[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.