[energy123]

I used to do that, but decided it was deceptive and harmful. You are not describing reality by saying "we" if you did everything. You are creating a social manipulation. It is better to just accurately describe what happened and allow the correct information to flow through the organization, leading to better decision making. For example, you will have the tools to deal with people who maliciously steal your credit when they say "we" about the work you did, without which you wouldn't be able to address the consequent distortions and harm to the organization if they are to be promoted or given more responsibility. Free riders will be exposed more quickly, giving leaders the ability to more rapidly self-correct the team, and reducing grievances of individuals carrying too much of the weight.

[thenoblesunfish]

If you wrote code that is to be maintained by someone else, which I think has to be true 99% of the time, it is "we". You are still operating as a team even if you did the initial work.

[hamandcheese]

I disagree. It's not uncommon that there is work on a team that everyone might want to do, but only one person gets to do it. Being a team player can mean doing unsexy maintenance work while a team mate works on a highly visible greenfield project. Spreading the credit around a bit is perfectly reasonable.

[rapidaneurism]

Reasonable for whom?

In sufficiently small companies yes it makes sense for everyone. In larger and more regimented companies doing the Greenfield project can (and often does) lead to promotions and higher earnings.

Teamwork is fine, but when salaries and promotions are individually negotiated you have to look after number one.

[hamandcheese]

> Teamwork is fine, but when salaries and promotions are individually negotiated you have to look after number one.

I have the highest rank and salary on my team. I am more than happy to send high visibility work to my aspiring team mates. What goes around comes around, if not in the form of immediate salary then in the form of connections and references down the road (which is a much bigger driver of salary and rank anyway).

Playing a zero-sum game at work at the expense of your colleagues is penny wise, pound foolish, even if you truly do only care about yourself.

[mlrtime]

Agreed, if you have not worked at a FAANG (or adjacent) the advice in these threads can work very well for you or very much against you.

The level of politics, promotion, promotion packets, leveling is a whole different level. That is not to start on PIP, hire to fire, etc...

You need to know the game if you're going to play it.

[energy123]

> Spreading the credit around a bit is perfectly reasonable.

I'm not against spreading credit. I'm against misrepresenting situations to spread false credit, which creates incorrect perceptions and leads to poor decision making and political tension. If an individual did a unit of work, I will acknowledge that, to the extent that it is true. If an individual jumped on a grenade and did unpopular work, I will praise that individual for doing that work.

This is not antagonism towards teamwork, it's to make the team function better by ensuring information propagation is accurate, that the people pulling the weight in the team feel recognized, and that free riders are held to account which is a form of respect to the productive team members.