In software, often the people are the source of stress. Building the software is easy to many in this industry, and the vast majority of the value produced came from someone who thought creating it was easy. Being surrounded by rock stars all doing something they find easy is sublime, and I encourage everyone to seek out those environments. They exist and are fleeting.
The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and are trying to make it someone else's problem. They don't have vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them. In their imagination, there is not a clear set of steps that can be burned down over the coming days and weeks to arrive at something of value. In their minds it is all chaos and uncertainty and they are desperate for the assurance of someone who knows what's going on.
The relationships that one develops with each category of person are fundamentally opposite. One is about enticing repeated interactions: You really get it, how do we work together in the future? And the other is about keeping a polite distance to prevent repeated interactions. How do I avoid meetings, projects, shared responsibilities, and future employment opportunities that involve this person?
> The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and are trying to make it someone else's problem. They don't have vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them. In their imagination, there is not a clear set of steps that can be burned down over the coming days and weeks to arrive at something of value. In their minds it is all chaos and uncertainty and they are desperate for the assurance of someone who knows what's going on.
Lots of assumptions here, obviously the reality is much more nuanced than this.
Well of course it's more complicated. But these 2 broad strokes do resonate with me as a meaningful bucketing. There are some people I see DMs from and go "ooh" and some people I see DMs from and go "well there goes my morning hand-holding them through something they should already both know and have internalized".
You are 100% correct, nobody wants to work with a "rock star" on a team. When I hear "rock star" I think diva. The best teams are made up of a group of competent people who get on with each other and do great work together - not a team where one or more people are god's gift and the others are subordinates. That kind of scenario doesn't last too long.
Oh man I wish I knew I was being paid to be present and available
In my last full time job I worked for a tech consulting company that rented us out to teams at financial instutions that managed insane amounts of money. This was in 2021 before AI was common. I worked remotely, and the first month didn’t do anything — just waited for the corporate laptop to arrive etc. Then I worked 2 hours a day.
But I had to put 8 hours in the timesheets, and select what projects I was working on. And I always had a feeling of guilt about that, like I was helping my consulting company charge hours that I wasn’t really working. I just kept finishing the tasks I was assigned in the sprints, and then there was nothing more to do. I didn’t aggressively ask for more work, just took on what others did. This went on for a while, and I felt guilty. Working on my startups in the meantime, like those people who work multiple jobs. I didn’t realize this happens a lot.
On one of my calls with my immediate manager I mentioned I had some downtime — and he was like “oh you have downtime? That’s not good.” And then it became his problem. And I didnt get more work but from then on I felt this tension with him, and probably others downstream of it. Nothing concrete, but just the feeling slightly changed, for a few weeks. So I nicely resigned after 6 months, saying to HR that investors funded my startups but they want me to work on them fulltime. So I left on good terms.
I regret it, though, in retrospect. Because of my ethics I missed out on income that could have helped my family and people around me. That was a great salary for remote work 2 hours a day, and I would have invested over half of it in crypto and probably 3xed it all by now. I only left because my ethics bothered me, but I learned later how often “full time” jobs really aren’t. Like, at all!
Sometimes "bad at what they do" is a manifestation of the environment in which they're doing the thing as opposed to incompetence. If the environment is healthy and is understanding of the asking of "stupid questions", that promotes a better exploration of both the problem and the potential solutions, which act to help form the vision of the path to the solution.
This is much easier when the relationships within the work environment are "good".
I work with a bunch of different personality types and geniunely like almost all of them. It just takes time to work out each individuals quirks and work with / around them.
> The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and are trying to make it someone else's problem.
There's some irony in the way you try to pin the blame on a third-party, and while trying to denigrate it too. I think it warrants some soul searching. I mean, would you feel stressed if you had to endure a team member who threw blanket accusations at your competence and in the process blamed you for causing grief to other team members?
> They don't have vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them. In their imagination, there is not a clear set of steps that can be burned down over the coming days and weeks to arrive at something of value.
There's a lot to unpack there. Only a highly disfuncional team would throw a team member to the wolves and leave them out to fend for themselves on a task that is relatively complex. No wonder people would feel stressed in that environment.
> They don't have vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them.
Or they don't have the vision to know how others will accomplish what they are asking for.
This is a big struggle for me; people who want to play product owner, and make requests that are very ignorant of work required. Or think they know just what work is required and spell out development approaches despite not having any background or experience in software development.
They key really is getting to know what it is they really want to do and then deliver a solution. Which can be its own exercise in frustration.
I think it’s also possible to build relationships with people based on potential. Not every superstar was born that way. Most of them had help along the way.
Not being a rock star but showing potential is great. But there are some people who are allegedly always busy, in over their head, etc. And these are the type of people I agree that should be avoided. I've found that more often than not these people are always wasting time in meetings, chatting it up, only to complain about lack of time 1 hour later.
