[HN Gopher] In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relati...
___________________________________________________________________
In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
Author : wqtz
Score : 269 points
Date : 2025-05-13 13:08 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wqtz.bearblog.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (wqtz.bearblog.dev)
| itchyjunk wrote:
| Nah, realizing I don't have to constantly be thinking about
| relationship was what made things a lot less stressful for me.
| It's still stressful. But at least I get to mind my own business.
| Not saying everyone is like me. Maybe no one is. But it was
| better for me to mind my own business and internally say fork you
| to all the superficial relationships.
| hobs wrote:
| You should prioritize your mental health, but what the article
| is saying is that you actually need to GET AWAY from that type
| of situation, and the most likely route is using a chain of
| other people's hands to pull you out of the situation.
|
| If you just want to hunker down and do your own thing you might
| survive, but the best thing to do is probably move on from such
| places (or work with your team when it gets bad to get out of
| it ya rite lol it goes on forever)
| ramesh31 wrote:
| This is fine, until it comes time for layoffs. Like it or not,
| software development is an intensly social enterprise. Of
| course there are lone geniuses out there doing their own thing,
| and if that's you great. But it isn't how enterprise teams
| work. Particularly as you reach L7, every single aspect of your
| job will become political in one way or another.
| airstrike wrote:
| This is true even outside of software development. Working at
| pretty much any company is an inherently social enterprise
| dictated by those same rules you correctly pointed out.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Except the layoffs come from someone's spreadsheet 3 levels
| up, so even if everyone likes you that may not be enough. It
| definitely helps, but not guaranteed.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| The point isn't about saving yourself from the layoff, it's
| about having a network to help you find a new job, because
| yeah, the layoffs are disconnected, heartless, and clumsy.
| If you're always building at least a couple relationships,
| some of those people inevitably quit on their own, branch
| out, and after years of this, you end up with a decently
| sized network to help you out (and you can help them too
| when the time comes)
| darth_avocado wrote:
| There is a difference between tolerating a few things here and
| there because it's a high stress environment and being okay
| with psychopaths mistreating and abusing you with the excuse of
| "high stress environment". You do not need to put up with the
| latter. Fork em and you do not need those relationships to find
| your next job. The article trivializes a high stress work
| environment by putting everyone at the same baseline of
| "everyone is good, it's just that the situation sucks". In
| reality a lot of people are not good and the workplace is only
| "high stress" because those people are part of the workplace.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Indeed, often the workplace is high stress because the direct
| manager is incompetent and passes down their stress instead
| of shielding you off and empowering you. Networking- wise not
| such an issue to say 'fork you' to such incompetent soul,
| though I always keep in mind everyone deserves some degree of
| respect.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| You're not alone, though we are rare. I _desperately_ want to
| go back to minding my own business. Except... everyone I work
| with now seems to believe I 've either lied my way in or
| desperately need a friend.
|
| We're doing contracting without the upside/autonomy, let's not
| delude ourselves
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| I would not know what is there, beyond relationships? Money
| does not buy happiness. Doing a good job and never getting
| credit for it... would make me feel miserable. Maybe I'm in
| such a lucky situation that I can say this, being able to put
| relationships above all else. Or maybe it is just my attachment
| grounded personality.
| cj wrote:
| Similarly, once you're looking for a new job, assuming you're
| looking for roles with the same job title you had before, do
| everything you can to paint your previous job in a positive light
| even if it was miserable. If you don't, interviewers are left
| wondering how to interpret your dissatisfaction at your previous
| job.
| hobs wrote:
| Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for
| me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have
| a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were
| at fault if they were shitty."
|
| Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to
| demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so
| inauthentic.
| cj wrote:
| Another way to think about it, are you able to tolerate the
| less than perfect aspect of a job while still being pleasant
| to coworkers.
|
| A lot of people can't, and a lot of companies try to avoid
| those people.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > are you able to tolerate the less than perfect aspect of
| a job while still being pleasant to coworkers.
|
| I honestly tend to get much better along with cynic people
| (and find them much more pleasant). In other words: tastes
| differ.
| lucianbr wrote:
| So a lot of companies try to avoid a lot of people? How
| does that work out?
|
| In my experience most companies work with a wide
| distribution of people. This "we avoid hiring people who
| have defects" reads as disconnected from reality. Nobody is
| perfect, and most companies are average and have average
| people.
| FitCodIa wrote:
| This approach is simplistic. People can usually direct
| their anger and frustration, to some extent. Most of the
| time, there's little reason to be angry at a coworker. Even
| if they mess up, it's usually not a huge deal, it's
| relatively easy to mitigate or undo; if you need mediation,
| there's a manager "nearby" in the org chart to escalate to,
| and so on. In addition, you probably have some camaraderie
| from past projects and assignments etc, which provides a
| basis of resilience when they (or you) screw up. Staying
| relatively pleasant and positive is not a huge challenge.
|
| Conversely, when upper management fucks up, and _refuses_
| to take responsibility (for example: admit to making the
| wrong decision, or even reverse the decision), that 's when
| cynicism runs rampant among the rank and file. And gee,
| what a surprise, VPs and CEOs try to avoid underlings that
| speak up about the screw-ups of the brass.
| stuartjohnson12 wrote:
| And yet despite this, miserable people who drag their misery
| and sorrow to every occasion and conversation continue to
| wander about and often will drag you down towards misery too
| if you let them. Avoiding misery is but a matter of self
| defence. The pat-down before you enter a nightclub doesn't
| feel great either.
| oytis wrote:
| You can demonstrate toxic positivity about the desired work
| place I guess? Like, focus on how amazing it is going to be
| and what opportunities you see here that will clearly
| overshadow your previous job.
| eloisius wrote:
| As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was
| indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that
| turned into a shitty job, or if they are just a disgruntled
| malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at
| your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. An
| interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also
| aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the
| positive aspects of their job history. Hire a shrink to vent
| about the toxic shitty job.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also
| be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside
| of hiring a malcontent is huge.
|
| Honestly, I get much better along with malcontents than
| with these "annoyingly positive" people. So, tastes differ.
|
| > An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates
| are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to
| represent the positive aspects of their job history.
|
| Many highly qualified candidates are bad actors and/or bad
| self-promoters.
| achierius wrote:
| I don't know if you and GP are using 'malcontent' to
| refer to the same kind of person.
| blitzar wrote:
| plural noun: malcontents :- a person who is dissatisfied
| and rebellious.
|
| In Silicon Valley that is called a Founder.
| taormina wrote:
| And you don't hire founders.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Pithily true, but what about acquihires?
| svnt wrote:
| They didn't apply to a job posting.
| bumby wrote:
| I prefer positive people but can deal with complainers if
| they're actively looking to make thinking better. The
| problem is when malcontents only bitch and rarely do
| anything about it. That creates a toxic environment.
| kentrado wrote:
| So you are saying it is better if the candidate lies.
|
| Otherwise you will be forced to reject him because there
| might be a possibility that the problem was him.
|
| Seems like you are hiring the best liars. Or at least the
| best at playing an arbitrary game of saying and not saying
| the correct things that won't trigger a rejection.
|
| At this point, are you even needed? Maybe we could replace
| the interview process with a lottery system. Same result,
| less expensive.
| Arainach wrote:
| Constant negativity kills team morale.
|
| Even if the complaints are about things which are
| individually valid, the pattern is toxic.
|
| Imagine a sports team. After running around for 45
| minutes you're all probably tired. Would you rather work
| with someone who says "I'm tired, it's hot in here" or
| someone who focuses on encouraging those around them and
| talking about the team's accomplishments?
|
| Part of the interview is proving you can avoid griping
| and focus on positives for at least 30-60 minutes, which
| is an essential skill anywhere.
