6 ms·

> The typical employment lifecycle of an engineer is: Get frustrated by the current company culture and/or benefits, let this frustration sit for way too long,

> The typical employment lifecycle of an engineer is: Get frustrated by the current company culture and/or benefits, let this frustration sit for way too long, snap and choose a random company whose recruiter just happened to reach out, join there, and repeat the cycle all over again. It's scary how real this is, but it's easy to say "don't do that", when all the inhibitions about leaving your current job rotate around some seriously bottom levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs - you literally could be without home and (in the US) healthcare if you do this precipitously or without somewhere to jump to, or if you make a poor choice in jumping. Not saying it's good to sit pat until things get so bad you can't, but there's real scary things behind folk's decisions to stay and weather the horseshit at a place.

mprovost 5y ago
The takeaway here is to leave before you're frustrated. While things are still good. That is when you are in the best position and frame of mind to make a change. Because you can walk away from any offer that isn't better. If you wait until things are terrible then yes you can feel trapped in a bad situation because you have to pay the bills.
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  sure sure, but given the (potential) downsides of choosing wrong, what would be the trigger or reason for leaving IF things are still good? Or are you saying if you see signs of things going downhill but things are currently good?
  - nefitty 5y ago
    More money. More impressive title. Wanting to relocate. Downsizing. Learn new tech stacks/skills not available at your current job. Scoping out a new industry to prepare for launching a business.
  - mprovost 5y ago
    Compare it to investing. Do you wait for the stock to go down and then sell, or do you sell when it's high and take your profit elsewhere? Even if you invest it in something that then goes down, you still made your profit. If you move before things get bad, you'll always be able to look back at your time at the company with happiness. No burnt bridges, no bitterness. Sure it's a risk to move somewhere else, but in this other world where you wait for things to get bad before moving then 100% of the time you're signing up for some period where your (work) life sucks.
    - VBprogrammer 5y ago
      What is the indexed linked mutual fund of this analogy? Perhaps focusing on a specific technology or skillset such that you can be a contractor providing services to a range of other companies without having a commited relationship with any of them? (The index being your choice of technology / skills)
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        Employment is fundamentally different from investing, because while all dollars are interchangeable and easily reallocated, almost nothing about a person is.
      - mattnewton 5y ago
        The index fund is the safe, big multinational corp that will never make you rich but probably never lay you off, just shuffle you around between orgs and pay for your retraining.
        avgDev 5y ago
        I actually think a competent engineer making $100k plus can become rich, maybe not filthy rich. If said engineer were to max out roth/401k for 30 years, they would most likely retire with few million dollars. As an engineer you also might decide to join a SV based company and make $200k+ or you can become self-employed and deposit $56k into your 401k. In reality anyone making $100k+ plus and living in M-LCOL area can become quite rich when comparing to other places in the world. That is if you are not buying/leasing new cars all the time and living humbly.
  - lhorie 5y ago
    As the job interview adage goes, you're interviewing them just as much as they're interviewing you. If you're dabbling in the market to see what's available while things are good, you don't have as much pressure to accept subpar offers and you have leverage to negotiate better offers. It's the same as setting up wish lists and checking on them periodically. You're much more likely to get a good deal if you keep tabs on the thing you want over a long period of time than just hoping you get a deal the moment you have the impulse to buy the thing.
- serverholic 5y ago
  If I did this I'd be finding a new job every 3-6 months. Over time I've realized that I'm not going to be happy in any 9-5 position, so I might as well save as much money as I can until I can afford to do something else.
  - abnercoimbre 5y ago
    Do you mean early retirement or starting your own business?
    - serverholic 5y ago
      I'm leaving it purposely ambiguous because I don't want to put any expectations on myself. If I end up starting a business then that's great but I'm also ok with the idea of living a completely unproductive lifestyle. My only requirement is that I do what I feel like doing!
      - abnercoimbre 5y ago
        It's interesting how 9-5PM M-F now seems unreasonable in our industry. What a time to be alive. There's lots of talk of 4-day work weeks or starting a business. Or like you say -- to just exit out completely.
        abnercoimbre 5y ago
        (I should clarify I'm in favor of cutting down hours or starting your own thing.)
        serverholic 5y ago
        Out of curiosity would you be in favor of someone living an unproductive lifestyle? If not, why?
