
Ask HN: Is it me or ...? - neutralino1
Hi all,<p>I am a developer and I have worked at a few startups which I have subsequently quit.<p>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&#x27;s the case for most of us.<p>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&#x27;s mouth. Bogus business plans, inability to close deals, short-sighted decisions, petty management techniques, overly frequent pivots, you name it...<p>Am I
 1&#x2F; Bad at choosing my jobs,
 2&#x2F; Too demanding towards the companies that hire me,
 3&#x2F; Mentally unstable,
 4&#x2F; Unrealistic,
 5&#x2F; Just a normal bullshit intolerant guy
?<p>Is there any way I can find a boss I respect beyond a couple of years?<p>Tell me about your experiences. Thank you.
======
jfasi
I think it would be helpful to try to understand the perspective of
management.

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.

~~~
droopyEyelids
To me you seem to be describing some sort of ideal world.

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'.

~~~
calinet6
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

~~~
mtrimpe
Interestingly enough (in the context of this thread) my personal corollary to
that is:

"Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by bad
management."

~~~
akerl_
Pretty much a noop, since bad management is a subcategory of incompetence.

~~~
mtrimpe
It's about not blaming bad code/product on _developer_ incompetence though.

It's a leftover from a time when I unfairly criticised a number of programmers
who were actually heroically fighting to deliver a quality product under bad
management.

------
pg
Most startups fail. Bogus plans and an inability to close deals are probably
just the signs that failure is coming for that company.

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
> I'd look for a startup with very determined founders who are working on a
> problem that grew organically out of their own experiences.

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.

~~~
pg
We like domain expertise, but empirically it's not critical. The Airbnbs knew
zero about the hospitality industry when they started. They just knew they'd
had a life-changing experience when they rented out airbeds on their floor
during a conference. The Stripes didn't know anything about payments before
they started Stripe, except what any hacker who'd tried to process payments
before Stripe did (that existing options were terrible). And it was _because_
the Homejoys didn't know how to clean, and thus found themselves living in
squalor, that they ended up starting Homejoy.

It's also rare for a startup to succeed without making money for the
employees. The founders have the same type of stock as the employees, so the
founders generally can't make money without the employees also doing so. There
are occasionally cases where a startup gets so close to death that it has to
raise money on terms that wipe out all the existing shareholders (including
the founders), and then goes on to succeed. But usually those successes are
middling anyway.

I agree about unsexy ideas though. All the startups I mentioned were unsexy
ideas to start with, though their success has made some of the ideas seem
somewhat sexier.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
> We like domain expertise, but empirically it's not critical.

That's quite a statement. Companies like AirBnB are exceptions, not rules. If
you look at most of the top tech IPOs in 2013, which is as legitimate a way as
any of identifying companies that have actually delivered liquidity to
employees, there's domain expertise everywhere. Examples:

Veeva - founder was previously at salesforce.com, PeopleSoft, IBM

Marketo - founders hailed from Epiphany

FireEye - founded by a former Sun Microsystems engineer

Zulily - founded by Blue Nile execs

Tableau Software - founded by university researchers who specialized in data
visualization

Rocket Fuel - founders all worked in ads at Yahoo

RingCentral - founder previously sold a software communications company to
Motorola

Pretending that you can spot the next Mark Zuckerberg or Brian Chesky is a
fool's errand if you're a prospective startup employee. Domain expertise
doesn't guarantee success, but it is more likely to minimize certain risks,
particularly those around market fit and sales.

> It's rare for a startup to succeed without making money for the employees
> though.

A founder who owns 4% of a $1 billion company gets a $40 million pay day when
his company goes public. And chances are he's going to be receiving more
equity if he's still a member of the management team. An employee who owns
.01% of a $1 billion company gets a $100,000 bonus when his company goes
public. Even if you own .1%, you won't net $1 million after taxes. This is not
the type of "making money" many early startup employees are after.

Simply put, the idea that owning a smaller piece of a bigger pie is better
than owning a bigger piece of a smaller pie doesn't stand up to scrutiny in
Silicon Valley because most startups don't go public at billion-dollar
valuations and the vast majority of M&A deals are under $50 million. The odds
that you are going to work at Facebook in 2006 or AirBnB in 2009 are not very
high.