| hobs wrote:
| Yes, and toxic positivity obliterates morale - being
| unable to acknowledge the negative outcomes of decisions
| means that you are just working towards some idiot's
| dream until you go play the roulette wheel again to
| figure out what the next people are not telling you about
| this place.
|
| This is what literally makes tech workers go dream about
| farming.
| haswell wrote:
| Somewhere between toxic negativity and toxic positivity
| lies a middle ground and I think some of the comments
| here are presenting a bit of a false dichotomy.
|
| When interviewing people, it's usually possible to
| identify both extremes.
|
| I'd prefer to hire someone who is not toxic. That goes
| for both extremes.
| franktankbank wrote:
| So going back to the originally assertion about not
| saying anything negative about the company when asked for
| reasons why you didn't like it? Why is saying something
| negative in that situation toxic? Crazy making man!
| lolinder wrote:
| I have never had a work environment ruined by toxic
| positivity--the normal healthy human reaction to that
| kind of environment is gallows humor, which hits the
| sweet spot between acknowledging the problem and showing
| a willingness to be there with your team.
|
| I'm sure there are people out there who do have a toxic
| positivity problem, but my own anecdotal experience leads
| me to prefer to err on the side of rejecting
| unnecessarily grumpy people, because they tend to more
| frequently be a problem.
| FitCodIa wrote:
| > gallows humor
|
| I think that may be a very cultural thing. I love gallows
| humor (I understand, enjoy, and cultivate it myself), but
| some cultures don't even understand it.
| lolinder wrote:
| Yeah, probably true.
| int_19h wrote:
| This entire subject is very culture-specific.
|
| For example, if you try pulling US-style toxic positivity
| on a dev team from Poland or Russia, the result isn't
| going to be pretty all around.
| svnt wrote:
| Toxic positivity in startups means the people not looking
| at the real issues role play startup while everything
| crumbles around them.
|
| Maybe it works out in big orgs but if it infects the team
| of a small org your work environment will be ruined when
| you are all laid off after months or years of overworking
| to make a blind optimist happy. Unemployment coincident
| with burnout is worse than some negative feedback during
| the process.
| Arainach wrote:
| What you're describing as toxic positivity is refusing to
| criticize things as they're happening. That's very
| different from not badmouthing people and teams behind
| their backs when they're not around to respond.
| svnt wrote:
| Yes, but I assumed that the lack of undercutting gossip
| not is what people are deeming "toxic positivity."
| hobs wrote:
| Well you are insanely lucky, its the default in most
| startups and many companies that I have seen consulting,
| working directly with, or otherwise. Leadership has no
| strategy, the business is growing or shrinking regardless
| of their decisions, the rank and file are restless
| because its obvious they are led by folks who have no
| idea what's going on, and nobody is allowed to talk about
| it.
| FitCodIa wrote:
| Precisely. Fuck "yes people", and the commitment to lying
| to ourselves / to each other about broken things, as an
| institutional strategy. If we always dismiss the
| negatives, then responsibility and accountability have no
| meaning. Every organization needs a few people who act as
| the org's mirror and conscience.
| hobs wrote:
| There's no reward for it, but it is required.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| > the best liars
|
| Maybe, but I think there's a piece where you can be
| _genuinely_ demonstrating in the interview context that
| you know how to reflect positively on an experience which
| obviously wasn 't that all great or why would you have
| left it.
|
| As an interviewer I'm not looking for IT WAS THE BEST WOO
| but rather "these were the elements I most appreciated,
| these were where I had opportunities to grow and push
| myself and here's what I ultimately got out of it." Yes,
| the "what went wrong" will be discussed too, but that's a
| different question, and as interviewee I look to pitch
| the downsides less in terms of "I had the worst
| boss/colleagues/projects/clients/whatever" and more of a
| circumspect kind of "elements A and B that had been
| really good early on were less of a priority later in my
| tenure, and I felt that management and I had differing
| priorities which was increasingly leading to unhelpful
| compromises in how things were done; although I stuck it
| out for some time to ensure as smooth a transition as
| possible, ultimately I came to feel that my seat would be
| better filled by some more aligned to the company goals."
| hobs wrote:
| Of course, but many of the interviewers are looking for
| you to be a fresh faced young pup whose had nothing but
| love and kisses from every previous position, hell I had
| my new job ask if they could call my last boss and talk
| with them in an interview like format - its wild.
| Magmalgebra wrote:
| > So you are saying it is better if the candidate lies.
|
| This is a toxic framing of an essential test.
| Constructing polite fictions is an essential skill for
| collaboration - no less essential than coding. Saying
| you're leaving in part because "your vision for the
| product has drfted from leadership's" tells me you
| probably think they were a pack of moronic baboons and
| that if you feel that way about some of your future team
| mates you can keep it under wraps.
| eloisius wrote:
| Exactly. It sounds like this test is working as expected
| based on the comments here. "Honest" might mean telling
| your coworker that their code sucks and you could do it
| better if they would just get out of your way. Tactful
| and positive would be saying they're off to a good start
| but here's some feedback. If someone can't describe their
| current or previous job in somewhat positive terms, I
| don't expect they'll be able to tactfully navigate
| difficult social situations in their new job.
| franktankbank wrote:
| Imagine if any other field operated this way, holy shit,
| how does tech only get away with this toxic shit? Good
| try their Joe, you only nicked the artery a little bit!
| Umm nope thats not how we cut the lumber Bill, don't
| worry though the rafters are invisible under the roof!
| int_19h wrote:
| > Constructing polite fictions is an essential skill for
| collaboration
|
| This is very much culture-dependent, not some fundamental
| truth.
|
| It is true for American culture, yes. There are many
| others.
| toast0 wrote:
| Is the candidate willing and able to find the positives
| in a negative experience?
|
| This is an important skill, because this job sucks too :P
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| Nobody is asking you to lie. Your previous job and
| coworkers may suck enough to pull watermelons through a
| garden hose sideways but the job interview is not about
| your previous job or coworkers. It's about showcasing how
| awesome _you_ are and how well _you_ accomplished
| whatever you managed to accomplish despite the suck. Keep
| the gripes to yourself even if for no other reason that
| it takes time away from tooting your own horn in a time
| limited situation.
| ortusdux wrote:
| "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an
| asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the
| asshole."
| maccard wrote:
| > most jobs are pretty shitty.
|
| If everywhere smells like shit, it's time to check under your
| own shoe. I've had shitty jobs, snd while nowhere is perfect
| it's definitely a stretch to say most jobs are shitty.
|
| > the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity
|
| Nobody is asking you to do that. When I'm interviewing a
| candidate I'm assuming that this is a situation that they're
| trying to impress/show themselves and if you're shit talking
| your previous jobs then what are you going to be like if we
| disagree, or when you are interviewing for your next job? All
| I'm asking for is don't shit talk your previous jobs and
| managers. If you can't do that for 45 minutes I'm not going
| to hire you.
| FitCodIa wrote:
| > If everywhere smells like shit, it's time to check under
| your own shoe.
|
| LOL, are you kidding? The _human condition_ is mostly
| shitty.
| lolinder wrote:
| Most humans don't feel that way most of the time. Barring
| extreme cases of trauma we tend to be moderately happy
| regardless of circumstances. If you find yourself unable
| to be consistently at least _neutral_ in a first world
| country that tends to be a mental health issue worth
| addressing.
| FitCodIa wrote:
| > Barring extreme cases of trauma we tend to be
| moderately happy regardless of circumstances
|
| This has been scientifically proved wrong. Sonja
| Lyubomirsky writes that people come with innate levels of
| happiness, and apart from temporary swings (in either
| direction, in response to life events and activities),
| and apart from hugely intrusive, foundational trauma,
| "level of happiness" tends to remain constant for any
| given person's lifetime, _and_ said level covers a huge
| spectrum, when viewed across people.
