Tips: When starting a new job
refactoringideas.com
refactoringideas.com
1: make friends with everyone, avoid making enemies. Make sure you have read "How to win friends and influence people."
2: make a good first impression, get some big wins under your belt in the first six months and impress. Your reputation at your new company will persist for years and it will largely be defined by your initial achievements.
3: politics: either avoid it entirely, or play it very well. If you're playing, make sure you have read "The Prince". If you're playing, make sure you win. If you play and lose, you should move on.
4: do more listening than talking.
5: if you are ambitious, commence your ladder climb after six months of points 1, 2, 4 above.
The Prince: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince
Seems to me moving companies you means losing all the people who owe you favours, and whose respect you've earned by being good at your job.
Starting your own company, consulting, or becoming a famous blogger/internet celebrity are all options, but they seem to mean doing a lot of nontechnical work.
Switching companies gives you breakthrough jumps. Staying at the same company will only get you a slow arduous climb.
I find that those who actively use Machiavellian management techniques can easily be disarmed by those who know how to actively counter them. Also, many of the Machiavellian techniques that work great against company-loyal Baby Boomers and Gen-X'ers can be quite disastrous against the Millenials.
For those who just don't like managing Millenials, you better get used to them. There are a lot more of them and you'll be ahead of the game if you can work out some effective techniques for leading them without resorting to Renaissance era tyranny.
Granted, it strongly suggests that the job wasn't really worthwhile that I was able to talk myself out of that job so quickly, especially as a result of presuming a technical question (from my political animal of a direct manager) to be honestly motivated and giving an honest answer thereto. That said, on the one hand, given time I could've inveigled my way across the org chart into a more stable and less politically dangerous position, and on the other hand, I could've saved myself a great deal of suffering had I simply not shot off my big mouth right at the start.
Given that that error cost me an opportunity to redress, free of charge, my lack of tertiary education, I can only evaluate the matter as an overall failure on my part. On the other hand, I did manage to learn a great deal from it, both about office politics in general and about the peculiarly vile strain of same which infests academia, so at least I was able to salvage something from the wreckage.
In any case, I can't overstate the value of the sort of political caution advocated here. It may be hard to believe if you, as I, first encounter office politics relatively late in your career, but all it takes is to shoot off your mouth just once, and piss off the wrong person in so doing, to completely destroy any future you might have had in an organization. And, sure, any organization in which that's possible is one where you might not want to work anyway. But you wouldn't be considering taking a position there if there weren't some benefit in it for you, and making the same mistake I did can very easily cost you your shot at whatever makes the job worthwhile.
Who would want to be surrounded by people who view them as a politician?
The short version: You will almost certainly find yourself confronted with the need to participate in office politics sooner or later. Best you accept this fact now and learn at least the modicum necessary to defend yourself, because taking the stance that your principles place you above it all will only make you a target. Moreover, equating participation in office politics with Machiavellian bastardry is at best enormously naïve; sufficient acumen, which is well within the capabilities of almost any skillful programmer, will enable you to play a positive-sum game.
The long version:
In some organizations, it's unnecessary to know anything about office politics, because they don't exist -- a rare and happy state which obtained for the first decade of my career, and was fine as far as it went, but which left me utterly unprepared to deal competently with them once my desire to advance my career and my craft made it necessary for me to do so.
In some other organizations, or so I assume, it's unnecessary to know much about office politics because, while they exist, it's possible to avoid participation. I can't speak to such situations from personal experience, but presumably they call for at least some modicum of knowledge on the subject, in order adroitly to avoid having any stance on a political matter -- at the very least, you'd need to be able to identify such matters, in order to avoid letting sheer ignorance betray you into taking a stance.
In most organizations, as far as I can tell, it is absolutely necessary to know something about how to play the game, because you're required to sit down at the table simply by virtue of being part of the organization at all. In such a situation, there are absolutely no advantages to the belief that your principles require you to remain above it all.
On the one hand, the attitude that political acumen is unworthy of you will lead you into ignorance which will eventually betray you in the fashion I describe above. On the other, it'll be more or less impossible to preserve indefinitely the belief among your fellows that you're simply innocent of it all, which is the best you can hope for; eventually, people will realize that you regard the whole matter with contempt, which they will take personally, whether you so intend it or otherwise.
