I was chatting with a friend today about my current disillusionment with the management decisions that I seem to be more aware of in these past few months. To be honest, it's the clumsy, inept management that makes Dilbert a comic that everyone believes is written with their workplace in mind. And to a large extent this is the case - people are the same no matter what the workplace. There are executives, bosses, managers, and workers, and no matter what the company does, it's the interactions of these people that are remarkably similar.
So goes the theory.
But at what point does this similarity stop being a commonality, and become a difference? Specifically, if you're having a difficult time with the current management, what makes you think it'll be significantly different at a different workplace? After all, that's one of the big reasons for changing jobs, isn't it? To get to a better environment.
So I was thinking... How much of what I'm feeling about this management is just universal management dissatisfaction, and how much is truly unique to this place? Based on this, is the difference really all that bad, or is it just frustration I'm feeling in a lot of little ways, and rather than push back, my first instinct is to walk away because I don't feel it's my place in a large organization to change it. It has evolved to this point, and who am I to say it should adjust/adapt to me when the reverse is probably what every one else has done?
It's a lot of good questions, and there's no way I'll be able to find out all the answers because it's all very subjective, and you can't know what every place is like until you work there. For instance, getting here, I believed that this place would be significantly better than my last position, and in a few ways, it is. In some others, it's decidedly worse. Other areas, it's just very different. So is the move to this workplace a move up, down, or just a move?
I'm coming to the conclusion that it's just a move. But it can be a very important move. If the differences are over one or two issues, then that's not going to really change, but if there are serious disagreements over how work should be done, then maybe this you're in a workplace that's not as good a fit as another.
At my old company we came up with a saying: Some times, good people just don't fit. And it's not a statement that there are a lot of good people in the workforce, and there's a lot of good workplaces. But not every good person fits well with a good place. There's a lot more to a good fit than the goodness of the person and the place.
Are the goals compatible?
One of the things I've found most difficult to match up properly are the real goals of the place and the person. Someone may be looking to create some of the greatest works of their career. Some places may be looking to be the very best in their field. Others may be very content to work at the level they have achieved and leave the superlatives to the others. There's nothing right or wrong about one set of goals - they just are. The problem comes in when the goals are different and the friction builds.
Someone looking to create great things can be very frustrated when faced with an environment that's only interested in the next incremental change. They accept that the feeds are bad, or the data is iffy, because it's "OK", and to the person looking to do great work, "OK", is just not "OK". They are looking for great. The individual can think that the workplace is just not interested in doing the level of work they are interested in doing, and to a great extent, that's exactly it - but not because they don't want to - it could be as simple as the fact that they are very comfortable with the flow of work they have evolved to, and aren't really interested in changing. If the great work can be done while retaining the work flow they have come to depend on, then fantastic! But if not, then they'd rather keep going like they have rather than venture into territory they might not like.
Is the pace of work compatible?
This is one of the easy ones, really. Virtually every place expects folks to get in around the same time and work a certain number of hours. Additionally, they may expect a certain level of effort from a group which translates to hours based on the development cycle. In any case, there are expectations of the amount and level of effort from the people at the workplace.
It's not always fair - the executives may work less hours than the workers, or maybe more, but the expectations won't likely be spelled out in the interview process. It's not the best way to attract top talent by telling them something they may already know, or will learn within the first few weeks anyway.
And there's the problem for me - if one person is ready to put in significantly more effort than the others around him, what's likely to happen is that managers will become reliant on this person and will allow others to slack off a bit knowing that this 'engine' will pull the majority of the work anyway. Then, when they take a vacation, or need some time off it's nearly a revolt because the others got lazy and don't know what to do.
The reverse is typically weeded out by the workplace for someone hot showing up for the 'standard' hours and level of effort. Still... it's not completely fair to the person to withhold this information from them in the interview process. Yet, at the same time, how many people want to go to a place where they hear "Everyone works 55 to 60 hour weeks, and if you don't you'll be let go at your first review." Answer: not a lot.
Are the demands of the work acceptable?
Given that the duration and the pace of work are compatible, what about the other demands of the place? Are there going to be calls after-hours? Are there games, events, parties that have an implied expectation of attendance? Again, these might not be clear in the beginning, but after a few months, there may be a significant level of this type of 'work' associated with the position.
While many may say this type of commitment cannot be required of an employee, everyone in that position knows that there's a million different ways to mask the truth of the matter. Re-assignments, difficult goals, there are always ways to make it appear that there's no bias towards the person, but the talk at the water cooler is that this person didn't get this promotion or opportunity because they didn't go to the Company picnic and let the Boss win the sack race.
Everyone has a different tolerance level for politics, and while it shouldn't matter in an intelligent, mature, professional workplace, we all know that's just idealistic.
Do the rewards of the work feed your soul?
There's more to a job than the paycheck, and while that's got to be acceptable to the person and the place, there is a lot more to this than just dollars and cents. Look at all the volunteerism around you - that's got nothing to do with a paycheck, it's all about the satisfaction they receive from doing the job they are doing. It can externally motivated like power or acclaim, or it can be completely internally motivated - simply knowing they were capable of accomplishing the feats they set before themselves.
Tapping into this is hard because it presupposes that everyone knows what internally motivates them - assuming something does, which is not universally true. But for those few that have this knowledge, there can be a lot lacking in the other parts of the fit as this will allow them to ignore some other problems and still feel very good about themselves.
Looking for a Better Fit
I've done a lot of thinking about this. I'm coming to the opinion that I'm not a great fit for The Shop. Lots of little things, but all pointing to the same thing: a significant difference from the 'average' developer here. It's not bad or good - it's just different. In the long run, some times good people don't fit.
I think that's me.
