5 ms·

(By the way, I’m writing this from a place of exhaustion and disappointment with the industry, rather than just knee jerk negativity.) Although I do think it’s

(By the way, I’m writing this from a place of exhaustion and disappointment with the industry, rather than just knee jerk negativity.) Although I do think it’s worthwhile to try to think and communicate as clearly as possible, over the years I’ve learned in this industry that 90% or more of coworkers and managers are not going to put the same effort into it. You can do everything right and the majority of the time it won’t matter. The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. There is no common goal with most managers because they don’t usually care about the success of the company, just their own personal success. And with most coworkers, few want to do things better more than they want to just have an easy ride. If anyone is aware of an environment where meritocracy exists in this industry I’d love to know about it. Where, where can I find a company that cares about making money by providing value? (Obviously some attention is paid to this to make enough money to keep the company going, but it’s second to the higher goal of accumulating their personal status and wealth, and there is misalignment between that and actually delivering value due to usually poor leadership at the top and poor investor oversight.) Maybe it’s all just a consequence of capital concentration. There are plenty of companies that could be out competed but competitors just won’t be funded, except if they are run by other connected people who don’t have the talent to out compete the existing ones.

afarrell 5y ago
> The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. This is correct but the implication is that a good career means having the courage to accept the risk of poor relationships with management and to be willing to end an unhealthy relationship.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Not necessarily. Bad managers will simply pile work on top of you until you drown. You need to learn the subtle art of saying no and/or delaying things without seeming to.
- wintermutestwin 5y ago
  While this is correct in theory, in practice there are many forms of golden handcuffs that make this a very painful option. In the final analysis, I think that many don't really care enough about the enterprise's overall success. My guess is that there are not that many well paying enterprises out there that are working on things that matter enough to care that much about...
  - afarrell 5y ago
    > a painful option Yes. > many don’t really care enough about the enterprise’s overall success Or they are unwilling to do what’s necessary because it is very painful or scary and they are exhausted.
- lmm 5y ago
  The implication is that a company where a substantial proportion of employees had that view would be more successful, but how does that translate to a good career for those employees?
  - afarrell 5y ago
    Those employees will leave unhealthy relationships for ones which are better for their career.
    - epicureanideal 5y ago
      And that’s why I’m asking, where would those better workplaces be? I’ve worked at quite a few companies at this point, and although it’s true that some teams are better than others, the general pattern has been that incentives are not well aligned in any company I’ve seen. Any company with proper alignment of incentives would crush the majority of existing startups. But as I said, such a company won’t be funded. The winners in the current economy are those with access to huge buckets of capital rather than those who can most effectively deploy that capital. And if they’re only competing against others with huge buckets of capital but not highly effective strategies, then they all compete at that same low level of strategy. Imagine a situation where you have dozens of restaurants all run by people who are mediocre but semi competent chefs and mediocre but semi competent business people. Meanwhile you have great chefs and great business people working a few steps beneath them. And yet the first group has access to buckets of capital to start restaurants and hire people and the second group doesn’t have the right connections. That’s what the software industry looks like to me after a long time working in it. No problem, start your own. Except the first group with access to buckets of capital will be able to advertise far more, keep prices cheaper, and so on, so you’ll be out competed in the marketplace despite better skills simply due to their access to huge amounts of money. Even if you are far more effective at deploying the smaller amount of capital you have.
nooorofe 5y ago
> The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. That is not my experience. When management asks to do something, it doesn't mean it likes any outcome. I am not calling to oppose any decision, but usually there are ways to express concerns. "High risk" for example is language they may understand. I've found that managers many times more confused and disoriented than you may expect. Sometimes asking questions discovers, that there are missing parts in the plan. But it is not easy, even to start questioning you need to have reputation (ex. guy that make things done). Finding right forum ("small group discussion") is another way to communicate concerns. >they don’t usually care about the success of the company, just their own personal success Well, people who put "success of the company" at highest priority usually not become manages. Many times managers are blind, because they have to follow orders (directions). Hearing from subject matter expert that the direction doesn't make sense not helping to their mental state. My general position: I prefer to warn about potential bad outcome of decision without refusing to follow orders.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Ask them for more written (email) details before you give an estimate. When you think you have enough details then tell them that you will do a one week sprint and get back to them with an estimate. When you get back to them give them choices of work completed/compromises vs. delivery dates. Confirm in writing/email what you agreed to.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  > Well, people who put "success of the company" at highest priority usually not become manages. Right, that’s exactly the situation I’m complaining about. (That seems to indicate some kind of problem with aligning incentives in companies, because in theory from top to bottom we would want to achieve alignment of rewards and career success with actions that lead to company success.) I generally agree with everything you wrote.