This being the case, once your true opinion of the matter becomes apparent to your fellows, your days in the organization are numbered, because however they'd otherwise be inclined to regard you, you have just given everyone a reason to regard you as a political enemy, and rightly so -- after all, no one loves being held in contempt, nor should he.
Having thus disposed of the question of the value, or lack thereof, inhering in the principled stance above politics, all that remains to consider is one's degree of competence in that realm, and the only sensible opinion here is that one should develop as much competence as her natural talent makes possible. Just as with any other skill critical to one's successful pursuit of her career goals, it makes no sense to aim for any lesser degree of attainment.
Given my own experiences at the hands of office politicians, I can certainly empathize with your apparent distaste for that entire realm of human endeavor. On the other hand, those same experiences lead me to regard the principled stance above politics as arrant foolishness, because if you're in an environment where such politics exist at all, your alternatives are but two: you may retain your principled stance and rely upon good fortune, which will eventually exhaust itself and more probably sooner than later, to save you harming yourself through careless ignorance; or you may study the subject, at least to the extent necessary to arm you in self-defense, and ideally to the rather greater extent which will allow you to play the game as necessary, to the benefit of both the organization and yourself.
After all, just because the game of office politics is so often played in unprincipled fashion, you need not also behave in a manner unequal with your own principles. You just need to be good enough at the game to get away with it, and that's another matter entirely. Whether Machiavelli's opus is of value in such a pursuit, I cannot say, because it's been many years since I read it, and I've never done so with an eye toward the direct personal utility of such advice. But if you're going to be stuck playing the game, wouldn't you agree that it's better to do so well than poorly?
(Update: For an example of what I mean by "playing the game well", see [1], where I describe how to avoid both the risk of coming off as an unmotivated time-server, and the risk that your colleagues will feel like you're outdoing them and making them look bad.)
2. Bring goodies for the first major holiday/celebration (i.e. Halloween, Valentine's Day) that comes up.
3. If think of things that could be changed or improved, write them down, then sit on those notes for at least a month.
4. Avoid gossip. The best reply if someone says something gossipy to you is a non-committal "Ahh" or "Hmm."
5. Be relentlessly positive. No mention of anything bad going on in your non-work life.
6. Avoid saying things like "TGIF" or "at least it's Wednesday."
This is great advice. Negativity by a few can really drag down a department. But don't go around like a Ned Flanders and smiling like an idiot. Be positive towards the work and the team.
Since switching careers (I'm a former banquet manager turned software engineer) I've always advised people who spend their entire week looking forward to the weekend to change careers to something they'll enjoy more. Sadly too many people feel work is something that must be hated.
In my experience people with occupations like that consider it a job instead of a career. In the interest of clarity perhaps I should have used the word professional in my previous comment instead of people (not that a "career" is limited to professionals, but colloquially that's more often how the word is used).
You can frame TGIF as an achievement without it being about hating your job. It can be the same as completing a tough milestone / sprint.
A great way to further encourage this is to start the week with a celebration too. Whether it's free lunches on Monday or little team things.
This helps in many situations. There are the times, bad times, when a team is put in a terrible situation. Admitting this can let people stop dwelling on the pain individually, and pull together as a team to make the best of the situation.
Oh, and sometimes a new guy doing "too good of a job" can be a problem. Might want to test the climate before letting it all out. Many a promising young career has been cut short by people who are "threats". This is sad, and doesn't apply everywhere, but certainly applies many places. Help those above you. Help them look good. At least initially. But beware of being locked in the back office in chains while your supervisors take credit for you work forever. That happens all too often as well. Make sure there is a way for you to be recognized and rewarded/promoted for the work you do. Unless you are ok where you are forever... don't stay long if there isn't.
Later in your career, especially if you aspire to technical leadership positions, you might want to reconsider, but just starting out, go find a place where technical excellence is valued and cultivated.
Note: what you think of as "too good of a job" is very likely not "too good of a job" if you're just starting out. Porting an entire enterprise system to Rails because it's cooler and easier (for you) to maintain and getting told "No!" is not an example of you trying to do too good of a job...
-agreed 100% Leave unless you need the job. This scenario applies less to the startup (and probably IT worlds) than it does to other places but unfortunately I believe it is pretty common in older established companies. You might not be told you are doing "too good of a job" but if you are threat to your supervisors there is good chance life could be rough at this stage. So make sure you are helping them look good and not appearing to be gunning for their positions. That was my point. And I hear you on newbies thinking their inexperienced pivots are game changing paradigm shifters. I think we have all seen that as well but it wasn't specifically what I was referring to.
