Live data from Hacker News

Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

ludic.mataroa.blog

221–230 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I'm thinking we need a new system. Not capitalism, not communism, not anything that's already been talked about for 200 years. It seems to me that our real problem is that we are wired to demand everybody contributes. Both righties and lefties actually agree on this, they just have different views on how to get it done theoretically, and in practice have also come up with various schemes to make this happ…

Capitalism in theory doesn't support jobs that produce no value. Shareholders would have demanded that waste be optimized out of the company.

In theory reality and theory are the same. In reality they are not. In my org there are a lot of pms who don’t do very much and somehow just happen to be friends and former room-mates of the org head.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#222

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

How do you go about finding a job at an amazing company with fulfilling jobs?

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#223

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

"It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo."

I don't know, it sounds like you think people actually like their jobs. Seems like for most of us, we do work at shitty BigCos. Plenty of small shitty companies too. That's just how life goes.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But there’s this super prevalent idea that keeps getting pumped around the blogosphere that it’s absolutely impossible to not work at a terrible huge company and therefore you cannot possibly escape, and I quote, “going home and despairing”. Behind all such writing is an unspoken piece of context: those terrible huge companies pay software devs better than small ones. It's not that they can't work at a smaller comp…

Also work life balance is usually better in big corp you actually can clock that 9:5 and go home.

All of my friends at FB/G work way more hours than me and miss family activities. Same as when I was at MS.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did that. A number of times, because it turns out people lie through their teeth that their organization is functional (during interviews). At one point people started asking why I have 3 contracts in a single year. Checkmate. What would you do?

Make my own organization.

I have one, since 2008. Did not automatically make me financially independent so as not to care what my customers do, sadly.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#226
post #28
post #7

That article was a very nice surprise and apart from how crushingly accurate it is (before somebody jumps in to defend all the corporate chaos, of course) it also had me giggling several times while reading it. The answer of course is financial incentives. It is the answer 99% of the time, I know quite a few high-profile managers at this point and they are all very smart and get stuff done people and yet they allow t…

Part of the problem has to be that as an individual in an organization it seems like a better ROI for your effort to grow your share of the pie than the entire pie itself. Individual incentives are naturally going to be aligned by advancement and "being difficult" is something everyone wants to avoid. Easier to shed blame and avoid accountability than try to fix the social and political structure of your organization…

So, financial incentives as I said.

As for "being difficult", yeah, that's a huge culture problem of many Westerners. It's also a very nasty problem because everyone believes in it; I too had managers who literally told me to "stop being difficult" when all I did was asking, twice over the course of an entire month, about why aren't we given just a little more bandwidth to deal with a problem that slows down half the company.

But as we know, culture problems are extremely slow to be solved and that's why I don't blame people for coasting on salary and doing the bare minimum.

Tragedy of the commons, Prisoner's dilemma, Peter's principle, we can call it whatever, it's still very sad though.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#227

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

If we lived in a world where money wasn't so important I would fully agree with you. But it is. I can't earn the same as you all can because I don't live in the US, but if I did I would grind all the leetcode (as insulting as I find them) for one single reason: I don't want to work forever. So I agree with some other comments here. No it's not really a choice. Choosing to earn less and hope for a lottery ticket win l…

At least you have talents. Imagine being in your 30s with a family to support and no real career future - bad reviews, bad organizations structure, shitty technology/systems, and no skills to move elsewhere.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#228

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

Sounds like “hustle culture”, which IMO is a cancer on the human mind.

We’re apex predators; laziness is inherent to our being. Or at least thats my head-canon :)

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a very good comparison (I work in California, at-will contracts). The effect of me leaving my company and the effect of my company leaving me, for the one who is getting dropped, are not even remotely comparable. The negative effects of my leaving or being laid off/fired on the company of 100k people are, more often than not, not distinguishable from zero. Many folks left my group and other groups I worked in a…

> The negative effects of my leaving or being laid off/fired on the company of 100k people are, more often than not, not distinguishable from zero. Many folks left my group and other groups I worked in and, invariably, the escapees were barely remembered a few weeks after leaving. The cemetery is full of indispensable people, and I was never told that I was indispensable. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that having…

You are right that it makes perfect business sense to not have indispensable people. At the same time, trying to make everyone inter-replaceable has never worked and never will.

It is important to recognize that some people are heavier hitters than others.

Their risk management goes too far is what I am saying. They should relax it a little bit and they'll get better results.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#230
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've known a few company owners long time ago who ... swore on their lives they will not fire the managers for bringing them bad news It needs to go further. Fire everyone who says there are no problems. If there are no problems, why is an under-manager needed? Also fire everyone who makes up bullshit problems. If you're going to agree with me all the time, why do I need you?

Teams can actually function well and have no problems for periods of time. I those cases you would almost certainly break that by firing the manager. I think everyone would agree that yes-people are useless for a team, but if you find yourself surrounded by them you have to ask why. Either you hired poorly, or more likely the way you treat you team and/or company creates a culture of fear and dishonesty.

Who is that "you" who hired poorly? I am a programmer, I did not hire anyone.

My comment from much above, to which many people replied, was from the point of view of a working programmer.

Post reply on HN