|
Overall - I feel the author's pain here - and yet - it does feel a bit like he got burned and this is a bit cathartic. The first thing is - this is the industry we live in; especially for small companies, it should be expected to have to handle or at least support tangential roles; it should be expected to have more responsibility and lower bus factor; it should be expected that processes, code standards, etc are not matured since this kind of thing often takes time. The second thing I'd say, is that there are different personality types. Sure, no one wants to be stressed out; but there are a good amount of people that prefer these smaller-company challenges over sitting in large architecture review meetings for months working in a waterfall format (the other extreme). Some people like to work in a comfortable role, with a predictable schedule, and just color within their lines with the technologies they know, and go home. Others actually appreciate the challenge and difficulty, and see an "on fire" situation and attempting to level up and see if they can get everyone rowing in the same direction, put processes in place that will last, train discipline and standards, and make it a better place to work. The third piece, is that what I've described thus far I would not use the word "Toxic" for. I would not consider "overworked" to be the same as "Toxic" personally, since it is each person's responsibility to make sure they are lookin out for their own health, and working to an acceptable and sustainable standard. Sure, employers are always going to want you to work more. That said, the line is crossed when the employer demands or forces workers to work beyond healthy or sustainable limits, especially when the worker has clearly communicated these (often, this second part is what is the failure of many devs) - if that limit is crossed, this is what i would describe as "Toxic", including any sort of employer speak which could be described as "abusive." |