More seriously when you are new take the time to observe the culture of the place before saying or doing anything unexpected. Your primary job in the first month is learning the true power structure and who matters to who.
"When you start at a company it's tempting to work really hard to give a good impression. Don't. All you're doing is setting expectations on your work. Instead, do an average amount of work and only work harder when it will be noticed (ie. near salary review day)."
It's unfortunate but this is true. If you work your ass off people will just expect you to work your ass off.
Given my druthers, though, I'll do the best work my talent and skill make possible, for two reasons: first, should I find myself having trouble in a given situation, I find it strongly preferable to have the certainty that it's for some other reason than because I'm not working at the top of my form; second, because if I should find myself in need of support from management, it's a lot easier to start that conversation, and achieve a favorable result, when the fact that I'm working at the top of my form is obvious to everyone involved.
Of course, not everyone shares that opinion, and my own experience isn't universal. But I will note that I've never found myself in a situation where I had peers gunning for me because I was making them look bad -- on the contrary, one of the benefits of an insatiable appetite for hard work is that others quickly learn I can be relied upon to help them out when they need it, while rarely asking for such help myself. Quite aside from the fact that helpfulness is one of the criteria by which I evaluate my worth as a human being, this gives my colleagues the very best of reasons -- those of self-interest -- to bend their every political effort on my behalf.
This, by the way, is an example of what I mean, else-thread, when I talk about playing office politics in a principled fashion. Sure, there's some of my own self-interest in the mix here! I don't deny it. On the other hand, I've found a way in which I can serve not just my own interests, but those of my colleagues, and of the organization as a whole, all at the same time -- in short, a style of play that redounds to the benefit of all involved, and an excellent illustration of how it's possible to play office politics quite adroitly indeed, without having to become a Machiavellian bastard in the process.
Personally I find it difficult to work like that, but I think the advice is reasonable - I've certainly experienced it when you're only working twice as hard as others and yet you are seen to be underperforming.
I'm a sys admin who has worked in a range of environments big and small. My new job is once again returning to a "big" environment. I feel that the tips which would help me in this role are completely different to tips which would have helped in my last role which was in a small environment.
The one which I'm 100% confident is good for both is: record every piece of work you do. The tip from the link here about rating each piece of work is something which I'd overlooked, but will start doing.
I've used trello religiously since I became aware of its existence. It was a real challenge to build the habit, but as I've matured and gained experience in various work places I've set aside my youthful ideas which went somewhere along the lines of:
"I know I'm good at my job, my work should speak for its self. If people up the chain of command can't realize my worth based on my output then I don't want to work under them anyway."
Now I'm more focused on doing the following:
#1 - find out what my manager thinks is the #1 priority I should be working on - ensure that his/her boss thinks the same thing - crush the hell out of that task
#2 - look for opportunities which are too "low level" for my manager to think about - bring them to his/her focus
Far too often I used to have those around backwards.
Learn and do the current process. After that suggest those changes to the right people.
My first job out of university didn't go so well, as the office was fairly introverted (including my team lead) as well as smart. Things were not explained to me well, and I felt like I would look stupid having to ask them to explain the same thing again afterwards, so tried to do things by myself.
Anyway, after a while I looked for another job eventually and got one, and decided to learn from my mistakes. Asked a lot of possibly dumb sounding questions, but got along a lot better at the second job.
- get in early
http://qz.com/209513/no-matter-what-the-boss-says-about-flex...
I understand that there are morning people and there are night people. However, as a night person I don't feel the need to quote what time I got up to everybody I meet that day. You'll see it in blogs on HN sometimes too - "I've been so successful ever since I started getting up at 5:30am blah blah blah..."
What kind of honour is there in getting up early? Really? You went to bed at 9pm so you could get up at 5am. That's 8 hours. I went to bed at 1am and got up at 8am. That's 7 hours. Surely I'M the one that should be getting the plaudits?
I've seen it used in arguments amongst team members when trying to assert blame: "I was here at 7am trying to fix this!!!"
negotiating for a pay review is almost like the interview for the job in the first place.
Tagging, and filtering emails, and generally organizing yourself and your information is also a good habit to get into. Whether your are starting a new job or not.