I'm not saying don't socialize and just work ; you just need to balance the two.
> And the other is about keeping a polite distance to prevent repeated interactions.
or, the other is about providing them the vision and the clear set of steps. Then checking their progress along those steps. (including revising the steps when the original plan diverges from the evolving reality).
Training and mentoring the people so they can become rock stars.
This comment and a sibling both brought up the issue of less experienced people and mentorship, which is important to clarify.
Some incompetence is a known quantity, and when it is known it will not produce stress. The junior dev on the team might not know how to do something. The team leadership should already have priced that in, and have a plan to help them if need be. If the junior dev's incompetence is creating stress, the root cause is leadership incompetence.
The kind of incompetence that produces stress is incompetence that is too impolite to mention. It can't be addressed through "mentorship" or "working together" because that would call the legitimacy of the role and the person filling it into question. Engineering managers who don't understand engineering, product managers who don't understand the product, etc. The list is long, and examples are common. The organization is built around the assumption that these people can do things that they are unable to do. That mismatch is the origin of stress.
Investing time in the 1st kind of incompetence is a good investment because you will get a good return on your time invested. The junior dev with potential becomes the rock star.
The 2nd kind of incompetence is often "Throwing good money after bad". These situations are not worth your time. There is unlikely to be an improvement, and you risk it backfiring especially if the problem is above you in the org chart.
In my experience there's several types of work stress in software.
One is people / process stress; related to the steps needed to get work done, including approvals and negotiations to decide what to do.
Another is operational stress; related to keeping a service running; some of that can be people or process stress, but if your service is growing rapidly it might just be organic operational stress.
There's also the stress of getting the work done in a reasonable time.
Some people are better at managing the different kinds of stress.
Anyway, I think the moral of the post is when you rage quit, say "fuck this shit, I quit" rather than "fuck you all, I quit" ... keep the rage pointed at the system rather than the people :P Unless it's just like one person who is really intent on making your job hell. You might be able to get away with singling out one person, rather than doing the Oprah thing and "everybody look under your chair, you get a fuck you" :P
There is also people with just toxic personalities that everybody tries to avoid. In Europe unfortunately, is not easy to get rid of such characters and they often victimize teams and jeopardize entire projects.
Septic avoidance and minimizing interactions, sticking to process and keeping the distance are absolutely necessary for mental health.
Well, while certainly true, this is max few % of stressful reality. In fact, basically none of the workstress in my past 15 years was caused by this.
I had this mindset when much, much more junior but these times... not so much. Maybe in purely startup small shop env, but thats not where most of us get work done.
Not all relationships are equal, so don't just prioritize relationships, but those that are valuable.
You can't ignore people who bad at what they do and are trying to make it someone else's problem, but you can find allies who are good at what they do and want to take some pride and ownership in the same things you do.
If someone doesn't have a vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them, that's an opportunity for mentorship. They might not take it from you, but you can offer it.
I actually think the really dangerous people are the ones you encourage people to seek out: those who think everything is easy. That to me is a sign of Dunning-Kruger. I'd rather sit down with somebody who says "I don't know yet how to solve this, but we'll work it out", than somebody who says "it's easy we don't need to think too hard about this" or "it's hard and so I won't even try".
Also, meetings, shared responsibilities - they're part of getting stuff done as part of a team. Instead of trying to avoid them, try to improve them. Learn the people skills needed to help a person change their habits towards being the productive ally that adds to a team rather than takes away from it.
It's not easy, it's hard, but you will figure it out. If I was working with you, I'd say "we", not "you" but alas...
>If someone doesn't have a vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them, that's an opportunity for mentorship.
I agree with your overall sentiment, but there’s another dynamic which doesn’t always lend itself well to a mentorship role: when the leader has no vision other than some vague concept. Sometimes we can politely corral them, but it’s extremely frustrating when that “vision” is predicated on some magic, black box operation that they think happens and they won’t listen to any technical advice on why their vision may not be feasible.
To the OPs point, we have limited resources in time, labor, patience, etc. It’s worth consciously deciding where those are best spent.
I think this characterization implies a dichotomy that bothers me.
Work is certainly not my top priority, but I spend a ton of my time on my job, and I would like to feel fulfilled and happy doing it. Have capable colleagues that you can trust to pull their weight is a big part of that.
In general, I’ve found that the clock-in, clock-out types seem to take their mediocrity as almost a badge of honor, with this feeling that by not working hard or accomplishing a lot, they ensure the business is not getting overmuch value out of them.
This is so sad, IMO. If at all possible, work should be fun. As programmers, we have more opportunity for that than most, and should take advantage. Is that perspective “Live to Work”?
I've worked with many people like you, and I can say from experience that they are never as competent as they think they are. Often they are quite competent, and yet somehow they still overestimate their own skills and make life harder for everybody.
