6 ms·

Any impressionable kids reading... this story playing out like it did is highly company-dependent, as well as luck-dependent. In a healthy company/organization

by neilv 3y ago

Any impressionable kids reading... this story playing out like it did is highly company-dependent, as well as luck-dependent. In a healthy company/organization: * That outsourcing implementation approach probably wouldn't have happened, because an experienced person could've guessed how that would turn out, before it was started (it's such a cliche). * Earlier on, people would tell the CTO it wasn't working out, instead of lying and saying the opposite. * Whenever they needed to do something smarter/creative to rescue the project, they could work with the CTO on that, and maybe even with the customer. * There wouldn't be marathon whip-cracking over the holidays, especially not after the team was already burning out. * A manager/lead would go to bat for the success of the project and the health of the team, and insist upwards that the team needed a break over the holidays, if that needed to be clarified. On that last point, in a "half-healthy" organization, a manager might intentionally be very vague, and omit information. That happens, and might or might not be a good idea, depending. But the way this story is told, it sounds like the manager/lead outright lied repeatedly up the chain of command, which is generally considered very-bad, in both healthy and unhealthy companies. I'll add that these things are vastly easier to armchair-quarterback. Certainly we're all going to make mistakes, especially when put in difficult positions, and/or when overextended/fatigued. But it helps to look at scenarios, to try to learn from them, and to think from a distance how they might've been handled better, so you're armed with that "experience", the next time you're tossed into a rough situation that has some similarities.

