> Corollary 1. Who can, and sometimes does, un-rot the fish from the bottom? An insane employee. Someone who finds the forks, crashes, etc. a personal offense, and will repeatedly risk annoying management by fighting to stop these things. Especially someone who spends their own political capital,
Myself, I recognise myself here. And I'm trying my best to find my sanity.
Anyone got any stories of themselves or others being insane? How did it pan out?
I've always been agitated by core failures moreso than my teammates. (E.g. Search engines not returning results, music players not starting/stopping when you hit the button, finance systems needing needing manual adjustments)
I want to scream when management pushes new fringe features when the main ones are flakey.
I'm starting to work on myself though, so I don't care as much. In most cases, you're not an employee building correct software for an employer who values it, even if that's the way it should be. You're in a company whose employees/managers flow in and out, and they just want to be surrounded with good vibes. Chill people get rehired, bitter people get booted.
I hear you. I'm one of those people too, or I was (maybe). What got me wasn't even the core failures themselves, but all the lies and pretense about it. If we are to ignore our fundamental flaws in order for sales to score their next big hit, at least be honest. Just admit we only really care about quarterly results. Don't pretend we are on some wonderful mission instead of the duct taping ragtag conmans that we really are. I can handle the mess, kind of, I surely can't handle all the falsehoods.
But people do need some level of chill to hold it all together. If there isn't some sunny shiny thing on the horizon at least, then it is too hard to put in any effort and get out of bed. The worse the situation is, the greater the need for soothing. I have a personal law that says something like: the level of organizational dysfunction is directly and inversely proportional to the degree to which reality is allowed to disturb a positive story. You could call it institutional codependency.
In really dysfunctional organizations you will find shocking levels of denial and incongruence between the state of affairs and what can be spoken about without being sidelined. This breeds bitterness, because there is an actual and insurmountable difference in needs. Some people can't thrive in a minefield of falsehoods. Being earnest is an actual need, for some people it is more important than being fun and positive. For others people, it is the other way around.
The biggest lesson for me was that there really is a difference between organizations in this kind of dysfunction. The trick is to kick yourself in the butt and move around. Bitterness is just a signal you stayed too long in a context where you are stifled. Even if the ideal context doesn't exist, there are likely places where you are vastly more appreciated and it is worth the effort to try and find them.
This whole article and comment section, but especially this thread and the parent, made think of "How to Get Promoted", particularly the advice to "be happy and easy-going", "don't make anyone look bad" and "perform rituals enthusiastically."
I don't agree with all of this, but I feel it's an excellent comment that touches on the need for a balance between sincerity and good vibes. I'm currently in the situation where dysfunction is turning me bitter, and recognising that's not what I want.
You’re not wrong, but there’s nuance here. A pessimist will often hide behind the shield of sincerity. But they are often no more capable of fixing problems than the cheerleader, which means not only are they ineffectual, they make everyone else feel bad along the way.
Ultimately you want competent, realistic and upbeat.
I agree, actually. Bitterness doesn't solve anything. Dysfunctional orgs are usually beyond salvation.
For me, the question is: can I say the deadline is unrealistic and off by 2x as a matter of fact and can we discuss how to deal with that, as a matter of fact, not blaming anyone? Just the facts.
Sometimes this is impossible because the mere mention of it makes me the pessimist and is putting everyone in a bad mood.
Yeah. I do agree that if you find yourself being bitter, it is the org, usually, not you.
> can I say the deadline is unrealistic and off by 2x as a matter of fact and can we discuss how to deal with that, as a matter of fact, not blaming anyone? Just the facts.
I'd hope so, but at my company the conversation would either end (CTO would say "I got to go join another meeting") or it would be interpreted as you "saying no."
One thing that really came into focus for me once I got into my 40s and had had a chance to see all different manner of successful and dysfunctional teams from many different vantage points is that any binary assessment of an org as good or bad is overly reductive. Most orgs have good sides and bad sides, and a mature perspective is to either do what one can do improve the bad parts, or cut bait and find a new org. I realize this is a privileged perspective, but competent software engineers have options. I truly believe that if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem—not in a malicious way, but systemic dysfunction is far more common than malintent, so if you truly see no path in contributing towards a better work environment then what are you doing with your life?
Maybe, yes. I tend to agree. From their point of view however, the people who don't value fun as much are whiny and annoying, and maybe we are but probably because we aren't heard.
Well, speaking for myself, I tend to be much less whiny about things if I have the feeling someone takes me seriously.
I value fun, but I think my problem is I go to work to WORK. You would think companies would want this. I accept some level of "not work" because that is life, but when I'm actively being prevented from doing work due to dysfunction, I get really upset.
I guess I should just be "overemployed" so I can retire earlier LOL.
I don't think so. I value fun and positivity and I think I'm the opposite of fake. I don't have patience for being fake.
I'll attend every social event, I clock out roughly on time, and I do what's needed of me without making a fuss. Want that stupid feature? Sure, as long as it's not morally reprehensible, I'll build it.
What's any of that got to do with being fake? I don't suck up, and do things for the sake of promotion, I don't lie about things. If you ask for my opinion, I'll share it, even if it's negative. I don't think that makes me unfun though.
