Hacker News
points by locknitpicker 3 days ago | 0 comments
> After becoming highly visible for bringing things to attention, I was offered a package to leave, I assume so they could go back to a culture of top down authority and silence.

If we asked your coworkers to tell us what happened, would they say "he was easy to work with and so generous with their time by fixing issues all over the org"?

Or would they say something completely different?

[–] n0on3 3 days ago
Being “easy to work with” is unfortunately often confused with supporting other people agendas. Rising what’s necessary even if it makes people uncomfortable doesn’t automatically make you an ass, but odds are it will make you one that doesn’t play ball.
[–] locknitpicker 3 days ago
> Being “easy to work with” is unfortunately often confused with supporting other people agendas.

I don't think this is hard or complex. It's an easy question with a simple answer: do you like working with user foo? Whether you answer yes or no, why?

If virtually all your coworkers answer no, and the org feels it's in their interest to kick you out, then what lesson do you take from that?

And let's not forget that someone going around inventing fires to put out that he alone can put out is also something that fits the description of an agenda.

So no, sometimes the world is not our to get you. Sometimes you cause grief to everyone around you, to the point that it's a net benefit to get rid of you.

People need to stop confusing geeks and nerds with being socially awkward and outright sociopaths. Enjoying tinkering with things doesn't require you to be abhorrent or lack any social skills. You're not smart or intelligent if you believe it's a good idea to go around telling others to fix problems they don't have and being obnoxious about it. Being able to fix a bug does not change that.

[–] n0on3 2 days ago
I’m not sure what triggered such an out-of-proportion response, but I get the feeling a personal anecdote is leaking out of it. Nobody mentioned one being abhorrent, obnoxious, awkward or a sociopath, I’m sorry if you experienced some people like that (I mean it, been there) but that was not the parent comment picture (or at least it did not look like that to me). I was just contributing from my experience sometimes one gets labeled “difficult to work with” when honestly trying to do good by the org/team/mission/whatever just because that affects some people individual agenda or their cozy work situation.
[–] gregglain 3 days ago
I actually have seen good coworkers get chopped down because they cared more about the system than others egos. It saddens me when management supports egos more than the product. It shows up years later to the customers.
[–] wallst07 3 days ago
How do you measure 'care'. If it's a tech org, it either works or it doesn't?

You might 'care' to add features nobody asked for? Or 'care' to spend longer than necessary to refactor something that doesn't need it.

[–] restalis 2 days ago
In this context, first and foremost, it's "care" in the sense of maintainability. When the projects get big and weighty, it doesn't get harder to find fast solutions for implementing individual requirements or getting something fixed locally. What's hard and slows down the development is the need to find solutions that won't leave the project worse off in the long run.
[–] gregglain 2 days ago
This and yes also excessive refactor (I'm guilty).

One case I recall was an SRE that was quite intelligent asking smart questions and management took it as insubordination. The thing is he was fighting against shipping crap that later would ruin oncall.

Another time a coworker solved a big problem, saving time. But because management was not too involved, she got a pip.

One would assume making the system more reliable would get rewarded, in some contexts this is true. Others, it has to be blessed otherwise it can cut against.

[–] wallst07 1 day ago
I understand this and agree, but how do you measure it objectively.

Usually it's one outspoken engineer with lots of experience and anecdotes but not a link between cause/effect.. just a lot of war stories and slowing others down.

[–] locknitpicker 2 days ago
> I actually have seen good coworkers get chopped down because they cared more about the system than others egos.

What does this even mean? This sounds like an euphemism for someone being a jerk just because they wanted to unilaterally push changes to the code.

> It saddens me when management supports egos more than the product. It shows up years later to the customers.

Management are hired to support the people that maintain the product, and help them work together. If a developer fails to work together with coworkers, it's the manager's job to either help that developer right their wrongs, or support other developers by getting rid of the problematic one.

[–] turpentine 3 days ago
I had plenty of backing under the original org to operate that way, but acquisition restructuring often means managers at multiple levels exiting. When I was put on garden leave pending payout, several of my colleagues reached out distressed asking if they should be threatening to quit to force a reversal of the decision, or start looking for other work out of dissatisfaction, and others offered to provide references. I of course thanked them, but said they should look after their own interests as nothing was likely to change.
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
They would say something completely different and be wrong, most likely.

If you've seen it you've seen it. If you haven't, it'll be tempting to interpret this as some kind of garbled or one sided story.