Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrkeen | Hacker News Reader

Not good, my dude!

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.

View on HN

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.

Aren't people who value fun and positivity over sincerity by definition shallow and fake?

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.

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?

In my case, there are extenuating circumstances - I have some level of responsibility to the owners, and I have special privileges where I work now.

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.

Oh yeah, if my boss wants to make a stupid technical decision I'd fight him on that. Fortunately my manager is smart.

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.

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."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24618707

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.

>> Which is why you likely won't be a senior VP

I'll take that in the spirit of a compliment ;)

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.

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.

>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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com