[ThomaszKrueger]

I achieved some level of happiness when I managed to go up the earnings ladder (move frequently, move fast) and stop behaving if it was my own business. It is someone else's business, and I am there to do what they ask me. Which may or may not match to what they need, but that's not for me to decide.

When things go wrong, you either move on or start fixing things, and that perpetuates your job (hopefully). If things take more time, it is their time. I come in at 8am, leave at 4pm. I don't take my laptop home. I don't work from home. I see their inefficiencies as opportunities for me to spend time on things like learning and experimenting.

But that's me. I get paid enough, I don't need or want to go up the "career ladder". Others may have loftier goals.

[anonseeker]

How do interview when this is your mindset?

I ask this sincerely because this is the mindset that I've noticed has made me the happiest and I'm currently looking for a new place that will pay me more. I've been happier when earning more and working less. I don't really care about what I do while at work or whether I'm using a hot technology or what the company does. This doesn't mean I care about what I'm doing. I do care and put effort in during the work day and I've always had high praise from managers.

Unfortunately, in order to distinguish themselves, pretty much every company wants to market themselves as such a great place to work and of course they ask the question "Why do you want to work here?" when for me the honest answer would be "I would want to work there if you pay the most and I can stick to a max office time of 8 hours per day." But I play along and say generic things about the product and people and show interest.

I find meaning in my life outside of work and more money helps me achieve my outside goals which makes me happy.

[ThomaszKrueger]

Oh you learn that "you just don't say things like that". Interviewing is a lot like sales, where you are the product. So it stands to reason that the "truth" is a movable entity. You build the truth your "client" is looking for, you enhance what would be pluses for them, and keep your real reasons for yourself. After all, they are your reasons and no one else's.

As you mention, I do care and put effort. I don't have things coming back to haunt me. I have quite a bit of experience. And I do things fast if I need to. I just don't do them fast just for the sake of it, so I try to be seen as "meeting the targets" as well as "meeting expectations". Because if you are exceeding expectations you are really being underpaid. Well that's my view and my opinion after quite a bit of decades.

[le-mark]

> I have quite a bit of experience. And I do things fast if I need to. I just don't do them fast just for the sake of it, so I try to be seen as "meeting the targets" as well as "meeting expectations".

Also meet targets your boss cares about. Don't be a miracle worker, you have to manage expectations. In large organizations I can always point to other teams shortcomings, or organizational inefficiencies as reasons for slow progress and delays.

[ThomaszKrueger]

Yes, absolutely do what your boss expects. But one can be a miracle worker just for so long. In reality you are moving your baseline upwards, and the day you stop being a miracle worker you become a slacker.

[BearGoesChirp]

The primary quality an interview tests for is your ability to lie to meet social expectations you do not personally believe in in such a way that it isn't apparent you are doing such.

[asragab]

Preach! As a close second..implementing and/or traversing some kind of tree structure.

[kazinator]

If a test looks for the presence of something which isn't apparent, how does any subject pass?

I don't think interviewers are specifically looking for fake in preference to genuine, but they perhaps tend to be satisfied with appearance as an estimator of substance.

[antisthenes]

Learn to be a convincing liar. Once you're "in", go back to your mindset.

[unabst]

Exactly.

A job is just a job, and a business is just a business. Mistaking either for anything more will lead to a paradox.

Businesses just need extremely specific work to get done. Jobs are ways to get people to do that work in exchange for money.

If you're flipping burgers at McDonald's, you don't reinvent their burger. If you're assembling iPhones at Foxconn, you never add your personal touch. You do what is expected of you, and if you'd rather be doing something else, you need to find a job that matches. And that's it.

And most importantly, if you got paid, you're being appreciated. If you need someone to pat you on the back, know that the business is paying someone to pat you on the back because you are deemed to work better that way, and it's called overhead. It's why you're being paid less than someone who doesn't need pats on the back (probably the guy patting you on the back). Same with dangling carrots.

Unfortunately, there is so much more to being human. So it truly is up to each individual person to fill in their voids. A true professional is defined by someone who is capable of remaining satisfied while accomplishing demanding work.

[liveoneggs]

I agree with this fully. I was taught this lesson very specifically after being laid off and doing a stint as an hourly consultant.