Heck, the odds are that you won't even get an exit, so why not work for (or
with) somebody who isn't figuring things out for the first time?

~~~
pg
I just mentioned 3. There are many more. Like I said, we like domain
expertise. But when you have that many exceptions there's not much of a rule
left.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
Just how many Facebooks and AirBnBs are there? You can look at the biggest
success stories on the internet, from Google to Salesforce, and you'll find
that in the vast majority, the founders had what most people would reasonably
call "domain expertise." If you want to debate or exclude the concept of
"domain expertise" altogether, that's fine. The number of major internet
companies founded by folks with no professional experience/accomplishment is
even smaller.

In any case, I respect that you're looking at this from the perspective of a
tech investor in Silicon Valley, but you're in a completely different boat
than prospective startup employees like the OP.

The universe of opportunities for developers is significantly greater than the
universe of investment opportunities for Silicon Valley investors. There are
literally countless opportunities in literally countless markets to build
companies that, if not pure "tech" companies by standard Valley definition,
use technology and the web to gain advantage. A lot of these would not be
viable investment opportunities for YCombinator, but they will still make
those who are successful in exploiting them very financially "comfortable."

Bottom line: any developer motivated in some part by a desire to make real
money is doing himself a disservice by considering that the best path to
financial success is to join an early-stage Silicon Valley startup for basis
points in equity.

------
aculver
You are none of the above.

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.

~~~
notastartup
Where do you find such consulting work? Surely not craigslist . Then where?
Should I buy leads from Adwords?

Do you need to become a partner for an ERP software company? How successful
will you be calling yourself a 'consultant'.

~~~
jaynos
I'd start by reaching out to people that you already know through previous
jobs and any other contacts you have (maybe avoiding people connected to your
current employer).

Starting up a business is pretty simple from a paper work standpoint and
doesn't have excessive overhead costs or paperwork requirements if you aren't
doing any work through said company. Now you have a company ready to accept
checks or payment when the work arrives.

~~~
notastartup
do you think incorporating as a company is worth it when you are not making a
large amount of money to begin with?

~~~
mgkimsal
in the US, most states allow an LLC formation - this is _usually_ cheaper and
offers you some protection against losing your personal assets in a legal
dispute. You need to be above board and document all your stuff (expenses,
etc), don't mix personal and business use expenses, keep separate bank
accounts, etc. To start with for most solo freelancers, this is fine. At some
point - "incorporating" might make more sense, but the ceiling would be
moderately high. Going for an actual 'incorporation' may make more sense if
you have external shareholders and such, or are looking to take investment
from outside. Until then, as a solo practitioner, an LLC is usually the
simplest combination of protection and minimal legal record keeping.

------
vinceguidry
John Boyd had this problem.

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
Holy hell - I have got to look this guy up.

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.

~~~
vinceguidry
It really wouldn't have mattered if he weren't. The Air Force officer corps
largely consisted of careerist sycophants who wouldn't have accepted anything
that bucked the conventional wisdom of Bigger-Higher-Faster-Further.

We can speculate as to whether Boyd could have been even more of a superman
than he already was and what he could have then accomplished. He was able to
get the ear of incredibly powerful cabinet members and was successful at
pushing projects through an uncooperative and actively hostile Pentagon. It's
just that the weight of the status quo was just too huge for even him to move.
It's not like he could fire every single general that was in his way, though
he did manage to get at least one that I read about, though he never made
general himself.

------
Balgair
Loads of comments already, but here goes. My brother used to work for Big-DoD.
He quit, for reasons you explain here. But, he did tell me about a time his
perspective was changed.

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
None of those takeaways seem to be it to me. I think it was just that the
people saw the job as a means to an end and didn't particularly care about the
management pivoting or bullshitting as long as they got paid and could support
themselves and their families.

~~~
mason55
_> None of those takeaways seem to be it to me. I think it was just that the
people saw the job as a means to an end and didn't particularly care about the
management pivoting or bullshitting as long as they got paid and could support
themselves and their families._

When you hang out in places like HN it seems like everyone has this insane
drive to succeed and be the best and conquer the world. The truth is that lots
of (most?) people are happy getting their paycheck and going home every day.
They don't want more responsibility, they don't want to climb the corporate
ladder, they don't want to disrupt any industries, they just want to watch
their kid play softball.

Sure, they love to say "oh I could run this company better!" but they wouldn't
actually want to do it. If you read Yishan's AMA about a day in the life of a
CEO it's very similar - most people DON'T want that job and everything that it
entails (being on call 24/7 and being 100% responsible for every aspect of the
business).

~~~
jimmaswell
>When you hang out in places like HN it seems like everyone has this insane
drive to succeed and be the best and conquer the world. The truth is that lots
of (most?) people are happy getting their paycheck and going home every day.
They don't want more responsibility, they don't want to climb the corporate
ladder, they don't want to disrupt any industries, they just want to watch
their kid play softball.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Being around these sites can make it feel
like the first category's what I'm "supposed" to be doing but I feel more like
the second category occasionally. Startups sound like more stress than they're
worth sometimes. I'm not sure what route I'll try to go once I graduate,
really.

I was a bit surprised at the strange conclusions they offered at the end.