        abnercoimbre 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cacioepepe 5y ago
  The tricky part, as it was for me, was when things change. Things can be great somewhere, and then something at very high levels cause trickledown, and before you know it, minor problems turn into complete institutional dysfunction. It's like the butterfly effect, but with organizational dysfunction. Add your spouse having other constraints, and it becomes a mess to navigate sometimes.
habeebtc 5y ago
Incredibly scary, and on point. Definitely describes how I have moved around jobs. It's articles like this that make me realize how fortunate I am to work in Tech, which has a really low unemployment rate. It's pretty easy to get a job that pays the bills (if your bills are reasonable) - it's more difficult to get one which is higher than your last one.
edmcnulty101 5y ago
The key would be to pick a good company/team but are there any? I haven't found any, my work history is littered with terribly managed companies where nepotism is more important than competence, business people run tech departments with no tech experience, had a CEO go to jail for bribery which shut the company down, another company my entire team was let go 6 months after I started. Recruiters and companies who ghost you during applications with out even a polite no thanks email. I was raised by boomers who taught me if you just work hard and do the right thing your company will reward you but that has not even remotely miniscuely been my experience in the tech world. Heard even a FAANG can be a nightmare if on the wrong team. So how to identify a safe landing spot?
- sdw1 5y ago
  My experiences at every company I've worked for (and the reasons I've departed from them) in my career have all given me additional signals to scan for in the recruitment stage, be it tech stack, culture, advancement, mentorship, etc. It's not a perfect system, but it's self-reinforcing and constantly improving -- I'm fortunate to be able to select for things I need/want and am not currently getting when I'm actively searching. This includes a comparatively brief but ultimately very stressful period of unemployment where the most important signal was "this role will pay me a salary". Some bottom-of-the-barrel firehouses will absolutely disqualify themselves through their signaling in interview loops. But I think the reality is that at most places the dysfunction just won't become evident until you've been working there for a bit and the cracks start showing. Which brings us back to another huge advantage of tech -- I think the "safest" landing spot (assuming your personal non-negotiables are satisfied) is the spot that gives you the most financial security to leave when you've seen enough. Assuming you have a good handle on your standards/costs of living and risk tolerance, after a certain breakpoint, more money saved means more time and less time-pressure to find the signals you care about. I don't think a "dream job" exists for me, but a better one always does.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    > But I think the reality is that at most places the dysfunction just won't become evident until you've been working there for a bit and the cracks start showing This has been my experience too. Companies rigorously test candidates for the right fit. But I have not yet found how to accurately test for a company with a sane healthy working environment.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
v1l 5y ago
I'd suggest that the reason most people don't leave sooner is not because it's scary but because the barrier to switch (finding, vetting, interviewing) is high. Just the thought of expending that effort is enough to discourage most and stay put.
- v1l 5y ago
  fwiw, I don't know why contract-to-hire isn't a bigger thing. It's the most risk free way for both sides to test the waters.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    In the context of the GP about basic Maslow needs and fears about housing and healthcare, contract-to-hire as an alternative to interviewing is not risk free for an employee who needs a steady income and isn't confident they will find another good opportunity quickly if they need to. Interviewing has risks of course, but with interviewing a person can usually continue their current job and only quit when they have a better offer. With contract-to-hire they have to quit their current job first, then have high uncertainty about whether they have a new long term job or a short contract leading to nothing..
    - v1l 5y ago
      I'm actually suggesting something where teams work with someone for 20h/week (so part time) for say a couple of weeks and based on that make an offer. No one has to quit their job then. But to big of a behavior change for companies to do this I guess.
artpi 5y ago
Hey - author here: Yeah, I kind of forgot to caveat it all with how unreasonably good I have it as a programmer, and that story refers to my programmer friends, who like to marinate a little too long in bad jobs that they could have easily changed
dominotw 5y ago
it is really hard to gauge company culture from outside when you are interviewing them. I don't see how this problem can be solved.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  There are now sites for anonymous feedback on companies, such as Glassdoor or Blind, but those are always suspect to either corporate astroturfing or random trolling.

