4 ms·

There is a large problem with the entire premise of this article. Anyone who has been at enough companies know that companies "work" in very different ways ove

There is a large problem with the entire premise of this article. Anyone who has been at enough companies know that companies "work" in very different ways over time. People with seniority, and leaders at all different levels of the informal hierarchy change how those companies work. An alternate interpretation of this article is: "if you find yourself nodding with this article, know that you too have the personality of a follower of the system and will probably never impact the system yourself."

madmax108 5y ago
+1 Esp. at most early/midscale startups, the culture of work is pretty much defined by a small subset of folks who lay down the "rules of the land" and it's very much possible for people to be part of that subset. However, the systems at play don't always make it straightforward to do so. Weirdly enough, this is probably why: 1 - Many early stage employees feel disillusioned as the company grows because they go from being part of a flat structure to being part of a mid-low level informal/formal hierarchy, esp. as more external folks are brought in and the style of work revolves more and more around the ideas they bring (It's very hard to avoid this, esp. if you are in a junior role) 2 - Companies can seem entirely different with changes in far fewer roles than you'd expect. A few high profile exits can lead to a snowball effect, but in a few quarters the company usually tends to recover, albeit with a style of work that the older folks would find alien, but the newer folks adopt quite readily. A great example of this is Basecamp. Yes, Basecamp today is very different to the company it was a year ago culturally, but I'm wholly unsure if that is good, bad or just the nature of the game.
- abernard1 5y ago
  > Companies can seem entirely different with changes in far fewer roles than you'd expect. I have seen this as well. I've also noticed this occur because certain roles are able to create unofficial networks in the organization and entirely auxiliary systems, independent of how the organization "works" on paper. I've seen this across all departments and all levels of seniority: from the highest to the lowest. They're the black markets of the economy to borrow an analogy. I consider them the most effective and the real leaders (with or without title), as they change the scope of what is possible.
navbaker 5y ago
>An alternate interpretation of this article is: "if you find yourself nodding with this article, know that you too have the personality of a follower of the system and will probably never impact the system yourself." Why can an individual not make an impact unless they change the system or demonstrate that they are not "a follower"?
- abernard1 5y ago
  Any individual at any level can make an impact. My issue is that this article emphasizes how to go with the flow of an existing system. It also implies that changing the system is outside the reach of ICs. Not only do I believe partially changing the system is not outside of the realm of ICs, I've rarely seen successful engineers who didn't do it when necessary. If an engineer only feels comfortable changing the system when they're promoted into an official title, they are still operating on the tracks laid down by others. They'll be incapable of altering fundamental flaws or making fundamental improvements. More specifically here, I think the apologia for this very specific (and exhausting!) list of procedures for how to navigate company politics indicates not just a specific career on autopilot, but a whole company on autopilot. I can't imagine an environment like this that is high performance.
  - aprdm 5y ago
    I didn't read the article like you did, I read it as "Be aware of those before proposing big changes", which is true.

madmax108 5y ago

+1 Esp. at most early/midscale startups, the culture of work is pretty much defined by a small subset of folks who lay down the "rules of the land" and it's very much possible for people to be part of that subset. However, the systems at play don't always make it straightforward to do so. Weirdly enough, this is probably why: 1 - Many early stage employees feel disillusioned as the company grows because they go from being part of a flat structure to being part of a mid-low level informal/formal hierarchy, esp. as more external folks are brought in and the style of work revolves more and more around the ideas they bring (It's very hard to avoid this, esp. if you are in a junior role) 2 - Companies can seem entirely different with changes in far fewer roles than you'd expect. A few high profile exits can lead to a snowball effect, but in a few quarters the company usually tends to recover, albeit with a style of work that the older folks would find alien, but the newer folks adopt quite readily. A great example of this is Basecamp. Yes, Basecamp today is very different to the company it was a year ago culturally, but I'm wholly unsure if that is good, bad or just the nature of the game.

abernard1 5y ago
> Companies can seem entirely different with changes in far fewer roles than you'd expect. I have seen this as well. I've also noticed this occur because certain roles are able to create unofficial networks in the organization and entirely auxiliary systems, independent of how the organization "works" on paper. I've seen this across all departments and all levels of seniority: from the highest to the lowest. They're the black markets of the economy to borrow an analogy. I consider them the most effective and the real leaders (with or without title), as they change the scope of what is possible.

navbaker 5y ago

>An alternate interpretation of this article is: "if you find yourself nodding with this article, know that you too have the personality of a follower of the system and will probably never impact the system yourself." Why can an individual not make an impact unless they change the system or demonstrate that they are not "a follower"?

abernard1 5y ago
Any individual at any level can make an impact. My issue is that this article emphasizes how to go with the flow of an existing system. It also implies that changing the system is outside the reach of ICs. Not only do I believe partially changing the system is not outside of the realm of ICs, I've rarely seen successful engineers who didn't do it when necessary. If an engineer only feels comfortable changing the system when they're promoted into an official title, they are still operating on the tracks laid down by others. They'll be incapable of altering fundamental flaws or making fundamental improvements. More specifically here, I think the apologia for this very specific (and exhausting!) list of procedures for how to navigate company politics indicates not just a specific career on autopilot, but a whole company on autopilot. I can't imagine an environment like this that is high performance.
- aprdm 5y ago
  I didn't read the article like you did, I read it as "Be aware of those before proposing big changes", which is true.