tw8345 3y ago
Where do you find this mythical organization you call a healthy company?
- neilv 3y ago
  It's aspirational, and people who aspire will achieve it to varying degrees. For starters, we can all aspire to work in a company where people wouldn't be outright lying, nor feel that they needed to.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    > we can all aspire to work in a company where people wouldn't be outright lying, nor feel that they needed to. I think you should consider this might be antithetical to the very concept of a company - although don't misunderstand me to mean I think all companies are "dishonest" (even if many are). "Working" in a "company" implying making some profit, usually implies something proprietary, which implies some secret, or with-holding of information/resources. So then, most, if not all companies, function off of scarcity-of-information/resources, and probably wouldn't be successful without. Withholding of information or resources, is awfully close to the next step i.e. "lying". In fact, it is frequently requisite to "lie" i.e. tell half-truths in order to conceal/confuse/distort whereabouts, processes, etc. So while the stated goal of many companies may be transparency, this is actually incompatible with their own goals in many ways. And so this can be seen repeated internally, where "resources" usually imply "promotions", "sales leads", "job responsibilities". This may explain why nearly every company seems to slowly become worse over time...
- hibikir 3y ago
  Many of the top companies you know were that healthy company once. You basically need to be one at that magical inflection point where the growth will crush you if your engineering is not empowered and on point. Especially back when clouds didn't exist, or were far less featureful, so turning dollars into horizontal growth was not a thing. The dark secret is that being a healthy company is just a moment, not something a company is at all times. Staying a healthy company as you grown when you are actually successful is very hard, and once the health is gone, good luck regaining it, because now you have a lot of people that thrive in unhealthy environments.
  - 000ooo000 3y ago
    >being a healthy company is just a moment Bang on. This is why I find these other comments which amount to "work in an unhealthy company? Just don't!" to be so naive. You're only ever one departure away from a shakeup which can totally change your work environment. If you aren't equipped or prepared to play the big game, then your options are A) suffer B) leave and roll the dice on the next joint
  - antod 3y ago
    So true, when looking back at the great companies I've worked at, none of them are still like that any more.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  To be honest, I'm wondering where all these cartoonishly unhealthy companies come from. I've worked in a bunch of companies in my career, and sure, at pretty much all of them at one time or another I may have thought "are you f'ing kidding me?", but that's really just the nature of large organizations. And perhaps I've just been lucky, but in 25 years in tech I've never seen the level of gross incompetence described in this post. I'm truly envious of the vast majority of senior leaders and execs I've worked with - not because they're geniuses or anything, but because they excel at things that I find very challenging (and I know from my stint in management) and I learned a lot from them. Again, not everyone, but I've certainly had more good bosses than bad.
  - neilv 3y ago
    Yeah, I've generally had good bosses and colleagues, including some outstanding great ones. (Actually, I had such overall good colleagues earlier in my career, I was totally unprepared the first time I ran into someone dishonest. It took too long to believe they would behave like they did, which ended up extremely costly.) Despite overall good experiences, I've heard of dysfunction like this article describes, and even worse, in numerous real-world companies. Talking about particular instances can be very delicate when you have insider info. But I think there's enough frequent dysfunction in industry, and some very common tropes that we keep hearing from people at other companies, that senior engineers will tend to be able to immediately recognize some of it.
    - StressedDev 3y ago
      My experience matches yours. I have had very few bad bosses and almost all teams I have worked on have been healthy. I have been on a few bad teams and groups. They usually failed. They were not bad because they failed but because lying was rewarded, political skill was rewarded, and solving the customer's problem was not valued. When I see questions like "where are the healthy companies?", I think either the poster has been very unlucky, or the poster might be the problem. When I say the poster is the problem, I mean they typically fall into one of the following buckets: 1. The person is very critical and cannot accept humans for what they are. They demand perfection, demand their coworkers are the best in the field, etc. They may also minimize the positives. 2. They have a very cynical or negative outlook. 3. They do not like their field (computers, sales, accounting, medicine, etc.). As a result, they are always unhappy. The main point is something inside the person causes them to view every organization as screwed up and awful. This includes organizations which are OK, good, or even outstanding.
- aprdm 3y ago
  I have close to 15y of experience now, and I've mostly only worked on healthy companies - I can think of 1 that wasn't. I have worked in ~8 companies give or take.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    That seems quite a lot of changing the companies. Why so frequent switches?
    - okwhateverdude 3y ago
      Not OP, but I have a similar track record. Frequent switches because boredom, better pay (especially the first half of my career), and always searching for that amazing moment of confluence where I'm the dumbest guy in the room and working on an incredibly interesting/complex problem. Two years is about right to tackle something important and deliver, and also feel out if there are other opportunities at the current company. It has mostly worked out for me. You get really good at on-boarding yourself and getting up to speed quickly. I sell my labor as being an expert generalist and have professionally worked with half a dozen different languages, numerous different stacks, in a few different industries, and at big, small and in-between sized companies.
      - mewpmewp2 3y ago