I'm not talking about a "stupid feature" I'm talking about your CTO saying something like "let's move to containerized SQLite instances for all our databases instead of using sql server" etc..
Just, unnecessary, arguably-insane things. I don't give a fuck if you want a stupid feature. That isn't my job. My job is, however, to give input into if I think certain changes to the platform are going to be detrimental. Just saying "yeah bossss!!!" to everything is not my job, and would be shallow and fake.
I got better over the years. In a later organization I actually gathered signatures to become the staff council for the employees(a German thing). People thought it was ironic, because some of the the things I wanted where also in conflict with what the previous staff council wanted. I noticed a couple of things though:
1. The union did not actually help the workers nor care. Even though a lot of them paid pretty high monthly membership fees.
2. The staff council leaderships usually get corrupted after a while once they get some perks from management.
I got pushed out eventually, I received a settlement, because they didn't want me to open my mouth about the things I'd seen. I had some major impact in their long term results, especially since they had grift going on in their construction project which would have led to 10 year old networking infrastructure be installed. Physical access control that didn't have wirings installed and core drills with no space left for future extensions.
I could have stayed for another 5-10 years since I was not firable, but they made sure to pull me of projects, so I wouldn't look behind the curtain. I still have most of the employees and some of the senior leadership report these things to me though because of the trust they had in me.
It's a hard path to choose and it's a thankless job in terms of career. The question is how happy are you will all your peers and subordinates and even the non grifting subcontrators(in case of the construction) be grateful to you.
Like, maybe this is naive because I've probably never worked long at a corporation as large as the one you're probably at, but... if I were a senior VP and our main software was flakey while we were pushing fringe features, I would want to hear this from you. I'm not saying that it's always worked for me, but in cases like that I've always just done an end-run past the chain of command.
Which is why you likely won't be a senior VP. Sales are demanding the fringe feature to meet a RFP requirement & the flakiness in the main software isn't meaningfully impacting renewals. These things are not (always) accidents.
What I mean is, I've definitely worked for organizations that were resistant to fixing things that were only mildly broken, but I've never worked for one where there wasn't someone you could talk to who would put the brakes on to fix something if you made the case that it had to be addressed before building new features. Particularly if the case was that the new features would have to be rebuilt soon if you didn't address these problems first.
>Like, maybe this is naive because I've probably never worked long at a corporation as large as the one you're probably at, but... if I were a senior VP and our main software was flakey while we were pushing fringe features, I would want to hear this from you.
The company lives on sales, not on software. Sale of flakey software is better than delay to un-flakey it.
Wow. This response showed me a big blind spot of my own, and how I could have been using the same language to talk about something completely different without clarifying a basic point in advance: I've written customer-facing software and in-house employee software for 20+ years. But almost all the code I've ever written has been for companies whose business is something other than software... and where I have worked for software companies has been in the early prototypes and beta phases where bugs were an embarrassment. I've never worked on retail software that had generational code debt - or even ones that had a dedicated sales team driving features and development. I have worked with people who were more interested in feature explosion than in nailing down existing issues... and assuming they're not the boss of the company, I consider it important to speak up about fixing issues before moving on. But that is, I realize, a completely different ballgame than working for a company that primarily sells software to end users.
Brother, this is the norm at small to large companies. Maybe five person shops need to get things done, but once a company hits like 15-20 people, yeah... people get hired and stay hired because people like them, rarely because of their output.
Yes, its important (and very hard) to walk the fine line between pushing back and letting those above you do their jobs. At the end of the day, not every decision is yours to make. Its important that you ensure that every decision is an _informed_ decision however.
I've spent much of my last four years systematically turning down every project a specific director has launched.
The turn downs save enormous amounts of our hardware budget, and each time are measured as not happening users.
No one has yet noticed that basically none of that directors projects are still running and put together that the things he builds stop working after two years.
I keep getting paid good senior engineer money, and don't have to think too hard about what my next project should be. But it's really demoralizing to realize that he will continue to be promoted.
I found personal offence in them putting me on a PIP after a hip break (Being on morphine makes you bad at your job?? Give me more than 10 sick days and I'll not be trying to work high as balls, lol).
Picture the film Office Space. There were 3 managers for like 14 people. It was insanity. One day I'll write my mashup of The Office and Office Space based on working there now the NDA is expired haha. Nothing whistleblowery, just hilariously silly stuff happening constantly.
We agreed via my solicitor that that was a dumb move to have made and they settled so I'd go away.
It later turned out I was working with undiagnosed ADHD so it might not have been all bad all the time but man I'd die on a lot of hills back then. I used to wonder who got the bad luck from me being employee #13, me or them haha.
Freelance now. Y'all solve your own office problems, I'm not getting involved.
I was pretty much like this for a long time, 1 / 10 would not recommend. For me the change was gradual but basically it was a couple of realizations revolving around separating my identity from my career and finding personal stuff I'd rather pour my emotional energy into, instead of pouring it to fight my employer to do things I thought they should be wanting me to do.