The type of person in question can be understood as somebody who equates technical skill with "not needing help." It's implicit in your post. Your mythical rock stars are extremely talented individuals, while what sets the incompetent apart is apparently their need for assurance from others.
The most competent software engineers (which I referred to as rock stars) don't know how to do everything. It can appear that way to someone unfamiliar with software. The best have a keen self-awareness of their abilities. They understand how much time it would take them to figure something out, and their likely success rate. When they give good estimates and have accurate confidence in their abilities, they create predictability for others around them. That makes them a net sink for stress.
Professional competence is literally the set of the things you can do without needing help. That doesn't mean you never ask for help. It just means there is an expectation that you can accomplish some things on your own. If you need help with everything forever, then you are fundamentally not useful and not coachable (which is worse). When needing help is anticipated and transient, that's a non-event. When your job is mostly things that you are expected to do yourself, but you need help with all of them, that creates stress for your peers and subordinates.
Indeed. Completely absent from the calculus are those who are glaringly ignorant as to their lack of knowledge or skill yet nevertheless supremely confident, and unchecked, will happily blaze a trail of carnage as far as they can travel.
It's a fine line, between blind, numbing incompetence and blind, bulldozing skill, and it's probably best to make sure youre never too close to either.
I couldn't disagree more. I try to avoid people like you like the plague. You're never as good as you think you are, and any additional skill you might provide is negated by how much you drag the rest of the team down.
I'm happy to provide leadership to help those who are less capable, but willing to learn, and are actually nice people.
> The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and are trying to make it someone else's problem.
People who are currently bad what they do have their own work struggle, go home to their issue, have their hobbies and ambitions.
I think the article strikes a very good point when it says you don't want to be remembered as that guy but I would go even further in that it's not only about your reputation. When you are that guy, you are actually making everybody life slightly worse including your own.
I think there is more value in acting and being remembered as someone who can lift up rather than as someone who is distant and self-interested. It's not that you should always be mindlessly helpful but you can be assertive, give honest feedback, help people realise when they should take responsibility and define directions without being a pushover or exploited. In my experience, that's how you make people actually want to work with you. These are obviously hard skills to develop (at least they were and still are to me) but they are how so valuable.
To go back to your conclusion, for me it's more about "How do I convince the people I want to work with to work with me?" than about cutting people. After all, you will probably be the sole constant in all the work environments you will be a part of in your life so you are the biggest factor into making them work for you.
Similarly, once you’re looking for a new job, assuming you’re looking for roles with the same job title you had before, do everything you can to paint your previous job in a positive light even if it was miserable. If you don’t, interviewers are left wondering how to interpret your dissatisfaction at your previous job.
I think there's a degree to which this is true, I wouldn't walk into an interview and immediately start slagging off my old employer, but if you're interviewing me and get all worked up when I say bad things about them in answer to the question "why are you leaving your current job" that's on you and I won't regret not getting the job.
That's your choice. It's not a bad idea to answer "why are you leaving your current job" with "i'm looking for greater opportunities to [the opposite of why you are leaving your job]" and people can read between the lines AND have less of the concerns they would if you went guns blazing on the bridges behind you
This is the part of the interview where they seeking to understand your maturity and discretion. The actual reason for leaving is not the right answer. An answer showing that you understand social norms and have great self restraint is the right answer.
That part of the interview is a bunch of bullshit questions and socially acceptable answers from both sides. It is simply to check is candidate agrees to play the game by the rules.
Why are you looking for a new job? Because I have a dickhead manager and looking for a higher salary. But my answer will be I'm looking for new challenges, for opportunity to grow.
I'm not sure this is always the best approach. You should not vent, clearly; and it takes two to tango. However, some concrete and professional differences in opinion do matter. This could be an opportunity to express how you deal with such a challenge. You might explain (without revealing proprietary information) a difference of how the company's (new?) direction diverged from your professional path, how you informed the organization with an open mind, evaluated options and collaboratively decided it was time to move on, with sufficient notice and transition assistance.
I think there's some truth to what you're saying here, but there is room for some nuance.
In the US context, you should refrain from blaming specific people and if you possibly can you should explicitly leave open the possibility that everyone involved was trying to do their best (even if you really don't think this is true). Project an assumption of good faith even if it's not deserved.
But that said, you are looking for a new job and no one is going to be surprised to hear that there were things you don't like. More importantly, it's valuable to surface those things because you want to know if the things you didn't like are commonplace in the place you're interviewing.
On the other hand, managers are usually hiring because they failed to do their job competently with the last person in this role.
Brand-new positions are exceedingly rare these days. The market is worse than it's ever been for SWE. There was likely someone they laid off who could have filled it if management wasn't completely incompetent.
This isn't a growth market at the moment. It's a zero-sum game. Everyone's trying to screw each other over as much as possible, and they're lying through their teeth and pretending like it's not. Nobody on either side is sifting through this torrent of AI slop by choice.
Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty."
Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that turned into a shitty job, or if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their job history. Hire a shrink to vent about the toxic shitty job.
If everywhere smells like shit, it’s time to check under your own shoe. I’ve had shitty jobs, snd while nowhere is perfect it’s definitely a stretch to say most jobs are shitty.
> the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity
Nobody is asking you to do that. When I’m interviewing a candidate I’m assuming that this is a situation that they’re trying to impress/show themselves and if you’re shit talking your previous jobs then what are you going to be like if we disagree, or when you are interviewing for your next job? All I’m asking for is don’t shit talk your previous jobs and managers. If you can’t do that for 45 minutes I’m not going to hire you.
I agree and resent that work is just a place where I go to get lied to and lie right back. We've found that lying is a highly successful workplace strategy. But the point of the lying game is to never admit we're lying.
The pretzels people will twist themselves in to avoid the cognitive dissonance of lying all the time and not wanting to be a lair is maddening. I find facing it head on is a refreshing frame.
A bit of clarity taken from "The Complex Problem Of Lying For Jobs"
> But over the years, I have broadened my definition of a lie, and I have realized that most of my interlocutors (including my younger self) had actually narrowed our definition of lie into uselessness in an attempt to feel better about our behavior in the job market.
> If we set aside pedantic obsession over the technicalities of whether the exact words you said were a lie, as if we're all capricious djinn [...] If you have a good idea of what impression you are leaving your interlocutor with, and you are crafting statements such that the image in their head does not map to reality, then you are lying.
Call it "inauthentic" if you want but the reality is that the people who are interviewing you know they are going to have to work with you, and 99% of people prefer working alongside those who might boost their morale by demonstrating positivity and optimism (even if somewhat manufactured) instead of dwelling insufferably on all the negatives.
You can demonstrate toxic positivity about the desired work place I guess? Like, focus on how amazing it is going to be and what opportunities you see here that will clearly overshadow your previous job.
And yet despite this, miserable people who drag their misery and sorrow to every occasion and conversation continue to wander about and often will drag you down towards misery too if you let them. Avoiding misery is but a matter of self defence. The pat-down before you enter a nightclub doesn't feel great either.
In the kind of "high-stress work environment" they're talking about (it's a dysfunctional, toxic kind), the only example they give for value of relationships is getting recommendations afterwards.
Relationships can also help you mitigate the dysfunctional environment while you're there, with huge benefits to your health.
(Don't underestimate when people say stress kills you: it's not a video game health meter that recovers quickly and fully at the end of of an encounter; that bad stress is damage from which you never fully recover.)
But also be aware that supportive relationship oases in a dysfunctional environment can also slow leaving a place where you really-really should.
Some people need to be told to be more loyal than they are, but some people need to be told when loyalty is killing us and not doing any good. (Seriously, your supportive colleagues are probably bittersweet glad to see you escape, and you leaving might even give attention/leverage of management to help fix org problems, or encourage colleagues to expedite their own escape.)
I left a place that I'd been for a long time that had slowly become toxic (to me at least), but it took me maybe a year longer than it should have for me to leave, and the after-effects of the stress stuck with me for at least 6 months, possibly up to a year. My wife basically pointed out that I was "different": less of what makes me me (I'm fundamentally happy and optimistic).
Identify problems and act early, for the sake of your mental and eventually physical health.
Many of you are more valuable than you realize and it pains me to read so many comments about how you need to frame things "just so" in an interview, or "be careful not to lose your patience ever".
It's dehumanizing, and it undervalues your inherent worth and skill set.
Obviously don't be a jerk. Beyond that you will really damage your mental well-being if you're constantly trying to put on a certain face or worry how things will "play" with recruiters.
The best advice is to try to stay generally optimistic and collaborative, and to take pride in your craft and lead by example. But also not to discount the fact that you might in fact be more capable of following your passions and starting your own thing than you realize.
That was really nice to read, thanks. There's a lot of black and white thinking out there that can really get one down sometimes if you're not careful.
Nah, realizing I don't have to constantly be thinking about relationship was what made things a lot less stressful for me. It's still stressful. But at least I get to mind my own business. Not saying everyone is like me. Maybe no one is. But it was better for me to mind my own business and internally say fork you to all the superficial relationships.
You should prioritize your mental health, but what the article is saying is that you actually need to GET AWAY from that type of situation, and the most likely route is using a chain of other people's hands to pull you out of the situation.
If you just want to hunker down and do your own thing you might survive, but the best thing to do is probably move on from such places (or work with your team when it gets bad to get out of it ya rite lol it goes on forever)
This is fine, until it comes time for layoffs. Like it or not, software development is an intensly social enterprise. Of course there are lone geniuses out there doing their own thing, and if that's you great. But it isn't how enterprise teams work. Particularly as you reach L7, every single aspect of your job will become political in one way or another.
