5 ms·

I was at a AAA++++ brand FAANG. The politics, from the second I joined, were so over-the-top. It was like Wrestlemania. Everyone was smashing eachother and thr

I was at a AAA++++ brand FAANG. The politics, from the second I joined, were so over-the-top. It was like Wrestlemania. Everyone was smashing eachother and throwing elbows and it was like a spectator sport about who could club who first and the loudest. I had just gotten out of a super toxic prior employer and had zero motivation to engage in corporate politics so I just decided to wait and watch and try to understand how to be effective. I waited. And watched. And waited. And watched. And raised some ideas. All shot down. Finally I came to the realization that if I wanted to "play this game" I would need to get into the ring and start shutting people down, throwing elbows, telling other people their ideas suck etc. After thinking about it a long time, I decided: (a) I didn't want to do any of the above (b) I cared about building things good for customers (c) I hated the VPs involved and had nothing in common with them (d) I didn't want their jobs, because it would require doing what they were doing I ended up leaving for a startup. It was a very good company. I still think about if it was the right thing to do. But I was not growing, not getting to do anything, it was antithetical to my personal and career growth, I wasn't learning. It was just a wrestling ring with morons yelling at eachother and acting out their insecurities loudly. I couldn't do it. Contrast to prior employer: EVeryone was political, but in a sneaky, underhanded way. It was all covert assassination. At a startup, there was no bullshit. It was: There is the work, do the work. The end. No politics. With remote work: Politics is even worse in my opinion. Remote workers are at a huge disadvantage.

