5 ms·

Good read, BUT the advice is stay away from Drama and especially work Drama. Seems to me 50% of people are damaged immediately by work Drama and the other half

by baldfat 12y ago

Good read, BUT the advice is stay away from Drama and especially work Drama. Seems to me 50% of people are damaged immediately by work Drama and the other half die slowly with maybe one or two sort of winners. I would go work somewhere else and stay happy.

naterator 12y ago
Yea, the lesson is: If you find yourself in a situation like that, bail out as fast as you can. When we're young we are often not taught—or more importantly we do not have the opportunity—to simply GTFO of the crappy situation we're in (Family, Bullies, etc.). It has tragic consequences both early in life and later on. It's (one of the reasons) why we get school shooters, why people stay at crappy companies when they don't have to, why people stay in destructive relationships. Modern society often allows us the freedom to avoid people and situations we can't control but don't want to be in. For the love of god, please take advantage of that.
- bingofuel 12y ago
  We are also not taught how to make the decision to GTFO. I've recently had to make such a decision and really had no prior experience to based anything on. It was a completely new experience. Yes I eventually made the decision to GTFO but it's still lingering in the back of my head if I made the right one.
  - atom-morgan 12y ago
    I've done it multiple times now since I've graduated from college. It makes you uneasy each time and shortly afterwards I definitely questioned myself. But today, I don't regret it one bit.
    - bingofuel 12y ago
      Thanks for that. Only time will really tell but after I made the decision, it was rather freeing.
      - aaronem 12y ago
        I think that's probably telling in itself. I've GTFO'd twice; one time was by my own choice, while in the other I had to be helped along by the organization a few months after I failed to follow my sensible instinct to resign. Both times, once I was finally out the door at last, I found myself feeling like a weight had come off my shoulders. I could be wrong, but I don't see any way it's possible for that feeling to come along with a lurking realization that I'd made a mistake. (Certainly it never has in my experience, at least, and I've made plenty of mistakes.)
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  If you bail on every company that's dysfunctional and political (that's about 90%, including of startups) you'll probably get stuck with the job-hopper stigma before you find a good company. Employers get away with horrible conditions and general dysfunction because of the job hopper stigma, but unfortunately, one person leaving bad situations immediately (instead of wasting months to years trying to make lemonade out of piss-lemons) is not going to break that stigma. In fact, it's going to lower your value and make you more likely to end up in dysfunctional companies. A better strategy is to play the game, well, by learning how to do enough in typical, semi-dysfunctional environments to get career credit, while keeping an eye out for better opportunities. This all-or-nothing attitude that many young people have toward corporations ("if they think that way, then I don't want to work for those losers anyway") doesn't pan out in the real world. Even the good companies have plenty of stupid, political people in them.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    The answer to "job-hopper stigma" and any and all other competence-trigger hurdles is simple. Sell the benefit, not the feature. In other words, change the conversation from "who you are" to "what you can do for them". A track record of accomplishments does a lot more to convince a stake-holder that you know what you're doing than a list of previously-held positions. If all you have is a list of previously-held positions, then sure, if there's more entries on it than years, you'll have a rough go at it. But you don't have to operate this way. Nobody is unemployable. There are only people who have figured out how to convey competence and people who haven't.
    - aaronem 12y ago