------
realrocker
It's you. It was me a while ago when I finally realized that I am only
projecting my anxiety by not having solutions to problems out of my domain. In
the past I used to tag business decisions "good" or "bad" on: 1. Tentative
technical implementation issues when the decision hits the work floor 2.
Conjecture about those business decisions based upon hearsay and blog posts. I
have worked in about 4 startups(including the current one) Only when I
attempted my own start-up(and miserably failed) did I realize the
unreliability of taking such business decisions. For e.g: I have a new product
in a virgin market. How should I price it"? One shot or iterate? Or Long sight
or short sight? As programmers we expect our employers to empathize with our
work, it's only fair that you show the same empathy back to your employers.
Now instead of snickering and bitching about it, I try to calm my anxiety by
putting myself in the shoes of the decision-taker. If I am still not
satisfied, I attempt to resolve it by asking for an open discussion. More
often than not I am able to empathize with the decision-taker. Taking the
"Archer" way of doing things, i.e thinking about problems when they actually
occur has certainly made me happier and more productive.

~~~
neutralino1
Thank you for your 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.

~~~
realrocker
Well then maybe you are choosing the bad ones. I felt the same way you did
before my current company. So when looking for a new job, this time I
evaluated both the project and the people behind it. I rejected several offers
at seemingly good projects with not so good people. My first filter was: What
does the prospective employer expects from me? Does he think I am a magic
wand? If he thinks I am a magic wand, he would pay me a nice salary but would
get petty later when I do not come up to his expectations. Second filter: Does
the employer continues communicating with me in business-lingo when I am
consistently requesting for more clarity in standard English. Third filter:
(if the employer is from a technical background) Is she
vengeful/petty/disrespectful when challenged on a technical query. Especially
when I maybe wrong.

------
trumbitta2
I'd go with a combination of 1/ and 2/. Most of us are like you.

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)

~~~
mbillie1
I think this is honestly good advice. Every employer will want you to live for
your job, but for the vast majority of human beings this is not realistic.
There's nothing wrong with doing a good job and then going and living a
fulfilling life from 5pm to 9am.

~~~
neutralino1
I'm not really talking about long hours. I've always been happy doing my
45/50h a week. I don't complain about that. Rather about transparency, clear
vision and accountability.

~~~
goalieca
50 hours is a lot of time to be spending at work. Perhaps, when you give so
much of your life there you want to feel good about it. But maybe, you would
feel less disappointed if you worked 8 hours instead of 10 hours each day and
focused on your own fun time :)

------
IgorPartola
From what I've heard/seen most younger engineers have a half-life of 2 years.
As in, after 2 years 50% of them will want to move on. This seems to be fairly
normal and nothing terrible comes of this. There is also a very neat term I
learned about a year ago:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_relationship_energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_relationship_energy).
I can see how it'd apply to this situation.

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
Haha thank you for your 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.

~~~
IgorPartola
Absolutely. You should care about the company's attitude overall. I found
though that sometimes there's a person there that's in a similar position to
yours that is just miserable and they are taking their misery out on everyone.
I've been in that situation where I start internalizing their issues so I have
to step back and think about it.

Currently, I am subcontracting and really like who I work with and how things
have been going. I am mostly insulated from dealing directly with angry
clients, etc. and I work with more or less the same teams of
developers/designers/QA/etc. The projects do change but for me that is fun.

Lastly, there are managers that you can respect long term. My first manager
was a guy like that. He ruthlessly advocated for the user, and knew quality
from crap. He'd push you to do better and to learn more, yet take great care
of you from any outside issues (upper management, etc.) Sadly, the entire
group within the larger organization got assimilated due to being a little too
independent, and he left shortly after I did.

------
allworknoplay
Whether you're 1/2/3/4/5, you're not alone.

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
Thank you for your reply. I am 30 and indeed, we seem to have different work
expectations than our fathers.

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.

~~~
digitalengineer
Maybe you should communicate more along the way of a project? Sounds like they
think you're happy doing what you're doing and then "you suddenly quit".

~~~
neutralino1
That is a good assessment of the situation :-)

~~~
runako
If your communications with your teammates is poor enough that they are
surprised when you quit, it's likely you're not getting good information about
other aspects of the companies you denigrate. Communicate more openly, with
more people to get a better understanding of what's going on.

------
damon_c
I spent 14 years giving 100% at 2 different companies where in both cases, we
started with about 5-10 people and I was an important part of building them up
to 100 or more people.

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
For what it's worth, I get bored/disappointed/disinterested with anything I do
after 2 years.

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
Personally, I'd say some combination of 2, 4 and 5.

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.

~~~
calinet6
In Boston, I've found loyalty and reputation are very important qualities
people look for and strive for. People stick with jobs through the muck and
the mud. Like we do the winters.

