[shrineOfLies]

Over generalized and inane comment. He/She clearly states that their progress was objective and benefitted the company.

Every knows that in any workplace, corporate politics is expected, but not to an extent where someone gets sick, or frustrated after contributing so much. There is a reason meritocracy is needed, and amazon is an extreme case where meritocracy is not present, and will lead to its own collapse if not checked, which is exactly what he states.

[therobot24]

>> "I accomplished my goals, but I didn't gain peer support...partly because in order to accomplish my yearly goals I had to alienate my peers. I had to tear down their pet projects that were inhibiting progress, I had to inform them of misinterpretations of data that they held dear, and I had to make specific types of failures as obvious and clear as possible, whether that was with a bug report or a published analysis. This does not bode well for a promotion process that ultimately relies on having people like me. In order to do my job, I had to destroy my own political capital."

The author clearly acknowledges that they're not only ignoring politics, but actively "alienating" themselves from their peers to achieve the best performance they can.

>> "So why was I not promoted? There are fair criticisms of my personality that I'm willing to accept as legitimate, but my performance was real and measurable."

Despite these characteristics the author still expects and insists that they deserve a promotion because of the 'merit'.

Hence the TLDR.

[wisty]

Without specifics, it's hard to tell.

It could be "I was working with dangerously incompetent buffoons, and they got upset when I demonstrated that their projects where bug-ridden / physically impossible".

Or the OP is nuts.

Or it's somewhere in between, the OP had reasonable points but the managers struggled to understand them (or the OP had trouble getting them across). In this case, there's a fair bit of management / communications incompetence on both sides.

[therobot24]

>> Without specifics, it's hard to tell.

I'd agree in most situations, however, given that it's not uncommon for many at Amazon to move to Google, Microsoft, et al. we can make a general assumption that the average engineer isn't a "dangerously incompetent buffoon" (outliers can occur, but a whole team of such is very unlikely).

Also, OP is probably not nuts, more likely a narcissist as other have commented. Of course there's many posts out there stating that management is not functioning as it should - OP paints the same picture, however, the statement provided by the author also tells of continuously combative attitude.

[ubercore]

While reductive, I do agree with your TLDR here. The sub-text for me reading that, and I admit this may say more about me than OP, is that she sounds like she helped to make a culture that would have made _me_ develop kidney stones. I find OP's view of what the workplace "should" be a pretty insular an inflexible one.

[dragontamer]

> Over generalized and inane comment. He/She clearly states that their progress was objective and benefitted the company.

Which is utter bullshit.

All progress is subjective. You can make up all the charts and numbers you like, but its not necessarily his / her job to decide on the priorities.

Honestly, there's no real point developing metrics if you can't convince upper management that the metrics you've developed are in fact superior. Selling metrics is part of your job.

It sounds to me like the anonymous github post assumed that everyone would agree with his/her math, and was pissed off that they didn't. Even if we _assume_ this "self-made" learner who couldn't work with PH.Ds or whatever did his/her math correctly... part of the job is indeed making sure everyone is on the same page and understands exactly what you're doing.

Lets look at the github post.

>> I am an autodidact (my formal education only tangentially describes what I can do), and a polymath (capable of holding my own amongst PhD-level Operations Researchers, Statisticians, Econometricians, Data Scientists, Computer Scientists, as well as Software Engineers).

That is factually false. If he/she was truly holding his own against the other researchers, then upper management would trust his/her numbers and metrics.

There's almost no point to "winning" hypothetical chatter debates by the water cooler. The important battle is convincing everyone else (such as upper management)

[gotrecruit]

yeah about that last line you quoted, something rubbed me in the wrong way. OP was articulate and does come across as intelligent but people who say shit like they are autodidacts, polymaths who can hold their own amongst PhDs, etc... the people in real life whom i've heard say similar hot air stuff often ends up not as good as they claim, when challenged by someone who is truly an expert.