|
| You can train your mind and habits to increase your
| happiness, but still, in her famous book, she assigns 50%
| weight to what level you are born with, and says that,
| however you fine-tune yourself only amounts to the other
| 50%. And, since her book was published, more recent
| research assigns an _even higher weight_ to the innate
| level of happiness (i.e., higher than 50%). The sun
| _does_ shine differently on different people, and it 's
| not a mental health issue, it's just a given.
|
| Think about it: if someone is born with 100% happiness,
| and never thinks consciously about their own happiness
| level, they will _still_ be more happy (1 * 0.6 + 0 * 0.4
| = 0.6), roughly speaking, than a person who is born with
| 0% happiness, but does everything in their power to
| improve (0 * 0.6 + 1 * 0.4 = 0.4).
|
| > If you find yourself unable to be consistently at least
| /neutral/ in a first world country[,] that tends to be a
| mental health issue worth addressing.
|
| I do agree about this; just know that the playing field
| is not level at all, and people who are less than
| moderately happy most of the time are not outliers; they
| are frequent.
| bityard wrote:
| Call it "inauthentic" if you want but the reality is that the
| people who are interviewing you know they are going to have
| to work with you, and 99% of people prefer working alongside
| those who might boost their morale by demonstrating
| positivity and optimism (even if somewhat manufactured)
| instead of dwelling insufferably on all the negatives.
| dogleash wrote:
| >is just so inauthentic
|
| I agree and resent that work is just a place where I go to
| get lied to and lie right back. We've found that lying is a
| highly successful workplace strategy. But the point of the
| lying game is to never admit we're lying.
|
| The pretzels people will twist themselves in to avoid the
| cognitive dissonance of lying all the time and not wanting to
| be a lair is maddening. I find facing it head on is a
| refreshing frame.
|
| A bit of clarity taken from "The Complex Problem Of Lying For
| Jobs"
|
| > But over the years, I have broadened my definition of a
| lie, and I have realized that most of my interlocutors
| (including my younger self) had actually narrowed our
| definition of lie into uselessness in an attempt to feel
| better about our behavior in the job market.
|
| > If we set aside pedantic obsession over the technicalities
| of whether the exact words you said were a lie, as if we're
| all capricious djinn [...] If you have a good idea of what
| impression you are leaving your interlocutor with, and you
| are crafting statements such that the image in their head
| does not map to reality, then you are lying.
|
| https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/the-complex-problem-of-
| lying...
| nemomarx wrote:
| I feel like this is broad enough to make most social
| interactions lying - if someone asks how you're doing and
| you say "good" and don't immediately vent about issues,
| you're trying to create a different impression, and so on?
|
| in many polite circumstances people don't want to hear a
| truth, they want things to go smoothly and easily.
| dogleash wrote:
| >I feel like this is broad enough to make most social
| interactions lying
|
| They... kinda are tho. We even have a term specifically
| for that: "white lie."
|
| Sometimes, like in your "how are you?" example, various
| patterns of white lie ossify into social protocol where
| both participants are saying things they don't literally
| mean, but both participants know the game.
|
| You've probably heard of cases where anglosphere people
| go traveling, ask people how they are (or use any of our
| other non-literal pleasantries), and are surprised when a
| real answer is given.
| FitCodIa wrote:
| White lies are a necessary wrong; we just shouldn't turn
| them into a "modus operandi" at a company. Indeed I
| cannot wrap my brain around how white lies managed to
| turn into a social protocol in the Anglosphere.
| Dishonesty encoded in the most basic forms of verbal
| interaction. In comparison, when I say "good day" in my
| own language, it's truly not far-fetched that I _do_ wish
| you a good day, when I 'm greeting you.
| int_19h wrote:
| > if someone asks how you're doing and you say "good" and
| don't immediately vent about issues, you're trying to
| create a different impression, and so on?
|
| This is exactly how many people outside of US feel when
| they observe the customary American greeting exchange of
| "How are you?" / "I'm fine, thanks." when it's patently
| obvious that the person asking doesn't actually expect
| any other response even though the person responding is
| obviously not fine.
|
| Like, we get that this is a cultural thing and that it
| would be wrong to ascribe some profound meaning to such
| individual interactions. At the same time, it does make
| the overall culture look bad when that sort of thing is
| expected and even enforced.
| freejazz wrote:
| You're already not getting past my first round.
| jon-wood wrote:
| I think there's a degree to which this is true, I wouldn't walk
| into an interview and immediately start slagging off my old
| employer, but if you're interviewing me and get all worked up
| when I say bad things about them in answer to the question "why
| are you leaving your current job" that's on you and I won't
| regret not getting the job.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| That's your choice. It's not a bad idea to answer "why are
| you leaving your current job" with "i'm looking for greater
| opportunities to [the opposite of why you are leaving your
| job]" and people can read between the lines AND have less of
| the concerns they would if you went guns blazing on the
| bridges behind you
| pm90 wrote:
| You can be honest about why your previous employer wasn't
| the right fit without burning bridges. I really dislike all
| of this "reading between the lines" aren't Americans
| supposed to be direct?
| mrsilencedogood wrote:
| No, American big business talking heads are supposed to
| be direct. American workers are supposed to be demure,
| grateful to have health insurance, and slot perfectly
| into the cog slot they've been assigned. Someone who
| openly criticizes their former employer is showing they
| have opinions and will resist being mistreated. I mean,
| showing they're not a team player.
|
| Companies would much rather miss out on growth than have
| employees who have any kind of leverage over them.
| dontlikeyoueith wrote:
| > I really dislike all of this "reading between the
| lines" aren't Americans supposed to be direct?
|
| Only when talking to people beneath them. When talking to
| your superiors, you should be deferential and
| circumspect.
|
| American society is more hierarchical than a feudal
| aristocracy. It's just based on money, skin color, and
| gender instead of family name.
| aianus wrote:
| Similar to goblin mode in dating you should 100% be
| yourself but only if you already have money and don't
| particularly need a given job. This works best when you
| already have a job.
|
| You _want_ the shitty PHB megacorps to reject you so you
| don 't win to lose by getting a job you are going to
| hate.
| Wonnk13 wrote:
| I'm not sure I actually want to know, but what the hell
| is "goblin mode"?
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Goblin mode as a consultant is charging whatever high
| price will make you want to work on a project, not doing
| sales, only answering the phone when and for whom you
| want, and letting your work speak for itself.
| int_19h wrote:
| > I really dislike all of this "reading between the
| lines" aren't Americans supposed to be direct?
|
| You're talking about a culture in which the standard
| greeting is "How are you?", and the standard response to
| said greeting is, "I'm fine!" - _even when you 're
| obviously not fine_.
|
| So, no, it's very much not direct. If you want to see
| what a "direct" software engineering culture looks like,
| look at Eastern Europe. There, people will routinely say
| things like "this code is crap", and no-one (including
| the author of said code!) bats an eye at it because it's
| supposed to be taken at face value, not as an insult.
| BeetleB wrote:
| I don't work for people who want me to read between the
| lines.
|
| And bosses who read between my lines? Terrible.
|
| Read some communications book. Reading between the lines
| and using tact are the (literal) textbook cases of poor
| communicators.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| This is the part of the interview where they seeking to
| understand your maturity and discretion. The actual reason
| for leaving is not the right answer. An answer showing that
| you understand social norms and have great self restraint is
| the right answer.
| ponector wrote:
| That part of the interview is a bunch of bullshit questions
| and socially acceptable answers from both sides. It is simply
| to check is candidate agrees to play the game by the rules.
|
| Why are you looking for a new job? Because I have a dickhead
| manager and looking for a higher salary. But my answer will
| be I'm looking for new challenges, for opportunity to grow.