deathanatos 5y ago
> over the years I’ve learned in this industry that 90% or more of coworkers and managers are not going to put the same effort into it. What's worse to me, is the <5% (<1%?) that just actively refuse to communicate. I work with one of these right now, and it is frustrating beyond belief. I feel like conversations usually start with claims that are hard to believe, and completely unsubstantiated. Like Occam's Razor points in the complete opposite direction. Requests for evidence to back the claim up are usually deflected ("look I've been looking at this for quite a while now") or can't be provided ("I don't have the data right now" — and it will never be provided, even at a later date. The request is ignored or forgotten about. But inevitably, we should press on making a decision on the unsubstantiated claim!) And half the time, it feels like the unsubstantiated claim, even if true … literally wouldn't matter? Like, it's then applied in a non-sequitur argument of "unsubstantiated claim A, so we should do B" where there's no logical reasoning that A should lead to B. Almost all of the time, the amount of words or text involved is just huge, like volumes and volumes of it, using terms that nobody else would use (because, IMO, they haven't taken the time to learn the systems we use…) and most of it, to my ear, sounds like bull. Just nonsense. Direct questions are usually just ignored, so trying to just ask clarifying questions will get one nowhere. Even simple stuff, like yes/no inquiries, so stuff like "how much space does X require?" are again answered in paragraphs of meaningless gibberish. That these individuals work in an engineering profession just even further boggles my mind. The most charitable view I feel like I can take is that they feel like I'm attacking them (by pointing out their position is bad) and it's one giant alpha-male fight after that, when really I just don't care about that? (at the end of the day, we could both get promoted? it's not like there's some limitation there) and really I'm just looking to get solid data to help make a good decision, and what I'm getting back just doesn't. make. sense. It's so hard to describe in a HN comment, since these individuals are just so irrational from my point of view. Like, "fails the Turing test" … interactions seem more like a bad or aggressive Markov chain rather than a thinking person…
- afarrell 5y ago
  This is similar to a frustrating pattern of my own behavior over last year. Would you like to know what is behind it?
rented_mule 5y ago
I've spent almost all of the last decade as a first and second level manager and recently returned to an IC engineering role. I don't think any company large enough to have a handful of managers has homogeneity in what you're talking about. The worst companies for engineers to work at have pockets of bliss (been there). Fantastic companies have pockets of despair (been there, too). And any given pocket doesn't look the same from different perspectives. From my experience as a manager, I think the vast majority of managers (not all!) care deeply about the success of the company and the team. But there is so much information that can't be shared that we, as engineers, are left to draw sweeping conclusions like "they are incompetent" or "they don't care" or "they only care about their own career". Let me give a little of what I've seen in the hopes it will make things bit more understandable, even if it's not as sensible / hopeful as we'd all like. What you are expressing disappointment about is not limited to engineers and their direct managers. An effective manager needs to help their reports understand upper management's perspective ("I know that you were hoping we'd prioritize Y, but here's why we're doing X instead") and help their own managers (Directors, VPs, etc.) understand the perspective of their reports ("engineers are consistently raising the same issues about X that I raised during planning, can we reconsider doing Y instead?"). They are very much caught in the middle, and it's the same all the way up - execs have to do this with the board and major investors. If there is anyone in the management chain that either doesn't understand the connection between what is valuable for stakeholders and what ICs can provide, then you are going to experience the things that appear to be frustrating you. The only hope is that there is someone between you and the weak link in the chain that can somehow create space for you to create more value. I've been that "umbrella" at times and it was too taxing for me to sustain - it's a big part of why I wanted to return to being an IC (i.e., to regain my own sanity). Lack of understanding of that connection between value and capabilities can be subjective or objective. By subjective, I mean that given the same inputs, different people will come up with different strategies for applying capabilities to create value. To the extent your strategy agrees with those above you, things will be easier for you and the decisions that come down will look more sensible to you. Many of the best managers try to reconcile these differences to get the best outcome they can for everyone. They find alignment. That's easier where the gap is smaller (e.g., some ICs' views will be better aligned with upper management to start with) and harder where the gap is larger. A classic source of mismatch here is that upper management is often incentivized to get short term results (e.g., by public markets or just to make payroll) and engineers are often incentivized to get long term results (because we directly experience any cost of shortcuts taken to get short term results). By objective, I'm referring more to understanding things like what a team is capable of. At one point I managed a team that had a very different expertise than almost everyone else in the company. When there was enough understanding of that in upper management to let it be leveraged, things were great. But when the difference was not