[x0x0]

author also wrote

   I always prioritized my work based on a cost/benefit estimate. Amazon 
   culture always places higher priority on work that direct-line superiors 
   consider higher priority. If I had a billion dollar project in the backlog, 
   I could still have my time redirected towards a Senior Manager's pet project 
   or a Director's pet peeve.  [...]  I had to directly refuse to work on a VP
   escalation

So basically, (s)he was difficult to manage and assumed, at a relatively low level of visibility, to know better how to allocate his or her time than the relevant management chain. And stunningly, was not well rewarded for this behavior.

[adekok]

Or to put a positive spin on it, this person was hired to do a job, was good at it, but was prevented from doing so by internal corporate politics.

I've worked at companies where meeting major customer deliverables fell through the cracks. The managers simply didn't notice, and didn't care that the software was late and/or non-functional.

What is an engineer to do?

a) say he knows better, and get called "difficult to manage" by your criteria

b) give up, and let the managers run the company into the ground.

[DannyBee]

" The managers simply didn't notice, and didn't care that the software was late and/or non-functional."

So then maybe it wasn't important? (I don't know, i'm just suggesting maybe this goal was not as important to the business as you think it was. :P)

"let the managers run the company into the ground."

Look, if you escalate stuff up your chain, and the answer comes back "no, please do what they are telling you", then either do it, or find another job.

Otherwise, yes, you are "difficult to manage" The fact that you think it's running the company into the ground is an opinion, and one apparently not shared by the people responsible for directing work. So while you are welcome to shout such a thing from the rooftops, if you don't actually do what you are supposed to be doing (and note, very carefully, what you are supposed to be doing is not what you think is the right thing, but what the business thinks is the right thing), you are difficult to manage.

[adekok]

> So then maybe it wasn't important? (I don't know, i'm just suggesting maybe this goal was not as important to the business as you think it was. :P) "let the managers run the company into the ground."

This was for a small company (<100 people) with good visibility from sales to engineering.

The main customer who comprised a good chunk of sales had hard requirements for the software. Both in terms of functionality, and in terms of deadlines.

They came close to being missed because the managers spent their time focussing on "fun" and "pet" projects, for 1/10 of the revenue.

What I find most disturbing about your comments is the implicit assumption that managers know best, and that engineers should shut up. There is no question that incompetent managers exist.

A knee-jerk response of "maybe managers know best" is perhaps best answered by "maybe they don't".

[dragontamer]

a) is certainly wrong. Not only are you "difficult to manage", but no engineer that follows you will be able to work with your "toxic" code.

The politics are important. If the politics are wrong... you've got to fix the politics. Otherwise any technical change will be washed away within the next 6 months or so.

In the best case, you do the correct work behind everyone's back and the wrong managers get the wrong promotions due to your hard work that went unrecognized. Everyone worth a damn starts hopping off the toxic boat using your case as an example. Things get degenerate very quickly... and you don't want to be the "last sane person" steering the ship.

b) is much better, especially since "giving up" is not nearly as bad as it looks. You can transfer to another manager within the company. You can transfer to another company all together, or pivot elsewhere.

[x0x0]

yeah, difficult people always scream politics

after reading that post, my prob that the author is a very difficult person is 0.995. Or maybe higher.

And the managers at amazon appear not to be running the company into the ground by, say, measures like company success.

[dragontamer]

> yeah, difficult people always scream politics

True, but the converse is not necessarily true either.

Not necessarily. My sister is in a position with horrible office politics. Honestly, office politics is often much lower to the ground than you'd think and is maybe only related to one boss or two bosses above you. (Affecting ~50 to ~200 people).

Middle Managers have a tough job, and too many middle managers fail to do their job at all. A completely epic fail middle-boss can break a team apart.

Even just an "adequate" middle manager will fail to reward the proper behaviors consistently (or punish poor behaviors consistently).