        I feel like this approach wouldn't be able to make me truly valuable at any larger company for example, which in this case would be the ones considered unhealthy? Because there's enough complexity that takes years to understand. I think as an engineer your ability to provide value climbs in multiples the more you understand the product and what the company itself exactly values, besides the tech. You can solve meaningless problems using tech, but if you understand what is exactly worth solving, this is when your value can skyrocket, especially the larger the company is. Because you will have the understanding of marketing, leadership and product people while having technical capability to know what can be done. And also I feel like if it's better to switch companies every 2 years because of better pay, it implies that the current company is not actually healthy, because if they were, they would understand the value you provide, you should be able to provide more value at their company rather than starting from scratch in another company. While I don't feel my current company is healthy, at least I feel like I've been able to climb through promos and compensation faster than if I were to switch every 2 years. I have been there for 6 years.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I mean, nowhere's perfect, but I don't think I've ever worked anywhere as dysfunctional as the company depicted in the article. That's really quite bad. If the place you work is like that, consider applying elsewhere; this is not typical.
ethbr1 3y ago
All of the bad stuff in the article is a consequence of the CTO not being able to call technical bullshit and encouraging a culture of yes-reports. If you ever find yourself in a company like this, start looking for a new job. It's impossible to fix rot that bad at the top, and they're not going to make you CTO.
- fendy3002 3y ago
  The worst problem is, every success will be credited to CTO and every failure will be aimed towards the manager because it's a disobedience. In this case, the CTO also reward the credit to his friend because he/she doesn't know the backend. In the short time you may save the company, in the long time you'll lose and the company will lose too.
- dheera 3y ago
  > encouraging a culture of yes-reports I get the impression that most large corps are of this culture at this point
  - StressedDev 3y ago
    Nope - Well run companies want to know the truth, expect mistakes, and want people to learn from them. In most of the teams I have been on, being a yes person is no t rewarded because yes people cannot deliver.
    - Log_out_ 3y ago
      They deliver pressure, crunch and obedience. There are no well run companies. The defunct is part of the process as a load bearing pillar.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      What is the size of your company?
      - orwin 3y ago
zer00eyz 3y ago
> Earlier on, people would tell the CTO it wasn't working out, instead of lying and saying the opposite. I have done this, also have brass balls and dont give a fuck. EDIT: I mean tell the truth, so rare to not hide the fuck up. See MS security memo. > There wouldn't be marathon whip-cracking over the holidays, especially not after the team was already burning out. Ha ha ha ha ha... Ok this is partly true. IF you work in a BANK or in a FAANG then yes. If you work in any company that has "startup culture" forget it. The thing is that skin in the game (real skin) will change your attitude about work pretty quick. I dont think there are many companies where you will get it and have the opportunity to see that. > But the way this story is told, it sounds like the manager/lead outright lied repeatedly up the chain of command, which is generally considered very-bad, in both healthy and unhealthy companies. Do you know how many times I have been the cowboy who got some shit done in the dark of night cause it needed to happen? Most of the people I know who are good have gone this route. Hell I have seen these sorts of things happen AT A BANK. Bend all the rules past breaking but tell no one. As long as you aren't making a huge fiscal bet (aka more than the company or your teams value) then your gonna get away with a lot. You either do it and get promoted or you get a new job (cause you limited your ability to get promoted).
- neilv 3y ago
  > If you work in any company that has "startup culture" forget it. Depends what "startup culture" is. I actually did an early startup work marathon over Christmas, to help pull off a minor miracle, and make a very hard launch date successful. But during the same period, I also managed the tasking/planning to shield a key teammate who'd gotten sick, and take stress off of them. > Bend all the rules past breaking but tell no one. I think that depends on the company, and the kind of rule. In some companies, rules tend to be there for a reason, and if you break a rule, you generally have to disclose that, and maybe discuss it (ideally beforehand).
fnord77 3y ago
> Earlier on, people would tell the CTO it wasn't working out, instead of lying and saying the opposite. That's the part of the story that gets me. Everyone is acts so gutless.
- pojzon 3y ago
  > Not my circus not my monkeys Some ppl just dont care coz in one year they will be in a completely different place
pmlnr 3y ago
> In a healthy company/organization This mythical beast, where can one find one? I haven't, in the past 25 years of work.
- exe34 3y ago
  Scotland. The home of the true Scotsman.
- rrr_oh_man 3y ago
  They do exist, temporarily, in the space of 10 to 50 employees, and are often led by people who have been burnt in the past.
wormius 3y ago
Former company of mine got a board member who pushed his "solution" on us, and it fucked up so much of our ordering processes, things we didn't even SELL were being shown. It took a year and a half to fix this, meanwhile it also meant we were unable to reverse a sale because "underwear" was shipped out and we can't cancel it (meanwhile, we don't sell underwear, just networking services). So we had to wait for the system to close out the ordering process and THEN they could assist the customer. Of course, that board member left a year later, Probably very pleased with himself for suckering our idiot CEO. But that's ok cuz I got laid off of there, and I have no sympathy for that bumbling company. Idiots trying to outsource "solutions" that only added more pain for everyone. Sometimes these are actual problems that need solutions but half the time ... It's just more crap to make themselves feel like they're "saving money but not building in house". Yeah just now you have to pay contracts to support the crap you never built in the first place. Good job. Golden parachutes for all the leaders, I guess.
wordofx 3y ago
It wouldn’t happen today because front end development is such a mess.
flarg 3y ago
Even the healthiest large companies do this sort of thing, I've worked in a few and heck I've sold to a few too. Low code solutions that somehow need a team of contractors to deliver business functionality, delayed projects that drop key integrations to deliver something on time but functionally useless, CTOs whose next job depends on giving work to supplier. Worst of all, organisations that insist that they buy not build but then have larger software teams than their suppliers.

