Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by crakhamster01 151 days ago
I think this advice is pretty apt for small to medium sized companies. We're all invested in the company succeeding, but you don't want to become known as the person that always says "no".

At large companies, I've rarely found a reason to speak out on a project. Unless it has a considerable effect on my team/work (read: peace of mind), it just doesn't make sense to be the person casting doubt. There's not much ROI for being "right".

If you manage to kill the project before it starts, no one will ever know how bad of a disaster you prevented. If the project succeeds despite your objections, you look like an idiot. And if it fails - as the author notes, that doesn't get remembered either.

As a senior IC, the only real ROI I've found in these situations is when you can have a solution handy if things fail. People love a fixer. Even if you only manage to pull this off once or twice, your perception in the org/company gets a massive boost. "Wow, so-and-so is always thinking ahead."

A basic example I saw at my last company was automated E2E testing in production. My teammate had suggested this to improve our ability to detect regressions, but it was ultimately shot down as not being worth the investment over other features.

A few months later, we had seen multiple instances of users hitting significant issues before we could catch them. My teammate was able to whip out the test framework they had been building on the side, and was immediately showered with praise/organizational support (and I'm sure a great review as well).

3 comments

The effort required to be ready with the fix is often SO much less than what you need to convince folks the problem exists in the first place. I find it's frequently the only viable option on an individual or team scale.
I've realized that climbing the corporate ladder doesn't make any sense. You put more effort, you take responsibility for stupid people's decisions, and then you get a disproportionately small reward. The smartest move is to find a bottom-tier position where they pay you enough to sustain your desired lifestyle, but where you cannot really be blamed for failures of the management.
Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle

> You put more effort, you take responsibility for stupid people's decisions, and then you get a disproportionately small reward

On that I disagree. Managers might have to take responsibility for bad decisions, sure, but get a disproportionately larger reward than those under them. It's certainly less stressful at the bottom of the ladder, but don't expect to get much praise or monetary reward, and you're the first to go as soon as something goes wrong. There's a reason why late-stage companies are full of middle managers, and few people actually doing the work.

> don't expect to get much praise or monetary reward

Yeah so I figured out that if I have a bullshit busyjob for €100k and my option is to actually start working my ass off and maybe double the salary in absolute best-case scenario, then fuck that. But I admit that my position might be exceptional.

> and you're the first to go as soon as something goes wrong.

I live in Europe so I assume I'd survive even a big fuckup as long as I'm following my manager's orders, even if HQ is American. Also, when there are bigger layoffs, they specifically by law must let go in the order of new hires to old hires, which means that I'm not in immediate danger even if they cut workforce.

The biggest danger is someone discovering that I mostly play video games at work and then giving me lots of useless tasks just to keep me occupied.

It still makes little sense to be a line level manager. You can make just as much as a senior+ IC at the right company.
My kind of approach as well. I don't care it shown as not being career oriented, as long as there are options to work elsewhere, even if outside IT.
> At large companies, I've rarely found a reason to speak out on a project.

That's true. And it is currently one of the main reason why startups are so efficient compared to MegaCorps.

In small companies, it takes few engineers voicing out ' this is bullshit ' to stop a disaster.

In large corps, it takes 2y, 10M USD and a team in burnout to reach the same result.

And the main reason is the usual source of all sins: *Politics*.