      Well. Conveying competence is, indeed, a valuable skill. But the most it can do for you is to get you a seat at the table. What will you do once you've got the job, and it comes time to play the game? And, while we're at it, why assume that the only possible reward for playing the game is the opportunity to keep playing the game? Isn't it possible that, in playing the game with sufficient skill and artistry, you can create for yourself the opportunity to do the work you joined that company to do? ...to be honest, I really don't know the answer to that last question at all. But it sure is an interesting question, don't you think?
mwcremer 12y ago
I read his advice as, "Don't be That Guy."
- chazu 12y ago
  That's an important corollary to the author's actual point, if you ask me. Sure you shouldn't make golden calves out of bad old code, but also don't be the guy that mercilessly hacks apart other people's code without allowing them to defend it. Instead have a socratic dialogue about the pros and cons of different approaches to the problem.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    If I understood the article, the pros were technical, and the cons were political. And, here's some actual good advice: Never try to solve a political problem by technical means (or vice versa).
    - bjt 12y ago
      That's the opposite of Facebook's mantra that "code wins arguments". Which has worked well for me.
      - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        If I understand correctly, that's Facebook saying that decisions are not going to be made politically. They're going to be made on the basis of what is best technically. And that's great... for Facebook. What I was talking about is companies with a different culture, where politics gets into technical decisions. In that culture, you can't just fix the technical problems, precisely because at that company, code does not win arguments. Politics does.
        aaronem 12y ago
        > And that's great... for Facebook. Really? Because I'll bet you any sum you care to name that Facebook is just as riddled with internal politics as any other organization of its size in the field, Google specifically included. To believe otherwise is to believe that the people who make up Facebook are other than human.
michaelochurch 12y ago
He made a classic mistake that I think all of us make once: overperformance without proper (managerial or executive) support. Overperformance fucks up more careers than underperformance, because it makes enemies. (No one actually gives a shit about the pittance drawn away by an underperformer on salary, but overperformance puts peoples' reputations on the line and is generally volatile.) You don't want to fall into that trap. I'm not saying that people should do shoddy work, but if you're going to do more than that you're asked to do, make sure it's behalf on someone powerful enough to clear obstacles and get your back, and who will. He improved the product and, through no intention of his own, ended up ears deep in office politics. It's a perennial risk. It takes at least one of those, for most of us, before people realize that if you're going to overperform, it should be for something you own. That way, you avoid the risks (you can't get fired from your own side project) and keep the rewards, instead of the reverse.
- jack9 12y ago
  > because it makes enemies In 20+ years, I've never seen better performance (according to casual metrics) make enemies. But then again, there are some awfully backward people here.
- lafar6502 12y ago
  Totally agree. "Overzealousness worse than fascism" And I don't believe in such idealism, if he was doing it for the sake of performance he should show it to the developers first, and not perform a show for his boss and boss's boss and THE BOSS and who knows who else. So what was the real intention behind this?
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    I don't think he had an ulterior motive. I think he was young and had never had a negative career experience and therefore didn't realize what office politics were about and that, even if the execs seem like nice people, any information you furnish to them stands a nontrivial chance of being used in a horrible way. In a collegial, sympathetic R&D type environment, people are happy when others improve their work. However, in an office environment, it's not the same thing, because you can hurt peoples' careers without even trying and unintentionally make enemies.

