[Seb-C]

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.

[rybosworld]

> 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.

[AnimalMuppet]

> 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.

[KittenInABox]

This is harder and harder the more senior you get. It looks suspicious if you're hopping after 1.5-2 yrs.

[Consultant32452]

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.

[ghaff]

One hop is probably fine. There wasn't a meeting of the minds. If it becomes a pattern, it will probably repeat.

[rybosworld]

I understand what you're saying but respectfully, that is not what the person I am replying to said:

> wisely chooses his employers to not end-up in such environments

[Seattle3503]

It seems like the truth though.

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.

[aitchnyu]

Why does he leave a meaningful company and gamble on the next one?

[gopher_space]

> 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.

edit: removed unfinished sentence

[rybosworld]

Guessing with a higher accuracy is still guessing.

[gopher_space]

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?

[Seb-C]

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.

[Consultant32452]

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.

[flappyeagle]

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

[beeboobaa3]

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.

[rybosworld]

> You seem to be projecting a lot of insecurities.

Interesting counter argument.

> Those people just switch jobs until they're satisfied, there is no "controlling other people"

This is exactly what I said in my comment, if you take the time to read it.

[beeboobaa3]

Yes, how did you go from

> wisely chooses his employers to not end-up in such environments

to

> implies you have control over the other people that work at the company

instead of just assuming they'll just leave?

[rybosworld]

Let me ask this:

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?

[beeboobaa3]

Do you think you can't choose a different place of employment after saying "yes" to one? Do you think you're stuck there forever? Do you not realize you can choose a different employer, even after you already started working there?