5 ms·

Yes, the BS drained the life out of me. Switched to a startup and it got much better, but once we grew to 100+ people, the endless meetings started piling up ag

by bspear 4y ago

Yes, the BS drained the life out of me. Switched to a startup and it got much better, but once we grew to 100+ people, the endless meetings started piling up again The worst part is the high degree of censorship. Everyone is so sensitive now that it's impossible to speak openly

brtkdotse 4y ago
> The worst part is the high degree of censorship. Everyone is so sensitive now that it's impossible to speak openly What would you say if you weren't censored?
- GGordonShumway 4y ago
  where to begin. What would one say if one could speak openly? * The vast majority of executives are paranoid, risk averse know nothings. They don’t want to take any business risks lest it harm their comp. * Because most execs don’t understand their business, their customers, their industry, and they distrust their staff — they can’t formulate clear and concise goals and objectives. This is how orgs end up with that blitzkrieg of murky, pointless, meaningless objectives. * Quite a lot of people in leadership roles got to where there are by making very morally and ethically questionable decisions. It’s largely due to the stupidity of the investor class that these individuals were never caught. The horrible thing is because these individuals are loaded to the gills with malintent they assume the same of everyone else. They tend to structure their organizations around mistrust. * This is why management practice, especially in the US, appears to be a bad case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. All of management’s bureaucratic nonsense and irrational separation of duties creates self-inflicted wounds. management salves wounds (they never get at the root cause). And then management rewards itself with big bonuses for fixing the problems they created. * The US Federal Government functions way more effectively than most large companies. The reason is that in the govt policies, procedures, and controls are well documented and maintained. In most orgs all three are usually in flux at all times. This makes unity of effort pretty challenging on a good day. * If orgs cut a lot of their senior leadership they could pay everyone a lot more -and- see a productivity improvement whilst preserving their margin * Investors think they’re so clever. And of course one last thing * most people have no idea what they’re nattering on about
  - irvingprime 4y ago
    Agree with most of what you say except the bizarre point of government being more effective than most companies. That one simply makes no sense. The U.S. government is one of the most ineffective organizations on the planet!
- makk 4y ago
  Example: Pronouns. I’ve been subjected to Slack bots that chastise us for using gendered pronouns. Like, someone says “could you guys take a look at this?” And the bot calls the person out publicly, saying we don’t use that pronoun around here.
  - bjourne 4y ago
    GP specified that it was "the worst part". Was a Slack bot that shunned people from writing "guys" the worst part of the "censorship" you were subjected to?
    - danieljacksonno 4y ago
      To be honest, a slack bot like that would make me quit on the spot.
      - tarboreus 4y ago
        Yeah, I'm getting kind of enraged just thinking about it.
      - tasuki 4y ago
        The Elm language community has exactly such a Slack bot. I do find it a little patronizing, and in my observation it makes newcomers feel worse rather than better, but the community overall is really very nice and helpful, so I just put up with it.
      - bjourne 4y ago
        Why? Are you that sensitive?
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Not OP, and I wouldn't quit over a single message, or single bot. That said, it is a red flag that the company ok with spamming the employees to virtue signal. It is likely that it will be accompanied with other annoyances and has an incompatible culture. Better to get out before you go crazy or get fired.
- krageon 4y ago
  > What would you say if you weren't censored? "I think the demands you are making with regards to how fragile you are emotionally are not reasonable, and if this is how you must be treated in corporate life it is you that needs therapy". In general I think this response is correct and humane (provided you word it properly), because such fragility is not indicative of mental health. It is extremely not compatible with corporate culture to express this, as the prevailing notion is that everyone around such a person needs to conform 100% of the time to what they want.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  What I miss is humor. I work in a multinational and the cultural difference is striking. My European colleagues will make harmless jokes and laugh in most meetings. It makes a really pleasant environment. In comparison, my us colleagues don't laugh or joke at all, too risky as someone could be offended. Simple expressive language is also taboo. One Italian coworker used a analogy of the product as a beautiful woman in a meeting to get a point across. Basically all my us colleagues were shocked, because they only use dry corporate speak. I think it is a big part of imposter syndrome and exhausting to speak and listen to.
  - jlokier 4y ago
    Counterpoint to the European thing: I recently worked for an all-remote team where almost everyone is Europe based, and there was no humour at all in their meetings, and very little personal anecdata of any kind. It was very dry and professional, week in week out. I once cracked a light joke (nothing that anyone could find offensive) and it fell very flat. Doing so was obviously out of place. Never made that mistake again. Not just missing humour, but I couldn't discern any way that people formed work-social connections outside of those meetings, even though most of our interactions were over Discord. It was all about the work, and that was minimal as well. Even on Discord it was interesting to see much of the time, people talked past each other, not appearing to understand each other's point, or just saying what they'd worked on with no replies. Even DMs tended to be dry and would end when the question at hand was answered. My attempts to be friendly and curious led nowhere, metaphorically like the flatness of talking in an anechoic chamber. I found it quite depressing and difficult, not because I especially needed work friends, but because I couldn't find a way to get to the "informal real talk mode" about work either. It was difficult to forge the kinds of informal links that make work easier and more effective, and I think everyone's work quality suffered for it because everyone was kind of working on little atomised areas. I saw very little evidence that anyone cared about anyone else's wellbeing either.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      You bring up the really good point that this type of dry conversation to obtain answers only is a terrible environment for curiosity and learning. Relating interest, abstract Concepts and gasp opinions not necessarily specific to the problem at hand is an important Avenue towards growth. You thought the Europeans were the dry ones?

by bspear 4y ago

brtkdotse 4y ago

> The worst part is the high degree of censorship. Everyone is so sensitive now that it's impossible to speak openly What would you say if you weren't censored?

