4 ms·
That sounds truly awful. Not necessarily surprising —- but could you give us some clues as to which company this was so that we can avoid working there?
by da39a3ee 5y ago
That sounds truly awful. Not necessarily surprising —- but could you give us some clues as to which company this was so that we can avoid working there?
- balsam 5y agoNot grandparent but that orgchart sounds like.. a (possibly government related) tech org somewhere in the Commonwealth.
- AwaAwa 5y agoI've been in a few over the decades, and sounds like every tech company after the glory/startup years. Was even in one "hype" startup that began this way almost immediately.
- TuringNYC 5y agoThis is a common enough occurrence that you probably want to learn how to spot bad setups, where-ever they might be. I think the key is to discern Value vs Vanity. You want to be on value-add projects (those producing revenue, or reducing risk, increasing speed, or reducing cost) but not on Vanity projects. The trouble is that differentiating Vanity vs Innovation is hard. You can discern them though, in two ways I think: 1. By the level of motivation of low-level workers (true innovation is exciting) while underfunded vanity projects are soul crushing 2. By the seeming intentions of senior management -- are they more focused on the stated goal or on press/buzz? I do not have sufficient n-value to come up with hard and fast rules but i'd love to hear others' thoughts