As someone who cares about his work, has strong professional ethics and wisely chooses his employers to not end-up in such environments, no I don't.
The worst places for me are precisely those where you can get by with 1~2h of work a day because no one cares and the company's culture does not value the time and skills of his workers.
> wisely chooses his employers to not end-up in such environments
This is a pretty common attitude. That is, "I'm able to pick better workplaces than you are".
It implies you have control over the other people that work at the company. And unless you're the CEO, you don't. You cannot with any certainty tell what a work environment is like in the interview stage.
You can job hop a half dozen times until you find a good fit. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. But framing it as: "I pick better work environments than you" is an attitude I'd really like to see disappear. It ignores just how much of a role luck plays.
> This is a pretty common attitude. That is, "I'm able to pick better workplaces than you are".
Not necessarily. It's "I'm less willing to stay at a bad workplace than you are".
Maybe it was bad when I picked it. Maybe it became bad after I was there for a decade. Maybe it became bad quickly; maybe slowly. Whatever. When I realize that it's become a bad place to work, I'm not "quiet quitting", I'm putting my resume on the street. I'm not desperately taking the first offer - I'm trying to find something better, not just something different - but as soon as I have a good offer, I'm gone.
Unless you want to get into a pure management position, the most senior (pay) technical resource is almost always a consultant. And you can give yourself the promotion to consultant any time you want. And when you're a consultant, job hopping is the expectation.
I have a friend who can only bear to work at places that provide meaningful work and aren't toxic environments. He finds "bullshit jobs" psychological corrosive and he will quicky become depressed if he finds himself at one. He will go six months to a year between jobs, and will leave a job quickly if it turns out it doesn't meet his criteria.
On the flip side when he finds something he likes he works 60+ weeks and never less than everything he can to the job. He burns bright and generally leaves after two years, repeating the process.
Most people aren't like this. They will work just enough at a job that is just good enough. It's not about being better, it's about taking a different approach to finding and retaining a job.
> This is a pretty common attitude. That is, "I'm able to pick better workplaces than you are".
It's more about not applying to certain jobs, or cancelling the process after the first red flag.
> You cannot with any certainty tell what a work environment is like in the interview stage.
Sure I can. But I might have been at it for a decade or two longer than you have. Folks on HN talk about the warning signs and red flags in interviews all the time, and from my perspective they're mostly right.
If I'm rolling the dice then we've moved from d00 to d20 and saved a ton of time. Here are a few general examples of things I'll look at:
- Can I tell what the actual point of the job is from the job description? Does it describe what their services are in service to?
- How many non-technical, non-domain experts will I speak with before I'm talking engineer to engineer?
- How jazzed are the interviewers about speaking with me, in the moment? Are they interested in the details of earlier projects? Are they curious about me, or just running down a list of questions?
- Do they use leetcode or similar? There are a lot of really good reasons for a company to use leetcode in their hiring process, but none of those reasons are particularly good for me, as an employee.
- Do their interview questions make sense, given their context? E.g are they quizzing me on recursion from an environment where recursion wouldn't be a particularly great idea?
By that definition, nothing is a choice because nothing is 100% certain in life.
Even for something as simple as deciding to "go shopping" tomorrow, there is some probability that it does not happen. But it is still my decision to do so.
The only way to never fail is to never try. But it means you will never win either.
There is always an aspect of luck in everything. Also, the kinds of social skills which help you weed out bad potential employers and bad potential employees (when hiring) are likely learnable.
You named the solution. Switch jobs until the right one. That’s how you pick better. You can even formalize it. “Hey I would love to consult for 90 days; let’s skip the bulk of the interview process”
You can ask. Don’t tell me it’s impossible if you haven’t even tried
You seem to be projecting a lot of insecurities. Some people prefer not to work in such an environment, and that is okay. Those people just switch jobs until they're satisfied, there is no "controlling other people" or whatever nonsense you dreamed up.
Do you agree that a work environment/culture is defined by the people who are a part of it?
Do you think that during the interview stage, an employer can characterize the work environment as different than it is in reality?
If you say yes to both of these, then I don't understand the disconnect.