mprovost 5y ago

The takeaway here is to leave before you're frustrated. While things are still good. That is when you are in the best position and frame of mind to make a change. Because you can walk away from any offer that isn't better. If you wait until things are terrible then yes you can feel trapped in a bad situation because you have to pay the bills.

sillyquiet 5y ago
sure sure, but given the (potential) downsides of choosing wrong, what would be the trigger or reason for leaving IF things are still good? Or are you saying if you see signs of things going downhill but things are currently good?
- nefitty 5y ago
  More money. More impressive title. Wanting to relocate. Downsizing. Learn new tech stacks/skills not available at your current job. Scoping out a new industry to prepare for launching a business.
- mprovost 5y ago
  Compare it to investing. Do you wait for the stock to go down and then sell, or do you sell when it's high and take your profit elsewhere? Even if you invest it in something that then goes down, you still made your profit. If you move before things get bad, you'll always be able to look back at your time at the company with happiness. No burnt bridges, no bitterness. Sure it's a risk to move somewhere else, but in this other world where you wait for things to get bad before moving then 100% of the time you're signing up for some period where your (work) life sucks.
  - VBprogrammer 5y ago
    What is the indexed linked mutual fund of this analogy? Perhaps focusing on a specific technology or skillset such that you can be a contractor providing services to a range of other companies without having a commited relationship with any of them? (The index being your choice of technology / skills)
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      Employment is fundamentally different from investing, because while all dollars are interchangeable and easily reallocated, almost nothing about a person is.
    - mattnewton 5y ago
      The index fund is the safe, big multinational corp that will never make you rich but probably never lay you off, just shuffle you around between orgs and pay for your retraining.
      - avgDev 5y ago
        I actually think a competent engineer making $100k plus can become rich, maybe not filthy rich. If said engineer were to max out roth/401k for 30 years, they would most likely retire with few million dollars. As an engineer you also might decide to join a SV based company and make $200k+ or you can become self-employed and deposit $56k into your 401k. In reality anyone making $100k+ plus and living in M-LCOL area can become quite rich when comparing to other places in the world. That is if you are not buying/leasing new cars all the time and living humbly.
- lhorie 5y ago
  As the job interview adage goes, you're interviewing them just as much as they're interviewing you. If you're dabbling in the market to see what's available while things are good, you don't have as much pressure to accept subpar offers and you have leverage to negotiate better offers. It's the same as setting up wish lists and checking on them periodically. You're much more likely to get a good deal if you keep tabs on the thing you want over a long period of time than just hoping you get a deal the moment you have the impulse to buy the thing.
serverholic 5y ago
If I did this I'd be finding a new job every 3-6 months. Over time I've realized that I'm not going to be happy in any 9-5 position, so I might as well save as much money as I can until I can afford to do something else.
- abnercoimbre 5y ago
  Do you mean early retirement or starting your own business?
  - serverholic 5y ago
    I'm leaving it purposely ambiguous because I don't want to put any expectations on myself. If I end up starting a business then that's great but I'm also ok with the idea of living a completely unproductive lifestyle. My only requirement is that I do what I feel like doing!
    - abnercoimbre 5y ago
      It's interesting how 9-5PM M-F now seems unreasonable in our industry. What a time to be alive. There's lots of talk of 4-day work weeks or starting a business. Or like you say -- to just exit out completely.
      - abnercoimbre 5y ago
        (I should clarify I'm in favor of cutting down hours or starting your own thing.)
        serverholic 5y ago
        Out of curiosity would you be in favor of someone living an unproductive lifestyle? If not, why?
        abnercoimbre 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cacioepepe 5y ago
The tricky part, as it was for me, was when things change. Things can be great somewhere, and then something at very high levels cause trickledown, and before you know it, minor problems turn into complete institutional dysfunction. It's like the butterfly effect, but with organizational dysfunction. Add your spouse having other constraints, and it becomes a mess to navigate sometimes.

