[natepollack]

I'm the kind of developer the article mentions (at least some of my previous colleagues like to think so). But here is the deal. It is hard to work with me if you don't want to put enough energy into your own work. Because at my previous job there were people who told me that it is impossible (for them) to work with me, and all I could see that they didn't add ANY value to the project, but made me do stupid things like using Google Docs to track my tasks, instead of Basecamp which I already used with others for quite some time. And you know what? If you are this kind of person then it is super hard for me to not get pissed every time you open your mouth. I'm not the kind of guy to smile at you if you try to make my work harder than it already is.

And there were people who said that working with me was the best part of their job, but they were hard working and smart. And I really liked to work with them too. Every story has two sides.

I don't mean that Jason (OP) is not right! He probably is. But you can't generalize this as easily as the article says. Sometimes not the mean developer is at fault but the stupid management (even if there is more of them).

[vinceguidry]

The thing you need to realize is that the company is bigger than you are. If you can't work out a way to get along with others in your company, then you are the problem and not the people you perceive to be doing things wrong. You should go find a place that better fits your way of doing things.

I bounced out of a big company for that and other reasons. I just could not deal with the culture. I work at a smaller company now, and am much happier, though it's still not a perfect fit.

The reality is that it's almost never a perfect fit. In these cases you have to realize that it's you that has to adapt to the company and not the other way around. I have an idiom that I use for these situations. "It's the job". It's the part of the job that they're paying you to do, that you don't like to do, but you do it anyway because that's the job. Make a rational decision to either get along with others or leave the company.

You can't have it both ways, they are paying you and not the other way around.

Now, I'm not saying you should give in to every idiot who wants you to change how you do things. You should definitely fight back against stupidity. But you have to learn to pick your battles and recognize when it's you that's being dumb and not them. And also realize that the apology is the cheapest and most effective career tool you have at your disposal. Nothing smooths over bad feelings like a well-worded apology. Try to do it even when it's not your fault.

[tonyarkles]

I find this very interesting: "...they are paying you and not the other way around."

I've spent a fair bit of time consulting now, and one of the key things to remember is that in a functional relationship, the employer is extracting more value than they're paying the employee! If it's the other way around (as an average), the company is going to be bankrupt.

My go-to catch phrase is: If you don't like how things are run, you can "change your organization" or you can "change your organization". I.E. you can either put effort into fixing things, or you can put effort into finding a new job.

You can plan your strategy based on the value that your team is providing. If your team costs $X and you're making $4X, you've got pretty solid leverage to state that you guys know what you're doing and want to make things better (or you'll leave). Alternatively, if you're at $0.9X ROI, you can probably make a good argument that you can turn things around from losing money to making money.

[natepollack]

Problem is: it was my company, my idea. I just trusted the wrong co-founder, who started hiring his lazy friends. When I confronted him about this he said that I should just work on the tech beause he knows how to run a successful company. Eventually he fired me, because they couldn't work with me. Now they spend they time on buying Twitter/Reddit followers/likes, which I'd have never agreed on, because the company itself is quite privacy sensitive. And they most likely will make a bunch of money with it.

Every story has two sides. But I really appreciate your comment.

[laughinghan]

Your story sound unfortunate, and I hope you bounce(d?) back from it.

But your story also sounds very different from what the article is about. The parable in the article is not a story with two sides. The basketball team's performance was objectively measurable thanks to the championship games, and the team performed objectively worse with the skilled but hard-to-work-with player, and performed objectively better without him.

In your story, you say the other team members "didn't add ANY value to the project" and "try to make [your] work harder than it already is". In the parable, the semi-pro player, in spite of being the best player in the league, was adding NEGATIVE value to the team.

If you were hardworking and smart and completed your tasks while your teammates were lazy and didn't accomplish anything and just complained about not being able to work with you, then they (and the person who fired you instead of them) are the problem, not you.

[vinceguidry]

I see no reason why both stories can't be shared and learned from. They're somewhat different, but it's all the same lessons we need to learn.

[krschultz]

Don't worry, this whole saga sounds like it won't make much money at all.