices. Sometimes when you leave a company like that, you’ll get the pleasure of watching them go down in flames. But usually not. The thing to keep in mind is that all companies have an incredibly broad set of responsibilities to maintain. To be a successful company, they really only have to be actually good at a few of those things (even less to just survive). Most companies are actually quite bad at most of the things they do. So I wouldn’t get upset when you see a company with terrible practices continue to tick along. The only thing it really means is that those practices haven’t completely obstructed them from delivering whatever value they do deliver to their customers (yet). In any case. The more important thing to worry about is your own happiness.

BlargMcLarg 7y ago
> To be a successful company, they really only have to be actually good at a few of those things (even less to just survive). Most companies are actually quite bad at most of the things they do Yeah, laws and the nature of the job in particular protect the company I work at really well. Specifically, no international players see reason to compete which helps their position (any American startup with an ounce of competence would steamroll our feature set within a year), as well as the customers themselves putting massive emphasis on security over quality. A case of sunken cost fallacy from the customers and first-mover advantage. > If you can leave a situation like that, you absolutely should (unless there’s some other major benefit that would make you want to stay). You're right. Case of risk-adversity kicking in and laziness, along with lack of opportunities presented, but those are personal obstacles and to a large degree, poor excuses.