In California, people switch jobs at the drop of a hat, and a long chain of
startup gigs of 1 or 2 years each is super common and even seen as great
experience. Despite being California born and raised, I much prefer Boston's
work ethic and loyalty.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Despite being California born and raised, I much prefer Boston 's work ethic
and loyalty._

Honest, non-judgmental question: _why_?

I get the value of loyalty to people. That I can go on board with. I'll gladly
work my ass off or suffer to support people or causes I believe in. However,
_companies_ deserve no such loyalty. A pile of other peoples' money that will
gladly get rid of you on no notice, or make you answer to an idiot, for any
reason or no reason at all, is not worth emotional attachment or loyalty. It's
just a _thing_ that you should use (to pay bills and advance your career)
while there are common interests.

Working hard when it matters is important and a true test of someone's
character, but an _unconditional_ work ethic is not a virtue-- just pointless.

~~~
nostrademons
Ultimately all meaning is socially constructed. We have basically two givens
in life: we're born and we die. Everything you do in between is an arbitrary
choice - certain choices are more popular than others because we don't live in
a vacuum and people can't help but be influenced by others, but that doesn't
make them intrinsically right or wrong.

I'll flip the question around with another non-judgmental question: how do you
define "when it matters", and what would you rather be doing "when it doesn't
matter"?

------
pallandt
The healthiest approach is to make time for side projects or other non-
software related hobbies you may have.

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.

~~~
neutralino1
Thank you for your comment.

You are probably correct but I find it a sad take on professional life. I hope
I can prove you wrong :-)

------
edw519
_I care more about the project than about the salary and benefits._

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
That's a very inspiring reply, thank you :-)

------
runako
You have an obvious lack of respect for the difficulty of running the business
side of a business:

>> 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
Thank you for your comment.

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.

~~~
azm1
No it's pretty solid, from the ground up stance. Those who values independence
and control over their life are much happier with this setup rather than going
too quickly to barely catch up or even fall. I think there is nothing wrong
with your observation as long as you remain kind to people around you.
Meanwhile you can be figuring up way how make your ideas happen.

------
programminggeek
It's not just you. It happens. It really comes down to your expectations from
your job. If you over identify with a job and it lets you down, it's like a
bad breakup.

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
I had similar experiences at my first two employers, as far as becoming
disappointed with management decisions and company politics. However, I was
fired from both because I got angry about it and provoked other people by
doing stupid things.

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
Maybe you are too tolerant? Usually you can say management is shit after a few
weeks, don't wait too much before leaving and seeking a better company.

~~~
ronaldx
I think management style can change over time, especially in startups and even
in individual managers.

When a company has to face the reality of staying afloat, or when the pressure
is on, management ideals and goals can quickly go out the window.

I'd be curious to know what happened to the companies that parent quit.

~~~
famousactress
Exactly. The OP said "after one or two years". That can be a lifetime for an
early stage startup. Things change, and every day you're re-signing up for
your job by going to work. It can be tricky to evaluate the current landscape
objectively and independently of the landscape a year or two ago.

Chances are a year or two ago things were much simpler... There's a fair
chance that was because a year or two ago the team was ignoring or just not-
expecting the challenges you have today. Startups often mortgage their future
this way... Year one is lots of work, but in my career it's never been the
hardest part. Not by a long shot.

I think there's a lot of value in being the person who's valuable year three
when folks are tired and struggling to find traction and maintain culture than
it is to be valuable year one. Being valuable year one is easy, frankly.

------
pfraze
Can't say for sure, but I do know those Dilbert comics didn't used to be funny
to me.

------
netcan
I don't think you;ll find one true answer to these questions.

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
That is true. I am emotionally involved. I could see this as a weakness but I
actually take it as a strength. I am a product guy as well and I don't want to
be a mercenary. That also means that things take a higher toll on me.

~~~
netcan
I didn't mean that as a negative.

Just that maybe some of what you're feeling needs to be attributed to the
emotional ride you take when you're involved like that as opposed to the
people you're working with. Those things also interact. If you're drained from
deals falling apart, your bosses tendency to not listen when you are
explaining something is a lot more infuriating.

------
pekk
Isn't it OK to change jobs every now and then?

Publicizing this kind of thing is usually bad, especially when you have had
the same experience several times. If your account is publicly identifiable as
you I'd delete this post

~~~
UncleOxidant
Doesn't matter, it shows on the resume.

~~~
KB1JWQ
Oh, I proudly display it on mine. After the first few years of it I realized I
was much, much happier as a consultant-- and that mobility was better than
stagnation. "Sure, I'll be gone in a year or two, but by then it'll get boring
and I'll have fixed the interesting problems."

