4 ms·

Doing a job hunt right now and im trying to assess "what's my day to day like" and it comes down to two factors: what are the people like, and what is the actua

Doing a job hunt right now and im trying to assess "what's my day to day like" and it comes down to two factors: what are the people like, and what is the actual work. I want to really like the people, as I've discovered my life is way more boring otherwise. I spend 8-10h/day working, I need to be able to laugh and make other people laugh and have interesting conversations. I'd love to make friends out of it. People often tell me don't rely on work for that, but the time investment is too steep not to use it as a social outlet. I also want to know the actual work. Not the buzzwords, or the product name, or fast paced industry, but the actual initiatives for the next year. Crank out new features for mobile app? Not my skill set. Typical oncall rotation? Nah. I'm shocked how many companies are willing to start the interview process immediately. I decline until I have at least an hour convo with who would be my manager. As per the article, yes more blogging helps but how do I know it's genuine and not marketing bs? I don't.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
I feel like this archetype (wanting to have fun, make friends, etc) is actually very common, at least around SF/SV. I bet you'll find it soon enough. If I can be candid (and hopefully still amicable) behind my random-string username, I do have to say: I don't get the approach, though. Can you help me understand? Why does it really matter if you can share dank memes with your coworkers or have fun little in-jokes? Isn't it far, far more important to find out things like: How do people communicate? How do people disagree with each other? Are people able to separate emotions and ego from the team's work output and outcomes? What values does each person want to embody in the work that they produce? Are people willing to sacrifice momentary comfort for genuine personal growth? Maybe I'm a grumpy old man. Maybe I've just been burned too many times by companies promising a "fun" work environment where "everyone is friends" -- only to discover what they actually mean is an environment where harmony and comfort are valued above all else. The net result (in my anecdotal experience) is an atmosphere of passive-aggressive collaboration and mediocre work, because even the slightest hint of disagreement is shut down brutally instead of being talked through and genuinely resolved. I'm not really disagreeing with you, because, like I said, I've seen so many people who want what you describe. I only wonder: How does it work? What happens when a colleague treats you unprofessionally? What happens when one person is dragging down the team? In your live/love/laugh philosophy, how do you have meaningful, uncomfortable, worthwhile conversations that result in a genuine, deep relationship forged through facing hard truths together?
- qazxcvbnmlp 4y ago
  To answer your question ‘how do we separate ego and emotions from our work outcome’. Rarely are there people that are completely emotionless. Often when people say they are rational, it means they don’t have a good cognitive understanding of their emotions. So, in the context of a work environment, I’ve found it’s very helpful to take in account peoples emotions when getting tasks accomplished. And like, there’s countless studies signifying the importance of emotional intelligence in the workplace. Fun in-jokes are a way of getting to know a person in a casual way. This is really important, because knowing someone allows you to know their motives, what’s important, potential hurt points, etc. This all becomes very relevant when there is an important issues to be addressed. I can adjust timing, who hears the message, context of the message, etc based on what I know about the person. Eg, if during small talk, I find out someone has been up all night because their kid is sick. Sure, that kid is not my problem, but if I wait till they are more rested to tell them about an issue in their design it will be more likely to be resolved in a productive manner.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jrumbut 4y ago
  > In your live/love/laugh philosophy, how do you have meaningful, uncomfortable, worthwhile conversations that result in a genuine, deep relationship forged through facing hard truths together? That sounds like the kind of relationship I'd have with my spouse, sibling, or very old friend. In those relationships, you can't avoid it. At work, I try to be mindful that ultimately everyone is there so they can feed their family and not get cold in the winter time. That's an uncomfortable truth, and everyone has to face it, so it's good to stay light and breezy when possible. Enforced fun is its own kind of hell, I try to share only the most anodyne memes at work, and I have seen harmony overvalued, but harmony and comfort do have value. If I see a team where every decision provokes a lengthy and probing inquiry into values, and they weren't building a warp drive or cancer cure, I might be a bit put off. Is camel case vs snake case really so important? Disagreeing productively is an important skill, but so is picking your battles.
- 4y ago
nicoburns 4y ago
> I decline until I have at least an hour convo with who would be my manager. Is that not part of the interview process? For some jobs I've worked, that's been the entirety of the interview process!
- khuey 4y ago
  It's usually towards the end of the interview process, not at the beginning.
- wnolens 4y ago
  It usually is, but not until you commit. I want it instead of a recruiter convo. Which is useless.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    Ah, I usually don’t apply via recruiters which may explain why I tend to hit a hiring manager first. I would recommend!
arcticbull 4y ago
Question I like to ask is 'what do you look for in candidates' - and assuming they have a bunch of people just like that working there already. Does a good job IME of proxying for culture.
brailsafe 4y ago
I like the idea of being somewhat casually social with people I work with remotely or otherwise, but what I wouldn't rely on is those people becoming "friends", unless there's a series of other factors that exist whereby if we'd met in any other context, we'd have become friends anyway. I don't think it's impossible to make long term friends with coworkers, but it just seems highly unlikely unless ad others mentioned, there's a solid shared struggle. That's why if my social circle is lacking, I'll try and meet my coworker's friends.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago

I feel like this archetype (wanting to have fun, make friends, etc) is actually very common, at least around SF/SV. I bet you'll find it soon enough. If I can be candid (and hopefully still amicable) behind my random-string username, I do have to say: I don't get the approach, though. Can you help me understand? Why does it really matter if you can share dank memes with your coworkers or have fun little in-jokes? Isn't it far, far more important to find out things like: How do people communicate? How do people disagree with each other? Are people able to separate emotions and ego from the team's work output and outcomes? What values does each person want to embody in the work that they produce? Are people willing to sacrifice momentary comfort for genuine personal growth? Maybe I'm a grumpy old man. Maybe I've just been burned too many times by companies promising a "fun" work environment where "everyone is friends" -- only to discover what they actually mean is an environment where harmony and comfort are valued above all else. The net result (in my anecdotal experience) is an atmosphere of passive-aggressive collaboration and mediocre work, because even the slightest hint of disagreement is shut down brutally instead of being talked through and genuinely resolved. I'm not really disagreeing with you, because, like I said, I've seen so many people who want what you describe. I only wonder: How does it work? What happens when a colleague treats you unprofessionally? What happens when one person is dragging down the team? In your live/love/laugh philosophy, how do you have meaningful, uncomfortable, worthwhile conversations that result in a genuine, deep relationship forged through facing hard truths together?

qazxcvbnmlp 4y ago
To answer your question ‘how do we separate ego and emotions from our work outcome’. Rarely are there people that are completely emotionless. Often when people say they are rational, it means they don’t have a good cognitive understanding of their emotions. So, in the context of a work environment, I’ve found it’s very helpful to take in account peoples emotions when getting tasks accomplished. And like, there’s countless studies signifying the importance of emotional intelligence in the workplace. Fun in-jokes are a way of getting to know a person in a casual way. This is really important, because knowing someone allows you to know their motives, what’s important, potential hurt points, etc. This all becomes very relevant when there is an important issues to be addressed. I can adjust timing, who hears the message, context of the message, etc based on what I know about the person. Eg, if during small talk, I find out someone has been up all night because their kid is sick. Sure, that kid is not my problem, but if I wait till they are more rested to tell them about an issue in their design it will be more likely to be resolved in a productive manner.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jrumbut 4y ago
> In your live/love/laugh philosophy, how do you have meaningful, uncomfortable, worthwhile conversations that result in a genuine, deep relationship forged through facing hard truths together? That sounds like the kind of relationship I'd have with my spouse, sibling, or very old friend. In those relationships, you can't avoid it. At work, I try to be mindful that ultimately everyone is there so they can feed their family and not get cold in the winter time. That's an uncomfortable truth, and everyone has to face it, so it's good to stay light and breezy when possible. Enforced fun is its own kind of hell, I try to share only the most anodyne memes at work, and I have seen harmony overvalued, but harmony and comfort do have value. If I see a team where every decision provokes a lengthy and probing inquiry into values, and they weren't building a warp drive or cancer cure, I might be a bit put off. Is camel case vs snake case really so important? Disagreeing productively is an important skill, but so is picking your battles.
4y ago

nicoburns 4y ago

> I decline until I have at least an hour convo with who would be my manager. Is that not part of the interview process? For some jobs I've worked, that's been the entirety of the interview process!

khuey 4y ago
It's usually towards the end of the interview process, not at the beginning.
wnolens 4y ago
It usually is, but not until you commit. I want it instead of a recruiter convo. Which is useless.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Ah, I usually don’t apply via recruiters which may explain why I tend to hit a hiring manager first. I would recommend!

arcticbull 4y ago

Question I like to ask is 'what do you look for in candidates' - and assuming they have a bunch of people just like that working there already. Does a good job IME of proxying for culture.

brailsafe 4y ago

I like the idea of being somewhat casually social with people I work with remotely or otherwise, but what I wouldn't rely on is those people becoming "friends", unless there's a series of other factors that exist whereby if we'd met in any other context, we'd have become friends anyway. I don't think it's impossible to make long term friends with coworkers, but it just seems highly unlikely unless ad others mentioned, there's a solid shared struggle. That's why if my social circle is lacking, I'll try and meet my coworker's friends.