by neilv 3y ago

tw8345 3y ago

Where do you find this mythical organization you call a healthy company?

neilv 3y ago
It's aspirational, and people who aspire will achieve it to varying degrees. For starters, we can all aspire to work in a company where people wouldn't be outright lying, nor feel that they needed to.
- smaudet 3y ago
  > we can all aspire to work in a company where people wouldn't be outright lying, nor feel that they needed to. I think you should consider this might be antithetical to the very concept of a company - although don't misunderstand me to mean I think all companies are "dishonest" (even if many are). "Working" in a "company" implying making some profit, usually implies something proprietary, which implies some secret, or with-holding of information/resources. So then, most, if not all companies, function off of scarcity-of-information/resources, and probably wouldn't be successful without. Withholding of information or resources, is awfully close to the next step i.e. "lying". In fact, it is frequently requisite to "lie" i.e. tell half-truths in order to conceal/confuse/distort whereabouts, processes, etc. So while the stated goal of many companies may be transparency, this is actually incompatible with their own goals in many ways. And so this can be seen repeated internally, where "resources" usually imply "promotions", "sales leads", "job responsibilities". This may explain why nearly every company seems to slowly become worse over time...
hibikir 3y ago
Many of the top companies you know were that healthy company once. You basically need to be one at that magical inflection point where the growth will crush you if your engineering is not empowered and on point. Especially back when clouds didn't exist, or were far less featureful, so turning dollars into horizontal growth was not a thing. The dark secret is that being a healthy company is just a moment, not something a company is at all times. Staying a healthy company as you grown when you are actually successful is very hard, and once the health is gone, good luck regaining it, because now you have a lot of people that thrive in unhealthy environments.
- 000ooo000 3y ago
  >being a healthy company is just a moment Bang on. This is why I find these other comments which amount to "work in an unhealthy company? Just don't!" to be so naive. You're only ever one departure away from a shakeup which can totally change your work environment. If you aren't equipped or prepared to play the big game, then your options are A) suffer B) leave and roll the dice on the next joint
- antod 3y ago
  So true, when looking back at the great companies I've worked at, none of them are still like that any more.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
To be honest, I'm wondering where all these cartoonishly unhealthy companies come from. I've worked in a bunch of companies in my career, and sure, at pretty much all of them at one time or another I may have thought "are you f'ing kidding me?", but that's really just the nature of large organizations. And perhaps I've just been lucky, but in 25 years in tech I've never seen the level of gross incompetence described in this post. I'm truly envious of the vast majority of senior leaders and execs I've worked with - not because they're geniuses or anything, but because they excel at things that I find very challenging (and I know from my stint in management) and I learned a lot from them. Again, not everyone, but I've certainly had more good bosses than bad.
- neilv 3y ago
  Yeah, I've generally had good bosses and colleagues, including some outstanding great ones. (Actually, I had such overall good colleagues earlier in my career, I was totally unprepared the first time I ran into someone dishonest. It took too long to believe they would behave like they did, which ended up extremely costly.) Despite overall good experiences, I've heard of dysfunction like this article describes, and even worse, in numerous real-world companies. Talking about particular instances can be very delicate when you have insider info. But I think there's enough frequent dysfunction in industry, and some very common tropes that we keep hearing from people at other companies, that senior engineers will tend to be able to immediately recognize some of it.
  - StressedDev 3y ago
    My experience matches yours. I have had very few bad bosses and almost all teams I have worked on have been healthy. I have been on a few bad teams and groups. They usually failed. They were not bad because they failed but because lying was rewarded, political skill was rewarded, and solving the customer's problem was not valued. When I see questions like "where are the healthy companies?", I think either the poster has been very unlucky, or the poster might be the problem. When I say the poster is the problem, I mean they typically fall into one of the following buckets: 1. The person is very critical and cannot accept humans for what they are. They demand perfection, demand their coworkers are the best in the field, etc. They may also minimize the positives. 2. They have a very cynical or negative outlook. 3. They do not like their field (computers, sales, accounting, medicine, etc.). As a result, they are always unhappy. The main point is something inside the person causes them to view every organization as screwed up and awful. This includes organizations which are OK, good, or even outstanding.
aprdm 3y ago
I have close to 15y of experience now, and I've mostly only worked on healthy companies - I can think of 1 that wasn't. I have worked in ~8 companies give or take.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  That seems quite a lot of changing the companies. Why so frequent switches?
  - okwhateverdude 3y ago
    Not OP, but I have a similar track record. Frequent switches because boredom, better pay (especially the first half of my career), and always searching for that amazing moment of confluence where I'm the dumbest guy in the room and working on an incredibly interesting/complex problem. Two years is about right to tackle something important and deliver, and also feel out if there are other opportunities at the current company. It has mostly worked out for me. You get really good at on-boarding yourself and getting up to speed quickly. I sell my labor as being an expert generalist and have professionally worked with half a dozen different languages, numerous different stacks, in a few different industries, and at big, small and in-between sized companies.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      I feel like this approach wouldn't be able to make me truly valuable at any larger company for example, which in this case would be the ones considered unhealthy? Because there's enough complexity that takes years to understand. I think as an engineer your ability to provide value climbs in multiples the more you understand the product and what the company itself exactly values, besides the tech. You can solve meaningless problems using tech, but if you understand what is exactly worth solving, this is when your value can skyrocket, especially the larger the company is. Because you will have the understanding of marketing, leadership and product people while having technical capability to know what can be done. And also I feel like if it's better to switch companies every 2 years because of better pay, it implies that the current company is not actually healthy, because if they were, they would understand the value you provide, you should be able to provide more value at their company rather than starting from scratch in another company. While I don't feel my current company is healthy, at least I feel like I've been able to climb through promos and compensation faster than if I were to switch every 2 years. I have been there for 6 years.
rsynnott 3y ago
I mean, nowhere's perfect, but I don't think I've ever worked anywhere as dysfunctional as the company depicted in the article. That's really quite bad. If the place you work is like that, consider applying elsewhere; this is not typical.