------
dougmccune
It seems like you have most experience with short term tenures at very young,
unstable companies. While that can be really exciting, as others have pointed
out here, most of those companies fail. And often that's going to be because
the people in charge have various faults. On the other hand, others in this
thread have also mentioned that politics and communication issues often crop
up when a company grows too large (ie 100 people).

I'd just like to suggest that there might be a sweet spot for you in a small
company (10-30 people maybe) that has already figured out a bit of
product/market fit. These don't have to be VC-backed startups swinging for the
fences. But you'd be able to find management that has to be doing something
right in terms of having found a sustainable business. And in a company that
small the chances are lower that you get a completely politicized
dysfunctional organization (although that's always a possibility with all
sizes).

So I guess if you're tired of management bullshit I'd say stop looking at
unproven startups and mega companies. There are small businesses that might be
a good fit if you can find a founder and management team that has integrity
and competency that you really trust.

------
DanBC
This is a serious problem and if you can solve it you stand to make a million.

Even if you don't solve it you could make a lot of money by writing a
convincing enough book.

A blog about "today my boss said ..." (With a few ad words ads, and allowing
user submissions) would make money. Dilbert has existed for years on
management bullshit.

I was watching a programme in England where a consultant was called in to help
a company. He spoke to all the shopfloor staff. They started by telling him
that it was hopeless and pointless and that management would never listen. He
dogeddly worked through that pessimism and got the staff, all of them, keen
and motivated. He got some _excellent_ ideas (cheap, legal, easy to implement,
would save or generate a lot of cash).

So, then he has to feedback this stuff to management. He starts with one of
the great ideas (basically "move this machine to be nearer that other machine"
\- the programme showed why that had serious advantages).

Management refused. They said that they had already looked at all that stuff
and it was as good as it could be. They were so convinced of their rightness
that they declined to even look at the suggestion.

That instantly demoralised all the staff, and infuriated the consultant.

It was a great demonstration of why some managers are poor. I wish I Could
remember the name of the programme.

I used to work in a factory and I have a bunch of similar stories if you ever
want to hear them.

So, put simply, you need to do open source work in your spare tome for the
feels and just grind through the workweek to earn enough money for the open
source stuff.

------
smoyer
It doesn't really matter which of those _I_ think you are ... you need to
decide and act accordingly. I will tell you that I've been in your situation
many times and my response is to fight against the behaviors that seem to
cause you to switch jobs. If you're not willing to play at least a little
politics at your workplace, you're going to have a tough time staying at
almost any job.

------
akg
I think this is a fairly typical scenario. The "honeymoon" period as you call
it is the phase when everything thing is new and you are learning quite a bit
in this new environment. Meeting new people, learning new processes, dealing
with new problems. After a couple of years you've become the cog in the
machine and little new is left to learn -- it becomes routine allowing you
more time to pay more attention to management decisions without actually being
in their shoes.

Just like any relationship that fizzles out after the initial honeymoon phase
when you're learning about each other, it becomes your responsibility to keep
things interesting. Take initiative on starting new projects, look for needs
and innovate from within the company (being an entrepreneur doesn't always
mean you have to start a new company), and most importantly always keep you
manager in the loop.

------
onmydesk
This is not unique to startups. I have never worked anywhere where I thought
everything was done well. Such a place likely doesn't exist. But guess what..
the owner is making money, the employees get paid and get to work in more
interesting roles than many alternatives. Its not an ideal world.

Thats phase 1.

Phase 2 begins when you decide damn it Im going to start my own company, it
can't be that hard, look at these clowns Ive been making rich all this time.
Customers are clearly accepting of any old rubbish and I know I'm better. How
hard can it be?

Phase 3 is when you start your own. Then you see it from the other side. And
you were right! But can you do any better now you're in their shoes? Does it
matter if you can't? You'll only have to deal with the occasional grumpy
developer, hey those guys come and go all the time.

Reality is hard to change. Perspectives, less so.

------
bowlofpetunias
Every new company goes through a period where the immaturity starts to hurt
badly.

One common cause is that people who are good at starting companies are usually
not very good at managing them internally, and especially bad at managing
people. And they don't realize it because they are too busy being
entrepreneurs in the hectic early phase of a company.

The good news is that sooner or later this changes, often by hiring
experienced managers, because otherwise the company won't survive.

The bad news is that if often takes big incidents, painful confrontations and
some of the best and most dedicated people walking out before the founders
realize they suck at management.

Companies for whom this growth is a smooth ride are rare. But if you believe
in company, believe in the integrity of the people leading it, it can be worth
sticking it out.

The issues you bring up are normal for the stage the company is in. The
problem is the way they are being managed internally, or rather mismanaged.
The "bullshit" is just a misguided attempt at keeping up appearances. The
focus of the bosses is on the business, not the company as a living
organisation.