habeebtc 5y ago

Incredibly scary, and on point. Definitely describes how I have moved around jobs. It's articles like this that make me realize how fortunate I am to work in Tech, which has a really low unemployment rate. It's pretty easy to get a job that pays the bills (if your bills are reasonable) - it's more difficult to get one which is higher than your last one.

edmcnulty101 5y ago

The key would be to pick a good company/team but are there any? I haven't found any, my work history is littered with terribly managed companies where nepotism is more important than competence, business people run tech departments with no tech experience, had a CEO go to jail for bribery which shut the company down, another company my entire team was let go 6 months after I started. Recruiters and companies who ghost you during applications with out even a polite no thanks email. I was raised by boomers who taught me if you just work hard and do the right thing your company will reward you but that has not even remotely miniscuely been my experience in the tech world. Heard even a FAANG can be a nightmare if on the wrong team. So how to identify a safe landing spot?

sdw1 5y ago
My experiences at every company I've worked for (and the reasons I've departed from them) in my career have all given me additional signals to scan for in the recruitment stage, be it tech stack, culture, advancement, mentorship, etc. It's not a perfect system, but it's self-reinforcing and constantly improving -- I'm fortunate to be able to select for things I need/want and am not currently getting when I'm actively searching. This includes a comparatively brief but ultimately very stressful period of unemployment where the most important signal was "this role will pay me a salary". Some bottom-of-the-barrel firehouses will absolutely disqualify themselves through their signaling in interview loops. But I think the reality is that at most places the dysfunction just won't become evident until you've been working there for a bit and the cracks start showing. Which brings us back to another huge advantage of tech -- I think the "safest" landing spot (assuming your personal non-negotiables are satisfied) is the spot that gives you the most financial security to leave when you've seen enough. Assuming you have a good handle on your standards/costs of living and risk tolerance, after a certain breakpoint, more money saved means more time and less time-pressure to find the signals you care about. I don't think a "dream job" exists for me, but a better one always does.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  > But I think the reality is that at most places the dysfunction just won't become evident until you've been working there for a bit and the cracks start showing This has been my experience too. Companies rigorously test candidates for the right fit. But I have not yet found how to accurately test for a company with a sane healthy working environment.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

v1l 5y ago

I'd suggest that the reason most people don't leave sooner is not because it's scary but because the barrier to switch (finding, vetting, interviewing) is high. Just the thought of expending that effort is enough to discourage most and stay put.

v1l 5y ago
fwiw, I don't know why contract-to-hire isn't a bigger thing. It's the most risk free way for both sides to test the waters.
- jlokier 5y ago
  In the context of the GP about basic Maslow needs and fears about housing and healthcare, contract-to-hire as an alternative to interviewing is not risk free for an employee who needs a steady income and isn't confident they will find another good opportunity quickly if they need to. Interviewing has risks of course, but with interviewing a person can usually continue their current job and only quit when they have a better offer. With contract-to-hire they have to quit their current job first, then have high uncertainty about whether they have a new long term job or a short contract leading to nothing..
  - v1l 5y ago
    I'm actually suggesting something where teams work with someone for 20h/week (so part time) for say a couple of weeks and based on that make an offer. No one has to quit their job then. But to big of a behavior change for companies to do this I guess.

artpi 5y ago

Hey - author here: Yeah, I kind of forgot to caveat it all with how unreasonably good I have it as a programmer, and that story refers to my programmer friends, who like to marinate a little too long in bad jobs that they could have easily changed

dominotw 5y ago

it is really hard to gauge company culture from outside when you are interviewing them. I don't see how this problem can be solved.

Apocryphon 5y ago
There are now sites for anonymous feedback on companies, such as Glassdoor or Blind, but those are always suspect to either corporate astroturfing or random trolling.