by baldfat 12y ago

naterator 12y ago

Yea, the lesson is: If you find yourself in a situation like that, bail out as fast as you can. When we're young we are often not taught—or more importantly we do not have the opportunity—to simply GTFO of the crappy situation we're in (Family, Bullies, etc.). It has tragic consequences both early in life and later on. It's (one of the reasons) why we get school shooters, why people stay at crappy companies when they don't have to, why people stay in destructive relationships. Modern society often allows us the freedom to avoid people and situations we can't control but don't want to be in. For the love of god, please take advantage of that.

bingofuel 12y ago
We are also not taught how to make the decision to GTFO. I've recently had to make such a decision and really had no prior experience to based anything on. It was a completely new experience. Yes I eventually made the decision to GTFO but it's still lingering in the back of my head if I made the right one.
- atom-morgan 12y ago
  I've done it multiple times now since I've graduated from college. It makes you uneasy each time and shortly afterwards I definitely questioned myself. But today, I don't regret it one bit.
  - bingofuel 12y ago
    Thanks for that. Only time will really tell but after I made the decision, it was rather freeing.
    - aaronem 12y ago
      I think that's probably telling in itself. I've GTFO'd twice; one time was by my own choice, while in the other I had to be helped along by the organization a few months after I failed to follow my sensible instinct to resign. Both times, once I was finally out the door at last, I found myself feeling like a weight had come off my shoulders. I could be wrong, but I don't see any way it's possible for that feeling to come along with a lurking realization that I'd made a mistake. (Certainly it never has in my experience, at least, and I've made plenty of mistakes.)
michaelochurch 12y ago
If you bail on every company that's dysfunctional and political (that's about 90%, including of startups) you'll probably get stuck with the job-hopper stigma before you find a good company. Employers get away with horrible conditions and general dysfunction because of the job hopper stigma, but unfortunately, one person leaving bad situations immediately (instead of wasting months to years trying to make lemonade out of piss-lemons) is not going to break that stigma. In fact, it's going to lower your value and make you more likely to end up in dysfunctional companies. A better strategy is to play the game, well, by learning how to do enough in typical, semi-dysfunctional environments to get career credit, while keeping an eye out for better opportunities. This all-or-nothing attitude that many young people have toward corporations ("if they think that way, then I don't want to work for those losers anyway") doesn't pan out in the real world. Even the good companies have plenty of stupid, political people in them.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  The answer to "job-hopper stigma" and any and all other competence-trigger hurdles is simple. Sell the benefit, not the feature. In other words, change the conversation from "who you are" to "what you can do for them". A track record of accomplishments does a lot more to convince a stake-holder that you know what you're doing than a list of previously-held positions. If all you have is a list of previously-held positions, then sure, if there's more entries on it than years, you'll have a rough go at it. But you don't have to operate this way. Nobody is unemployable. There are only people who have figured out how to convey competence and people who haven't.
  - aaronem 12y ago
    Well. Conveying competence is, indeed, a valuable skill. But the most it can do for you is to get you a seat at the table. What will you do once you've got the job, and it comes time to play the game? And, while we're at it, why assume that the only possible reward for playing the game is the opportunity to keep playing the game? Isn't it possible that, in playing the game with sufficient skill and artistry, you can create for yourself the opportunity to do the work you joined that company to do? ...to be honest, I really don't know the answer to that last question at all. But it sure is an interesting question, don't you think?

mwcremer 12y ago

I read his advice as, "Don't be That Guy."

chazu 12y ago
That's an important corollary to the author's actual point, if you ask me. Sure you shouldn't make golden calves out of bad old code, but also don't be the guy that mercilessly hacks apart other people's code without allowing them to defend it. Instead have a socratic dialogue about the pros and cons of different approaches to the problem.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  If I understood the article, the pros were technical, and the cons were political. And, here's some actual good advice: Never try to solve a political problem by technical means (or vice versa).
  - bjt 12y ago
    That's the opposite of Facebook's mantra that "code wins arguments". Which has worked well for me.
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      If I understand correctly, that's Facebook saying that decisions are not going to be made politically. They're going to be made on the basis of what is best technically. And that's great... for Facebook. What I was talking about is companies with a different culture, where politics gets into technical decisions. In that culture, you can't just fix the technical problems, precisely because at that company, code does not win arguments. Politics does.
      - aaronem 12y ago
        > And that's great... for Facebook. Really? Because I'll bet you any sum you care to name that Facebook is just as riddled with internal politics as any other organization of its size in the field, Google specifically included. To believe otherwise is to believe that the people who make up Facebook are other than human.

michaelochurch 12y ago

He made a classic mistake that I think all of us make once: overperformance without proper (managerial or executive) support. Overperformance fucks up more careers than underperformance, because it makes enemies. (No one actually gives a shit about the pittance drawn away by an underperformer on salary, but overperformance puts peoples' reputations on the line and is generally volatile.) You don't want to fall into that trap. I'm not saying that people should do shoddy work, but if you're going to do more than that you're asked to do, make sure it's behalf on someone powerful enough to clear obstacles and get your back, and who will. He improved the product and, through no intention of his own, ended up ears deep in office politics. It's a perennial risk. It takes at least one of those, for most of us, before people realize that if you're going to overperform, it should be for something you own. That way, you avoid the risks (you can't get fired from your own side project) and keep the rewards, instead of the reverse.

jack9 12y ago
> because it makes enemies In 20+ years, I've never seen better performance (according to casual metrics) make enemies. But then again, there are some awfully backward people here.
lafar6502 12y ago
Totally agree. "Overzealousness worse than fascism" And I don't believe in such idealism, if he was doing it for the sake of performance he should show it to the developers first, and not perform a show for his boss and boss's boss and THE BOSS and who knows who else. So what was the real intention behind this?
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  I don't think he had an ulterior motive. I think he was young and had never had a negative career experience and therefore didn't realize what office politics were about and that, even if the execs seem like nice people, any information you furnish to them stands a nontrivial chance of being used in a horrible way. In a collegial, sympathetic R&D type environment, people are happy when others improve their work. However, in an office environment, it's not the same thing, because you can hurt peoples' careers without even trying and unintentionally make enemies.