AdieuToLogic 3y ago
> I was at a AAA++++ brand FAANG. > The politics, from the second I joined, were so over-the-top. It was like Wrestlemania. Everyone was smashing eachother and throwing elbows and it was like a spectator sport about who could club who first and the loudest. This is phenomena I've seen played out in organizations which are flush with cash and want to hire "only the best", yet end up having multi-layered management building fiefdoms in order to affirm their importance. Bored smart people will find a way to make their days feel important. If it is not in the work they do, then it will be the political fights they have.
- thr0way120 3y ago
  You know who I am talking about. lol.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  The organizations that actually do 'hire only the best' never claim it. There's probably less than 50 such places, total, on Earth, where every single engineering position is occupied by a bonafide, legitimate, super-genius. It's a small enough group that the posers can be immediately identified.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > There's probably less than 50 such places, total, on Earth, where every single engineering position is occupied by a bonafide, legitimate, super-genius. What are these places? Outside of a research lab, even if you had infinite money and hiring power, would you even want to staff a company where "where every single engineering position is occupied by a bonafide, legitimate, super-genius"? If you're doing engineering (as opposed to pure research) the reality is that there's always a lot of unexciting work. Your super-geniuses don't care to do that, what you need is people who are smart enough, but more importantly reliable and willing to keep showing up and doing the work even when there's zero chance it puts them on track for a Nobel price (or field equivalent).
    - logicchains 3y ago
      Renaissance Technologies only hires quants with notable publications. You have to be pretty smart to make noteable STEM publications.
      - jjav 3y ago
        Finance is not engineering. Ignoring that for a moment (although we shouldn't, different fields are different), their jobs page lists an opening for a Web Programmer that pays 143k-159k range in NY (i.e. very little). I'm guessing this role doesn't require notable publications and they're not looking for a "bonafide, legitimate, super-genius" to fill this role. (Or if they are, they will never ever fill the role with that salary. They'd be fools to try and I assume they are not fools.) That was my point. Companies will hire top talent for the revenue-leading roles but quite rationally don't need to do that for every single engineering role (as OP claimed) because there are plenty of jobs where a trustworthy responsible adult who gets the job done is exactly what they need, even if they don't have a Turing Award.
nigamanth 3y ago
One of the key challenges that lies in remote work is the inability to truly know what's going on. You can have an idea, but you'll likely faces situations you cannot predict or cannot defend against.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  Remote work is like working with another group of people that are all overseas. You’ll be called into a meeting once in a while to find out everything has been decided without you.
  - thr0way120 3y ago
    I have been in multiple situations where they actively plot, or simply dont care, and come up with some plan without you at your expense. Very challenging to deal with. I prefer small companies.
- RHSman2 3y ago
  Back in an office after 10 years remote including my own startup. I cannot believe how important real, face to face and coexisting is. As someone actively trying to get stuff done, it’s a super power. The ability to cut through organizational inertia is amazing!!
silenced_trope 3y ago
[flagged]
- kstenerud 3y ago
  Please don't do this. I've known a number of great people who have at one point in their life had a string of bad luck due to bad people, and do you know what's the worst, most assholish thing you can say to someone who's in such a fragile state? "Could the problem be you?" Tech is one of those places that have an unstable enough common culture as to attract every yabo with a theory of management. So you end up with many shitty cultures, where shitty people thrive (and the odd gem). "Management" is a dirty word in this industry, and the answer most people give is "Oh, we're a flat organization" or "Oh, we run like a family" etc, which just hides the hierarchies and fosters dysfunction. The industry really has a big problem, and strings of bad employment experiences are a symptom.
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    Thanks for saying this, it's more common to have a string of bad luck than a lot of people think.
  - mlrtime 3y ago
    Not disagreeing with your statement but we do attach this stigma when people are dating and finding partners. If the people you pick keeping treating you like shit, maybe you are picking the wrong people, in that case maybe it is you. I like this approach better because it creates more agency vs just other things happening TO you.
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
What you describe feels like the inevitable end-game of what the article is promoting, and why I can't subscribe to it. I think there's a flipside to the argument too. If "good work" isn't enough, it means that those responsible for managing the employees doing "good work" aren't paying enough attention and that creates the need to self-advertise for promotion, as the article describes. But if there's an attention vacuum is it not also possible to hide, to some extent: as long as you continue to do good enough work to stay off the "bad" radar, then fit whatever you want into the spaces in between: Alternative productivity. I have a current theory about the application of KPIs and OKRs for measuring performance: they're to take the responsibility of actually managing people off the managers who are meant to be managing people; Outsourcing the management, oddly, to the managed. I'm currently three months through an experiment to see what happens when the vanilla "standard" OKRs I've been given aren't added to, ticked off or reached, or really measured against at all. I feel that I do good work, but I don't feel the need to prove it beyond the doing of it. I understand the extensive overheads for things like backups and disaster recovery. I don't understand per-employee administrative overhead to measure contributions to "delighting the Customer" (actual example). If I don't get a pay rise, or worse, as a result of this experiment, then it's been a success in helping to make an important decision.
- thr0way120 3y ago
  I have been thinking a lot about exactly your point here: That a lot of knowledge work seems to emphasize letting the employee manage themselves. SCRUM is this also. Which leads to the question: "what is management even doing / what is management for?" I once read a book that management is purely about surveillance. They are purely there to watch you. Narcissists, as a personality trait, are people watchers who like control. So basically you end up creating a class of people who are almost guaranteed to be narcissistic in nature. Corporations are veritable laboratories of mind control, psychology and propaganda. It is really quite complex and weird about how it actually works. It is otherwise totally illogical.
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    It's a very subtle and complex "thing" so I'll disclaim that this is only part of it, and it meshes together with other parts, but Management is also for decision making, direction provision, and, to some degree, parenting (see last paragraph for where that somewhat crossed over). Where it really stirs up the concepts into a fine mud is that, in order to be able to make decent decisions, you need to know both business direction from above as well as decision / direction practicality from below, and the more that management becomes removed from on-going engagement with below (eg. outsourcing performance monitoring, lack of involvement in SCRUM) the further their decisions are removed from understanding the practicality. Surveillance, as the terminology used, is loaded to create fear, which probably serves the needs of bad managers. Good managers should be engaging with their reports to know what they're working on, and to know them psychologically, so they know to ask more probing questions if someone is hiding an issue for fear of upsetting "the boss". Good managers know up the ladder and down the ladder and should be constantly working on finding the balance between each in order to maximise both the productivity of their reports and the progress made in business directions. One of the reports I had (albeit briefly) was very emotionally attached to his work, and took it personally even when there were requests to make changes to fit it into changing requirements. I love the guy, but he needed fairly regular vent-sessions to talk him through, and out of, the (unnecessary) emotional state in order to reach "oh, this is what I'm paid for". (funny story: I once got so exasperated with him that I called him my son's name - man that was embarassing for both of us).
justapassenger 3y ago
[dead]

