[logicalmind]

In my experience, one easy way to determine how good the job is going to be is based on the pecking order of various departments in the company. At a company that does software, the software developers are usually at or near the top. Alternatively, at a marketing company, the marketers are at the top and the software developers may very well be near the bottom.

You can gather this information in a number of ways in an interview. Simply ask one of the interviewers where their group exists in the company hierarchy. If you don't want to be explicit, ask to look at the area where the developers sit and work. If the area is well done and people seem happy, you're probably in good shape. If the people are essentially stuffed into a closet or makeshift office/hallway then you might want to run.

Generally, try to work for a company that makes money on software or technology. A company that makes money on other products or services is likely to treat software developers as a low-level function of the organization.

[groovy2shoes]

> Generally, try to work for a company that makes money on software or technology. A company that makes money on other products or services is likely to treat software developers as a low-level function of the organization.

I'd say this is usually good advice, but with a caveat: larger companies with deep chains of command -- even software companies -- typically have "management culture". These types of companies put a lot of pressure on their employees to move into management, even if they're not good at it or they don't want to. These companies reward playing social power games above any other kind of achievement. There will be lots of meetings and not a lot of work being done. There will be no reward for technological innovation or productivity.

So, I'd say avoid companies with deep management hierarchies unless 1) you want to go into management or 2) are stoked by the thought of doing the bare minimum.

[krisdol]

The reason I asked is effectively because your comment and the OP more or less describe the type of company I work for.

[groovy2shoes]

Some people thrive in such an environment. For those people, it's certainly not dysfunctional. Many companies with such deep hierarchies are in no immediate danger of going under -- they got so massive by being successful, after all. I think that once a company reaches a particular size, they stop trying to succeed and start trying not to fail. Again, some people really do enjoy that environment.

To me, it felt like a psychological prison. I managed to break out.

The only advice I can give is this: if you're unhappy where you are, start planning your escape. Start networking and be patient; in my experience, this is the way to land a good job. On the other hand, if you're content at your current company then who cares what other people call dysfunctional?

[hga]

"On the other hand, if you're content at your current company then who cares what other people call dysfunctional?"

That can induce bad habits.

People look askance at resumes from successful Microsoft employees because to succeed in the last N years they had to do things that add no value to anything other than surviving or thriving at that dysfunctional company. Why hire such an person if there's a good chance he'll do some damage to your company while you attempt to deprogram him, during which he'll be much less productive that someone from a less damaged company.

(OK, finding the latter might actually be difficult....)

[groovy2shoes]

You're absolutely correct, but I'll answer your question:

> Why hire such an person if there's a good chance he'll do some damage to your company while you attempt to deprogram him, during which he'll be much less productive that someone from a less damaged company.

Hire such a person if you happen to be hiring for a dysfunctional company. They've got the experience, and they'll appear productive immediately.

So then the "black mark" on the resume only becomes a hindrance if after, say, 10 years a person finally decides to break out. It's still possible, but it will take a lot more work.

[vinceguidry]

This isn't necessarily true. I'm the one-man maintainer of the makeup company I work for's Rails site. It's a pretty sweet gig. The marketing team's turnaround doesn't even come close to mine, so I get a lot of downtime from adding new features. They literally can't think of things to implement faster than it takes for me to do them.

There's a lot of technical debt, but I have the time to clean it up. Most of the previous guys in my job just coasted, so I'm already kicking ass compared to them.

[ak39]

That's the thing: technical debt is the cost of innovation.

Edit: "Technical debt has to be the acceptable cost of rapid and affordable innovation."

We can't talk about (technical) debt without recognising the commensurate leverage it provides to business. If a debt does not continue leveraging the business, then and only then, can it be considered carcinogenic. And the only reliable solution then is to simply switch the solution off or replace it.