ethbr1 3y ago

All of the bad stuff in the article is a consequence of the CTO not being able to call technical bullshit and encouraging a culture of yes-reports. If you ever find yourself in a company like this, start looking for a new job. It's impossible to fix rot that bad at the top, and they're not going to make you CTO.

fendy3002 3y ago
The worst problem is, every success will be credited to CTO and every failure will be aimed towards the manager because it's a disobedience. In this case, the CTO also reward the credit to his friend because he/she doesn't know the backend. In the short time you may save the company, in the long time you'll lose and the company will lose too.
dheera 3y ago
> encouraging a culture of yes-reports I get the impression that most large corps are of this culture at this point
- StressedDev 3y ago
  Nope - Well run companies want to know the truth, expect mistakes, and want people to learn from them. In most of the teams I have been on, being a yes person is no t rewarded because yes people cannot deliver.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    They deliver pressure, crunch and obedience. There are no well run companies. The defunct is part of the process as a load bearing pillar.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    What is the size of your company?
    - orwin 3y ago

zer00eyz 3y ago

> Earlier on, people would tell the CTO it wasn't working out, instead of lying and saying the opposite. I have done this, also have brass balls and dont give a fuck. EDIT: I mean tell the truth, so rare to not hide the fuck up. See MS security memo. > There wouldn't be marathon whip-cracking over the holidays, especially not after the team was already burning out. Ha ha ha ha ha... Ok this is partly true. IF you work in a BANK or in a FAANG then yes. If you work in any company that has "startup culture" forget it. The thing is that skin in the game (real skin) will change your attitude about work pretty quick. I dont think there are many companies where you will get it and have the opportunity to see that. > But the way this story is told, it sounds like the manager/lead outright lied repeatedly up the chain of command, which is generally considered very-bad, in both healthy and unhealthy companies. Do you know how many times I have been the cowboy who got some shit done in the dark of night cause it needed to happen? Most of the people I know who are good have gone this route. Hell I have seen these sorts of things happen AT A BANK. Bend all the rules past breaking but tell no one. As long as you aren't making a huge fiscal bet (aka more than the company or your teams value) then your gonna get away with a lot. You either do it and get promoted or you get a new job (cause you limited your ability to get promoted).

neilv 3y ago
> If you work in any company that has "startup culture" forget it. Depends what "startup culture" is. I actually did an early startup work marathon over Christmas, to help pull off a minor miracle, and make a very hard launch date successful. But during the same period, I also managed the tasking/planning to shield a key teammate who'd gotten sick, and take stress off of them. > Bend all the rules past breaking but tell no one. I think that depends on the company, and the kind of rule. In some companies, rules tend to be there for a reason, and if you break a rule, you generally have to disclose that, and maybe discuss it (ideally beforehand).

fnord77 3y ago

> Earlier on, people would tell the CTO it wasn't working out, instead of lying and saying the opposite. That's the part of the story that gets me. Everyone is acts so gutless.

pojzon 3y ago
> Not my circus not my monkeys Some ppl just dont care coz in one year they will be in a completely different place

pmlnr 3y ago

> In a healthy company/organization This mythical beast, where can one find one? I haven't, in the past 25 years of work.

exe34 3y ago
Scotland. The home of the true Scotsman.
rrr_oh_man 3y ago
They do exist, temporarily, in the space of 10 to 50 employees, and are often led by people who have been burnt in the past.

wormius 3y ago

Former company of mine got a board member who pushed his "solution" on us, and it fucked up so much of our ordering processes, things we didn't even SELL were being shown. It took a year and a half to fix this, meanwhile it also meant we were unable to reverse a sale because "underwear" was shipped out and we can't cancel it (meanwhile, we don't sell underwear, just networking services). So we had to wait for the system to close out the ordering process and THEN they could assist the customer. Of course, that board member left a year later, Probably very pleased with himself for suckering our idiot CEO. But that's ok cuz I got laid off of there, and I have no sympathy for that bumbling company. Idiots trying to outsource "solutions" that only added more pain for everyone. Sometimes these are actual problems that need solutions but half the time ... It's just more crap to make themselves feel like they're "saving money but not building in house". Yeah just now you have to pay contracts to support the crap you never built in the first place. Good job. Golden parachutes for all the leaders, I guess.

wordofx 3y ago

It wouldn’t happen today because front end development is such a mess.

flarg 3y ago

Even the healthiest large companies do this sort of thing, I've worked in a few and heck I've sold to a few too. Low code solutions that somehow need a team of contractors to deliver business functionality, delayed projects that drop key integrations to deliver something on time but functionally useless, CTOs whose next job depends on giving work to supplier. Worst of all, organisations that insist that they buy not build but then have larger software teams than their suppliers.