AdieuToLogic 3y ago

> I was at a AAA++++ brand FAANG. > The politics, from the second I joined, were so over-the-top. It was like Wrestlemania. Everyone was smashing eachother and throwing elbows and it was like a spectator sport about who could club who first and the loudest. This is phenomena I've seen played out in organizations which are flush with cash and want to hire "only the best", yet end up having multi-layered management building fiefdoms in order to affirm their importance. Bored smart people will find a way to make their days feel important. If it is not in the work they do, then it will be the political fights they have.

thr0way120 3y ago
You know who I am talking about. lol.
MichaelZuo 3y ago
The organizations that actually do 'hire only the best' never claim it. There's probably less than 50 such places, total, on Earth, where every single engineering position is occupied by a bonafide, legitimate, super-genius. It's a small enough group that the posers can be immediately identified.
- jjav 3y ago
  > There's probably less than 50 such places, total, on Earth, where every single engineering position is occupied by a bonafide, legitimate, super-genius. What are these places? Outside of a research lab, even if you had infinite money and hiring power, would you even want to staff a company where "where every single engineering position is occupied by a bonafide, legitimate, super-genius"? If you're doing engineering (as opposed to pure research) the reality is that there's always a lot of unexciting work. Your super-geniuses don't care to do that, what you need is people who are smart enough, but more importantly reliable and willing to keep showing up and doing the work even when there's zero chance it puts them on track for a Nobel price (or field equivalent).
  - logicchains 3y ago
    Renaissance Technologies only hires quants with notable publications. You have to be pretty smart to make noteable STEM publications.
    - jjav 3y ago
      Finance is not engineering. Ignoring that for a moment (although we shouldn't, different fields are different), their jobs page lists an opening for a Web Programmer that pays 143k-159k range in NY (i.e. very little). I'm guessing this role doesn't require notable publications and they're not looking for a "bonafide, legitimate, super-genius" to fill this role. (Or if they are, they will never ever fill the role with that salary. They'd be fools to try and I assume they are not fools.) That was my point. Companies will hire top talent for the revenue-leading roles but quite rationally don't need to do that for every single engineering role (as OP claimed) because there are plenty of jobs where a trustworthy responsible adult who gets the job done is exactly what they need, even if they don't have a Turing Award.

nigamanth 3y ago

One of the key challenges that lies in remote work is the inability to truly know what's going on. You can have an idea, but you'll likely faces situations you cannot predict or cannot defend against.

Aeolun 3y ago
Remote work is like working with another group of people that are all overseas. You’ll be called into a meeting once in a while to find out everything has been decided without you.
- thr0way120 3y ago
  I have been in multiple situations where they actively plot, or simply dont care, and come up with some plan without you at your expense. Very challenging to deal with. I prefer small companies.
RHSman2 3y ago
Back in an office after 10 years remote including my own startup. I cannot believe how important real, face to face and coexisting is. As someone actively trying to get stuff done, it’s a super power. The ability to cut through organizational inertia is amazing!!