GGordonShumway 4y ago
where to begin. What would one say if one could speak openly? * The vast majority of executives are paranoid, risk averse know nothings. They don’t want to take any business risks lest it harm their comp. * Because most execs don’t understand their business, their customers, their industry, and they distrust their staff — they can’t formulate clear and concise goals and objectives. This is how orgs end up with that blitzkrieg of murky, pointless, meaningless objectives. * Quite a lot of people in leadership roles got to where there are by making very morally and ethically questionable decisions. It’s largely due to the stupidity of the investor class that these individuals were never caught. The horrible thing is because these individuals are loaded to the gills with malintent they assume the same of everyone else. They tend to structure their organizations around mistrust. * This is why management practice, especially in the US, appears to be a bad case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. All of management’s bureaucratic nonsense and irrational separation of duties creates self-inflicted wounds. management salves wounds (they never get at the root cause). And then management rewards itself with big bonuses for fixing the problems they created. * The US Federal Government functions way more effectively than most large companies. The reason is that in the govt policies, procedures, and controls are well documented and maintained. In most orgs all three are usually in flux at all times. This makes unity of effort pretty challenging on a good day. * If orgs cut a lot of their senior leadership they could pay everyone a lot more -and- see a productivity improvement whilst preserving their margin * Investors think they’re so clever. And of course one last thing * most people have no idea what they’re nattering on about
- irvingprime 4y ago
  Agree with most of what you say except the bizarre point of government being more effective than most companies. That one simply makes no sense. The U.S. government is one of the most ineffective organizations on the planet!
makk 4y ago
Example: Pronouns. I’ve been subjected to Slack bots that chastise us for using gendered pronouns. Like, someone says “could you guys take a look at this?” And the bot calls the person out publicly, saying we don’t use that pronoun around here.
- bjourne 4y ago
  GP specified that it was "the worst part". Was a Slack bot that shunned people from writing "guys" the worst part of the "censorship" you were subjected to?
  - danieljacksonno 4y ago
    To be honest, a slack bot like that would make me quit on the spot.
    - tarboreus 4y ago
      Yeah, I'm getting kind of enraged just thinking about it.
    - tasuki 4y ago
      The Elm language community has exactly such a Slack bot. I do find it a little patronizing, and in my observation it makes newcomers feel worse rather than better, but the community overall is really very nice and helpful, so I just put up with it.
    - bjourne 4y ago
      Why? Are you that sensitive?
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Not OP, and I wouldn't quit over a single message, or single bot. That said, it is a red flag that the company ok with spamming the employees to virtue signal. It is likely that it will be accompanied with other annoyances and has an incompatible culture. Better to get out before you go crazy or get fired.
krageon 4y ago
> What would you say if you weren't censored? "I think the demands you are making with regards to how fragile you are emotionally are not reasonable, and if this is how you must be treated in corporate life it is you that needs therapy". In general I think this response is correct and humane (provided you word it properly), because such fragility is not indicative of mental health. It is extremely not compatible with corporate culture to express this, as the prevailing notion is that everyone around such a person needs to conform 100% of the time to what they want.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
What I miss is humor. I work in a multinational and the cultural difference is striking. My European colleagues will make harmless jokes and laugh in most meetings. It makes a really pleasant environment. In comparison, my us colleagues don't laugh or joke at all, too risky as someone could be offended. Simple expressive language is also taboo. One Italian coworker used a analogy of the product as a beautiful woman in a meeting to get a point across. Basically all my us colleagues were shocked, because they only use dry corporate speak. I think it is a big part of imposter syndrome and exhausting to speak and listen to.
- jlokier 4y ago
  Counterpoint to the European thing: I recently worked for an all-remote team where almost everyone is Europe based, and there was no humour at all in their meetings, and very little personal anecdata of any kind. It was very dry and professional, week in week out. I once cracked a light joke (nothing that anyone could find offensive) and it fell very flat. Doing so was obviously out of place. Never made that mistake again. Not just missing humour, but I couldn't discern any way that people formed work-social connections outside of those meetings, even though most of our interactions were over Discord. It was all about the work, and that was minimal as well. Even on Discord it was interesting to see much of the time, people talked past each other, not appearing to understand each other's point, or just saying what they'd worked on with no replies. Even DMs tended to be dry and would end when the question at hand was answered. My attempts to be friendly and curious led nowhere, metaphorically like the flatness of talking in an anechoic chamber. I found it quite depressing and difficult, not because I especially needed work friends, but because I couldn't find a way to get to the "informal real talk mode" about work either. It was difficult to forge the kinds of informal links that make work easier and more effective, and I think everyone's work quality suffered for it because everyone was kind of working on little atomised areas. I saw very little evidence that anyone cared about anyone else's wellbeing either.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    You bring up the really good point that this type of dry conversation to obtain answers only is a terrible environment for curiosity and learning. Relating interest, abstract Concepts and gasp opinions not necessarily specific to the problem at hand is an important Avenue towards growth. You thought the Europeans were the dry ones?