Comment by konstruktor | Hacker News Reader

Comment by konstruktor | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

When you work in a company you don't own, there are a lot of things you will encounter that not under your control (1). Personally, I find the Stoics' attitude very helpful when dealing with that fact. They advocate distinguishing between what is in our control and what isn't, suggesting to focus on acting honorably oneself, but always with reservation, i.e. aware that others can always stop us from reaching our goals but never invalidate our sincere efforts.

Talking of morning exercises, Marcus Aurelius used to remind himself in the morning that he would be around exactly the kind of people you describe, but that they did not have the power to make him crazy if he is aware of their inevitability: http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.2.two.html (BTW: I only used this source because it seems to be public domain and available online, if you want to read translations of ancient texts, invest in a modern one that is more convenient to read.)

(1) Of course, if you start your own company, you will be dealing with things you can't control as well.

Edit: Replaced asterisks that made the text italics.

> (1) Of course, if you start your own company, you will be dealing with things you can't control as well.

You are technically correct.

When you run your own company, the things that are "out of your control" don't feel that way, because at the end of the day, you decide how you want to act on them.

If a customer insists on butting his head in malevolent ways into a user experience I've created for their product because they think they know better, I have a few options. Of its an especially unruly customer, I have two: fire them or work with them. I will, in my mind, piece together the pros and cons of both, and will come to what I believe is the best decision. You are still deciding your fate and can live with the consequences because they're per your terms.

This is why, if I had a small team working on projects, every big decision would require unanimous vote. It's easy for someone to whine about having to work on something they don't believe in, but when you make them part of that decision process, and they consider the factors thoughtfully (like an owner), you give them that peace of mind of knowing they decided their own fate. They tend to come to the same conclusions you do, but aren't bothered by it because they're not doing it "only because you said so."

> Of its an especially unruly customer, I have two: fire them or work with them.

Employees have this freedom with their employers too, but not many realize it or are cowed by their personal circumstance. To compound this, one of the functions of (bad) management has been to keep them in the dark about their options outside of the company in case they get fed up with being shit on all the time.

At a much higher cost. A company with a dozen customers can drop the worst of them without taking a major hit. An employee with one employer has to risk everything. Especially since companies are often communities, so community membership is at risk too.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I work at one of the top cancer research labs in the world, and you'd be surprised how dysfunctional our organization has become. It's perfectly described by what edw519 has outlined.

Seeing millions of dollars poured in projects that go nowhere since they are executed by incompetent workers lead by machiavellian managers is horribly depressing.

I feel that a startup setting would be incredibly more efficient to do what we do. But of course it'd be difficult to fund it, unless it's operated as a charity or it's backed up by the gov't.

In the meanwhile I'm acting as a stoic and enjoying some tiny victories.

Leak details. If nothing else, more light on the area would make it harder to screw around.

Thanks. Care to elaborate on this?

It's difficult to leak details and make an impact. Academia is really screwed up. 90% of what gets published is a blatant lie, but nobody seems to care. Most researchers live in a distorted reality.

Well, I dunno what the best details would be... Whatever would make it easier for other teams to get funding instead of this organization, and thus is a proper incentive to behave.

Maybe bring up valid issues in email and once they go nowhere, make the emails public. You could potentially redact names, which would make it harder for them to attack you later...

Considering the goal is just to shape them up, perhaps you could fake or anonymously threaten a leak. Or for instance spread a rumor that you're being audited for this stuff. And if you see anyone shred anything, collect the pieces.

Or find a donor and don't "leak" anything specifically but get them calling for an audit.

With more specifics and an idea of how bad things are, we might be able to find something that would work.

I realize leaking is dangerous and burdensome for those who have to do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com