[notbob]

I recommend learning how to put up with these things. Just stop caring about them. Treat it like laundry or dishes. You don't have to enjoy it, and there's no reason to get emotional over it. Just do it and move on. In particular, the job that you describe doesn't exist and where it does is exactly the type of development that's ripe for outsourcing.

If you can't find a way to play the game without emotional investment, then perhaps look for jobs in lower-paying sectors where you're less likely to encounter ambition and bullshit.

For example, have you looked for development jobs in the nonprofit and/or public sectors?

Nonprofit/gov't work in general can attract bad personalities, but IME the software development shops within those organizations tend to have very few of the types of people you want to avoid. The pay/prestige is low enough relative to other development work that you mostly get "true believers".

Universities (software development departments, not research groups!) are also typically nice laid back work environments.

Medium-sized non-software companies with small development groups (5-10 people) can also be good.

However, do realize that in all of those situations you are trading standups and TPS reports for daily interactions with non-technical end users, which come with their own set of frustrations.

[austhrow743]

Disclaimer: I'm a salesperson which I suspect is department number one on OP's list when they complain about dishonest departments they don't want to work with.

I really don't agree that non -profits or government are where to go if you don't want to have to deal with inane business bs. In my experience selling in to both for the last year they're both chock full of forms and meetings for the sake of forms and meetings. Just people going through the motions of what they think business is without the talent to do it properly nor the genuine need or market mechanisms to punish /reward those running things effectively. Tons of politicking and busy work creation.

The most straight forward business people to deal with are the highest ranking in the most overtly profit oriented businesses. They want to make a buck, you want to make a buck, you have simple common ground to build on when interacting.

You do mention "ambition" though which OP doesn't. So maybe you, them, and me all have different ideas of what shit people to work with are. I do think that OP is likely to get "corporate crap and ritualed" to death in any of the non profit businesses I've seen the internals of though.

I do second universities though. I have a developer friend who works for one and it sounds like exactly what OP wants. He's mostly left to his own devices working on tickets.

[neilv]

One thing to be aware of with the nonprofit/government work you mention is that it's the other Hotel California, from the Silicon Valley one -- you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. That's overstating it, but even developers with nonprofit/gov't accomplishments that should be impressive to dotcoms will have trouble moving back.

If you consider moving back to industry after some time in nonprofit/gov't, I think many in dotcoms will tend to assume you're not good, even if you've been doing similar or harder work as you would've in a dotcom. Because who would've turned down dotcom kind of money (fair enough), and the chance to have impact (questionable logic, to people saving lives and liberty), and the chance to work with the best people who are them (now it's getting circular). Most of their data points are from people who chose dotcoms, they see lots of gov't/nonprofit-related dumbness in the news, and we all have prejudices about things we don't know.

If you're not coming from another dotcom, besides your skill/aptitude being suspect, you're also probably being judged with suspicion in some exclusionary (and questionable) idea of "culture fit". It's not just women and some other underrepresented socioeconomic groups who can be marginalized on this basis.

BTW, if OP thinks they have an unusually low tolerance for BS, I'd like to suggest two possibilities: (1) maybe they really do have an exceptionally low tolerance, and pursuing what they are asking for is a top priority; or (2) maybe they're reacting to some bad experience that's not representative of industry as a whole, and they'd find a more representative culture to be tolerable, and a better environment in which to learn to work within reasonable levels of BS.

(Regarding #2 above, I'm sympathetic. I quit a prestigious job at a place I really wanted to be, which led to an aversion to one particular bit of "BS" that I'd previously tolerated, but which foreshadowed untenable problems. I've turned this particular thing into a cultural litmus test for the prospective employer, which has caused me to turn down a lot of opportunities that probably would've been fine, after the initial BS. OP's situation might be similar: not wanting to get burned again, and being very cautious, to the point that they're ruling out too many opportunities.)

[tudelo]

Actually I don't entirely agree. There are many actually interesting government projects that may not pay great but will certainly impress interviewers who just implement button x on app y. It's not as hard to move out as you would think.

[aerioux]

+1 ^ or if you (as you have here) have identified this as a important point, find a manager who agrees and work with them.

I have had the good luck to work for managers who handle the bureaucracy and I talk to other devs as needed and submit code