I've found being senior enough to actually be (slightly) respected is nice in that you can spend time cleaning if you know how to sell it (I just reduced X, which translates to $$$), making your day-to-day easier.

[dominotw]

>It is someone else's business, and I am there to do what they ask me. Which may or may not match to what they need, but that's not for me to decide.

I know that this is the right idea, but it is so painful to build something you know is stupid and waste of time. Its impposible to go home happy knowing what you are building is crap.

[ThomaszKrueger]

I look it this way: if I were good/smart/eager enough to decide if something is stupid or a waste of time, I may think about becoming the entrepreneur myself. I am not that person. I am a tool. Someone is paying me to develop something that it is important at least to them. I am a professional, I get things done for other people.

[mgkimsal]

"I am a professional, I get things done for other people."

I agree, but only if people want to pay "professionally" for it. Additionally, there can be problems with this if you're working someplace where your job is potentially at risk if the project fails.

It's very hard to take strategic direction from folks who have golden parachutes in their contracts. Succeed or fail, they'll be OK, but when you can see the project is DOA, you now have to spend some time preparing to look for the next job/engagement/etc.

I realize not all situations are like this, but have seen enough to understand it happens. You can be professional, but also have to understand that sometimes your best interests and the project's best interests may not line up, and plan accordingly.

[ThomaszKrueger]

I learned the hard way to always be prepared to move on. I keep myself current. I actually assume the project will fail and prepare for it. If it succeed that's great news. I never had and probably never will have golden parachutes. My insurance is what I know and why I do. It must be valuable for the marketplace, not just for the company I am currently working for. That is my duty.

[ido]

    I learned the hard way to always be prepared to 
    move on.

This bears repeating. I have had many jobs, and a lot of them were great jobs. Sometimes for whatever reason, you need/want to move.

It is quite often out of your control (e.g. the company is in trouble and they layoff your entire department or cancel the project you're working on) and even in socialist Europe there isn't really such A thing as job security (outside of the public sector anyway).

Even huge succesful companies like amazon/microsoft/google/etc sometimes have layoffs. Or they become less succesful for whatever reason you couldn't predict ahead of time and then have layoffs. Or they merge/buy another company and get rid of redundant/duplicate positions.

[mgkimsal]

> I actually assume the project will fail and prepare for it

I do as well, but it is always a bit of a conflict in the back of my mind wrt feeling 100% dedicated to someone else's project. I want to feel that I'm committed 100%, but always have to be preparing for "this will not work out, what is plan B?".

[ido]

At some point regardless of feelings you just shouldn't be 100% committed to some else's project, of which you have very limited control (if at all). You can be 90% committed and a professional and still get a lot done and do great work.

[geebee]

"I am a professional, I get things done for other people."

I get what you're saying here (I think). Part of being a professional is putting your own ego aside and not making it all about yourself.

However, a true professional doesn't actually obey an employer the way a simple employee does. And in that regard, regrettably, we software developers really aren't professionals. We can take a personal stand, but there is no professional code of ethics that we serve that stands above the client or employer, at least not in the sense that it does for physicians or lawyers.

It isn't really our "fault", though we could organize better. Professionals belong to associations that have formal standing with government. In many cases, they can't "report to" a person who is not a member of their profession. They must serve their clients, but they are empowered, by law, to stand up to their clients and refuse to breach the ethics of their profession.

[ThomaszKrueger]

This is software development. We are not professionals, and I sometimes say there is no such thing as "software engineer". I am an engineer by education (EE) and I can tell you software development is a long way from being a regulatable profession. Heck if you want to install an outlet or a faucet in your home you need to be properly licensed and insured. But when it comes to developing software that arguably is having more and more importance on people's lives there is no such thing.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Heck if you want to install an outlet or a faucet in your home you need to be properly licensed and insured.

That's what happens when you have strong plumbing and electricians unions. They convince the legislate to legislate a form of welfare for their trade.

Small scale plumbing and electrical are tasks a significant chunk of homeowners are perfectly capable of doing without screwing up. It used to be that the majority of homeowners could accomplish these tasks and that was in the days before the Internet.

[ryandrake]

I've spent plenty of time in my career building stupid things. While I'd prefer to build non-stupid things, as long as I'm getting paid well for it, I will happily build your stupid thing. If you get hung up on needing more control over what you're building, you actually have a few other options:

1. Take on a hobby in your free time.

2. Work for a different company, where developers have more of a stake and help define the product (there are few but they exist).

