51–60 of 90 posts
On other hand, if you do have initiative to do things on your own then a big company is probably not a place for you.
If you know the reasons behind the rules of thumb, you can ignore the rules and work from the reasons for the rules. This is expertise.
When someone questions your 'breaking of the rule,' you can then cite the reasons for the rule, and show how you did not break the rule in terms of it's deeper meaning.
However, it is polite (and prudent) to CYA with discussion of your justifications with your colleagues. Either way, this makes you look good. If discussion renders you correct, you appear ever so smart and expert. If discussion renders you incorrect, you appear thoughtful, prudent and working in good faith in everyone's best interest. This is the essence of healthy collaboration.
All too many people are unable to grasp that working on teams is never about being 'right,' it is about having the discipline to actively seek out collaboration.
Being 'right' helps in that people will actively seek your opinion. Being 'wrong' doesn't actually hurt you, because you went ahead and behaved properly with regard to collaboration. Either someone else was right, and you used their idea, or everyone else was just as wrong, and in that case... ya know, fuck it. :)
I'd add to this that if people are unable or unwilling to collaborate maturely (including admitting their own failings), it is time to quit.
Waiting around to get fired is stupid, petty and passive-aggressive. If you are that sure of your correctness, you should be able to make a jusitfication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, out of curiosity I clicked on your link and for a second there I was thinking "wait a minute, I've seen this guy before... in some documentary" :)
They were filming that?! All joking aside, I only avoid mentioning the company by name to avoid linking it to any search results. Otherwise, I'm glad to talk about it because I consider it a strong trait of the company.
Could you provide a little bit more of details on how the founders disagreed with you? I'm very much interested in knowing more about it.
Part of the time, it works -- you do the right thing, experience fulfillment, AND despite some heat you come out smelling like a rose and get rewarded.
The other part of the time, you still experience fulfillment, and you leave happily.
You basically become invulnerable to politics and dysfunction.
But ... to be able to do it without flinching, you have to have your finances in order and your living expenses manageable.
I have seen too many believe that refactoring code was "doing the right thing." One guy I knew attempted to rewrite Boost's build system because it wasn't "the right way".
I think his reasoning is a great way to get fired, regardless of how smart you are technically. It is fun to think about how you could rage against the machine and do things your way. But the simple reality is there is always someone smarter than you. If you can come to terms with that, and take the time and effort to be the guy that someone looks up to, then you won't be fired.
I think the original post's main point is to face that possibility unflinchingly.
In any big company, I'm sure that anything you do which is not based on manager's request is potential career killer. I understand that some new initiatives might be good for the company as a whole but, from employee perspective, upside is so small while downside can be disastrous. On other hand, if you do have initiative to do things on your own then a big company is probably not a place for you.
There are worse things than being fired. You could be routed to a series of useless assignments, or worse, actively destructive ones. Then you wind up having to fire yourself for your own sanity. Of course, this all assumes you have sufficient privilege to be able to carry it off. There's a reason it's called FU money.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/business/AJ201305300011
Not unlike the NYC school district's rubber rooms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were filming that?! All joking aside, I only avoid mentioning the company by name to avoid linking it to any search results. Otherwise, I'm glad to talk about it because I consider it a strong trait of the company.
I guessed the name of the company right away when you said "well known for treating developers right, but I still needed to make sure it was what I thought it was. Could you provide a little bit more of details on how the founders disagreed with you? I'm very much interested in knowing more about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were filming that?! All joking aside, I only avoid mentioning the company by name to avoid linking it to any search results. Otherwise, I'm glad to talk about it because I consider it a strong trait of the company.
I guessed the name of the company right away when you said "well known for treating developers right, but I still needed to make sure it was what I thought it was. Could you provide a little bit more of details on how the founders disagreed with you? I'm very much interested in knowing more about it.