Maybe I can summarize another way:
- It's not possible to really know what a work environment is like until you actually start working there. To deny this is to deny that other people at the company play a role in the work environment. Since you don't have control over other people, you don't have control over the work environment.
- Therefore, characterizing a decision to accept employment at a particular employer, as evidence of one's own superior ability to predict what the work environment is like is... misguided?
Job hopping until you find a work environment that fits is a good idea. But this is trial and error. It's not the result of a superior ability to sniff out work cultures before accepting employment.
My last question is: how did this line of reasoning offend you so deeply to suggest that I'm projecting insecurity?
You're applying emotion to the cold calculus of economics. I'm supplying an acceptable amount of labor to my boss (evident by the fact that my boss hasn't fired/complained to me) in exchange for an acceptable amount of money (evident by the fact that I haven't quit).
We're all on salary. Unless whatever I'm working on is going to boost my options enough to make it worth my while (it won't), there's no reason to break my back.
Exactly. If my boss is happy with my output, and work is still getting done on time, why does it matter how many hours I actually work? I don’t get paid more for going above and beyond. The only reward for busting your ass in corporate America is more work. It’s a depressing reality but it’s the truth.
Why should I bust my ass, just to get an extra percentage point on my yearly raise? I can work 30 hours a week and get 4%, or 60 hours and get 5%. The math just doesn’t make sense unless you’re working for a company you either founded, have significant equity in, or there’s some kind of profit sharing mechanism that actually results in a substantial amount of money.
There's a ton of "fake work" in corporate america. This is basically busy work that isn't used by any real customer, external or internal. That work doesn't need to be done, but shows up because someone committed to it for political reasons (or because they were clueless.) Someone needs a box checked, but didn't check if the box needed to be there in the first place.
True, though often that sort of work "feels" different from the more traditional fake work. It's at least built with the intent / belief that a customer will actually use it.
And a lot of people can question these decisions and make and impact if they cared enough. I get tired of people, especially those with “senior” in their title complaining “they’re doing it wrong”, instead of participating in the planning and feedback and escalation process.
You falsely assume the only 'work' to be done is that immediately aligned with sprint velocity rather than all that done to make someone a valuable contributor in the first place (what your employer is actually paying for). The person who spends ~2 hours a day 'working' and the rest of their day on research, self-education, or more theoretical domains will become exponentially more valuable over time compared the most endurant hamster wheel runner as a function of qualitatively superior capabilities. Smart engineers realize this growth curve and alter their trajectory, benefitting both themselves and their employer long-term.
this mindset only makes sense when the mission of the company is noble and appreciated by the greater community. otherwise you are a fool for having this attitude
Exactly. We're adults making fair exchanges for compensation (assuming you've entered into a fair agreement).
There's so many angsty takes in this thread, I'm actually pretty shocked.
Working "hard" is an investment in yourself. You don't always have to be soley running on the SCRUM treadmill - you can learn other things that are valuable to the business. Ideally you'll also be smart and chose wisely for things that set you up better career-wise too.
But the idea that one would treat their employer as some kind of chump that deserves the minimal possible output they can extract from you? That sounds like a great way to pigeonhole yourself into a lacklustre and short career. Not to mention a really unfulfilling life. You spend so much time at work, why not try to find work you enjoy for an employer that isn't crap? I get that many jobs are soulless - but we're still in the drivers seat and we typically have a lot of choices (especially these days).
You get the work done that the position requires. If you can do that in a couple of hours, I see no incentive whatsoever for most employees to increase productivity beyond the requirement for the position plus maybe some minor stuff that won’t be enough to encourage additional responsibilities.
If they want more than that, employers should pay significantly more than their competitors for those services, or significant stock bonuses tied to departmental efficiency, or some other add-on compensation that incentivises increased productivity.
I can't rightly comprehend the kind of mindset that would lead to such a conclusion.
If you're that productive, why not charge by the hour at a very high rate? "work done that the position requires" is a very low bar of performance, to me it sounds like you're not honouring your part of your employment agreement.
