[afarrell]

> The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc.

This is correct but the implication is that a good career means having the courage to accept the risk of poor relationships with management and to be willing to end an unhealthy relationship.

[wintermutestwin]

While this is correct in theory, in practice there are many forms of golden handcuffs that make this a very painful option. In the final analysis, I think that many don't really care enough about the enterprise's overall success. My guess is that there are not that many well paying enterprises out there that are working on things that matter enough to care that much about...

[afarrell]

> a painful option

Yes.

> many don’t really care enough about the enterprise’s overall success

Or they are unwilling to do what’s necessary because it is very painful or scary and they are exhausted.

[lmm]

The implication is that a company where a substantial proportion of employees had that view would be more successful, but how does that translate to a good career for those employees?

[afarrell]

Those employees will leave unhealthy relationships for ones which are better for their career.

[epicureanideal]

And that’s why I’m asking, where would those better workplaces be? I’ve worked at quite a few companies at this point, and although it’s true that some teams are better than others, the general pattern has been that incentives are not well aligned in any company I’ve seen.

Any company with proper alignment of incentives would crush the majority of existing startups. But as I said, such a company won’t be funded.

The winners in the current economy are those with access to huge buckets of capital rather than those who can most effectively deploy that capital. And if they’re only competing against others with huge buckets of capital but not highly effective strategies, then they all compete at that same low level of strategy.

Imagine a situation where you have dozens of restaurants all run by people who are mediocre but semi competent chefs and mediocre but semi competent business people. Meanwhile you have great chefs and great business people working a few steps beneath them. And yet the first group has access to buckets of capital to start restaurants and hire people and the second group doesn’t have the right connections. That’s what the software industry looks like to me after a long time working in it.

No problem, start your own. Except the first group with access to buckets of capital will be able to advertise far more, keep prices cheaper, and so on, so you’ll be out competed in the marketplace despite better skills simply due to their access to huge amounts of money. Even if you are far more effective at deploying the smaller amount of capital you have.

[mbrodersen]

Not necessarily. Bad managers will simply pile work on top of you until you drown. You need to learn the subtle art of saying no and/or delaying things without seeming to.