|
| Both sides are telling lies during the interview.
| incomingpain wrote:
| When I interviewed people I took this the other way.
|
| Someone who is going through the pain of looking for a new job
| is not going to like their current job.
|
| If when asked, their answer is satisfaction with your current
| job, when most jobs are miserable, then i m thinking you're
| being dishonest with me.
| watwut wrote:
| Newsflash, people looking for a job were either fired or
| unhappy about something.
|
| The insistence on hearing only pleasurable falsehoods is not
| healthy.
| clcaev wrote:
| This isn't always true. However, in the cases where it was
| incidental, your hiring manager is likely to be an
| enthusiastic reference.
|
| The harder case is when your performance is lagging and there
| is a reduction in force.
| pydry wrote:
| The culture is unhealthy but unless you are in a position of
| power you have to play along.
| pm90 wrote:
| Disagree. Change can start with anyone. Often its inspiring
| to see someone buckle the trend and "be real".
| pydry wrote:
| There's that culture of positivity and can-do attitude
| rearing its head again.
| projectazorian wrote:
| It frequently doesn't work, but even when it doesn't you
| may still win yourself some unexpected allies who feel
| the same way. Sometimes those allies are in high places.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| trust me, as someone who is probably genetically
| incapable of refusing the temptation to "be real", it's
| exhausting and often doesn't lead to good outcomes. but
| i'm glad it's possible that i inspire otherwise-quiet
| people with my bad attitude.
| clcaev wrote:
| I'm not sure this is always the best approach. You should not
| vent, clearly; and it takes two to tango. However, some
| concrete and professional differences in opinion do matter.
| This could be an opportunity to express how you deal with such
| a challenge. You might explain (without revealing proprietary
| information) a difference of how the company's (new?) direction
| diverged from your professional path, how you informed the
| organization with an open mind, evaluated options and
| collaboratively decided it was time to move on, with sufficient
| notice and transition assistance.
| lolinder wrote:
| I think there's some truth to what you're saying here, but
| there is room for some nuance.
|
| In the US context, you should refrain from blaming specific
| people and if you possibly can you should explicitly leave open
| the possibility that everyone involved was trying to do their
| best (even if you really don't think this is true). Project an
| assumption of good faith even if it's not deserved.
|
| But that said, you are looking for a new job and no one is
| going to be surprised to hear that there were things you don't
| like. More importantly, it's valuable to surface those things
| because you _want_ to know if the things you didn 't like are
| commonplace in the place you're interviewing.
| zhengyi13 wrote:
| This reads in essence as a reminder to be empathetic. Thanks for
| that.
| BartSpaans wrote:
| Relationships are always the most important thing in every line
| of work, and are often valued more than how good you are at your
| job.
|
| - Want a promotion? I hope your manager likes you
|
| - Need collaboration from colleagues? Better not be a dick to
| them
|
| - Want to look for new opportunities? Better have a network
|
| We are social beasts at the end of the day.
| bezier-curve wrote:
| Unfortunately this also seems to pave the way for cronyism, and
| people climbing up the ladder without merit to back it up. What
| should be considered is a balance between soft and hard skills.
| ctkhn wrote:
| True, but this is already how most management works
| regardless. If you don't optimize for the existing system you
| probably won't get high enough to change it at all.
| dakiol wrote:
| I guess it depends. I'm not really good at relationships, but I
| can be a very normal guy in almost every scenario. So, I'm not
| like asking my manager what did he do during the weekend (but
| if he talks about it, I listen and follow the discussion),
| nevertheless he's a professional and if I do my job the way
| they like it, I'll get a promotion (if I don't, then I need to
| switch to another company). Similarly, I'm not friend of my
| work colleagues, but I'm definitely not a dick. It's easy to
| not be a dick; it's not easy to be "friendly". I don't have a
| work network at all. The people I have worked with in the past
| are Linkedin connections now (I do have the phone number of a
| couple of people, though), but I have never relied on them to
| get a job (among other things, because they live in different
| cities, countries and continents).
|
| So, many of us are doing just good by being really really
| minimal social beasts. I think the key is to not being a dick,
| but that doesn't require being a social person in my
| experience.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| To me this feels like you are thriving on regularly getting
| promoted? My guess... maybe that is for you the required
| confirmation that you are doing well?
|
| Indeed I think the importance of a work network is overrated.
| My LinkedIn is hopelessly outdated and to switch jobs, all I
| seem to have/need is my CV and professional years. In my
| experience interviewing is very much like dating.
| mclau157 wrote:
| If a workplace is split into different functions, and your
| coworkers in your function are not great, it can be difficult or
| seem bothersome to try to bond with coworkers in a different
| function
| bityard wrote:
| In companies with highly compartmentalized roles, too much work
| to do, and annoying co-workers, it's easy to say, "that's not
| my problem, go away." (With a bit more diplomacy, I'd hope.) I
| have always prioritized trying to be the stereotypical helpful
| person who might not know the answer to your question, but
| usually knows who to ask. The more your name comes up in the
| context of "who knows how X works?", the better your job
| security and future prospects through networking.
| kccqzy wrote:
| A lot of times that stereotypical helpful person is so
| helpful that junior people never learn to get rid of their
| dependence on that person. I know that because I've been that
| stereotypical helpful person. I realized something was amiss
| when a junior person who had been on the team for two years
| still came to me every other day to ask me questions. They
| spent minimal amount of effort thinking on their own, and
| then simply decided to ask me. And when I explained the
| solutions, they only remembered it for a short time and then
| one week later proceeded to ask me almost the same question
| again. I suppose this is the kind of proto-vibe-coder before
| the age of AI.
| ctkhn wrote:
| There is an amount of this that needs to happen when you
| onboard to a team, but as new hires become more aware of
| the stack and where things are documented it should happen
| only for genuinely complicated things and the occasional
| brain fart. I have a junior who frequently asks me where
| things live in the code when you could ctrl-f to find the
| answer and it's pretty annoying.
| projectazorian wrote:
| That's when you give feedback that they should spend, say,
| 30 mins trying to sort the problem out for themselves
| before asking for help. And that they should take notes or
| ask over Slack so they can refer back to the answer.
| disambiguation wrote:
| I don't think OP is advocating for bonding necessarily so much
| as being on good terms with everyone, not burning bridges, etc.
| steele wrote:
| Now rank your direct reports and select half a million of salary
| worth from the bottom quartile to right-size your team by COB.
| Details to follow.
|
| sent from my iPhone
| ctkhn wrote:
| Had this happen to me and a teammate after an onsite where we
| were explicitly told "our team is safe from layoffs"
| rendall wrote:
| Yes: do remember that your coworkers are enduring similar
| stresses as you.
|
| Yes: do not snap, blow your top, yell, throw temper tantrums, act
| like a child.
|
| However, no: in many places and industries, you do _not_ have to
| rely on the good recommendation of your former boss or coworkers
| to get your next job. In fact, it may even be illegal for
| employers to disclose more than your dates of employment and job
| title. So, check the norms and laws in your region before staying
| in a toxic job, if you 're there only hoping things will get
| better enough for a decent recommendation.
| ArthurStacks wrote:
| In a high stress work environment, don't be an idiot who eats
| poorly, sleeps too little, drinks too much alcohol, and then
| thinks that during the day they can function at a high level
| without issues
| DonHopkins wrote:
| So what is the name of your company, and what is the name of
| your "culture" where it's ok to be racist?
| w111 wrote:
| Thanks a lot for posting this, I really needed it today.
| Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees.
| MichaelRo wrote:
| Unfortunately, in 20+ years and some 7 jobs in the meantime, I
| never ever got a job by means of an inside recommendation nor was
| I able to get someone I recommended to be hired.