understood, then decisions came down that made perfect sense for other teams but not for this team. People in management who don't understand that they don't understand the capabilities (or how leveraging those capabilities looks different from leveraging other capabilities) can do a lot of damage here because they don't know that they should ask/learn/delegate. And they don't know how to interpret the resulting problems that they see. When that manager who doesn't understand is a front line EM, I've seen significant confusion from engineers as they try to understand what they are seeing (e.g., my performance reviews appear random, my manager doesn't care about the quality of my solutions, I'm the only one on the team who knows/enjoys doing X and and X is never assigned to me, etc.). Also keep in mind that feedback loops can send people in bad directions. I've seen front line managers move up to have 2 or 3 levels of managers beneath them very quickly because of a simple, well intentioned technique that can lead to terrible outcomes. The technique is to pick a single metric for each team and tie people's performance evaluation (and therefore pay) to that one metric (sometimes the entire team, sometimes just EM and/or PM). That metric goes up quickly because people are highly motivated. Initially it happens by picking low hanging fruit with good results. But soon it means cannibalizing other metrics and at some point the trade-offs no longer make sense for stakeholders, but they keep going because somebody will get a bad performance review if they don't (side "benefit" - performance reviews are easier for management and appear objective if they only have to look at one metric). And all along the way it shifts the focus from a mix of short and long term investments to purely short term investments. The metric also loses its value as a metric in the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. Management is an incredible maze of things like the above. Many managers, including some who are doing a fantastic job, aren't even aware that they're grappling with all of that and much more. With all of that going on, it's impressive that many manage the kind of empathy the article talks about. I think the majority of managers are well meaning and making things much better for most of us. But the human problems are so daunting that it's hard to see the upsides (which are often just a reduction in the challenges inherent in working with tens/hundreds/thousands of people) from where we sit as engineers. The worst managers are adding to those challenges and are a disaster, but they tend to be a self correcting problem because their reports often don't to stick around very long. So, in many ways, the deeper view of management is both better (there are certainly exceptions, but many care and are impressively competent) and worse (many of the problems are inherent in human interaction and management is left to pick solutions that address a strict subset of those problems, with minefields of misleading feedback loops) than you might be thinking if you haven't seen it from the inside at different levels.
biren34 5y ago
I have no idea what's allowed in HN recruiting terms, but I'm working at a company that is very much worried about making sure we deliver value, and we have several positions open.
- RexM 5y ago
  You could always leave some contact info in your profile.
pojzon 5y ago
IMHO It highly depends on company you work in. Company culture to hire only ppl with high values like you can push you further. If company hiring fails and gets too many self-centred ppl in, you land in the situation like you describe. It ofcourse makes it very frustrating and as someone in similar situation you describe my only option to change it is to jump the ship.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>If anyone is aware of an environment where meritocracy exists in this industry I’d love to know about it. Did you know the term meritocracy was originally intended as a negative idea[1]. The value of modern work is so subjective that it's almost impossible to measure. It's probably best to jettison any idea that you will be promoted based on any sort of rational assessment. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-scholar-coined-mocked-meritocracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-sc...
- beckman466 5y ago
  > [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-scholar-coined-mocked-meritocracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-sc... "But it was ''The Rise of the Meritocracy'' that made Mr. Young world famous. Written as a doctoral dissertation looking back from the year 2034, the book described the emergence of a new elite determined not by social position but by achievement on the standardized intelligence tests that were a very real, and dreaded, fact of educational life in 20th-century Britain. To name this new elite, Mr. Young forced the marriage of a Latin root to a Greek suffix, yielding ''meritocracy.'' He meant the term as a pejorative, for underneath the mock academic tract lay bitter social commentary. Though the test-based system of advancement emerging in postwar Britain appeared to provide opportunity for all, it was, Mr. Young argued, simply the centuries-old class system in sheep's clothing. Lacking access to the best schools, underprivileged children routinely did badly on the 11-plus exam, the test given to children after sixth grade that largely determined their professional future. As a result, the disadvantaged remained at the bottom of the social ladder, their poor scores used to justify the status quo. ''The Rise of the Meritocracy'' became an international best seller and was credited with leading to the abolition of the 11-plus in Britain." Non-paywalled link: https://archive.is/A17Uw https://archive.is/A17Uw
kqr 5y ago
> If anyone is aware of an environment where meritocracy exists in this industry I’d love to know about it. I work in one, but it's the only one I've found so far. I don't know how it happens. I asked my manager (also one of the founders) about it once, he shrugged, and said "I could make something up that sounds convincing, but to a large extent I think it's about being lucky." Maybe that humility is part of what it takes.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  What a humble person, that is very rare.