The only way to make it easier on yourself (besides completely avoiding start-
ups and start working for mature companies) is to _take control of the
situation_. Just put your foot down and tell your bosses "we're going to fix
this now, and here's how".

Unless they have an ego the size of a planet or are extremely insecure (the
two are often the same btw), your bosses will love you for taking part of the
responsibility off their hands. When it comes to internal stuff, if you are
confident enough to make them believe you know what you're doing (and hey,
unlike them you've at least thought about it, and have some experience of how
not to), they will even _take orders from you_.

Most start-up founders are utterly clueless about managing a company. Bitching
about it won't help, and if you're not part of the solution but still want to
work for start-ups, you're just as much part of the problem as they are.

------
sobes
Find a company that:

1\. Isn't a "startup" anymore (by Steven Blank's definition of the term).

2\. That's been founded by engineers (you might a better cultural fit).

3\. That still has a fairly small workforce (so that your contributions still
feel significant enough for you).

4\. That's profitable, and self-funded (no pressure from investors who don't
understand what the business is trying to do, only understand that they need
to see +10x returns)

How carefully have you been choosing your jobs? I don't think you're being too
demanding. However, you are being unrealistic if you're not vetting the
startups that you're applying to.

That's just two cents from a dev who's been working at startups for the past
10+ years.

------
alecco
We might be in the wrong culture. My friends in [anglo country X] say it's
amazing over there. I think it's they have higher empathy and saner goals

Over here, businessmen give you the "you can't make an omelette without
breaking eggs" speech after they screw you. This was their real goal from day
1, it's just they have to sort of believe their lies to make you believe in
them. Same old trick from con men and salesmen.

