Ask HN: Is it me or ...?
465 points| neutralino1 | 12 years ago
I am a developer and I have worked at a few startups which I have subsequently quit.
Everytime I get hired by a company, I am 100% motivated and committed. I specifically choose companies whose business I find appealing. I am not an executant who can simply code anything for anyone. I like to work for projects I support. I care more about the project than about the salary and benefits. I suppose that's the case for most of us.
However, it seems after a year or two in the company, the honeymoon period ends and the only thing I can see is the bullshit coming out of management's mouth. Bogus business plans, inability to close deals, short-sighted decisions, petty management techniques, overly frequent pivots, you name it...
Am I 1/ Bad at choosing my jobs, 2/ Too demanding towards the companies that hire me, 3/ Mentally unstable, 4/ Unrealistic, 5/ Just a normal bullshit intolerant guy ?
Is there any way I can find a boss I respect beyond a couple of years?
Tell me about your experiences. Thank you.
[+] [-] jfasi|12 years ago|reply
Consider an extreme stereotype: the "business school guy." He went to XYZ school of management, where he learned that a business is an organization that takes in raw materials and creates something more valuable than the sum of the unfinished parts. He learned how to raise money by selling his business idea to other people who think like him. He learned about how to manage people, perform marketing, design products, and set priorities for his organization.
I don't mean to suggest this is the type you're working with here, but I offer a relatable character to which you can add traits or from which you can remove them to fit the particulars of your experience.
For him, running a business is as much an exercise in tradeoffs and compromises as building an engineering system probably is for you:
You end up running with an imperfect design because of time constraints and because you're a slave to shipping. He runs with an imperfect business plan because that's what his board thinks is best and because he's a slave to their opinions. You devote time and energy to a technology only to have it fail when you need it most. He pursues partnerships and deals that fall through because of unforeseen differences, despite his best efforts. You end up rewriting your architecture because it didn't meet your requirements as well as you expected. He pivots the business because his original business plan isn't panning out as he anticipated. Et cetera.
The point is that generally people in management can be assumed to be doing their best. Despite what hacker news and TechCrunch try to convince you, running a company is a job just the same as building an engineering system. Incentives aren't always aligned, you have to cut corners, and conflicts are unavoidable. As someone on the inside of engineering divisions of technology giants, I can tell you that you get this sort of conflict and frustration even at these "engineering-first" sorts of places.
Naturally some companies are better than others. You want to find a manager who thinks of himself as your equal rather than your slaver. Instead of asking yourself "does this management know what it's doing?" ask yourself "does this management make me better as a professional?" If you can say "yes" to the second question, the answer to the first question doesn't matter. The company can fail, but if you come out of it better than you came in, you still succeeded.
[+] [-] HillRat|12 years ago|reply
The only thing I would amend is that most poor managers aren't the "slaver" types (if you end up reporting to one, it'll be obvious and you'll know to run as far and as fast as possible). Instead, they're weak -- incapable of protecting their people and productivity. Weak managers come in a lot of flavors, and it takes time to discern when one isn't working out. For example, you could have a promotion who has trouble taking on a managerial role with his or her old team; a likable supervisor who lets his team drift so he doesn't come across as too demanding; a manager whose focus is polishing the rungs up the ladder rather than the people below him; or a tech hire who has trouble focusing on project and budget details, or who avoids dealing with peer managers as much as possible.
A related problem is more strategic, and one that you find in very large organizations and bureaucracies -- the biggest conglomerates and public-sector agencies. In these environments, management undergoes a phase shift at a certain level, and successive layers of management are wholly budget-focused, isolated from operational realities. As I warn people, "First, you do. Then you tell people how to do it. Then you tell people what to do. Then you're creating the conditions for people to do what they do. Then you tell people why they're doing it." That fourth layer is where the trouble starts -- several layers of managers are involved in creating the financial conditions to allow lower-level management to actually get things done, but this means that by the time you get to the C suite or seventh floor, the executive/political layer is dealing with managers who aren't directly plugged into operational realities. The end result is that decisions coming from the top are, no matter how well-intentioned and considered, depending on rumor, hearsay and report, not on-the-ground knowledge. Thus the sense from the floor that the only thing the brass are good at doing is consuming steak and producing bullshit.
