3 ms·

My point is that the onboarding process was already designed with lots of judgement, and plenty of past experience. The process was decided upon by others who a

My point is that the onboarding process was already designed with lots of judgement, and plenty of past experience. The process was decided upon by others who are more qualified than you, as a new hire. Until you understand more about the company, and its organizational flaws and quirks, you should refrain from criticizing some of these things. Overwatch, write these criticisms down and look at them a few weeks or months later, only then will you be able to approach these problems with the appropriate knowledge. Of course, there are places that are run by egocentric upper management that aren't qualified and won't listen... in which case my comments don't apply, but I don't think that is the norm.

munchbunny 6y ago
Of course, there are places that are run by egocentric upper management that aren't qualified and won't listen... in which case my comments don't apply, but I don't think that is the norm. In my experience it's not an issue of egocentric upper management. It's an issue of a process that is 80% tuned and for various hard to solve organizational reasons it doesn't get to 90%+ tuned. For example, in my own latest onboarding about two years ago, in hindsight I definitely feel that about 1 hour of it was dubiously useful and was a political concession to someone playing visibility games, out of about 6 hours of up front orientation. I think that grade of "off for reasons but not always good ones" is the norm. It's like the event planning equivalent of that one corner of the code that makes no sense because someone bikeshedded it last year.