Except the layoffs come from someone's spreadsheet 3 levels up, so even if everyone likes you that may not be enough. It definitely helps, but not guaranteed.
This is true even outside of software development. Working at pretty much any company is an inherently social enterprise dictated by those same rules you correctly pointed out.
I would not know what is there, beyond relationships? Money does not buy happiness. Doing a good job and never getting credit for it... would make me feel miserable. Maybe I'm in such a lucky situation that I can say this, being able to put relationships above all else. Or maybe it is just my attachment grounded personality.
There is a difference between tolerating a few things here and there because it’s a high stress environment and being okay with psychopaths mistreating and abusing you with the excuse of “high stress environment”. You do not need to put up with the latter. Fork em and you do not need those relationships to find your next job. The article trivializes a high stress work environment by putting everyone at the same baseline of “everyone is good, it’s just that the situation sucks”. In reality a lot of people are not good and the workplace is only “high stress” because those people are part of the workplace.
Indeed, often the workplace is high stress because the direct manager is incompetent and passes down their stress instead of shielding you off and empowering you. Networking- wise not such an issue to say 'fork you' to such incompetent soul, though I always keep in mind everyone deserves some degree of respect.
You're not alone, though we are rare. I desperately want to go back to minding my own business. Except... everyone I work with now seems to believe I've either lied my way in or desperately need a friend.
We're doing contracting without the upside/autonomy, let's not delude ourselves
This reminds me of a research study Google conducted on itself some years ago asking the question: “What makes a team effective at Google?”. They found the most important to be psychological safety.
Unfortunately, in 20+ years and some 7 jobs in the meantime, I never ever got a job by means of an inside recommendation nor was I able to get someone I recommended to be hired.
And the reason is, I'm a lowly engineer and that's all. I have zero clout, HR and hiring managers couldn't give a shit of whom I recommend. So if you "prioritize relationships" with an ulterior purpose (get hired eventually by some "relation"), then make sure you relate to the right people :)
That’s exactly my experience. I got once a position from my network. It was a foot soldier’s position at classmate’s dad’s company. Decades later my network are same foot soldiers or leads of something like me. Nobody’s there, who could hire me immediately in the case of emergency.
To give a personal counter-example, I'm an engineer. Based on my recommendation, my current employer hired a person who was fired (not laid off, but actually fired!) from my previous workplace. And my recommendation was itself based on a recommendation of my friend who is a former colleague at the aforementioned previous workplace, and whose opinion I trust and value highly. Of course the hiree still had to pass the interviews etc, and that isn't easy in and of itself; but my personal recommendation was what got their foot in the door.
+1, every time I've been asked "do you know anyone to hire" it's been anything but upfront. Just another way to see how desperate you are [through your network]... and by proxy, how hard to push.
I try to apply this advice to almost all relationships. It reminds me of the famous quote, "Be nice to everyone you meet because they are fighting a battle you know nothing about, and that I can say from experience." [0]
I see life as emotional combat, that I'm always dealing with so many conflicting conflicts at the same time that I'm trying my best to manage everything and so is everyone else. It has been helping me SO much just to frame life this way.
Could you elaborate what you get out of that quote? I consider myself reasonably kind to people in general, but if people treat me badly I tend to take it personal.
It's less out of the quote and more from just the phrase "emotional combat."
I as well take things personally, aka, I feel attacked and pull away, shrinking into my experience and actively not wanting to imagine what someone else is going through.
When I focus on emotional combat, I can start to see how I'm not just experiencing this one specific conflict but am getting hit from multiple angles: financial, physical, social, familial, etc.
And then it almost makes me see that the other person is going through this combat as well, whether I want to see it or not.
So in short it can help me broaden my perspective on the conflicts I'm experiencing, which then can almost trick me into broadening it for the other person, and I can feel myself expand.
Readit News
The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and are trying to make it someone else's problem. They don't have vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them. In their imagination, there is not a clear set of steps that can be burned down over the coming days and weeks to arrive at something of value. In their minds it is all chaos and uncertainty and they are desperate for the assurance of someone who knows what's going on.
The relationships that one develops with each category of person are fundamentally opposite. One is about enticing repeated interactions: You really get it, how do we work together in the future? And the other is about keeping a polite distance to prevent repeated interactions. How do I avoid meetings, projects, shared responsibilities, and future employment opportunities that involve this person?
Lots of assumptions here, obviously the reality is much more nuanced than this.
I want to work with smart and accommodating individuals who are team players.
None of these qualities are what we expect of rock stars. When I hear “rock star” - I fear a cult of one.
The stress is just not that apparent in environments where projects tend to fail anyway, or environments that provide lots of job stability.
You basically get paid for being present instead of actually produce something useful.