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|12 years ago|reply
Your vision fails to describe why information is withheld from engineers that would help them do their job. We wont even talk about why doublespeak and so often what seem to be outright lies are told to trusted members of the team.
The world you describe is some rational honest place where people are trying to build a system they understand. In an engineering project when we're doing that, you don't withhold information or surprise people, because that causes all sorts of conflicts and false starts, and robs people of the power to contribute.
That deliberate lack of communication, which steals perspective and the ability to think about your situation, is the hallmark of the division between management and workers in a growing company. And the only explanation for it is a paternalistic disrespect for the underlings who 'can't handle the truth'.
[+] [-] allochthon|12 years ago|reply
This is key. The first sin of management is to think they're managing people. Innovation comes from collaboration among talented equals trying to solve a real problem in the world, not from someone bestowing his unique vision upon the masses and giving them the privilege of working for him. It is the latter attitude that I find the best predictor of whether there's going to be endless frustration at a company.
[+] [-] king_jester|12 years ago|reply
In my experience, this doesn't exist. Having a manager has already established a hierarchy of relationships that you deal with in your day to day work. Even if your manager tries to be an equal to you, they are in fact not your equal, they are your superior.
> Instead of asking yourself "does this management know what it's doing?" ask yourself "does this management make me better as a professional?" If you can say "yes" to the second question, the answer to the first question doesn't matter. The company can fail, but if you come out of it better than you came in, you still succeeded.
I don't buy into this definition of success. Indeed, if you don't have any confidence in what management is doing, it is really unlikely that said management is making you a better professional. In those scenarios you are already looking at management through a lens of mistrust (mistrust that may be totally justified). For someone like the submitter, if being a part of a specific kind of project is more important that money or resume building, they will have a hard time finding a place where they won't be unhappy over time because they do not have a true ability to affect the outcome of the software they build and work on as they are not an equal to those making decisions.
[+] [-] adamzerner|12 years ago|reply
> Instead of asking yourself "does this management know what it's doing?" ask yourself "does this management make me better as a professional?" If you can say "yes" to the second question, the answer to the first question doesn't matter. The company can fail, but if you come out of it better than you came in, you still succeeded.
The question isn't "did they make me better?". It's "did they make me better than the best alternative". Opportunity cost. Working for a shitty company might make you better as a professional, but not better than your alternatives.
[+] [-] tomphoolery|12 years ago|reply
This is a very significant point. The best part about building systems with computers is that their reactions to your changes are deterministic. With people, it isn't so cut-and-dry, especially in the world of cutting big-money business deals. In my personal opinion, there's really no "right" way to run a business, but there are plenty of wrong ways.
Over time, I've learned that one major origin of respect for your co-workers as well as your superiors stems from a respect or appreciation of them as people. Personally, I feel as though many of my co-workers could have been friends of mine had we met outside of work (not that they can't be even though we met at work, but you get my point), and I'm confident that they both understand and respect my viewpoints, because I do the same for them. This means a lot to me. When I see something wrong, I say something. In a small team startup, I believe I have the power to make changes that could affect the outcome of the company. Not only that, but I believe the product that we're developing is useful and beneficial to mass amounts of people. It may not be a venue by which we can "change the world", but perhaps we can make a few people's lives a little easier and bring their costs down tremendously.
So coming back, a lot of what this may be is a disconnect between the developer and the authority figures that sit atop him in the hierarchy. It's always hard to bow down to authority, but one with power who you both trust and admire is not really considered an "authority" in your head, is it?
It could "just be you", but I happen to think there are far more people out there I wouldn't want to work for than people I do want to work for.