afarrell 5y ago

> The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. This is correct but the implication is that a good career means having the courage to accept the risk of poor relationships with management and to be willing to end an unhealthy relationship.

mbrodersen 5y ago
Not necessarily. Bad managers will simply pile work on top of you until you drown. You need to learn the subtle art of saying no and/or delaying things without seeming to.
wintermutestwin 5y ago
While this is correct in theory, in practice there are many forms of golden handcuffs that make this a very painful option. In the final analysis, I think that many don't really care enough about the enterprise's overall success. My guess is that there are not that many well paying enterprises out there that are working on things that matter enough to care that much about...
- afarrell 5y ago
  > a painful option Yes. > many don’t really care enough about the enterprise’s overall success Or they are unwilling to do what’s necessary because it is very painful or scary and they are exhausted.
lmm 5y ago
The implication is that a company where a substantial proportion of employees had that view would be more successful, but how does that translate to a good career for those employees?
- afarrell 5y ago
  Those employees will leave unhealthy relationships for ones which are better for their career.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    And that’s why I’m asking, where would those better workplaces be? I’ve worked at quite a few companies at this point, and although it’s true that some teams are better than others, the general pattern has been that incentives are not well aligned in any company I’ve seen. Any company with proper alignment of incentives would crush the majority of existing startups. But as I said, such a company won’t be funded. The winners in the current economy are those with access to huge buckets of capital rather than those who can most effectively deploy that capital. And if they’re only competing against others with huge buckets of capital but not highly effective strategies, then they all compete at that same low level of strategy. Imagine a situation where you have dozens of restaurants all run by people who are mediocre but semi competent chefs and mediocre but semi competent business people. Meanwhile you have great chefs and great business people working a few steps beneath them. And yet the first group has access to buckets of capital to start restaurants and hire people and the second group doesn’t have the right connections. That’s what the software industry looks like to me after a long time working in it. No problem, start your own. Except the first group with access to buckets of capital will be able to advertise far more, keep prices cheaper, and so on, so you’ll be out competed in the marketplace despite better skills simply due to their access to huge amounts of money. Even if you are far more effective at deploying the smaller amount of capital you have.

nooorofe 5y ago

> The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc. That is not my experience. When management asks to do something, it doesn't mean it likes any outcome. I am not calling to oppose any decision, but usually there are ways to express concerns. "High risk" for example is language they may understand. I've found that managers many times more confused and disoriented than you may expect. Sometimes asking questions discovers, that there are missing parts in the plan. But it is not easy, even to start questioning you need to have reputation (ex. guy that make things done). Finding right forum ("small group discussion") is another way to communicate concerns. >they don’t usually care about the success of the company, just their own personal success Well, people who put "success of the company" at highest priority usually not become manages. Many times managers are blind, because they have to follow orders (directions). Hearing from subject matter expert that the direction doesn't make sense not helping to their mental state. My general position: I prefer to warn about potential bad outcome of decision without refusing to follow orders.

mbrodersen 5y ago
Ask them for more written (email) details before you give an estimate. When you think you have enough details then tell them that you will do a one week sprint and get back to them with an estimate. When you get back to them give them choices of work completed/compromises vs. delivery dates. Confirm in writing/email what you agreed to.
epicureanideal 5y ago
> Well, people who put "success of the company" at highest priority usually not become manages. Right, that’s exactly the situation I’m complaining about. (That seems to indicate some kind of problem with aligning incentives in companies, because in theory from top to bottom we would want to achieve alignment of rewards and career success with actions that lead to company success.) I generally agree with everything you wrote.

