My distraction is from all the family stuff I have to deal with. My lack of concentration is because I lack motivation - I don't see any reason to try hard at work since it's all politics and BS.
My family stuff is what keeps me going though. My work is a basket case at the moment, 12-month contract ends in 4 weeks, and it's almost a full time job applying for jobs.
I've had three managers in my not-quite 12 months, none that I've worked with very closely, one that thinks I'm no good because I unwittingly stepped on the toes of a couple of institutionalized colleagues by "doing my job", who complained to this guy who'd been my boss a total of less than a week at the time.
"Just do what you're told" was his advice. So, what you're saying is coast until the contract is over? Done and done.
Makes it hard to get a good recent reference though, lucky the market is thirsting for warm bodies.
I had 7 or 8 managers over the past 2.5 years. I picked up and completed several extra stories over the previous couple sprints only to recieve negative feedback that it wasn't what they wanted me to work on, even though I asked them if there was anything specific they wanted me to do next and had recieved no response. Oh, and my company will not allow managers to give employees recommendations/references at all.
Unsolicited advice: if you can, wait for September to really start looking for employment. August is slow season in recruitment because people are still on vacation while September is the last month of the quarter, so recruiters have targets to reach for the projects scheduled to start in Q4.
P.S. Australia's Reserve Bank is a couple of hours away from raising interest rates again. Currently it's sitting at 1.35%, expectation is for a 50 basis point increase.
Ad PS Thanks, this is important info.
Even in orgs that have their stuff together, I see a preference for internal transfer over termination. I think it's some sort of HR sunk cost fallacy.
In this market, we can't seem to hire anyone (we aren't competitive on salary). So I guess it makes sense that they want to keep the low performers since they wouldn't be able to backfill. This still sucks since there's a lot of stress dealing with poor ratings and not know if you will get fired. And then even if you do work hard and perform well, there'd no guarantee that will increase your rating or comp.
At the moment I burned money/got into a lot of debt trying to get a start up going. When that failed I just grabbed the first job/company that gave me an offer. I'm not that pumped about what I do but I can deal with it for now. Pay is still good for my level (low six figs) and it's 100% remote.
And don't be the weakest link in the (faulty) chain. It's leaves a better impression by notifying external inefficiency and quitting because lack of change, rather than being fired because your motivation and productiveness withered in silence.
I have a few years of experience as a Web Dev, but sadly my GitHub is barren from code.
Go and learn. Skills are not set in stone.
> I don't perform well remotely, and my wife won't consider relocating
I understand that. I don't know you, but maybe a nicer setup with more (not too direct) sunlight can make it better?
Sure, but learning takes time, which I have little of. It's also much easier for some than others (getting significantly more difficult as I age).
The main remote issue is that my wife interrupts me to do stuff or answer questions throughout the day. I also feel I'm slower to learn remotely. I think that if I'm an expert in the tech already, then remote could work.
You don't need to spend all day in a class like a university student. An hour a day dedicated to lectures, practice and taking some notes with pencil and paper* can do wonders on the long term.
As for your wife, maybe you can talk to her and ask her to leave you alone for some specific times, unless it's urgent. Or ask her to send you a message instead of talking so it doesn't interrupt your focus so much.
* Some research on learning has proven that taking notes like that is way more effective than typing on a keyboard.
I learned C like ten years ago and then I moved on to PHP and then to JavaScript. I'm sure I forgot most of it. But thanks to that, I'm now learning Golang and when it came to pointers it clicked almost instantly.
Honest question that I know won't be well-received on HN: I don't know your personal details, but do you think there is not anyone else in a lower paid job who has figured out a way to support their family?
Frustration stems from when reality doesn't meet our expectations. You can choose to try and bend reality to your will or change your expectations. One is significantly easier than the other.
Most of my frustration is because my bosses are assholes. I now expect bosses to be assholes, but it's still frustrating.
You are in complete control over your life, but you have to accept that responsibility. Stop blaming externalities and start owning your choices.
No ego, just facts, and your attitude here is crap, your headspace is so negative I’m not at all surprised you’re suffering such as you are.
