[stelfer]

The realization that I came to was that by speaking up I was usually asking a question that many people were not asking; by providing a strong opinion it would help to catalyze deliberate action. If you stay silent we'll never get anything really done.

[plutonorm]

Yeah, but I find I usually take a social hit by asking the question. A good 80% of those listening will think that you simply don't understand something. The other 20% are either indifferent or actively threatened by the observation. It doesn't pay to speak up about anything, you just get talked down to by those who are bullshitting.

[scruple]

I once stood up, as an intermediate level software engineer, in a meeting with executives and senior managers and senior engineering leadership, and identified multiple areas where a consultancy, who we were entering into a partnership with, was utterly full of shit. Isolating not only where the technical solutions wouldn't meet the technical challenge, but also in areas of outright legal / regulatory violation.

You know what I got for it? I was asked not to return to the meeting that afternoon. They went forward and everyone was happy and confident that everything would be perfect. I didn't get a promotion that year, and I do believe it was in no small part because of the fact that I called out specific instances of bullshit, and I earned a reputation that persisted there as a person who torpedoes progress.

Well... ~3 years after that meeting, and having watched many millions of dollars evaporate, we're in litigation with that consultancy. Yet, the people who made those original decisions had gone from manager to Director or VP. They go on to make other insanely stupid fucking decisions, without consequence, and with an even wider reach because of their shiny new titles. Wasting more and more resources and causing pain for the folks under them.

There's no justice here. The bullshitters have won.

[sharadov]

Theranos was a poster child for what you describe, all the engineers/lab analysts who complained were systematically gotten rid of and threatened. People who invested in or made deals with the company did zero due diligence. They are either disconnected from reality, or they think it's one big game. Reading the book "Bad Blood" is so unnerving. And yes, you are absolutely right!

[scruple]

Sometimes I wonder if Bad Blood will be used as a blueprint, instead of a cautionary tale, in the coming years. Much the same way that I've seen the shenanigans of Office Space applied over the last 2 decades. Except that that's a much more frightening prospect than the comparatively benign bullshit in Office Space spreading through the industry.

[xtracto]

I was kind of the same, very shy to ask questions and "look like a fool".

That was until I got my PhD. I still realize that I don't know jack shit, but for some reason now I don't care, I now feel I don't have anything to prove to anyone. So, if I don't know something I just ask. Do you think I am stupid? that's your problem, not mine.

Hopefully you don't need a PhD to realize that like I did.

[mmsimanga]

I am in a similar situation. I once explained to my dad that having a Phd has allowed me to proudly proclaim that I don't know something without any pressure whatsoever. Not that you need a PhD to say I don't know but it helps.

[plutonorm]

Oh, I'm not shy. Far from it. I just am politically savvy enough to know that saying anything outside of what is expected just opens you up to attack. It's an impossible game to win.

[AnimalMuppet]

Not sure I agree with that. When you ask a question, you may be speaking for most of the room. It's just that you're the only one bold enough to say it. And if you are speaking for most of the room, you won't take a social hit for the question. Quite the opposite.

(Of course, it can be that you just weren't paying attention. For questions that come out of that situation, you may in fact take a social hit, and perhaps appropriately. If you just don't understand something, you probably shouldn't take a hit, but you may do so in more toxic environments.)

[Terr_]

> most of the room

Careful, there's an important distinction between "the majority of participants" and "those who have the most power and the most to lose."

In fact, that reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote which I think is particularly appropriate to this subject:

___

> Supposing an emperor was persuaded to wear a new suit of clothes whose material was so fine that, to the common eye, the clothes weren't there. And suppose a little boy pointed out this fact in a loud, clear voice...

> Then you have The Story of the Emperor Who Had No Clothes.

> But if you knew a bit more, it would be The Story of the Boy Who Got a Well-Deserved Thrashing from His Dad for Being Rude to Royalty, and Was Locked Up.

> Or The Story of the Whole Crowd Who Were Rounded Up by the Guards and Told 'This Didn't Happen, OK? Does Anyone Want to Argue?'

> Or it could be a story of how a whole kingdom suddenly saw the benefit of the 'new clothes', and developed an enthusiasm for healthy sports in a lively and refreshing atmosphere which got many new adherents every year, and led to a recession caused by the collapse of the conventional clothing industry.

[AnimalMuppet]

Sure. But that's a political price rather than a social one. (You'd better be prepared to pay it, though.)

I have, in my career, "spoken for the room" maybe three to five times. In two of them, I was already on my way out the door, so I wasn't very worried about the consequences. In no case was I ostracized or belittled by the non-management in the room. I received a few, very quiet, thanks.

[parksy]

I'm familiar with this scenario. It took a while to find the right approach and build the confidence to challenge a room of people with this mindset. It is definitely possible to stand up to this mentality and succeed in a workplace, but it is a constant challenge.

After a long time fighting these battles I realised I had gained a lot of skills in dealing with narcissists and sociopaths in the mission to simply be good at what I do, to the point where doing so was a large portion of my "job". This was taking a lot out of me personally, it detracted from advancing my desired skill set, I did not enjoy the type of person I was becoming, I hated going into meetings where I knew so and so would be there, despite knowing I could win over the room. Over time the general anxiety and fatigue bled into my personal life and outlook to the point where I basically had a mental breakdown (though I was pretty good at hiding it).