|
| And the reason is, I'm a lowly engineer and that's all. I have
| zero clout, HR and hiring managers couldn't give a shit of whom I
| recommend. So if you "prioritize relationships" with an ulterior
| purpose (get hired eventually by some "relation"), then make sure
| you relate to the right people :)
| lnsru wrote:
| That's exactly my experience. I got once a position from my
| network. It was a foot soldier's position at classmate's dad's
| company. Decades later my network are same foot soldiers or
| leads of something like me. Nobody's there, who could hire me
| immediately in the case of emergency.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| +1, every time I've been asked _" do you know anyone to hire"_
| it's been anything but upfront. Just another way to see how
| desperate you are _[through your network]_... and by proxy, how
| hard to push.
| int_19h wrote:
| It really depends on company culture.
|
| To give a personal counter-example, I'm an engineer. Based on
| my recommendation, my current employer hired a person who was
| fired (not laid off, but actually fired!) from my previous
| workplace. And my recommendation was itself based on a
| recommendation of my friend who is a former colleague at the
| aforementioned previous workplace, and whose opinion I trust
| and value highly. Of course the hiree still had to pass the
| interviews etc, and that isn't easy in and of itself; but my
| personal recommendation was what got their foot in the door.
| alphazard wrote:
| In software, often the people are the source of stress. Building
| the software is easy to many in this industry, and the vast
| majority of the value produced came from someone who thought
| creating it was easy. Being surrounded by rock stars all doing
| something they find easy is sublime, and I encourage everyone to
| seek out those environments. They exist and are fleeting.
|
| The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and are
| trying to make it someone else's problem. They don't have vision
| for how they will accomplish what is asked of them. In their
| imagination, there is not a clear set of steps that can be burned
| down over the coming days and weeks to arrive at something of
| value. In their minds it is all chaos and uncertainty and they
| are desperate for the assurance of someone who knows what's going
| on.
|
| The relationships that one develops with each category of person
| are fundamentally opposite. One is about enticing repeated
| interactions: You really get it, how do we work together in the
| future? And the other is about keeping a polite distance to
| prevent repeated interactions. How do I avoid meetings, projects,
| shared responsibilities, and future employment opportunities that
| involve this person?
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| Not all relationships are equal, so don't just prioritize
| relationships, but those that are valuable.
|
| You can't ignore people who bad at what they do and are trying
| to make it someone else's problem, but you _can_ find allies
| who are good at what they do and want to take some pride and
| ownership in the same things you do.
|
| If someone doesn't have a vision for how they will accomplish
| what is asked of them, that's an opportunity for mentorship.
| They might not take it from you, but you can offer it.
|
| I actually think the really dangerous people are the ones you
| encourage people to seek out: those who think everything is
| easy. That to me is a sign of Dunning-Kruger. I'd rather sit
| down with somebody who says "I don't know yet how to solve
| this, but we'll work it out", than somebody who says "it's easy
| we don't need to think too hard about this" or "it's hard and
| so I won't even try".
|
| Also, meetings, shared responsibilities - they're part of
| getting stuff done as part of a team. Instead of trying to
| avoid them, try to improve them. Learn the people skills needed
| to help a person change their habits towards being the
| productive ally that adds to a team rather than takes away from
| it.
|
| It's not easy, it's hard, but you will figure it out. If I was
| working with you, I'd say "we", not "you" but alas...
| bumby wrote:
| > _If someone doesn 't have a vision for how they will
| accomplish what is asked of them, that's an opportunity for
| mentorship._
|
| I agree with your overall sentiment, but there's another
| dynamic which doesn't always lend itself well to a mentorship
| role: when the leader has no vision other than some vague
| concept. Sometimes we can politely corral them, but it's
| extremely frustrating when that "vision" is predicated on
| some magic, black box operation that they think happens and
| they won't listen to any technical advice on why their vision
| may not be feasible.
|
| To the OPs point, we have limited resources in time, labor,
| patience, etc. It's worth consciously deciding where those
| are best spent.
| j45 wrote:
| Software that is for a customer or end user is not about the
| builder alone, or primarily.
|
| Software is for people (end users/customers) to use, and is
| made to work for people.
|
| Learning the people side of building, and delivering, and
| helping people with it is key.
|
| Of course, some people in any office environment will play work
| in pursuit of achieving a daycare or high school for adults.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| I think it's also possible to build relationships with people
| based on potential. Not every superstar was born that way. Most
| of them had help along the way.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Folks might be surprised at how many of us would like to
| leave well enough alone. Crabs, bucket
| videogreg93 wrote:
| Not being a rock star but showing potential is great. But
| there are some people who are allegedly always busy, in over
| their head, etc. And these are the type of people I agree
| that should be avoided. I've found that more often than not
| these people are always wasting time in meetings, chatting it
| up, only to complain about lack of time 1 hour later.
|
| I'm not saying don't socialize and just work ; you just need
| to balance the two.
| fads_go wrote:
| > And the other is about keeping a polite distance to prevent
| repeated interactions.
|
| or, the other is about providing them the vision and the clear
| set of steps. Then checking their progress along those steps.
| (including revising the steps when the original plan diverges
| from the evolving reality).
|
| Training and mentoring the people so they can become rock
| stars.
| alphazard wrote:
| This comment and a sibling both brought up the issue of less
| experienced people and mentorship, which is important to
| clarify.
|
| Some incompetence is a known quantity, and when it is known
| it will not produce stress. The junior dev on the team might
| not know how to do something. The team leadership should
| already have priced that in, and have a plan to help them if
| need be. If the junior dev's incompetence is creating stress,
| the root cause is leadership incompetence.
|
| The kind of incompetence that produces stress is incompetence
| that is too impolite to mention. It can't be addressed
| through "mentorship" or "working together" because that would
| call the legitimacy of the role and the person filling it
| into question. Engineering managers who don't understand
| engineering, product managers who don't understand the
| product, etc. The list is long, and examples are common. The
| organization is built around the assumption that these people
| can do things that they are unable to do. That mismatch is
| the origin of stress.
|
| Investing time in the 1st kind of incompetence is a good
| investment because you will get a good return on your time
| invested. The junior dev with potential becomes the rock
| star. The 2nd kind of incompetence is often "Throwing good
| money after bad". These situations are not worth your time.
| There is unlikely to be an improvement, and you risk it
| backfiring especially if the problem is above you in the org
| chart.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and
| are trying to make it someone else's problem. They don't have
| vision for how they will accomplish what is asked of them. In
| their imagination, there is not a clear set of steps that can
| be burned down over the coming days and weeks to arrive at
| something of value. In their minds it is all chaos and
| uncertainty and they are desperate for the assurance of someone
| who knows what's going on.
|
| Lots of assumptions here, obviously the reality is much more
| nuanced than this.
| mrsilencedogood wrote:
| Well of course it's more complicated. But these 2 broad
| strokes do resonate with me as a meaningful bucketing. There
| are some people I see DMs from and go "ooh" and some people I
| see DMs from and go "well there goes my morning hand-holding
| them through something they should already both know and have
| internalized".
| alxlaz wrote:
| > some people I see DMs from and go "well there goes my
| morning hand-holding them through something they should
| already both know and have internalized".
|
| Pre-emptively, I'm not saying anything below applies in
| your case :-).
|
| A mismatch in the threshold of "they should already both
| know and have internalized" is where much of the friction
| in high-stress organisations comes from.
|
| I see a lot of people expecting, as the parent post put it,
| "a clear set of steps that can be burned down [to get to a
| good result]", but entirely oblivious to the fact that the
| people they expect it from:
|
| 1. Don't have the organisational authority to organise it
| -- they can do "their part" but they can't tell people on
| whose work they depend what to do.