Honestly, if you're in a dire situation... its best to GTFO. But not necessarily out of the company... maybe out to another management chain is enough to get away from toxic team politics.

[waterlesscloud]

In my experience large, successful companies can be harboring a very large number of incompetent or irrelevant managers. The parts of the company that work often do so spectacularly and sometimes carry the bulk of the company that's broken.

Eventually the tide goes out and reveals who's been swimming naked, but that can take decades.

The point is- you definitely cannot look at a successful company and infer that all (or even most) of management knows what its doing.

[adekok]

> after reading that post, my prob that the author is a very difficult person is 0.995. Or maybe higher.

Oh, quite possibly. That doesn't negate the idea that perhaps their managers goals were opposite to Amazon's goals.

[richardwhiuk]

Yeah, that was the bit that struck out for me. Fundamentally, an organization is impossible to manage if everyone thinks that they know best. If you argue to your line that you think that the company should do X (or more precisely, the company should pay you to do X), and lose, then you have three options:

a) Do it anyway. The company will judge you as incapable of being managed correctly and will leave you with no responsibility because you haven't displayed it.

b) Don't do it. Everyone will be happy. You may be right, but people won't care. If you want it done in the future, bring more evidence and suggest it again. Work out what people's objections are. Bring it up without implying everyone was stupid for not doing it in the first place.

c) Leave. If you really do know best, why aren't you running your own business?

[adekok]

> c) Leave. If you really do know best, why aren't you running your own business?

That's not a good answer. A person staffing an assembly line making widgets may know how to double through-put. They do not know how to sell widgets.

It's unreasonable to expect them to "start their own business" because they're competent at their job, which is probably one out of 100 jobs in the company.

As for (a) and (b), I also find those outcomes unsatisfactory.

There are people who manage to get promoted in corporate hierarchies precisely because they can solve problems. By your choices (a) and (b) above, doing anything is bad, and will result in bad outcomes.

[dragontamer]

Honestly, c) should read

c) Leave: there are plenty of good middle managers who protect you from toxic politics from above. Find one, and stick with them.

In fact, that is almost explicitly the job of a middle manager. They provide you (and the rest of the team) clear direction when upper-level politics get toxic, and weather the storm by providing a good "face" for your project. The middle manager worries about the politics while you the engineer work your ass so that the middle manager doesn't have to take a fall.

As I've stated in other posts in this topic, you don't necessarily have to leave the company. And its often very possible to find another manager close by who can be a positive influence on the team. It may take a few tries though...

[DannyBee]

"As for (a) and (b), I also find those outcomes unsatisfactory."

That's great. It's not your company :) Seriously.

It seems you don't want to accept that it's someone else's choice what work should be happening and that you don't want to start your own business so it can be your choice.

You want some magical third option where your intrinsic brilliance is magically recognized.

This will never happen, and surprise, the average person thinks they are above average :)

Everyone thinks they know better. That doesn't make them right, despite how much they really want to believe they understand everything. Maybe some of them do. But you can't help those who don't want to be helped, and you should just go where you are actually appreciated

[adekok]

> That's great. It's not your company :) Seriously.

No, what I meant was your explanation of the outcome is unsatisfactory. All of the outcomes you described are negative.

I don't believe that all choices result in negative outcomes. Companies succeed, and so do people inside of companies. Therefore, your description of the problem and/or outcomes is wrong.

[angersock]

So, I'll just put on my angry hat here, and say what a lot of us are probably thinking:

For b, life is too goddamned short to waste hours making other people feel like their fuckups weren't fuckups. Once you get the deep-in-your-bones acceptance that a company doesn't care what you're doing (as is clearly the case if the winning strategy isn't to, you know, do the optimal thing for the product), then it's a question of, "How I can exert minimum effort and get maximum return?".

That's fucking toxic.

[DannyBee]

"He/She clearly states that their progress was objective and benefitted the company."

Objective? By what standard?

"benefitted the company"

By whose measure? By their own?