Never take promises from a businessman, always get it on paper. And even so,
you might not get it (e.g. bankruptcy protection). The only exception is if
you have done _business_ with them for over a decade and they depend on you
and their reputation.

~~~
alecco
But please don't get jaded. There are a lot of good people out there. They are
the ones who are not trying to use you and are busy already. You have to go
meet them. I'd say good people are the majority.

------
RyanZAG
Most startups fail. Most entrepreneurs are likely very poor managers who end
up stuck in that role because they happened to be the founders. What you're
describing is pretty common.

I think the best bet if you're the type of person who can't help but care too
much is to just keep trying. Eventually you should find a founder who is a
better breed - although you'll only ever know once some pressure builds. You
can't measure a founder at the start - only when money is low or something
isn't going well.

Alternatively, give it a shot and start up your own company. It's hard but at
least you'll be the terrible manager doing frequent pivots.

------
reboog711
As a small business owner and a programmer, I may be offer some perspective--
although I'm not sure if I have any answers.

First, it is my experience that for the bulk of people, and many programmers,
that their job is all about salary and benefits. Those people wouldn't do well
in startup culture, but they are great for 'big business'. I can honestly say
I wouldn't be working with any of my current client base if there wasn't some
type of monetary compensation built into our contract. For some people, the
most important parts of their life happen when they leave work and go home. I
have yet to figure out if I envy those people or hate them.

Are you bad at choosing jobs? I would say no! It sounds like you are following
your passion and interests. That is awesome, I commend you.

Are you too demanding toward the companies that hire you? I'm not sure. It
sounds to me like you may have trouble empathizing with other departments /
people about their responsibilities and challenges. I don't think people are
capable of understanding the issues around sales or contract negotiations or
corporate viewpoint until you do it.

Are you mentally unstable? I am not able to judge; but you may consider
seeking help if you are concerned about this.

Are you unrealistic? It sounds to me like during the interview / honeymoon
stage you are "eating the dog food" which is slang for believing the hype. It
sounds like you going all in. But, hype is just hype; and when reality isn't
as rosy as it appears, it is shocking to you.

The hardest thing I find as a business owner is promoting the
hype/ideas/ideals while still being aware of the imperfections and problems in
what I offer. You, basically, need to be two-faced. Be both positive and
negative. Be Idealistic and realistic.

It sounds as if you may be going from one extreme to the other; but may
benefit from a more balanced approach to the companies you work for.

Are you a 'normal bullshit intolerant guy'? I'm not sure what normal is. But,
don't make the mistake of thinking everything you don't like is bullshit.

------
mellery451
For many of us, it comes down to -- as Dan Pink describes: Autonomy, Mastery,
and Purpose. Very few companies are good at enabling even ONE of these, let
alone all three. Startups are among the worst for fostering this kind of
motivation.

Without a well-balanced three-legged stool of motivation, a few years is all
you are going to be content. Or, like many of us, you will gradually learn to
lower your expectations, eventually settling - tolerating lesser situations -
for a longer time.

[http://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc](http://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc)

------
UncleOxidant
I think it's 5, just a normal bullshit intolerant guy. In fact, maybe your
bullshit threshold is actually kind of high. There's so much money out there
chasing startup ideas (kind of like 1999 again) due to the Fed flooding the
market with US dollars... this makes it very easy to start a startup. The
barrier to entry is quite low at this point, really. Much lower from a
technical standpoint than it was in the late 90's boom (cloud computing, AWS,
lots of free libraries already developed for you, etc.). And those low
barriers mean that a lot of folks are starting companies that probably
shouldn't be started (certainly wouldn't be started under a tighter money
regime).

You jump in a startup that sounds kind of cool on paper but after six months
or so realize it's probably going nowhere for the reasons you mention above.
And then move on to the next one. That, unfortunately, seems to be the way of
the world now. It will continue until the punchbowl (easy money) is taken away
and this bubble pops. Lots of developers will once again be out of work. Then
slowly, very slowly things will recover to a more sane level like they did in
the early 2000's. If history is any guide that will take about 3 to 4 years
(the 2001 to 2004 period was pretty awful for tech employment, but by late '04
things were starting to recover).

For now be glad you have other startups to jump to. That may not be the case
when the music stops on our current Cambrian Explosion.

------
jwatte
I think a combination between 2/ and 4/. Specifically, building a successful
business is _really_ _hard_.

Looking at something that doesn't work, and pulling the plug, so that scarce
resources can be better focused on other things that show more promise, is one
of the hard things that management has to do.

It may be that a six-month investment in an API platform would unlock the
possibility of OWNING THE CLOUD in the future. But if the company has to worry
about payroll between here and there, a shorter-term project, like a two-week
A/B split test on better ways of monetizing existing customers, might be more
in everyone's actual interest. (It's been a while since I was in a company
that close to the margin, but short-term decisions show up for many reasons
that are just as compelling.)

I've found that, at good companies, the thinking and data that goes into these
decisions is shared with the company. If there's not an all-hands that talks
about this with some frequency, at least the managers that make these calls
answer questions, and also actively seek and act upon feedback from anywhere
in the company.

Some companies don't have that culture, and management is managing mainly
through fiat and "it's my way!" I find it hard to be effective in such an
environment, and these environments tend to self-select away in the long run,
but there's no dearth of such environments alive today. Screening for this in
the interviewing process is important, and also hard.

------
blinktink
There are a few things to consider:

First, management at a startup is inexperienced. Most of them are just a few
years older than you and have never managed people before. They're still
figuring out how to balance the realities of building a business with keeping
the team happy and effective. It's a difficult balancing act, and I'm not sure
you ever get it 100% right.

Second, the startup is probably struggling. Most startups fail, even if
they've raised a ton of money or built a huge awesome team. Building a
profitable and sustainable business is hard. You're experiencing that as
seemingly irrational behavior from your boss. It's far more likely that
management is doing that they think is best for the company than it is that
they're trying to screw employees.

Third, the world needs good technical managers. It's a hard, often thankless
job which eventually requires giving up being hands on with code. The tradeoff
is that it multiplies your ability to make change in the world. If you think
you could do a better job you should. Find a mentor and steer your career that
way.

If that's not your path then work with your boss to keep you engaged. Come to
him or her with ideas and solutions, not problems. I think you'll find most
managers are receptive and will try to align things to keep you happy and