deathanatos 5y ago

> over the years I’ve learned in this industry that 90% or more of coworkers and managers are not going to put the same effort into it. What's worse to me, is the <5% (<1%?) that just actively refuse to communicate. I work with one of these right now, and it is frustrating beyond belief. I feel like conversations usually start with claims that are hard to believe, and completely unsubstantiated. Like Occam's Razor points in the complete opposite direction. Requests for evidence to back the claim up are usually deflected ("look I've been looking at this for quite a while now") or can't be provided ("I don't have the data right now" — and it will never be provided, even at a later date. The request is ignored or forgotten about. But inevitably, we should press on making a decision on the unsubstantiated claim!) And half the time, it feels like the unsubstantiated claim, even if true … literally wouldn't matter? Like, it's then applied in a non-sequitur argument of "unsubstantiated claim A, so we should do B" where there's no logical reasoning that A should lead to B. Almost all of the time, the amount of words or text involved is just huge, like volumes and volumes of it, using terms that nobody else would use (because, IMO, they haven't taken the time to learn the systems we use…) and most of it, to my ear, sounds like bull. Just nonsense. Direct questions are usually just ignored, so trying to just ask clarifying questions will get one nowhere. Even simple stuff, like yes/no inquiries, so stuff like "how much space does X require?" are again answered in paragraphs of meaningless gibberish. That these individuals work in an engineering profession just even further boggles my mind. The most charitable view I feel like I can take is that they feel like I'm attacking them (by pointing out their position is bad) and it's one giant alpha-male fight after that, when really I just don't care about that? (at the end of the day, we could both get promoted? it's not like there's some limitation there) and really I'm just looking to get solid data to help make a good decision, and what I'm getting back just doesn't. make. sense. It's so hard to describe in a HN comment, since these individuals are just so irrational from my point of view. Like, "fails the Turing test" … interactions seem more like a bad or aggressive Markov chain rather than a thinking person…

afarrell 5y ago
This is similar to a frustrating pattern of my own behavior over last year. Would you like to know what is behind it?

rented_mule 5y ago

I've spent almost all of the last decade as a first and second level manager and recently returned to an IC engineering role. I don't think any company large enough to have a handful of managers has homogeneity in what you're talking about. The worst companies for engineers to work at have pockets of bliss (been there). Fantastic companies have pockets of despair (been there, too). And any given pocket doesn't look the same from different perspectives. From my experience as a manager, I think the vast majority of managers (not all!) care deeply about the success of the company and the team. But there is so much information that can't be shared that we, as engineers, are left to draw sweeping conclusions like "they are incompetent" or "they don't care" or "they only care about their own career". Let me give a little of what I've seen in the hopes it will make things bit more understandable, even if it's not as sensible / hopeful as we'd all like. What you are expressing disappointment about is not limited to engineers and their direct managers. An effective manager needs to help their reports understand upper management's perspective ("I know that you were hoping we'd prioritize Y, but here's why we're doing X instead") and help their own managers (Directors, VPs, etc.) understand the perspective of their reports ("engineers are consistently raising the same issues about X that I raised during planning, can we reconsider doing Y instead?"). They are very much caught in the middle, and it's the same all the way up - execs have to do this with the board and major investors. If there is anyone in the management chain that either doesn't understand the connection between what is valuable for stakeholders and what ICs can provide, then you are going to experience the things that appear to be frustrating you. The only hope is that there is someone between you and the weak link in the chain that can somehow create space for you to create more value. I've been that "umbrella" at times and it was too taxing for me to sustain - it's a big part of why I wanted to return to being an IC (i.e., to regain my own sanity). Lack of understanding of that connection between value and capabilities can be subjective or objective. By subjective, I mean that given the same inputs, different people will come up with different strategies for applying capabilities to create value. To the extent your strategy agrees with those above you, things will be easier for you and the decisions that come down will look more sensible to you. Many of the best managers try to reconcile these differences to get the best outcome they can for everyone. They find alignment. That's easier where the gap is smaller (e.g., some ICs' views will be better aligned with upper management to start with) and harder where the gap is larger. A classic source of mismatch here is that upper management is often incentivized to get short term results (e.g., by public markets or just to make payroll) and engineers are often incentivized to get long term results (because we directly experience any cost of shortcuts taken to get short term results). By objective, I'm referring more to understanding things like what a team is capable of. At one point I managed a team that had a very different expertise than almost everyone else in the company. When there was enough understanding of that in upper management to let it be leveraged, things were great. But when the difference was not understood, then decisions came down that made perfect sense for other teams but not for this team. People in management who don't understand that they don't understand the capabilities (or how leveraging those capabilities looks different from leveraging other capabilities) can do a lot of damage here because they don't know that they should ask/learn/delegate. And they don't know how to interpret the resulting problems that they see. When that manager who doesn't understand is a front line EM, I've seen significant confusion from engineers as they try to understand what they are seeing (e.g., my performance reviews appear random, my manager doesn't care about the quality of my solutions, I'm the only one on the team who knows/enjoys doing X and and X is never assigned to me, etc.). Also keep in mind that feedback loops can send people in bad directions. I've seen front line managers move up to have 2 or 3 levels of managers beneath them very quickly because of a simple, well intentioned technique that can lead to terrible outcomes. The technique is to pick a single metric for each team and tie people's performance evaluation (and therefore pay) to that one metric (sometimes the entire team, sometimes just EM and/or PM). That metric goes up quickly because people are highly motivated. Initially it happens by picking low hanging fruit with good results. But soon it means cannibalizing other metrics and at some point the trade-offs no longer make sense for stakeholders, but they keep going because somebody will get a bad performance review if they don't (side "benefit" - performance reviews are easier for management and appear objective if they only have to look at one metric). And all along the way it shifts the focus from a mix of short and long term investments to purely short term investments. The metric also loses its value as a metric in the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. Management is an incredible maze of things like the above. Many managers, including some who are doing a fantastic job, aren't even aware that they're grappling with all of that and much more. With all of that going on, it's impressive that many manage the kind of empathy the article talks about. I think the majority of managers are well meaning and making things much better for most of us. But the human problems are so daunting that it's hard to see the upsides (which are often just a reduction in the challenges inherent in working with tens/hundreds/thousands of people) from where we sit as engineers. The worst managers are adding to those challenges and are a disaster, but they tend to be a self correcting problem because their reports often don't to stick around very long. So, in many ways, the deeper view of management is both better (there are certainly exceptions, but many care and are impressively competent) and worse (many of the problems are inherent in human interaction and management is left to pick solutions that address a strict subset of those problems, with minefields of misleading feedback loops) than you might be thinking if you haven't seen it from the inside at different levels.

