[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.