[+] [-] 300bps|12 years ago|reply
Yes, but people in general judge themselves on their intentions while judging others on their results.
Part of maturing is figuring out how to not do this. Until that happens, it's easy for someone to find faults with everyone everywhere.
For me, I'm reminded of the times early in my career where our marketing people were making what I thought were the most boneheaded moves I could have imagined. One project in particular seemed especially bad and like we were flushing marketing dollars and IT resources down the toilet. That project ended up being responsible for 60% of our business for several years. From that, I learned to fulfill my role to the best of my ability and always respect the opinion of experts in other roles. They might not bat 1000, but I don't either.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
Your analogy is excellent, but you don't follow through with it all the way. I don't think it's fair to say managers are generally doing the best job they can any more than it's fair to say that systems are engineered as well as they can be. Most software is buggy and barely serviceable, and I don't doubt that is true for management as well.
I'm not in the same camp as engineers who think management is worthless, mind you. Indeed, my experience with engineering teams has taught me that good management is worth it's weight in gold. But it's also scarce.
[+] [-] bjelkeman-again|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unclebucknasty|12 years ago|reply
I mean, how many truly big ideas are coming out of SV vs. ideas that are simply looking to attract eyeballs and create viral growth for the buyout/exit?
Also, how does the lean startup, MVP, iterate, pivot, succeed-at-anything culture impact the stability and vision (or lack thereof) of companies? Seems that it leads to a lack of the type of mission that would keep someone like the OP inspired. If you join a company that has a vision to revolutionize X, then pivots 8 times before landing on talking toasters, then, yeah, you may lose interest at one of those pivots.
[+] [-] jwarkentin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etler|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg|12 years ago|reply
As someone going to work for a startup, you're in much the same position as an investor. It won't be fun or lucrative to work for one that fails, so you're trying to predict which ones will succeed. In fact, it's even more important for you than for investors, because your portfolio consists of a single company. So I would suggest doing what investors do, and try (a) to learn as much as you can about how to predict which startups will succeed, and (b) analyze any company you're considering working for very thoroughly.
I've written a lot about how to predict which startups will succeed. I'd look for a startup with very determined founders who are working on a problem that grew organically out of their own experiences.
[+] [-] 7Figures2Commas|12 years ago|reply
I'd go slightly further than that: look for founders who are working on a problem that grew organically out of their own experiences in an industry in which they have real domain expertise.
A lot of today's startups are doomed to fail because the founders are trying to "disrupt" industries that they really don't know anything about and have no relationships in. Ironically, however, the people who have deep knowledge about an industry and the connections to navigate it often aren't what many prospective startup employees would consider "technical" (i.e. they don't "code"), so they're dismissed, particularly in places like Silicon Valley.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that successful companies often fail to deliver attractive financial returns for employees beyond salary, so it's not enough to try to identify companies you believe have higher probabilities of success. You have to be able to negotiate a quality equity package with them. The average prospective employee is not going to be able to do that, especially in Silicon Valley, where:
1. Exorbitant valuations help justify miniscule equity grants for most employees.
2. A reliance on capital from professional investors (angels, VCs) results in dilution and the granting of preferences to certain classes of stock, leaving employee equity extremely vulnerable.
The best advice I could give to someone wanting to join a startup who is driven, in part, by the potential for financial return, is to instead seek opportunities to partner with folks who are deep in a particular industry, preferably unsexy, who wouldn't get the time of day from an engineer in Palo Alto because they can't write code and are probably older than 35. These people are not hard to find if you leave Bubbleville.
[+] [-] aculver|12 years ago|reply
If you've got a few years of development experience in companies like that, I recommend you "find a boss [you] respect" by becoming your own boss. Start with consulting. These engagements are different than employment because often times they're not full-time and you can stagger a couple of contracts together at the same time. This is to your advantage because you now have two "bosses" (clients) instead of one. I know it sounds counterintuitive that more bosses are better, but if things aren't going as you'd like on one contract, you can move on to another contract as it becomes available without the sort of risk you incur when you're switching full-time employment at one company to another.