I don’t understand why one would want to work in such an environment, except when you’re soft-retiring / soft-quitting
In my last full time job I worked for a tech consulting company that rented us out to teams at financial instutions that managed insane amounts of money. This was in 2021 before AI was common. I worked remotely, and the first month didn’t do anything — just waited for the corporate laptop to arrive etc. Then I worked 2 hours a day.
But I had to put 8 hours in the timesheets, and select what projects I was working on. And I always had a feeling of guilt about that, like I was helping my consulting company charge hours that I wasn’t really working. I just kept finishing the tasks I was assigned in the sprints, and then there was nothing more to do. I didn’t aggressively ask for more work, just took on what others did. This went on for a while, and I felt guilty. Working on my startups in the meantime, like those people who work multiple jobs. I didn’t realize this happens a lot.
On one of my calls with my immediate manager I mentioned I had some downtime — and he was like “oh you have downtime? That’s not good.” And then it became his problem. And I didnt get more work but from then on I felt this tension with him, and probably others downstream of it. Nothing concrete, but just the feeling slightly changed, for a few weeks. So I nicely resigned after 6 months, saying to HR that investors funded my startups but they want me to work on them fulltime. So I left on good terms.
I regret it, though, in retrospect. Because of my ethics I missed out on income that could have helped my family and people around me. That was a great salary for remote work 2 hours a day, and I would have invested over half of it in crypto and probably 3xed it all by now. I only left because my ethics bothered me, but I learned later how often “full time” jobs really aren’t. Like, at all!
This is much easier when the relationships within the work environment are "good".
I work with a bunch of different personality types and geniunely like almost all of them. It just takes time to work out each individuals quirks and work with / around them.
There's some irony in the way you try to pin the blame on a third-party, and while trying to denigrate it too. I think it warrants some soul searching. I mean, would you feel stressed if you had to endure a team member who threw blanket accusations at your competence and in the process blamed you for causing grief to other team members?
> They don't have vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them. In their imagination, there is not a clear set of steps that can be burned down over the coming days and weeks to arrive at something of value.
There's a lot to unpack there. Only a highly disfuncional team would throw a team member to the wolves and leave them out to fend for themselves on a task that is relatively complex. No wonder people would feel stressed in that environment.
having been the guy fixing the third party's bugs at almost every position, i side with the parent.
Or they don't have the vision to know how others will accomplish what they are asking for.
This is a big struggle for me; people who want to play product owner, and make requests that are very ignorant of work required. Or think they know just what work is required and spell out development approaches despite not having any background or experience in software development.
They key really is getting to know what it is they really want to do and then deliver a solution. Which can be its own exercise in frustration.
I'm not saying don't socialize and just work ; you just need to balance the two.
or, the other is about providing them the vision and the clear set of steps. Then checking their progress along those steps. (including revising the steps when the original plan diverges from the evolving reality).
Training and mentoring the people so they can become rock stars.
Some incompetence is a known quantity, and when it is known it will not produce stress. The junior dev on the team might not know how to do something. The team leadership should already have priced that in, and have a plan to help them if need be. If the junior dev's incompetence is creating stress, the root cause is leadership incompetence.
The kind of incompetence that produces stress is incompetence that is too impolite to mention. It can't be addressed through "mentorship" or "working together" because that would call the legitimacy of the role and the person filling it into question. Engineering managers who don't understand engineering, product managers who don't understand the product, etc. The list is long, and examples are common. The organization is built around the assumption that these people can do things that they are unable to do. That mismatch is the origin of stress.
Investing time in the 1st kind of incompetence is a good investment because you will get a good return on your time invested. The junior dev with potential becomes the rock star. The 2nd kind of incompetence is often "Throwing good money after bad". These situations are not worth your time. There is unlikely to be an improvement, and you risk it backfiring especially if the problem is above you in the org chart.
Deleted Comment
One is people / process stress; related to the steps needed to get work done, including approvals and negotiations to decide what to do.
Another is operational stress; related to keeping a service running; some of that can be people or process stress, but if your service is growing rapidly it might just be organic operational stress.
There's also the stress of getting the work done in a reasonable time.
Some people are better at managing the different kinds of stress.
Anyway, I think the moral of the post is when you rage quit, say "fuck this shit, I quit" rather than "fuck you all, I quit" ... keep the rage pointed at the system rather than the people :P Unless it's just like one person who is really intent on making your job hell. You might be able to get away with singling out one person, rather than doing the Oprah thing and "everybody look under your chair, you get a fuck you" :P
There is also people with just toxic personalities that everybody tries to avoid. In Europe unfortunately, is not easy to get rid of such characters and they often victimize teams and jeopardize entire projects.
Septic avoidance and minimizing interactions, sticking to process and keeping the distance are absolutely necessary for mental health.
Software is for people (end users/customers) to use, and is made to work for people.