biren34 5y ago

I have no idea what's allowed in HN recruiting terms, but I'm working at a company that is very much worried about making sure we deliver value, and we have several positions open.

RexM 5y ago
You could always leave some contact info in your profile.

pojzon 5y ago

IMHO It highly depends on company you work in. Company culture to hire only ppl with high values like you can push you further. If company hiring fails and gets too many self-centred ppl in, you land in the situation like you describe. It ofcourse makes it very frustrating and as someone in similar situation you describe my only option to change it is to jump the ship.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>If anyone is aware of an environment where meritocracy exists in this industry I’d love to know about it. Did you know the term meritocracy was originally intended as a negative idea[1]. The value of modern work is so subjective that it's almost impossible to measure. It's probably best to jettison any idea that you will be promoted based on any sort of rational assessment. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-scholar-coined-mocked-meritocracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-sc...

beckman466 5y ago
> [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-scholar-coined-mocked-meritocracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-sc... "But it was ''The Rise of the Meritocracy'' that made Mr. Young world famous. Written as a doctoral dissertation looking back from the year 2034, the book described the emergence of a new elite determined not by social position but by achievement on the standardized intelligence tests that were a very real, and dreaded, fact of educational life in 20th-century Britain. To name this new elite, Mr. Young forced the marriage of a Latin root to a Greek suffix, yielding ''meritocracy.'' He meant the term as a pejorative, for underneath the mock academic tract lay bitter social commentary. Though the test-based system of advancement emerging in postwar Britain appeared to provide opportunity for all, it was, Mr. Young argued, simply the centuries-old class system in sheep's clothing. Lacking access to the best schools, underprivileged children routinely did badly on the 11-plus exam, the test given to children after sixth grade that largely determined their professional future. As a result, the disadvantaged remained at the bottom of the social ladder, their poor scores used to justify the status quo. ''The Rise of the Meritocracy'' became an international best seller and was credited with leading to the abolition of the 11-plus in Britain." Non-paywalled link: https://archive.is/A17Uw https://archive.is/A17Uw

kqr 5y ago

> If anyone is aware of an environment where meritocracy exists in this industry I’d love to know about it. I work in one, but it's the only one I've found so far. I don't know how it happens. I asked my manager (also one of the founders) about it once, he shrugged, and said "I could make something up that sounds convincing, but to a large extent I think it's about being lucky." Maybe that humility is part of what it takes.

Gravityloss 5y ago
What a humble person, that is very rare.