From there, you can further increase your independence by building a product that has many smaller customers. Again, many "bosses", but you need each one individually much less, so you're actually more in control of your circumstances.
If it doesn't work out, you can be reasonably confident you can just fall back into regular full-time employment. In this scenario, your definition of failure is most people's definition of success.
[+] [-] vinceguidry|12 years ago|reply
Boyd was the best fighter pilot in the Air Force. At the Fighter Weapons School, the Air Force's advanced tactics course that the Navy's Top Gun school was later based on, he laid down a challenge to anyone who would take it, in forty seconds, Boyd would maneuver from from having you on his six, to being on your six and winning the battle. It only ever took him twenty seconds and he was never beaten.
Boyd took his immense swagger and put it to work at the Pentagon designing what would become the F-15 and the F-16.
If you think the companies you've worked at had awful management practices, you ain't seen nothing yet. Boyd developed a scientific approach to designing planes based on the laws of thermodynamics. His ideas were constantly ridiculed and attacked, until enough studies were done to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were right.
Using this work, he designs the best fighter plane ever flown by pilots. He almost got that design approved for the F-15 but the bureaucracy, riddled with utterly toxic players, managed to bloat the plane with unnecessary cruft, gold-plating, they called it.
Boyd lost the fight for the F-15, but thinking ahead, he started working clandestinely on his design and, through a combination of back-channel communications with senior leadership under the President, outright neglect of the crap duties the Air Force gave him to marginalize him, he managed to turn his vision of a light-weight fighter into the YF-16, which demolished the competing design that the Air Force insisted have two engines. The YF-17 later became the Navy's F-18.
But the bureaucrats won the day again. After having the F-16 shoved down their throats by Boyd, they again gold-plated the design and the resulting fighter was nothing like the prototype. Boyd gave up in disgust and turned to academics, eventually developing what many consider to be the most important contribution to warfare since Sun Tzu, his OODA loop.
My takeaway from this is that we often limit the scope of our actions unnecessarily. If we focus our energies and efforts on things that management can shut down, then you are bound to be disappointed. I have projects and responsibilities handed down from above that I take seriously and try to do a good job of, but they don't get my passion. That goes into my personal projects and life. You should not sign your passion away for a paycheck. You can't succeed by fighting your opponents, you can only succeed by completely marginalizing them. If management doesn't matter, then they can't hurt you.
[+] [-] seestheday|12 years ago|reply
Edit: I did some reading. A lot of sources referenced a very abrasive manner. That could have been a major factor into why his ideas weren't used more.
[+] [-] huhtenberg|12 years ago|reply
Easy there, comrade.
[+] [-] niuzeta|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Balgair|12 years ago|reply
He decided to stay late in the cube farm. His original idea was to go around to all the cubes and count to number of Dilbert Cartoons stapled to the oatmeal gray walls. he thought this would be evidence that everyone was cynical and full of shit. Ok, so, her grabs a post-it and goes about tallying it all up. What he saw was not Dilbert and black humor but desperate passion. Most of the cubes were not messy, they were not cynical, they were not reflections of the company. He showed me that ~85% of the cubes were more or less shrines to their families. Pictures of rosy cheeked little girls on swings, little boys with trucks and sticks, graduation photos, school flags and colors, game schedules and rehearsal dates, church functions, pictures of wives on beaches, men dancing the tango, wedding photos with really bad hair-dos, parents with liver spots and tubes in their noses, etc. Most of the cubes were just covered in pictures of family, just every inch. Ok, got it? Most people at this company didn't give a flying turd about the missions or the day to day. They all knew it was some load of horse hockey. It was their families they really cared for. They went in day after day only for those kinky haired girls and those octogenarians. To give their families a better shot at life, to go to college and make a difference. The plant shut down about 5 months ago, leaving all those there in a hell of a lurch.