|
| 2. Don't have access to the same task-specific information
| as the person who expects it of them, and don't know who to
| ask because teams are heavily compartmentalised and/or
| hierarchical.
|
| 3. Don't have access to the same kind of _organisational_
| information as the person who expects it of them.
|
| Much like responsibility, deflecting blame comes from
| above. In my experience, what the parent poster says is
| true: people who are bad at what they do and try to make it
| someone else's problem is probably the most common source
| of stress. But it is also my experience that the middle
| leadership layers of companies where this is a chronic
| problem is almost entirely populated by managers who try to
| make everything other people's problem, and whose teams end
| up having to deflect everything by proxy whether they want
| it or not.
|
| I think this is part of the nuance that's lacking in the
| parent post. It's very hard for someone to work
| significantly above their organisation's level.
| taurath wrote:
| Agree - initiative is not innate, it is trained and built
| with experience (of rewards for taking initiative), just
| as waiting for direction is trained and built with
| experience (of micromanagement and threats to safety).
|
| The worst of the worst in my experience is the person who
| ignores the existance of 1, 2, and 3, assumes their
| coworkers who have been conditioned to not stick their
| neck out are incompetent and are trying to "get one over"
| on everyone else, and uses that as moral justification to
| backstab people who would be happy to work with them. The
| sad part is that the result will only reinforce their
| belief system.
|
| You will always be surrounded by people, and how you
| regard them will inform your experience of them. If you
| allow yourself to force a false dichotomy on others, it
| will eventually be forced back on you.
| dogleash wrote:
| Very reasonable counterpoint. It's unfortunate you're
| addressing a bland dismissal that shouldn't carry weight on
| it's own. Everything is always more nuanced. Doesn't mean
| grantparent poster didn't have a good reductive shorthand.
| The dismissal didn't even bother trying to reframe.
|
| But it's always an uphill climb because there is an
| internally-consistent manager-brain line of thinking for
| the workspace they've created, and it's really good at Uno-
| reversing any criticism of workplace norms as a problem
| with criticizer.
|
| "Oh, you don't like working with people that are bad at
| their jobs? Sounds like someone's just not senior-ing hard
| enough."
| Qworg wrote:
| The issue with your last statement is that it _is_ part
| of your job and an increasingly important one at that.
|
| It is _also_ your job to make them less bad - this is
| good because your incentives are aligned.
|
| If they both can't be of use and can't be made better,
| then you need management to step in.
| bugh wrote:
| > "well there goes my morning hand-holding them through
| something they should already both know and have
| internalized".
|
| So where you work everyone works on the same things every
| day and the same patterns?
|
| Sounds pretty circular if everyone just lives by the subset
| of understanding you prefer.
|
| This is what smacks truest from my experience; companies
| stagnant because of workers like you focus on memorized
| maintenance routines. Internal evolution comes to a stand
| still as attention is put on memorization of existing
| process not evolution.
|
| Again just anecdotally coworkers like you describe could be
| put to evolving process they seem to not connect well to.
| But patronizing seniors who just know codified routine,
| hold orgs backs.
| rjbwork wrote:
| This is almost delusionally disconnected from the types
| of dysfunction I've seen among juniors after years of
| working at the same company where they should have
| learned some basic shit like being able to e.g. properly
| read a stack trace, diagnose an issue by
| reading/searching logs, not storing secrets in git, etc.
|
| I'm always willing to work with people on code/system
| design - in fact it's my favorite part of my job when
| someone says "how can I do this beter?" - but it is
| excruciating to have to handhold someone through a basic
| diagnosis routine for or provide the same basic feedback
| about logging or security the nth time.
| buuuutb wrote:
| You don't have to. You chose the work, the employer.
|
| In my experience your special literacy is everywhere
| these days. Lots of unemployed with your skills.
|
| Excruciating dealing with colleagues like you that think
| we come hear to read your intrusive thoughts about others
| effort. Whole lot of contexts you fall short in.
|
| More sad little man needing validation for his prior
| effort to get where he is. Eh, tough. Like I said your
| skills are everywhere; good job you're a VHS copy of a
| VHS copy?
|
| Great work following the social trend!
|
| ...Aside from configuration of machines others make, with
| software others make, what have you done that obliges us
| to bow and courtesy and earn your validation?
|
| This website is a toxic mess. Am psyched the world has
| seen enough of software dev now to understand it's real
| economic value, and the end of ZIRP pruning tech of empty
| economic effort.
| rjbwork wrote:
| I actually do a lot of mentoring and pairing. I actively
| move to get people that consistently fall short out of
| organizations. I'm sure there's plenty of work for people
| that consistently fuck up but can kind of stumble through
| making computers do stuff, I just don't want to work with
| them.
| gopher2000 wrote:
| Everyone: "Other people are so bad at what they do. Not me
| though"
| o_m wrote:
| Being/staying motivated is like half the battle. Once more
| than half of the team has stopped caring the project is
| essentially dead. You should get away as soon as possible.
| In my experience as long as you care about the stuff are
| doing you are better than the bottom half of developers.
| ngangaga wrote:
| Reality is always more nuanced. That's kind of reality's
| deal.
| bubbleRefuge wrote:
| a tech mentor once told me what makes a developer great is not
| how good or talented he is but how good he makes those around
| him be.
| motorest wrote:
| > The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and
| are trying to make it someone else's problem.
|
| There's some irony in the way you try to pin the blame on a
| third-party, and while trying to denigrate it too. I think it
| warrants some soul searching. I mean, would you feel stressed
| if you had to endure a team member who threw blanket
| accusations at your competence and in the process blamed you
| for causing grief to other team members?
|
| > They don't have vision for how they will accomplish what is
| asked of them. In their imagination, there is not a clear set
| of steps that can be burned down over the coming days and weeks
| to arrive at something of value.
|
| There's a lot to unpack there. Only a highly disfuncional team
| would throw a team member to the wolves and leave them out to
| fend for themselves on a task that is relatively complex. No
| wonder people would feel stressed in that environment.
| baketnk wrote:
| you have no idea how luxury this belief is.
|
| having been the guy fixing the third party's bugs at almost
| every position, i side with the parent.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| > The stress comes from people who are bad at what they do and
| are trying to make it someone else's problem.
|
| People who are currently bad what they do have their own work
| struggle, go home to their issue, have their hobbies and
| ambitions.
|
| I think the article strikes a very good point when it says you
| don't want to be remembered as _that guy_ but I would go even
| further in that it 's not only about your reputation. When you
| are _that guy_ , you are actually making everybody life
| slightly worse including your own.
|
| I think there is more value in acting and being remembered as
| someone who can lift up rather than as someone who is distant
| and self-interested. It's not that you should always be
| mindlessly helpful but you can be assertive, give honest
| feedback, help people realise when they should take
| responsibility and define directions without being a pushover
| or exploited. In my experience, that's how you make people
| actually want to work with you. These are obviously hard skills
| to develop (at least they were and still are to me) but they
| are how so valuable.
|
| To go back to your conclusion, for me it's more about "How do I
| convince the people I want to work with to work with me?" than
| about cutting people. After all, you will probably be the sole
| constant in all the work environments you will be a part of in
| your life so you are the biggest factor into making them work
| for you.
| toast0 wrote:
| In my experience there's several types of work stress in
| software.
|
| One is people / process stress; related to the steps needed to
| get work done, including approvals and negotiations to decide
| what to do.
|
| Another is operational stress; related to keeping a service
| running; some of that can be people or process stress, but if
| your service is growing rapidly it might just be organic
| operational stress.
|
| There's also the stress of getting the work done in a
| reasonable time.
|
| Some people are better at managing the different kinds of
| stress.