We've all probably worked with people who will only lift a finger if it benefits them. Create an organization of people with this mindset and much of the necessary but un-glorious work never gets done. I suppose you could say people can play the long game and do that stuff in hopes of getting noticed, but if it doesn't and you have a transactional mindset, it's a recipe to be miserable. (We've probably all worked with those people too - the ones who feel slighted because they believe they've done all the hard work without getting rewarded).
It's also absolutely possible to create an ugly monster of organization while cheering up your team with whatever we-change-the-world mission.
I think it's mostly the people who realized the company has deceived them, either in the company values/mission or the "pay for performance" scheme being BS.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with someone just doing their job for the salary. If their performance falls below what's expected (and clearly defined) for their level, then that's a problem. They shouldn't be penalized for not doing extra work when they aren't being rewarded.
Employers need to have compensation models that make sense too. I was once told I could get a promotion if I consistently worked 1 hour longer everyday. That's a 13% increase in hours for a 7% pay raise, for a position with more responsibility and expectations. These managers are either idiots or predators - anyone with an MBA should understand that's a shitty value proposition. Either way, they lost my respect.
That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay." What that doesn't say is if those 13% more hours were spend solving previously unsolved issues for the organization.
At least at my company, there's no differentiation. I do look for problems to solve. I have volunteered for extra roles and responsibilities that others didn't want. So why do the the people that are too smart to take on the role of application security champion for the team get promoted, while those security champions are passed over?
It seems you're describing that engagement is better than transactional mindset. That's true from the employer's perspective. That's only true from the employee's perspective if the employer is rewarding that.
The promotion I was talking about was brought up because I was already performing at the next level and was engaged- filling the lead role for the team the prior year and volunteering for additional projects. So yeah, the problems and work that I did would have gone undone or the team's work would be uncoordinated.
'That time-transaction mindset leads to exactly what you alluded to. "If I spend 13% more time here, I should get 13% more pay."'
To be real, that's the company's mindset that they should require you to work an extra 13% for a 7% raise, a rate decrease. The defined expectations for that next level are demonstratably higher. Arguably those higher expectations should be matched with a higher rate not a lower one. This concept is critical to understand
To put it bluntly, it's likely because the company doesn't value solving security as much as you may think they should. Solving problems is the same as solving valuable problems. If your goal is to be promotable, the problems you should solve should be as close as possible to the items your company values the most. Unfortunately, things like quality and security are not often valued until after things go wrong.
>The defined expectations for that next level are demonstratably higher.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sure seems like you're saying the performance for the higher pay is above and beyond what you're currently doing. Now whether those expectations are above what you're willing to do for the pay is a personal decision.
>That's only true from the employee's perspective if the employer is rewarding that.
This is probably where we fundamentally disagree. I think employees also benefit from being engaged. I've worked with people on assembly lines who were engaged with work that most would find monotonous. Instead of finding the work some tedium to be put up with, they actually found ways of getting personal fulfillment out of it. Same goes for low-status jobs elsewhere I've worked. I think your sentiment here is really what underlies unhappiness with work and you'd eventually find the same regardless of how handsomely you'd get paid.
Everything you've outlined at this point seems to indicate you work at a company that has a culture that is misaligned with what you're after. But you also aren't willing to take a risk of changing that. I doubt there are any silver bullets here that will make some magic happen without professional or personal risk.
I've done a lot of the work that nobody else wants to do. It wasn't any harder than the work others do. So it's not like I want to be rewarded more than them, but just not penalized for it. People who joined the company around the same time as me are managers and leads. I'm a midlevel. I've even filled the role of a lead for a year, but politics made it so my manager couldn't give me a high rating. After 10 years you'd think I'd at least be a senior and have a salary of $100k. I don't think I'm asking for the world here, and certainly many of the other 10 year employees are farther along because they're better than me.
Unless you want to get promoted into management...
Hire new people to do the inglourious work.
But I'm assuming this means hiring people without the same transactional mindset? Otherwise, there will just be endless employee churn as they realize there's nothing in it for them.
It's hard for me to get on-board with a management approach that effectively says, "I don't want to do this stuff because I want to get paid but it's okay for you to do it because I don't care whether you get paid or not." Either you think the work is worth doing or you don't, but it's a weak leadership style to say it's only worth doing if someone else is doing it. (That's different that strategically assigning duties to get the most out of the team.)
Our company tries to outsource the more boring/routine stuff to overseas contractors. The results vary.