I'm not suggesting you have to have your butt in a seat for $X hours a day, but if you're really that disenchanted with your job - why would you not pursue some other line of work that you find more rewarding?
A lot of promotion and salary increases comes from demonstrating your growing and operating towards the next level. Doing the minimum isn’t doing yourself any favors if you have any aspirations at all.
That’s fine for those who knowingly make that decision, but there are consequences.
This simply isn’t the case in the vast majority of companies, and honestly just seems kind of naive. Corporate America is a game of politics. Yeah working hard always looks good, but the guy who gets the promotion is the guy your boss plays golf with, not the guy who works 60 hours a week out of some idealistic obligation.
But first I’m not suggesting 60 hours I have never worked a 60 in my life. But a solid 30-45 goes a long way, which shouldn’t be radical but some people here are advocating for 5-10 hour weeks…
There maybe a certain type of job (“middle management”?) where “golf” gives you an edge, but for companies with engineering tracks to the top, you need to demonstrate performance and be able to deliver and show impact. Some of that takes “politics” but you also can’t play politics in 5-10 hours either.
> Aren't we all (normal and decent people) doing this already?
I've known many such in my career. They weren't fooling anybody. Everybody knew who they were. When they'd get laid off or were passed over for a raise they were always baffled and outraged.
I think this highly depends on the manager. Some know (Manager A), and either work to correct it, or get their ducks in a row to fire them. Plenty of managers, though, (Manager B) have no idea what a reasonable amount of work output is, and can be easily convinced that what took 1-2 hours to do constituted an entire 40 hour week. You get some developer who's good at "managing upward" and they'll bullshit/charm and walk all over that manager. Often these managers are themselves "managing upward" to their directors, and so on up the chain, resulting in an entire reporting line successfully doing nothing.
It doesn't matter that the slacker's peers know exactly what is going on. They're too busy doing their own work, and if they complain about it to Manager B, they won't be believed.
The negative value is the worst. I was working on a project with someone. I'd check in periodically. After a couple weeks, he fesses up and tells me he hasn't been able to get very far, but things are "mostly done", I "just" need to test it for him and integrate it with the rest of the system. By mostly done, he meant the code had no tests and was never even run manually. In fact, the code would not even execute due to syntax errors.
I had to spend another week and a half reworking things. I got it to work well enough, but it would've gone smoother if he hadn't been involved at all. The result was crap.
I'm sure there are a surprising number of Brillant Paula Beans[1] still employed in software roles. No idea how you can pass a technical screen and multi-day interview loop without knowing anything about writing code, but it keeps happening.
I can tell you why. The CEO wanted to "hire quickly" for a project that did not even go live until 3 months after the original fake deadline. He ignored any suggestions that we keep looking at other candidates, then left for a different job several months later.
I've been a manager and an employee and I've talked to many managers. They know who the slackers are, but there can be reasons why they take no action. When an opportunity arises to get rid of them, they do.
Yep. I've seen it happen. If you have too many clueless people at the top, the tail will wag the dog, so to speak. The slacker's peers often don't care as long as the slacking doesn't cause more work them. It's a "don't ask, don't tell" situation all around.
Uh huh. The more common case is they get promotion and raises like everyone else while sometimes producing -ve value. Even if there's a comeuppance one day, this can go on for years before there are any consequences.
No. I feel ownership and collaboration over what my team does. We prioritize, design, review, and build together (not endorsing a methodology, just a culture). It has been this way since I was a junior engineer. I want to understand and solve problems. I want to learn and build bigger and better tithings.
Punching in premade tickets for 2 hours a day sounds like you’re already dead.
I've never felt secure enough to check out like this, even when my position was effectively locked in. I always want to improve and attain something bigger, so I look for problems beyond my scope when the work isn't coming to me. I feel comfort thinking I know how to take an idea through the full execution cycle due to my practice in seeking and solving problems. But it is hard for me to relax and let go.
Ignoring the amount of time spend working for a moment. I would be miserable if all I got to do during that time was work on Jira tickets others created.
The worst places for me are precisely those where you can get by with 1~2h of work a day because no one cares and the company's culture does not value the time and skills of his workers.