Honestly, I don't know what the take away is here. That you should work harder, or that families are toxic to a company, or that they weren't dedicated enough to their families. I don't know.
But the people that you work with are just that, people. Forgive them. Love them too.
[+] [-] jimmaswell|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elyrly|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realrocker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neutralino1|12 years ago|reply
I may indeed have been to long to show my concern. You are correct. However, in my mental process, I have tried many times to show empathy towards management, placing myself in their shoes and trying to realise the anxiety that they must be feeling. Yet, I can't make myself to accept choices I do not respect. I may be a pretentious prick but I just have a way of seeing things. Indeed I wouldn't be talking this way if I didn't have the luxury of changing job whenever I wanted and I do realise my luck here.
[+] [-] trumbitta2|12 years ago|reply
In 14 years I learned to:
- low my expectancies
- do my job always at 100%, but not 110% (save rare occasions)
- live a life outside work (mine, btw, is a life of wife, side-projects, and mmorpg)
[+] [-] opendais|12 years ago|reply
I'm always amused when my Service is up and everything else is down. Then again, vice versa happens and I wonder what the fuck I was smoking when I wrote the part that failed...but hey, when you can only blame yourself it is amazing how much more fun you have at work. :)
[+] [-] jrs235|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
[+] [-] mbillie1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noel82|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flipped_bit|12 years ago|reply
Most start-up work is 'hauling shit uphill' (horribly paraphrasing a quote about acting that Sean Connery said in his acceptance for some lifetime award).
[+] [-] neutralino1|12 years ago|reply
I have a very active life outside. I just wish I could subscribe to a project for longer than a couple of years.
[+] [-] IgorPartola|12 years ago|reply
I also found a dangerous situation that comes from commiserating with coworkers. Basically, you can be perfectly happy, chugging along doing your job and one or more of your coworkers is not happy. So you start talking and they start telling you all the things they think are wrong with the company. Next thing you know you are also getting upset with the management, etc. despite them treating you the same as before. You take on your coworkers' misery and adopt their attitude. This has happened to me in the past, sometimes justified, sometimes not. In either case, try to get some perspective on your own situation not just equate it to theirs.
Lastly, is there anything wrong with doing some moving around every once in a while? I don't think so. Or try your hand at freelancing and instead of dealing with a frustrating manager, deal with a whole lot of frustrating customers at once :).
[+] [-] neutralino1|12 years ago|reply
I have tried freelance already and I didn't really like it. I would rather work in a team for a single company/project.
You are correct about talking to others. Yet, even if I have been fairly well treated, I do not want to work in a company where only so-called "high-value" employees such as developers are well treated. I do not support underpaid internship or crappy business developers deal. I know it's probably not my business caring about these things but I have a certain work ethic.
[+] [-] allworknoplay|12 years ago|reply
My dad has worked at the same company since he dropped out of college around 40 years ago (he runs it now). I do think our generation's (well, I'm 32, don't know about you) job goals are a lot different and a lot more conducive to short-term jobs, and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. I tend to place maximum value on doing real work and self improvement, and lots of meetings and doing the same work for years aren't the best way to achieve these (fundamentally unachievable) goals.
But even more than that, I think a major problem is that startups are companies that are by definition changing ceaselessly. They're either growing or belt tightening, adding new people who need to be managed even if the team is still functional. The emphasis goes from core product building to scaling and optimizing. Etc.
So, it might be sort of you, but it may also just be the nature of the work. Don't take it too hard.
I have a friend who's... hard to work with? He changes jobs a ton. But his strategy has evolved from 'join a team then get frustrated' to 'join a project, know what you're going to work on, add a ton of value, then maybe find another project at the same company, or not.' It's kind of mercenary but can be really valuable to both parties if you play it right, and keeps him from feeing miserable.
