3 ms·

From siblings to my comment: You can't tell them: They can only learn this through experience. Alternately they may be the sort of shop where average developer

From siblings to my comment: You can't tell them: They can only learn this through experience. Alternately they may be the sort of shop where average developers are perfectly satisfactory. read: The counter-party to your negotiation is not an honest/competent partner who may have reached a rational conclusion given their understanding of the situation. Also, exceptional talent doesn't need to be treated like this. Conclusion: only average talent negotiates, compromises, respects management's motives. Exceptional talent finds a different party. You don't tell somebody such a thing. It would never work. The rules are the rules to most people... It's not always better to have "great" engineers - often companies just want somebody sitting at their desk ready to act on instructions. If that's the case then there is probably a lower-skilled engineer that would count themselves lucky to be sitting at a desk for 8 hours. He will be a lot easier to manage and probably a lot more appropriate for the new management. read: Management is hidebound and petty. No possibility for compromise exists. Management placing burdensome demands on your time, therefore, is not an opportunity to negotiate but a cause to leave. Tolerance of such a situation is for low-skill employees only. It's called an exit interview. Once you secure a new job, don't be shy with your managers about why you are leaving. read: Don't try to constructively engage your management. Exercise your opportunity to leave, and then, once your exit is secure, air your displeasure with policy changes. You don't need to tell them anything. If you're a good developer, you choose where and with whom to work. Feel your power and use your power. read: Obviously management has no legitimate concern here, or interest in expressing how employee time is structured. You quit. By not continuing to work under managers that are shitty. --- I could go on. I may have miscounted on the ratio, but it's hardly "none-to-one"

lhnz 13y ago
>> read: Management is hidebound and petty. No possibility for compromise exists. Management placing burdensome demands on your time, therefore, is not an opportunity to negotiate but a cause to leave. Tolerance of such a situation is for low-skill employees only. You are misconstruing what I said. Negotiating often isn't the best option. You can cause a lot of harm attempting to negotiate. Rather than being a jerk about your opinions and trying to convert other people to them, it's better to go and find people that share them. (Additionally, I'm unsure that the OP was looking for a compromise, and disagree that compromise is possible between a rigid 8 hours a day and 6-7 hours a day. The numbers are very close; it's effectively one or the other here.) I might be wrong to imply that tolerance is for low-skilled employees only, as there are high-skilled employees who tolerate or enjoy these circumstances, too. But somebody that can easily get another job is more likely to get another job - so there is something to this. I guess I said it more because of the OPs frame, which was cocky: "I'm a hotshot. I can go and get another job." (If you look at everything else I said however, I did say that the company can probably find somebody that is a better cultural/work-ethic fit. I think it's win-win.)
vacri 13y ago
None of what you have quoted particularly reads as 'punish the manager'. It's only your post-facto flavouring that gives it that emphasis. Pretty much all of it is "you have to look out for #1" - which I agree is not always the best advice, since it doesn't try for a win-win solution. Yes, there may be some residual punishment or vindictive feelings underlying some of the commentary, but the main focus of pretty much all of it is 'look out for #1, that person is who your duty is to'. It's still a mischaracterisation of the commentary to call it out as suggesting punishment. The bulk of the commentary is not "fuck those guys, make them suffer", but "it's too much effort to change management culture from below - it's far easier to just move onto greener pastures if its available".
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  That's a fair characterization and you're welcome to that interpretation. I think I've explained my interpretation well enough that, even if you don't agree with it, you understand it.

lhnz 13y ago

>> read: Management is hidebound and petty. No possibility for compromise exists. Management placing burdensome demands on your time, therefore, is not an opportunity to negotiate but a cause to leave. Tolerance of such a situation is for low-skill employees only. You are misconstruing what I said. Negotiating often isn't the best option. You can cause a lot of harm attempting to negotiate. Rather than being a jerk about your opinions and trying to convert other people to them, it's better to go and find people that share them. (Additionally, I'm unsure that the OP was looking for a compromise, and disagree that compromise is possible between a rigid 8 hours a day and 6-7 hours a day. The numbers are very close; it's effectively one or the other here.) I might be wrong to imply that tolerance is for low-skilled employees only, as there are high-skilled employees who tolerate or enjoy these circumstances, too. But somebody that can easily get another job is more likely to get another job - so there is something to this. I guess I said it more because of the OPs frame, which was cocky: "I'm a hotshot. I can go and get another job." (If you look at everything else I said however, I did say that the company can probably find somebody that is a better cultural/work-ethic fit. I think it's win-win.)

vacri 13y ago

None of what you have quoted particularly reads as 'punish the manager'. It's only your post-facto flavouring that gives it that emphasis. Pretty much all of it is "you have to look out for #1" - which I agree is not always the best advice, since it doesn't try for a win-win solution. Yes, there may be some residual punishment or vindictive feelings underlying some of the commentary, but the main focus of pretty much all of it is 'look out for #1, that person is who your duty is to'. It's still a mischaracterisation of the commentary to call it out as suggesting punishment. The bulk of the commentary is not "fuck those guys, make them suffer", but "it's too much effort to change management culture from below - it's far easier to just move onto greener pastures if its available".

jessedhillon 13y ago
That's a fair characterization and you're welcome to that interpretation. I think I've explained my interpretation well enough that, even if you don't agree with it, you understand it.