Most of my experience out of the tech world has been really painful, e.g. business devs writing 50-page "product specs" to go and implement over 2 years, or saying they want tech workers but actually wanting IT support.
I'd bet John Deere, Caterpillar and Syngenta all operate this way.
> Most of my experience out of the tech world has been really painful, e.g. business devs writing 50-page "product specs" to go and implement over 2 years
So are you expecting agro-tech to be different somehow? Why? If they are a true "tech company" they will be expecting 10x-100x returns and have similar problems. If they aren't, then they won't "act a bit like tech companies".
Also, I don't care if the company wants 2x returns or 100x. I enjoy product teams, engineers with ownership and skin in the game, customer collaboration, modern tech. Why couldn't I get all of that in an agtech company?
The more i've worked on things in the "real world" (like agriculture), the less i've seen those things, but i don't see why it has to be that way. I'd like to find companies working more like tech companies, but on "real-world" stuff (ag, health, energy), as opposed to ecommerce, dev tools, social media, digital entertainment, etc, ie faang and co. Maybe that wasn't clear from my original post
You'll notice even in tech companies that have matured, they tend to lose the engineer ownership, modern tech, and collaboration. They trend towards your typical hourly job that people are not personally invested in. This is a natural consequence of not being employee-owned, and also of not having much of a transformational future in store.
Of course, it's possible for an agriculture company to exist and be employee-owned. But without the 10x growth, it's not really a "Tech company" and you'll have a very different experience of the working conditions, amount of control/ownership, etc.