[vrinsd]

This reeks of a situation where the people in the management position(s) really aren't the right people for the job and having a logical discussion or trying to explain how or why something should be done differently falls on deaf ears (or worse, antagonizes them).

Maybe I'm projecting from my own experiences but this usually is because the leadership has a "top down" mentality, "we know better because we are in this role" and your other team members who are likely less experienced than you can't tell the difference between "dissenting with evidence" vs. "being contrary".

Seems like the best plan is to keep your eyes open for other opportunities when it's no longer tolerable.

[yieldcrv]

edit: I got fired today for that

[yowlingcat]

You're a newly fired IC? In a comment several days ago about vesting schedules it sounds like you were speaking as a cofounder. If these were the same role then something smells suspicious about how your coworkers were treating you from the start IE any of these leaders and the general style of operating the company should have included your input. Moreover, I'm surprised they'd make a decision like this so flippantly as I'm not sure how it could be easy to fire a cofounder without significant legal headache to the company.

[yieldcrv]

I’ve been everything

I work for other people right now

These were not the same roles

[yowlingcat]

I guess I don't get it -- if you've founded a company and it went successfully enough to where you can be an LP (or you are otherwise independently wealthy), why would you join an early stage company full-time as an IC when you could join as a consultant or advisor to smoke out whether the collaboration is a good fit for you?

[yieldcrv]

bear market in my asset class and fallback employment sector was a little long

and its not an early stage company

I want fresh IC references and thats been successful

I want subsidized health insurance / contribute to an HSA and that's been successful, at least I have COBRA again and can keep contributing to an HSA uninterrupted

I want professional validation on stacks I want to use, get paid to do that

I want structure because doing side projects on my own schedule didn't have the same motivation for me

why does being versed in other parts of the industry dilute the point, need me to log in with an alt to be relatable?

[yowlingcat]

I think it's okay to want the freedom, outsized reward and even the status of being a successful founder, with all the risks attached. I think it's also fine to want the benefits and stability of being an materially comfortable employee in tech with a good career progression. They are different paths and different strokes work for different folks.

But I think it's fair to say you have to pick a lane. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you haven't succeeded as a founder, it rings ironic to proclaim "4 year vesting with 1 year cliff is just simulating what FAANGs were doing 10 years ago but out of touch tech wannabes are imagining is normal now" or that "we only took non-dilutive capital, nothing that converts to shares - people need to use their imagination."

Do you think it's fair for someone would to ask whether if you were really serious about succeeding as a founder, you should've invested a little less imagination into the capitalization strategy and a little more imagination towards identifying the ideal customer problem to be solved? After all, it's not like there's any dearth of founders who have built successful businesses with the standard VC backed approach. Especially those who were facing bear markets for what they were building.

Lord knows VC could use some competition. The issue I've observed is that everything else (except bootstrapping for very specific kinds of businesses) is purely worse for a founder who isn't already independently wealthy, which is ultimately just a different kind of bootstrapping.

I'd love to be proven wrong if there is, empirically, an alternative.

[mousetree]

You got fired for just asking "are we using the sprint cycle?" There must be more to this story, no?

[yieldcrv]

the aforementioned guy merging PRs in random order decided that the existence of merge conflicts were all the devs fault, pinned a merge conflict on me and said I wasn't a good fit for their management style, a charitable explanation as none of us would pass an interview if we described an application development process this way

so I did in fact put a target on myself for asking anything

all happened at the end of yesterday, thought I was in the clear but they were conferring. My weekend post and reflection ironically turned out to be foreshadowing.

(hm all the time stamps are wrong, I originally posted the observation two days ago. I posted this sunday or so and got fired on monday afternoon)

[yieldcrv]

Yes, it is top down management, and comically ineffective for application development

We’ll see.