|
| Anyway, I think the moral of the post is when you rage quit,
| say "fuck this shit, I quit" rather than "fuck you all, I quit"
| ... keep the rage pointed at the system rather than the people
| :P Unless it's just like one person who is really intent on
| making your job hell. You might be able to get away with
| singling out one person, rather than doing the Oprah thing and
| "everybody look under your chair, you get a fuck you" :P
| disambiguation wrote:
| This seems like a very specific perspective, I take it you're
| the "Live to Work" kind of person?
| tacitusarc wrote:
| I think this characterization implies a dichotomy that
| bothers me.
|
| Work is certainly not my top priority, but I spend a ton of
| my time on my job, and I would like to feel fulfilled and
| happy doing it. Have capable colleagues that you can trust to
| pull their weight is a big part of that.
|
| In general, I've found that the clock-in, clock-out types
| seem to take their mediocrity as almost a badge of honor,
| with this feeling that by not working hard or accomplishing a
| lot, they ensure the business is not getting overmuch value
| out of them.
|
| This is so sad, IMO. If at all possible, work should be fun.
| As programmers, we have more opportunity for that than most,
| and should take advantage. Is that perspective "Live to
| Work"?
| mushroomba wrote:
| I would say that you are in a unique place of privilege in
| that regard. I believe the common experience of many people
| is that any task, if it be work, cannot be pleasing. The
| requirement to continue to complete any task in exchange
| for the necessities of life induces a disparity of spirit
| that will dull even the most hedonic of activities. The
| snuffing out of the freedom to choose to do the task is
| what induces pain into the experience.
|
| For my part, I choose to have a good attitude about work. I
| am grateful for the opportunity to work. I do the best I
| can so that I can be proud of how I have spent my life. But
| I would never expect any job or any work to provide me
| fulfillment or happiness.
| disambiguation wrote:
| The person I replied to claims their work based social
| interactions are totally utilitarian and transactional -
| very Patrick Bateman. Should work be fun? Of course, in
| fact every part of life should be good and fun for everyone
| all the time, yes? But realistically, I wouldn't have any
| fun working with this guy. If other peoples "mediocrity" is
| spoiling the "fun" for you, then you should consider
| building your own fun zone - no boring, mediocre people
| allowed.
| taurath wrote:
| I think your statements belie a sense of honor in both
| trying to find enjoyment and in developing master with what
| you do. But I also don't think the underlying dichotomy is
| the how the GP phrased their characterization of others as
| "bad" and "making it someone elses problem".
|
| That implies not only a value judgement dichotomy but also
| an added heap of shame of the morality on those on the
| wrong side of that value judgement.
|
| Those are not the same things as being okay doing the work
| you're paid for and not reaching higher - people who do
| that may have a much better sense of the business value
| they are providing, and may be trying to avoid an
| experience of being exploited, or prioritizing their health
| and well being for the long term rather than the short term
| needs of the organization that pays them. There's often not
| a good way to know who is who.
|
| Most of the time when enticed with a reward, people will
| work harder. When they aren't enticed enough, they tend not
| to, and that level is different for everyone. Companies
| seek those who have internal reward structures so they
| don't have to offer very much to entice people.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| 100% agree and is exhausting.
|
| The stress is just not that apparent in environments where
| projects tend to fail anyway, or environments that provide lots
| of job stability.
|
| You basically get paid for being present instead of actually
| produce something useful.
|
| I don't understand why one would want to work in such an
| environment, except when you're soft-retiring / soft-quitting
| EGreg wrote:
| Oh man I wish I knew I was being paid to be present and
| available
|
| In my last full time job I worked for a tech consulting
| company that rented us out to teams at financial instutions
| that managed insane amounts of money. This was in 2021 before
| AI was common. I worked remotely, and the first month didn't
| do anything -- just waited for the corporate laptop to arrive
| etc. Then I worked 2 hours a day.
|
| But I had to put 8 hours in the timesheets, and select what
| projects I was working on. And I always had a feeling of
| guilt about that, like I was helping my consulting company
| charge hours that I wasn't really working. I just kept
| finishing the tasks I was assigned in the sprints, and then
| there was nothing more to do. I didn't aggressively ask for
| more work, just took on what others did. This went on for a
| while, and I felt guilty. Working on my startups in the
| meantime, like those people who work multiple jobs. I didn't
| realize this happens a lot.
|
| On one of my calls with my immediate manager I mentioned I
| had some downtime -- and he was like "oh you have downtime?
| That's not good." And then it became his problem. And I didnt
| get more work but from then on I felt this tension with him,
| and probably others downstream of it. Nothing concrete, but
| just the feeling slightly changed, for a few weeks. So I
| nicely resigned after 6 months, saying to HR that investors
| funded my startups but they want me to work on them fulltime.
| So I left on good terms.
|
| I regret it, though, in retrospect. Because of my ethics I
| missed out on income that could have helped my family and
| people around me. That was a great salary for remote work 2
| hours a day, and I would have invested over half of it in
| crypto and probably 3xed it all by now. I only left because
| my ethics bothered me, but I learned later how often "full
| time" jobs really aren't. Like, at all!
| 90s_dev wrote:
| Thomas More would be proud.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Yep. I totally feel you. And then you see people just fill
| in 8hrs every day for the same stuff.
|
| They don't care about reality. They care about
| accountability. As long as the numbers are right,
| everybody's happy. And if you're out of budget. Hooray, one
| difficult meeting and everybody, the consulting agency, the
| champion inside, a few manager, get a nice increase in
| their budget and team size.
|
| Unfortunately it's not about the product, impact, quality,
| etc.. it's just a game, and everybody's just taking from
| the corporation/their customers (ultimately consumers).
| throw4847285 wrote:
| I've worked with many people like you, and I can say from
| experience that they are never as competent as they think they
| are. Often they are quite competent, and yet somehow they still
| overestimate their own skills and make life harder for
| everybody.
|
| The type of person in question can be understood as somebody
| who equates technical skill with "not needing help." It's
| implicit in your post. Your mythical rock stars are extremely
| talented individuals, while what sets the incompetent apart is
| apparently their need for assurance from others.
| lionkor wrote:
| It's a fine line, between blind, numbing incompetence and
| blind, bulldozing skill, and it's probably best to make sure
| youre never too close to either.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Indeed. Completely absent from the calculus are those who are
| glaringly ignorant as to their lack of knowledge or skill yet
| nevertheless supremely confident, and unchecked, will happily
| blaze a trail of carnage as far as they can travel.
| alphazard wrote:
| The most competent software engineers (which I referred to as
| rock stars) don't know how to do everything. It can appear
| that way to someone unfamiliar with software. The best have a
| keen self-awareness of their abilities. They understand how
| much time it would take them to figure something out, and
| their likely success rate. When they give good estimates and
| have accurate confidence in their abilities, they create
| predictability for others around them. That makes them a net
| sink for stress.
|
| Professional competence is literally the set of the things
| you can do without needing help. That doesn't mean you never
| ask for help. It just means there is an expectation that you
| can accomplish some things on your own. If you need help with
| everything forever, then you are fundamentally not useful and
| not coachable (which is worse). When needing help is
| anticipated and transient, that's a non-event. When your job
| is mostly things that you are expected to do yourself, but
| you need help with all of them, that creates stress for your
| peers and subordinates.
| vladgur wrote:
| Am I the only one that finds nothing positive about the term
| "rock star" in when applied to people you work with?
|
| I want to work with smart and accommodating individuals who are
| team players.
|
| None of these qualities are what we expect of rock stars. When
| I hear "rock star" - I fear a cult of one.
| lazystar wrote:
| thats a management problem. if management treats someone like
| a rock star, the team takes notice and reacts accordingly.
| geijoenr wrote:
| I think this is almost spot on.