Learning the people side of building, and delivering, and helping people with it is key.
Of course, some people in any office environment will play work in pursuit of achieving a daycare or high school for adults.
I had this mindset when much, much more junior but these times... not so much. Maybe in purely startup small shop env, but thats not where most of us get work done.
You can't ignore people who bad at what they do and are trying to make it someone else's problem, but you can find allies who are good at what they do and want to take some pride and ownership in the same things you do.
If someone doesn't have a vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them, that's an opportunity for mentorship. They might not take it from you, but you can offer it.
I actually think the really dangerous people are the ones you encourage people to seek out: those who think everything is easy. That to me is a sign of Dunning-Kruger. I'd rather sit down with somebody who says "I don't know yet how to solve this, but we'll work it out", than somebody who says "it's easy we don't need to think too hard about this" or "it's hard and so I won't even try".
Also, meetings, shared responsibilities - they're part of getting stuff done as part of a team. Instead of trying to avoid them, try to improve them. Learn the people skills needed to help a person change their habits towards being the productive ally that adds to a team rather than takes away from it.
It's not easy, it's hard, but you will figure it out. If I was working with you, I'd say "we", not "you" but alas...
I agree with your overall sentiment, but there’s another dynamic which doesn’t always lend itself well to a mentorship role: when the leader has no vision other than some vague concept. Sometimes we can politely corral them, but it’s extremely frustrating when that “vision” is predicated on some magic, black box operation that they think happens and they won’t listen to any technical advice on why their vision may not be feasible.
To the OPs point, we have limited resources in time, labor, patience, etc. It’s worth consciously deciding where those are best spent.
Work is certainly not my top priority, but I spend a ton of my time on my job, and I would like to feel fulfilled and happy doing it. Have capable colleagues that you can trust to pull their weight is a big part of that.
In general, I’ve found that the clock-in, clock-out types seem to take their mediocrity as almost a badge of honor, with this feeling that by not working hard or accomplishing a lot, they ensure the business is not getting overmuch value out of them.
This is so sad, IMO. If at all possible, work should be fun. As programmers, we have more opportunity for that than most, and should take advantage. Is that perspective “Live to Work”?
The type of person in question can be understood as somebody who equates technical skill with "not needing help." It's implicit in your post. Your mythical rock stars are extremely talented individuals, while what sets the incompetent apart is apparently their need for assurance from others.
Professional competence is literally the set of the things you can do without needing help. That doesn't mean you never ask for help. It just means there is an expectation that you can accomplish some things on your own. If you need help with everything forever, then you are fundamentally not useful and not coachable (which is worse). When needing help is anticipated and transient, that's a non-event. When your job is mostly things that you are expected to do yourself, but you need help with all of them, that creates stress for your peers and subordinates.
I'm happy to provide leadership to help those who are less capable, but willing to learn, and are actually nice people.
Deleted Comment
People who are currently bad what they do have their own work struggle, go home to their issue, have their hobbies and ambitions.
I think the article strikes a very good point when it says you don't want to be remembered as that guy but I would go even further in that it's not only about your reputation. When you are that guy, you are actually making everybody life slightly worse including your own.
I think there is more value in acting and being remembered as someone who can lift up rather than as someone who is distant and self-interested. It's not that you should always be mindlessly helpful but you can be assertive, give honest feedback, help people realise when they should take responsibility and define directions without being a pushover or exploited. In my experience, that's how you make people actually want to work with you. These are obviously hard skills to develop (at least they were and still are to me) but they are how so valuable.
To go back to your conclusion, for me it's more about "How do I convince the people I want to work with to work with me?" than about cutting people. After all, you will probably be the sole constant in all the work environments you will be a part of in your life so you are the biggest factor into making them work for you.
Deleted Comment
Why are you looking for a new job? Because I have a dickhead manager and looking for a higher salary. But my answer will be I'm looking for new challenges, for opportunity to grow.
Both sides are telling lies during the interview.
In the US context, you should refrain from blaming specific people and if you possibly can you should explicitly leave open the possibility that everyone involved was trying to do their best (even if you really don't think this is true). Project an assumption of good faith even if it's not deserved.
But that said, you are looking for a new job and no one is going to be surprised to hear that there were things you don't like. More importantly, it's valuable to surface those things because you want to know if the things you didn't like are commonplace in the place you're interviewing.
The insistence on hearing only pleasurable falsehoods is not healthy.
The harder case is when your performance is lagging and there is a reduction in force.
On the other hand, managers are usually hiring because they failed to do their job competently with the last person in this role.
Brand-new positions are exceedingly rare these days. The market is worse than it's ever been for SWE. There was likely someone they laid off who could have filled it if management wasn't completely incompetent.
This isn't a growth market at the moment. It's a zero-sum game. Everyone's trying to screw each other over as much as possible, and they're lying through their teeth and pretending like it's not. Nobody on either side is sifting through this torrent of AI slop by choice.
Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
If everywhere smells like shit, it’s time to check under your own shoe. I’ve had shitty jobs, snd while nowhere is perfect it’s definitely a stretch to say most jobs are shitty.
> the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity
Nobody is asking you to do that. When I’m interviewing a candidate I’m assuming that this is a situation that they’re trying to impress/show themselves and if you’re shit talking your previous jobs then what are you going to be like if we disagree, or when you are interviewing for your next job? All I’m asking for is don’t shit talk your previous jobs and managers. If you can’t do that for 45 minutes I’m not going to hire you.
I agree and resent that work is just a place where I go to get lied to and lie right back. We've found that lying is a highly successful workplace strategy. But the point of the lying game is to never admit we're lying.
The pretzels people will twist themselves in to avoid the cognitive dissonance of lying all the time and not wanting to be a lair is maddening. I find facing it head on is a refreshing frame.
A bit of clarity taken from "The Complex Problem Of Lying For Jobs"
> But over the years, I have broadened my definition of a lie, and I have realized that most of my interlocutors (including my younger self) had actually narrowed our definition of lie into uselessness in an attempt to feel better about our behavior in the job market.
> If we set aside pedantic obsession over the technicalities of whether the exact words you said were a lie, as if we're all capricious djinn [...] If you have a good idea of what impression you are leaving your interlocutor with, and you are crafting statements such that the image in their head does not map to reality, then you are lying.
https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/the-complex-problem-of-lying...
A lot of people can’t, and a lot of companies try to avoid those people.
Someone who is going through the pain of looking for a new job is not going to like their current job.
If when asked, their answer is satisfaction with your current job, when most jobs are miserable, then i m thinking you're being dishonest with me.
I've put candidates at ease by mentioning well known struggles at their current employer. Generates a laugh.
Relationships can also help you mitigate the dysfunctional environment while you're there, with huge benefits to your health.
(Don't underestimate when people say stress kills you: it's not a video game health meter that recovers quickly and fully at the end of of an encounter; that bad stress is damage from which you never fully recover.)
But also be aware that supportive relationship oases in a dysfunctional environment can also slow leaving a place where you really-really should.
Some people need to be told to be more loyal than they are, but some people need to be told when loyalty is killing us and not doing any good. (Seriously, your supportive colleagues are probably bittersweet glad to see you escape, and you leaving might even give attention/leverage of management to help fix org problems, or encourage colleagues to expedite their own escape.)
Identify problems and act early, for the sake of your mental and eventually physical health.
It's dehumanizing, and it undervalues your inherent worth and skill set.
Obviously don't be a jerk. Beyond that you will really damage your mental well-being if you're constantly trying to put on a certain face or worry how things will "play" with recruiters.
The best advice is to try to stay generally optimistic and collaborative, and to take pride in your craft and lead by example. But also not to discount the fact that you might in fact be more capable of following your passions and starting your own thing than you realize.
If you just want to hunker down and do your own thing you might survive, but the best thing to do is probably move on from such places (or work with your team when it gets bad to get out of it ya rite lol it goes on forever)
We're doing contracting without the upside/autonomy, let's not delude ourselves
https://rework.withgoogle.com/en/guides/understanding-team-e...https://archive.is/fFEgI
considering "effective at Google" == projects destined for the Graveyard, I feel like they could've been asking themselves better questions
Deleted Comment
And the reason is, I'm a lowly engineer and that's all. I have zero clout, HR and hiring managers couldn't give a shit of whom I recommend. So if you "prioritize relationships" with an ulterior purpose (get hired eventually by some "relation"), then make sure you relate to the right people :)
To give a personal counter-example, I'm an engineer. Based on my recommendation, my current employer hired a person who was fired (not laid off, but actually fired!) from my previous workplace. And my recommendation was itself based on a recommendation of my friend who is a former colleague at the aforementioned previous workplace, and whose opinion I trust and value highly. Of course the hiree still had to pass the interviews etc, and that isn't easy in and of itself; but my personal recommendation was what got their foot in the door.
I see life as emotional combat, that I'm always dealing with so many conflicting conflicts at the same time that I'm trying my best to manage everything and so is everyone else. It has been helping me SO much just to frame life this way.
[0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/williams-fighting-battle-q...
I as well take things personally, aka, I feel attacked and pull away, shrinking into my experience and actively not wanting to imagine what someone else is going through.
When I focus on emotional combat, I can start to see how I'm not just experiencing this one specific conflict but am getting hit from multiple angles: financial, physical, social, familial, etc.
And then it almost makes me see that the other person is going through this combat as well, whether I want to see it or not.
So in short it can help me broaden my perspective on the conflicts I'm experiencing, which then can almost trick me into broadening it for the other person, and I can feel myself expand.