silenced_trope 3y ago

[flagged]

kstenerud 3y ago
Please don't do this. I've known a number of great people who have at one point in their life had a string of bad luck due to bad people, and do you know what's the worst, most assholish thing you can say to someone who's in such a fragile state? "Could the problem be you?" Tech is one of those places that have an unstable enough common culture as to attract every yabo with a theory of management. So you end up with many shitty cultures, where shitty people thrive (and the odd gem). "Management" is a dirty word in this industry, and the answer most people give is "Oh, we're a flat organization" or "Oh, we run like a family" etc, which just hides the hierarchies and fosters dysfunction. The industry really has a big problem, and strings of bad employment experiences are a symptom.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  Thanks for saying this, it's more common to have a string of bad luck than a lot of people think.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  Not disagreeing with your statement but we do attach this stigma when people are dating and finding partners. If the people you pick keeping treating you like shit, maybe you are picking the wrong people, in that case maybe it is you. I like this approach better because it creates more agency vs just other things happening TO you.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

What you describe feels like the inevitable end-game of what the article is promoting, and why I can't subscribe to it. I think there's a flipside to the argument too. If "good work" isn't enough, it means that those responsible for managing the employees doing "good work" aren't paying enough attention and that creates the need to self-advertise for promotion, as the article describes. But if there's an attention vacuum is it not also possible to hide, to some extent: as long as you continue to do good enough work to stay off the "bad" radar, then fit whatever you want into the spaces in between: Alternative productivity. I have a current theory about the application of KPIs and OKRs for measuring performance: they're to take the responsibility of actually managing people off the managers who are meant to be managing people; Outsourcing the management, oddly, to the managed. I'm currently three months through an experiment to see what happens when the vanilla "standard" OKRs I've been given aren't added to, ticked off or reached, or really measured against at all. I feel that I do good work, but I don't feel the need to prove it beyond the doing of it. I understand the extensive overheads for things like backups and disaster recovery. I don't understand per-employee administrative overhead to measure contributions to "delighting the Customer" (actual example). If I don't get a pay rise, or worse, as a result of this experiment, then it's been a success in helping to make an important decision.

thr0way120 3y ago
I have been thinking a lot about exactly your point here: That a lot of knowledge work seems to emphasize letting the employee manage themselves. SCRUM is this also. Which leads to the question: "what is management even doing / what is management for?" I once read a book that management is purely about surveillance. They are purely there to watch you. Narcissists, as a personality trait, are people watchers who like control. So basically you end up creating a class of people who are almost guaranteed to be narcissistic in nature. Corporations are veritable laboratories of mind control, psychology and propaganda. It is really quite complex and weird about how it actually works. It is otherwise totally illogical.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  It's a very subtle and complex "thing" so I'll disclaim that this is only part of it, and it meshes together with other parts, but Management is also for decision making, direction provision, and, to some degree, parenting (see last paragraph for where that somewhat crossed over). Where it really stirs up the concepts into a fine mud is that, in order to be able to make decent decisions, you need to know both business direction from above as well as decision / direction practicality from below, and the more that management becomes removed from on-going engagement with below (eg. outsourcing performance monitoring, lack of involvement in SCRUM) the further their decisions are removed from understanding the practicality. Surveillance, as the terminology used, is loaded to create fear, which probably serves the needs of bad managers. Good managers should be engaging with their reports to know what they're working on, and to know them psychologically, so they know to ask more probing questions if someone is hiding an issue for fear of upsetting "the boss". Good managers know up the ladder and down the ladder and should be constantly working on finding the balance between each in order to maximise both the productivity of their reports and the progress made in business directions. One of the reports I had (albeit briefly) was very emotionally attached to his work, and took it personally even when there were requests to make changes to fit it into changing requirements. I love the guy, but he needed fairly regular vent-sessions to talk him through, and out of, the (unnecessary) emotional state in order to reach "oh, this is what I'm paid for". (funny story: I once got so exasperated with him that I called him my son's name - man that was embarassing for both of us).

justapassenger 3y ago

[dead]