When you start noticing too many Dilbert comics acted out in real life, it's time to leave.
Ask HN: How do you decide on when to leave/switch job?
21–30 of 72 posts
Re: Ask HN: How do you decide on when to leave/switch job?
#22Re: Ask HN: How do you decide on when to leave/switch job?
#23What I call the Dilbert-o-meter. When you start noticing too many Dilbert comics acted out in real life, it's time to leave.
When Dilbert-like rules and decisions start showing up to frequently, it's time to leave.
Generally speaking I don't think you should go work for companies with more that 50 - 100 employees. After that stupidity start showing up way too frequently.
Re: Ask HN: How do you decide on when to leave/switch job?
#24What I call the Dilbert-o-meter. When you start noticing too many Dilbert comics acted out in real life, it's time to leave.
That's a pretty good rule. I worked at a telco and a co-worker pointed out that the seemed very likely that Scott Adams had hidden cameras and microphones in our offices. When Dilbert-like rules and decisions start showing up to frequently, it's time to leave. Generally speaking I don't think you should go work for companies with more that 50 - 100 employees. After that stupidity start showing up way too frequently.
When my job started a few months later, I was absolutely floored when some of the stuff I saw there played out exactly as the comic.
I quit after 3 months. I could not get a single thing done in less than 3 weeks there.
Re: Ask HN: How do you decide on when to leave/switch job?
#25Best thing I have on this is a quote from Steve Jobs : "When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And…
Similarly, you probably wouldn't want to wake up and go to an awful job. If doing your job makes the world a better place, you can justify going because you know you are building a legacy, even with your final moments. If you're passionate about it, you can justify it. If the job allows you to provide for your loved ones, you would go even on your last day.
So Jobs like many others misunderstood the quote out of context but reached the conclusion Aurelius intended anyway. And that conclusion is good advice! If you're just doing the minimum to skate by, not really thriving, you're probably selling yourself short. Unless you have some other reason for working that gives meaning to your life (e.g. kids, funding a passion project/hobby, religion), it's just not worth going to a shitty job just for the paycheck.
Re: Ask HN: How do you decide on when to leave/switch job?
#26I just encountered this 2 days ago. When the company decides to adopt a new (to them) technology stack that is not part of where I see my future self.
Re: Ask HN: How do you decide on when to leave/switch job?
#27But then I'm a contractor, and I change up to every few months. Or weeks.
Re: Ask HN: How do you decide on when to leave/switch job?
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very hard to avoid in anything but the smallest companies.
Its the signal of a dying creature. Once office politics are waged and won, hierarchy's are established- suddenly, communicating ideas openly for people only interested in the product and the customer - and by doing that jumping over hierarchy's is a criminal offense - the last terminal stage is reached. The duration of the process may vary- the outcome does not.
The problem is that the vast majority of the upstarts who will eat them will also die, -and- even the winners may not usurp anything for 20+ years. At which point they, too, will likely start 'dying'.
I think you exaggerate the diagnosis. As with a patient with a disease, you have to modify treatment. The reality is that learning to deal with office politics is an important skill to have.
It's really easy to say "politics" with a look of scorn on your face...and then turn around and read about 'influencers' and 'how to win friends and influence people' and '7 habits of highly effective people' and etc, and think "oh, hey, figuring out how to learn what people are thinking and appeal to people's needs is super important". They're the same thing.
'Jumping over hierarchy is a criminal offense' - sometimes yes, sometimes no. The point you miss is that with enough people, hierarchy can be necessary. If you've ever been in a position where you have to make strategic decisions, you -have- to delegate. In fact, many of the things that make me feel good as a developer, such as being empowered to make decisions (beyond just the code, but in terms of features and things), require someone else to trust me to make those decisions (i.e., delegation).
"Well, our whole team makes the decisions"; fine, are there other teams working on other things? Do you all make your own decisions? Because if so, you have delegated responsibilities to those other teams, just as they have with you. If not, then people who are less informed than you are getting a voice, and that's just unnecessary noise.
As soon as delegation occurs, I don't -want- people crossing over unless it's incredibly important. Same situation, of multiple teams; do you want someone on another team coming to you to complain about issues on their team? Of course not; that's for their team to fix. Unless the issue is something so bad it threatens you and your team, you don't want to hear about it.
In a hierarchy, the same thing happens. I delegate to someone and entrust them with seeing it to its success; I do not WANT someone re-burdening me with that problem, -unless- it's vital I be informed, and that person knows I am not being informed.
Yes, this can break. People can start valuing the hierarchy more than what it's attempting to achieve, I grant you. But as often as not what I've seen are people jumping up the hierarchy to complain about things that are not sufficiently urgent. And part of that is perspective; what is going to bother someone higher in the hierarchy is not necessarily what bothers someone lower down. And yes, understanding that, and knowing what to do about it, is "politics", but also, alternatively, it's "empathy and influence".
Or, put another way, what's the difference between 'manipulating' and 'influencing'? That's the difference between 'politics' and 'organizational intellect'. It's trying to achieve one's goals dealing with a single person, vs trying to achieve one's goals while dealing with multiple. Because when dealing with multiple people, there are always politics, and you can't merely throw up your hands and decide to never deal with it. I wish you could, I'm not always good enough to win the battles I need to win...but I recognize that it's not something I can just avoid.