|
| There is also people with just toxic personalities that
| everybody tries to avoid. In Europe unfortunately, is not easy
| to get rid of such characters and they often victimize teams
| and jeopardize entire projects.
|
| Septic avoidance and minimizing interactions, sticking to
| process and keeping the distance are absolutely necessary for
| mental health.
| pugworthy wrote:
| > They don't have vision for how they will accomplish what is
| asked of them.
|
| Or they don't have the vision to know how others will
| accomplish what they are asking for.
|
| This is a big struggle for me; people who want to play product
| owner, and make requests that are very ignorant of work
| required. Or think they know just what work is required and
| spell out development approaches despite not having any
| background or experience in software development.
|
| They key really is getting to know what it is they really want
| to do and then deliver a solution. Which can be its own
| exercise in frustration.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Sometimes "bad at what they do" is a manifestation of the
| environment in which they're doing the thing as opposed to
| incompetence. If the environment is healthy and is
| understanding of the asking of "stupid questions", that
| promotes a better exploration of both the problem and the
| potential solutions, which act to help form the vision of the
| path to the solution.
|
| This is much easier when the relationships within the work
| environment are "good".
|
| I work with a bunch of different personality types and
| geniunely like almost all of them. It just takes time to work
| out each individuals quirks and work with / around them.
| eviks wrote:
| Stress is also what makes it hard to develop those relationships
| taraindara wrote:
| Going through this now in my job. This was a great reminder that
| I'm not alone in all of this. It's funny how easy it can be to
| feel like I'm the only one that's struggling.
|
| And it's true about the "fuck yous". It instantly reminded me of
| an old coworker that was let go and was trying to joke about it,
| but the F U sticks aside from anything else he accomplished while
| there.
| xrd wrote:
| How do you do this in a remote environment?
| wussboy wrote:
| Keep your camera on. Say hello to everyone on your team every
| morning. Engage in idle chit-chat on Teams.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| The majority of work behavior and relationship advice can be
| summarized down to 3 points.
|
| 1. Be nice.
|
| 2. Don't be an asshole.
|
| 3. Don't be a push-over. (Arguably the hardest as many people
| read that as "be an asshole". It is not.)
|
| The same applies in remote environments.
| _ink_ wrote:
| Yup, my relationship failed, because I was grinding in a startup
| (that also failed). It wasn't the only reason, but it had a big
| effect. Don't be like me.
| Daisywh wrote:
| I relate to this a lot. A few years ago I was stuck in a toxic
| team. Every day felt like survival. I almost walked out one day
| after a heated meeting, but I stayed quiet, and a teammate
| quietly checked in with me later. That connection ended up
| helping me find a much better job a year later.
|
| The job felt disposable, but that small human moment stayed with
| me.
| junikaefer wrote:
| Yeah, I completely agree about the article. I left shitty jobs
| always with a bang, but reference checks are not a thing (yet)
| where I live and they even don't want to see work certificates.
| i_love_retros wrote:
| > think of the other person who is begging you and how it impacts
| them.
|
| Even though they are probably your manipulative narcissistic
| manager or coworker?
| zphds wrote:
| In a high-stress environment, try to sleep well and eat healthy.
| Sleep is important!
| nottorp wrote:
| Why not "prioritize keeping your resume up to date and shiny" ?
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Good advice except that the work causing the stress closes you
| in. Squeezes the opportunities to prioritise relationships. Takes
| the time away. I'm talking about literally not a minute left in
| the day ... except to maybe post some horseshit on HN.
| motohagiography wrote:
| funny how orgs reward people who hold grudges but not people who
| let them go or who just set normal adult boundaries.
|
| i'm 'that guy' prety much everywhere, and one reason is that I
| really just like what I do and am usually committed to the
| mission over the org. defying pournelle's iron law plays out
| predictably though.
|
| another reason is Pfeffer's triad, where power in any situation
| is a local weighting of Performance, Credentials, and
| Relationships. I trade on performance and cred, where my
| relationships are often polarized because of the imbalance being
| heavy in those other weightings.
|
| a friend once described it as the relative skills of an indoors
| cat vs. an outdoors cat, where an outdoors cat catches all the
| mice and keeps off some larger animals but will probably scratch
| the furniture and cause a stink once in a while, whereas an
| indoors cat keeps the house mostly mouse-free, uses a litter box,
| but doesn't survive long outside, and if you don't empty the
| litter box often enough you get toxoplasmosis gondii and become a
| zombie.
|
| managing indoors and outdoors cats together is an art.
| dpe82 wrote:
| This reminds me of a research study Google conducted on itself
| some years ago asking the question: "What makes a team effective
| at Google?". They found the most important to be psychological
| safety.
|
| https://rework.withgoogle.com/en/guides/understanding-team-e...
| https://archive.is/fFEgI
| otp209 wrote:
| > asking the question: "What makes a team effective at Google?"
|
| considering "effective at Google" == projects destined for the
| Graveyard, I feel like they could've been asking themselves
| better questions
| tasuki wrote:
| Fuck that.
|
| I think I've been nice to my coworkers for over a decade. If I
| had felt the need to tell them "fuck you", I absolutely would
| have. Choose who you work with, and perhaps you won't have to say
| "fuck you".
| neilv wrote:
| In the kind of "high-stress work environment" they're talking
| about (it's a dysfunctional, toxic kind), the only example they
| give for value of relationships is getting recommendations
| afterwards.
|
| Relationships can also help you mitigate the dysfunctional
| environment while you're there, with huge benefits to your
| health.
|
| (Don't underestimate when people say stress kills you: it's not a
| video game health meter that recovers quickly and fully at the
| end of of an encounter; that bad stress is damage from which you
| never fully recover.)
|
| But also be aware that supportive relationship oases in a
| dysfunctional environment can also slow leaving a place where you
| really-really should.
|
| Some people need to be told to be more loyal than they are, but
| some people need to be told when loyalty is killing us and not
| doing any good. (Seriously, your supportive colleagues are
| probably bittersweet glad to see you escape, and you leaving
| might even give attention/leverage of management to help fix org
| problems, or encourage colleagues to expedite their own escape.)
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I try to apply this advice to almost all relationships. It
| reminds me of the famous quote, "Be nice to everyone you meet
| because they are fighting a battle you know nothing about, and
| that I can say from experience." [0]
|
| I see life as emotional combat, that I'm always dealing with so
| many conflicting conflicts at the same time that I'm trying my
| best to manage everything and so is everyone else. It has been
| helping me SO much just to frame life this way.
|
| [0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/williams-fighting-
| battle-q...
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Could you elaborate what you get out of that quote? I consider
| myself reasonably kind to people in general, but if people
| treat me badly I tend to take it personal.
| motbus3 wrote:
| The source of stress is usually someone else's relationship
| otp209 wrote:
| I don't mix relationships with work. Being kind to people for the
| purposes of recommendations is not the same as a relationship.
|
| Relationships are a thing I support outside work. Inside work, I
| might build rapport and expand my professional network; that is
| NOT THE SAME as meeting people for the sake of pursuing
| relationships, and as much as possible one should be kept away
| from the other.
| gdubs wrote:
| Many of you are more valuable than you realize and it pains me to
| read so many comments about how you need to frame things "just
| so" in an interview, or "be careful not to lose your patience
| ever".
|
| It's dehumanizing, and it undervalues your inherent worth and
| skill set.
|
| Obviously don't be a jerk. Beyond that you will really damage
| your mental well-being if you're constantly trying to put on a
| certain face or worry how things will "play" with recruiters.
|
| The best advice is to try to stay generally optimistic and
| collaborative, and to take pride in your craft and lead by
| example. But also not to discount the fact that you might in fact
| be more capable of following your passions and starting your own
| thing than you realize.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-13 23:01 UTC)