The best thing I did was to get the hell out of there and learn how to identify companies like this ASAP, preferably during the interview itself. Better to have something else lined up first, but I have endured long months of no income rather than place myself in such a toxic environment again and am all the happier for it, my marriage and relationship with my kids improved immeasurably once I took my hand out of the fire so to speak.

There are many great companies, from startups to global enterprise who value an open and inclusive culture, newer companies especially are wising up to the damage bullshitting narcissists inflict on their reputation and bottom line.

A really great company to work for gives everyone in the room a voice, and they definitely exist. Although finding the right fit can take some time and a fair amount of pain along the way, it is worth it in the end if you value your sanity and wish to avoid burnout.

[walterbell]

Thanks for sharing your story. What screening methods would you recommend for identifying those great companies / micro-societies?

[jordanbeiber]

I like the thread so I’ll pitch in my ¢2. :)

If you end up looking for it you do so because you’ve learnt what you need.

“Different people, different needs”, to quote the great leader David Brent.

If you end up here eventually — interview the hiring manager and members of the team. You are the one looking!

For me personally I’ve realized that a company being listed or near IPO is usually a problem.

I’ve recently turned down a couple of interesting offers due to looming IPO. Some might think this is odd, but the track record of my “career” is all I have to go by.

The best places I’ve worked at is where the CEO was the founder and company not listed.

This could indicate that there’s proper heart involved and in my experience usually a lot less politics, hence less bullshit.

No truths here, just my own path.

[parksy]

Spot on, there's no "find good company" algorithm because the type of company I might like working for could be totally different to the type of company you or anyone else wants to work for.

It comes down to knowing yourself and what you're worth, and going into interviews with an eye to interviewing them too.

You get to a point where you don't mind anymore if you don't get that call back, because that's a mutual bullet dodged. You probably do have to have built up an industry reputation first, so there is that initiation to go through, after which people should be telling you why you have to work for them and not the other way around.

I have anecdotes of working for CEOs, unlisted, who were absolute sociopaths, which I think is a great demonstration that there's no single rule or method other than investing more time in understanding ourselves first, so we're appropriately armed when deciding whether or not we want to work for a company.

Turning down an offer or saying no to an interview is often the best thing for both parties, which is an odd concept when everyone is supposed to be grateful and enthusiastic to be employed.

[parksy]

I don't have a "who is a good company" algorithm, it's pretty complex and outward seeming behaviours don't always reflect what's going on inside , and our own interpretive judgements from past negative experiences can colour our approach to new opportunities, like if a founder doesn't call you back, or plays hardball on contract terms, might trigger something personal that doesn't reflect the true nature of the business - as I say it's too complex to codify.

For me personally the logical starting point is identifying what is important to ourselves. I won't say a "wolfpack" organisation that tears shit up and thinks about consequences later is any less valid than a more open and considered organisation. So any method, to me, starts with identifying our own values and goals.

I made a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18frXcsVnPoa8tIxdVCqf...) to help identify my value "pillars", quantify their meaning to me in terms of fulfilment, then guide the process of satisfying those values. I try to explain it here https://medium.com/@aparker/spreadsheets-for-the-mind-de1c19...

Whatever method is used, figuring out what you actually desire is the hardest part, I find. Maybe I'd be happier herding cattle in northern Australia? I wouldn't know if I didn't take the time to lay it out.

I think once you know what it is you actually want, then it's much easier to answer your question, because until you know yourself, you're just bouncing from one situation to the next without full agency.

Assuming you know your goals, desires, pillars etc, then a lot of it comes down to experience. Investigate the history of the company you're interviewing for - do they align? Ask questions in the interview that put them on the spot regarding your values, they probably won't call back but that's a bullet dodged. Talk to people who have worked there before.

Do your research, search for local meetups, startup companies, be active in the community, stay in touch with colleagues and friends and always be ready to meet with someone new for a coffee. Hard to do between the 9-5, there's no instant formula, but chip away at it and build up a network of people you trust and respect, and who trust and respect you.

It has taken me the best part of 40 years to get to this point though, sometimes you just have to swing it but knowing yourself is the first step I think, as you're no longer walking into interviews as the "candidate", instead you're walking into interviews as the guy who they need (and if they don't need you, that's fine, everyone dodges a bullet).

[itronitron]

>> A good 80% of those listening

those listening probably comprise only 25% of the people in the meeting, 5% if it is a standup.

[onemoresoop]

There are even bullshit questions, ones that give the appearance that one has an idea or an insight when in fact they end up convolution the path to a solution that eventually emerges naturally...

[mmsimanga]

The best bullshit question is always to ask developers if they are sure their solution is foolproof. This has two nice side effects if you are looking to suck up to management. 1)It shows you are concerned about the project/product/company. 2) Should something go wrong even if it is the tiniest thing you like you had a point. You get all this while not taking the risk of doing the implementation. That is bullshit 101.

[closeparen]

“Will this scale?”

https://thecooperreview.com/10-tricks-appear-smart-meetings/

[senderista]

There are also questions that are only designed to humiliate the one being questioned. They are performative acts, not genuine questions.