[+] [-] neutralino1|12 years ago|reply
I am probably too easy to work with. I take care of loose ends, make it easy for people to achieve their goal, polish sharp corners for everything to run smoothly, treat everyone respectfully, etc... Everyone ends up thinking everything is natural and are surprised when I suddenly quit.
[+] [-] damon_c|12 years ago|reply
Over time, I watched the passion and integrity of the founders/owners dissolve as they bought expensive real estate and had children.
Decisions that used to be about what would be the most "awesome", became about what would be the most $$$.
Quitting those jobs were two great decisions. After the first one, I was still surprised when it happened again at the second one. Now I'm not surprised anymore. This is just what happens.
Now I stay freelance. Everyone has to be happy all the time or you don't work together anymore. Until I'm in charge, and have the opportunity to sell out my own principles, that's how it's going to be!
[+] [-] dsirijus|12 years ago|reply
Jobs, universities, projects, residence, friends, women... You name it. I can trace that pattern to basically anything I've ever done in my life, to the point that I now count on it.
And that's fine.
[+] [-] JonFish85|12 years ago|reply
No company is perfect, even if you're the sole owner & employee. "Inability to close deals" is extremely vague, so I don't want to jump to conclusions, but deals fall through all the time. It could be a sub-par sales team, it could be market conditions, it could be a million things, but that's just a part of business in general.
Short-sighted decisions are also tricky. What you call short-sighted might be necessary for a longer-term strategy. Long-term strategies are great, but sometimes $10 now is more important than $100 next week. If it's a code thing, sometimes you need to have a feature done immediately for contractual reasons, even if it's going to require more work down the road.
Petty management techniques are a pain in the ass, but if it takes you over a year to find them, there's not a ton you can do before looking at your next job to ensure that doesn't happen.
Overly frequent pivots also can be tricky. If you don't see profit/upswing anytime soon, you might be forced to pivot if you can't raise money on reasonable terms. Unless you're privy to board meetings and whatnot, it's hard to say.
There aren't many perfect jobs out there. Like other posters have said, you might be happiest if you can save enough to do your own thing for awhile. But keep in mind that in one way or another, you're probably going to have to deal with other businesses, even if you're running your own show. Deals will fall through, your business plan might not go according to script, you might be forced to make short-sighted decisions just to keep the lights on / keep a client / what-have-you.
One thing I might caution about is quitting too many jobs. I'm not in the valley, but here in Boston, a reputation can follow you. If you get a name for being a perpetual flight-risk, it can be hard to shake. Granted leaving after a year or two at each one probably isn't the worst, but as your career develops, it might make it more difficult if you want to become a leader within a company.
[+] [-] pallandt|12 years ago|reply
You're being unrealistic. Try lowering your expectations of other people and if you can't find complete fulfillment in your job, just search for it in something else. A job is just a job at the end of the day, you're primarily doing it for money. Not everyone is lucky to both have money and the ideal job at the same time.
It really isn't worth filling your mind with negativity about aspects that aren't fully under your control, which usually is the case when you're working for other people.
Just do your best, let the higher-ups worry about the rest, continue growing professionally through your side-projects and take good care of your health. It may sound silly, but going to the gym for instance, eating healthier, having a regular sleeping schedule can do a lot to lower your anxiety and in turn make your less than ideal job(s) easier to bare.
[+] [-] edw519|12 years ago|reply
Great!
I suppose that's the case for most of us.
I don't suppose that. Others may say that, but they really prefer what's in it for them. You are in the minority. (That's a good thing.)
...the only thing I can see is the bullshit coming out of management's mouth...
That's the unmistakable signal from your inner self that it's time to move on.
Am I 1/ Bad at choosing my jobs
No. It's hard to choose the best jobs because, for the most part, they're already taken. Good bosses don't lose their people nearly as much so those jobs simply aren't as available.
2/ Too demanding towards the companies that hire me
No. Don't lower your standards.
3/ Mentally unstable
Maybe, but I can't tell from anything you've posted yere.