As anything else it depends. You have to find the right balance between annoying management and fixing the problems against their will. I went on multiple jobs from making managers lose their temper in meetings to them coming to me first asking for help. But I was also offered a significant compensation to just leave a company, which I took cause it had come to outright war.
I don't think you can "find your sanity" as I believe that taking technical issues personal is just the way some people are built. But you can and should learn politics even if you find it repulsive.
Yeah. Over the last four years, I have had a lot of really successful products at my current company - but for all of them, I basically had to do it "rogue" which takes a lot for me to do, because I value having buy-in from the business and management. But, they needed to be done, and I was right - even though I was fought on the products.
Companies either want you to be technically proficient or to support the hierarchy. You need to suss out what kind of company you work for and act accordingly.
> Corollary 1. Who can, and sometimes does, un-rot the fish from the bottom? An insane employee. Someone who finds the forks, crashes, etc. a personal offense, and will repeatedly risk annoying management by fighting to stop these things. Especially someone who spends their own political capital,
You're not alone. I am this person, but I also have the advantage of being management. In one case, I led a 9 month ninja effort refactor an entire spaghetti monolith in semi-opposition to my boss' (CEO) wishes. We did it very smartly, though, which was to have a plan in place that was to a) have a plan b) focus on observability in the final product and c) used "extreme campfire rules" to implement.
First steps were hard, which was where we completely reorganized everything into logical services with defined APIs within the monolith. During the couple months, overall product velocity slowed, so we tread with care and hustled to get stuff out on time. After that point, the resulting code sanity increased velocity so we could focus on things like revamping logging to be massively more useful, better data migrations, consistent deploy process for developer machines, dev integration server, staging, and production servers, and implementation of automated service and integration testing.
The net result of 9 months of work was shipping tons of new features, virtually eliminating any down time (from hours a month to minutes per year), and a net loss of about 20% of the codebase.
It was a smashing success that I couldn't tell anyone else on the management team about. I did get the ultimate payoff a couple years later when we were acquired by a $30B company and received many kudos during the technical due diligence process for the state of our architecture and reliability.
It can be exhausting having the target on your back all the time, but if you are confident in yourself and are approaching things honestly then its generally "fine". Id rather the frustration of fighting through the BS and knowing I tried to make a difference, than going along with it and also hating it at the same time. You can only control the things within your control however, and if you find yourself spinning into insanity fighting things that you ultimately do not control then thats when you need to take a step back and be honest about if you gave it your best shot. If you did, then let it go and allow the other members of the organization to do their own jobs however they think is best.
Admitting you gave it your best shot is incredibly difficult for those who are overly self-critical or suffer from imposter syndrome. For me I had to accept that even if it wasn't my best shot it was good enough, and any system relying on perfection to be successful is inherently unstable.
Thats a good point, its not about convincing yourself you've done _everything_ you could. Theres almost always the nuclear option of quitting. But its about choosing your battles appropriately and giving it "enough" of an effort to say that you gave it an honest attempt. Hopefully then circle back and try again next time. Assuming an org that isn't completely off the deep end of toxicity and politics, things do get slightly easier over time as people respect that you are fighting for the right things and are generally correct in your analyses.
This is me. At my last job I was doing 3 jobs at once. 1 was what people THOUGHT my actual job was (gotta support the old system to buy myself enough time to roll out the new system, 1 was an additional job to get promoted/salary brought up to industry standards (risk manager for health tech., it didn't work), and 1 (what I was actually hired for 2+ years ago) was doing a rewrite properly to solve 50% of the engineering problems plaguing the company for near a decade once and for all (got it to 99% completion, but has been stuck in QA and Compliance hell for 8 months now on legacy features that are 1 out of 1 million requests). Oh but I accidentally did job #1 too well so now the rewrite I originally got hired to do is now not a priority on anyone's mind. Oh and I did job #2 so well that now I am getting daily requests from Compliance, and they are acting like my boss, as if the Architect, PM, overstepping and undertrained CS reps. and actual boss wasn't enough.
Ok now I'm just venting at this point but it's therapeutic.
I feel as though I've aged 10 years in the past 2 and I burned out very bad 4 months ago, still haven't recovered. Unemployed now.
The worst part? I'm not sure I'm not going to try it again. Should I accept "mediocraty"? Should I strive to leverage my abilities to the fullest to truly be transformative in technology? Maybe I should just focus on getting "fuck you" money so I can work for free on things that actually have an impact.
If I've learned one thing, repeatedly, experience by painful experience:
Time is an illusion, professional time doubly so. Don't waste it worrying about what might have been or never was, accept your failures, be magnanimous about others', and always work to make things better tomorrow.
Maybe there's a Sliding Doors world out there where you can try all the possibilities and see where they take you, but time's arrow flows in one direction here.
So choose the paths that you think move things up and to the right, and if you find yourself heading down and to the left, have a laugh and try again.
Looks like you’ve found a bunch of other people in the club here. I don’t think I can muster the energy to type my story up, but it’s comforting in some way to know I’m not alone.
Myself, I recognise myself here. And I'm trying my best to find my sanity.
Anyone got any stories of themselves or others being insane? How did it pan out?