3. Moving into a "product management" role where you're defining features and requirements, etc.

4. Put your ass on the line and gamble on starting your own company.

[virmundi]

I've had a lot of existential issues with this. What makes me feel better is that the system in the moment is what matters. Everything gets destroyed in the end as per every world view (goes to a heat death, gets destroyed by Yahweh and a new Earth comes about, wolf eats everything). Nothing you build will last more than one or two generations, statistically. Just enjoy making the thing and the process of trying to solve a problem. Maybe pick which problems you work on.

[iamacynic]

choose better people to work for. you are not a helpless victim.

[thesagan]

Not a helpful comment. Some people have more leverage than others.

[quantumhobbit]

It is also really hard to tell before hand. Companies change over time and can be very good at hiding their red flags.

[theparanoid]

It's easy to ignore red flags. We're rationalization engines.

[cosinetau]

Yeah, this is what I call the "Marine Model." You and I work like grunts; kick doors in; blow shit up.

However I feel that my experience has indicated that this only works when the brass are present and making such orders. When you're on your own, even when within the context of a organization or team, this is more easily prone to failure.

You talk about them being loftier goals, but maybe they're just different methods to solve different problems.

Anyway, semper fi.

[suls]

Great inisght. I've recently been wondering how I can rebase my values to achieve the same behaviour. You seem like you had a different mindset before -- how were you able to rewire yourself?

Also, just curious:

> [..] but that's not for me to decide [..] When things go wrong, you either move on or start fixing things [..]

Start fixing things is your own decision or do you wait until someone asks you?

[ThomaszKrueger]

I do my best to have someone tell me to fix them. Not because I lack initiative, but because I saw too many times well- intentioned developers get in a lot of trouble by "taking the initiative" to make things better, to fix things. To the point where one place I worked the word "refactor" was spoken with a high degree of suspicion.

[watwut]

Part of the problem is that well-intentioned developers don't always get it right. The assumption in these discussions seems to be that every time developer starts refactoring, the system is bound to end up better then before. The reality is, that the refactoring attempt may end up as bad or even worst then before - it may end up over-engineered, under-engineered or simply buggy, slower or loosing features people actually liked. Unfinished refactoring basically forces everyone to deal with two different architectures at once which causes quite a lot of problems.

I think that these kinds of experience are behind the word "refactor" being suspicious at some places.

The other issue is that "I am taking initiative" is sometimes euphemism for "I am going to do things my way and don't care to argue with other team members/departments who I expect to obey me anyway by default" power grab which leads to people rejecting changes even as they are right.

[nucleardog]

> I come in at 8am, leave at 4pm.

This is important, and this is why I'm still unable to let go and treat work as "I'm a tool. I just do what I'm told."

I, like many people in IT, am effectively "end of the line" for our deliverables.

The consequence of inefficiencies isn't "the business makes less money", it's "work bleeds into your personal time".

If things take more time, it's my time. And that makes these issues my problem as well.

[Clubber]

Do you do scrum where you work?

[ThomaszKrueger]

"They" like to say yes, that we scrum. Practically I have a manager that calls biweekly meetings and hands out work to be done in one or two weeks. Which usually is more than enough, but I manage to get everything done "on time".

[Clubber]

Every two weeks sounds great. At my last company "they" decided to do scrum. We had stand-ups daily (with 2 developers) and it was horrible micromanagement. They send out our burndown chart every day and if we were behind, the "scrum master" would constantly ask why and if we would make it on time. We had to do estimates and story refinement for hours. It was a huge mess. I quit and will never work for a company that is like that again.

[enraged_camel]

I think "scrum" refers to daily standups. I may be wrong though.

[zaphod12]

Scrum is a process with way more than just daily stand ups. Obviously a company can do whatever works for them, but formal 'scrum' involves time-delineated sprints, planning meetings, demos, retrospectives, the daily stand ups, pointing stories and a handful of other aspects.

http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html

NB: I'm not trying to advocate for it - it works for some teams, but everyone is different.

[ThomaszKrueger]

It probably is. I might never know. People use the words "agile" and "scrum" very liberally at least around here.