4/ Unrealistic
No. The day you lower your expectations to the mediocrity you've encountered is the day you've sold your soul and forfeited your real potential dreams.
5/ Just a normal bullshit intolerant guy
Probably.
Is there any way I can find a boss I respect beyond a couple of years?
Yes. You already have: yourself.
Tell me about your experiences.
35 years & 88 companies:
WorkingForSomeoneElse = WisdomAccumulation
DoingMyOwnThing = WisdomExpenditure // and much more fun!
I think that everyone needs a little of both. You've just had a little too much of the former and no enough of the latter. That's all.
[+] [-] neutralino1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runako|12 years ago|reply
>> Bogus business plans, inability to close deals, short-sighted decisions, petty management techniques, overly frequent pivots, you name it...
This presents a killer opportunity for personal growth: go start your own business. You'll either learn that you are a masterful business planner, only making high-minded long-term decisions & closing deals left and right, and you'll be super successful.
OR you will grow as a person and learn that there are at least two sides to every business decision.
Either way, you'll grow as a person through the experience.
[+] [-] neutralino1|12 years ago|reply
I indeed intend to do that. However, I don't believe in patching up a magical business formula, hypnotising VCs and raising again every other year.
I believe in small bootstrapped businesses that take years to build and can't become full-time occupations before a long time.
I find raising 1M and making 100K in revenue less successful and admirable than raising 0 and making 10K.
But that's just my humble clueless ignorant take on this.
[+] [-] programminggeek|12 years ago|reply
Every business wants you to be fully committed and giving 110%, but most businesses aren't as committed to you as they expect you to be towards them.
At some point you need to find a kind of detachment to your job that allows you to do good work and go home and forget about work, or you need to keep moving on to different things until you land in the right spot.
It's tough because society still sort of makes you feel like switching jobs every few years is a bad thing, but that is just the way it is now. Companies tend not to invest as much in their people and so people aren't investing as much in their companies.
In many ways, it's more capitalistic to be taking advantage of opportunities when they come your way than it is to just sit at one company and "put your time in".
[+] [-] emerod|12 years ago|reply
Getting fired repeatedly caused me to re-evaluate my priorities. I decided that, going forward:
(1) I would keep in mind exactly what I wanted to be doing day-to-day and focus on doing that better than anyone else; in other words, I would consider myself strictly as a skilled craftsman. (2) I would keep in mind my "ideal" work environment so that I would always be ready to take the next best opportunity to find it. (3) Every job short of the ideal would be merely temporary. Management missteps, office politics, too-good-to-be-true risks, management changes, cutthroat coworkers, overbearing schedules were all none of my concern.
It worked out for me. After two more "temporary" jobs, I landed a job doing the one thing that I did best. When they had a management split, I took the less risky path, since both sides offered me a higher position. By the time they folded, I had acquired enough experience to be able to freelance part-time. I waited for the best opportunity I could get by personal referrals. One of the things that helped me get the job was my breadth of experience and the fact that they perceived me as "hard to get" (and hard to keep) because of my freelancing work, even though I could never have supported myself freelance. I have been there ten years now and I would say it is my ideal workplace.
[+] [-] antirez|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfraze|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netcan|12 years ago|reply
First, honeymoon periods seem to be a general thing: romances, friendships, jobs, etc. People are more 'polite' when you first meet them. You are probably more tolerant when you first meet people. You haven't had time to develop negative repertoire's or patterns. You're not bored with anything yet.
Your expectations also shift over time. You feel like you deserve respect or status or money or whatnot once you feel like a full member of that group. Instead of being delighted to get it, you're neutral when you do and angry when you don't.
Also, a lot of negative stuff takes time to see. The pathologies manifesting over and over and reveals ng themselves.
It sounds like you're pretty emotionally involved with the success of the business too (closing deals, pivoting, etc.). That can be emotionally taxing and you're on a shorter fuse when you're tired.
[+] [-] neutralino1|12 years ago|reply