healthy.

------
Chromozon
Ed Weissman's posts will be very interesting to you. He has worked for over 80
companies and has had similar experiences to what you described here. Read:
hn.my/edw519

------
hw
I think it's a combination of 2 and 4. I've been in two startups that were
working on things that aligned with my interests and things that I thought
were pretty awesome. Then after the first year or two, due to the inability to
acquire customers or the existing business model not working out, pivots
happened, resources and people started getting moved into different teams and
projects, and communication started breaking down between the execs,
management, and engineers.

Then shit just hits the fan as people leave, sometimes taking others with
them, as soon as they realise that things aren't going as well as the company
would want them to believe. After all, a company isn't going to outright tell
its employees that things are going to hell (until the very end at least).
That'll just cause a bigger exodus of talent. So it's not uncommon in a
failing startup that management starts BSing - it's all about retaining
employees.

In the end I think when you join a startup you have to be realistic about its
chances of succeeding. Not every startup's a rocketship. You're going to get
bullshit, pivots, short sighted decisions (or indecisions) when things aren't
going well.

My advice is to not be too emotionally attached to your job or go in with too
high expectations. If you sense bullshit coming out from management, do some
due diligence on the state of the company and leave if you must. After all, if
you're not happy doing what you're doing, then it's not worth it. There's a
ton of startups out there looking for talent, and I'm sure you'll be able to
land another job.

------
sebmarion
I am founder and CTO of a growing startup (Comufy) and I very much see where
you are coming from.

The truth is that managing people is hard. Every person is different and you
need to understand the personality of each one of your staff and it is not
easy. The way you communicate with each person is a reflexion of your
understanding of their personality and sometimes you get it wrong.

Suppose that you just realised that despite your best efforts, what you have
been working on for the past year will not sell. Your board is maxing pressure
on you and you decide to explore a new avenue. You now need to communicate the
news to your employees, without making them panic, and to try to get them
onboard to your new vision. Well I can tell you it's hard, and it happens! It
certainly happened to us more than I wished for. You are going to have to be a
politician! You need to minimise the failure while painting a beautiful and
bright future ahead, even though you don't know yet whether it will work. This
is probably what you refer to as "Bullshit".

And then that's just managing people. Managing a company is so much more than
this. You make a ridiculous amount of decisions daily, and some of them will
not please everybody. And some of them you will come back on.

Finally, remember that your boss is human too, and if he appears to be an arse
at times, it is probably because he learned over time that being the best
friend of his staff is a very bad idea. When a staff member is not performing,
you are going to have to fix this. And pushing a staff member to improve is a
lot easier done if that staff member thinks of you as his boss, and not his
mate!

------
seventytwo
There's probably a honeymoon phase for the management as well. There's a
reason why corporations have the structures and controls they do - they work
at those levels. As a company grows, it will tend to gravitate towards those.
Otherwise, if the company is struggling or failing, there may be some
cognitive dissonance from management which gets translated into the bullshit
doublespeak you're talking about.

------
kevinelliott
Unfortunately what most engineers tend to misunderstand about the role of
their manager is that there are responsibilities outside of the team itself
that the manager must perform.

Most managers are in simply supervisory roles, to watch over the team and
ensure it's functioning, surviving, and thriving. That is what a supervisor or
lead is for. While managers are certainly responsible for nurturing and
growing their teams efficiently, they're also highly concerned with managerial
duties to the company, which can often be unseen or misunderstood by their
direct reports.

Managers often have responsibilities to the management team, the executive
team, and other departments entirely. Take an IT department for example. All
of the other departments in the company, including operations (where IT often
sits to avoid conflict with engineering, and because largely it's an
operational focus), are its internal clients, and the management in IT must
work with the management of all other departments.

Meanwhile, IT engineers (sysadmins, devops, etc) often under recognize that
this intricate dance is going on. The executive team will put pressures on the
department, and the manager must delicately balance their needs with what the
needs of the team are as well.

Thus, the engineer often looks for a manager that focuses solely on the team.
But long term, the manager ends up having to account for the needs of the
company. Any manager will need to do this.

It's ultimately important that the staff understands that their manager is
superior to them simply because the position requires this of them (not
necessarily because of any inherent skill advances). To look for an equal out
of your manager is and will continue to be an exercise in futility.

------
maplebed
As a tech worker who is more focused on the back end than the visible product,
I have found a very low correlation between my belief in the product and my
satisfaction with the job. I find that my job is pretty much the same
regardless of the actual product. This experience is likely different for
people more directly involved in the actual product.

I get much higher signal to indicate whether I will enjoy a job from my
coworkers and the culture of the company. If I am working with smart motivated
people, I will be happy no matter what I'm working on. If I am in an
environment where people are continually innovating and pushing the boundaries
of the status quo in the field, I will be happy with my job.

This awareness leads to a very different typo of job search. It's easy to
start a job search by thinking of a product you like then trying to see if you
can work for that company. It's harder to think of a culture you want to join
and then look for that.

I thankfully have not been employed by a company whose product I actively
despise; I'm sure that would have a disastrous effect on my job satisfaction.

------
jakejake
From your description I would say that you are 5 - intolerant of normal
bullshit. Every company, no matter how slick from the outside, will have some
variety of disfunction going on inside.

If I did believe in my team then I would try to do whatever I could within my
domain of expertise to help the company succeed. As a developer there are
usually lots of things you can do to help. When a deal doesn't close - find
out if there are any technical features that might have make a difference.
Give the sales department tools to better sell your products. Give the
business people tools to analyze stats so they can make better decisions.
Maybe these are not sexy things, but they might be necessary to get a company
off the ground.

Depending on the organization you may not feel that you have the authority to
do certain things. But, if the team is any good then they would recognize when
somebody is trying to step up and help with the big picture. I would probably
use that as a yardstick to tell me whether it's me or them.

------
nissimk
What changed towards the end of each of those 2 year periods? Was it that
management started screwing up more or that you had become integrated enough
to recognize screw ups they were making the whole time?

Maybe you need a change of perspective. As some of the others here have
suggested, you can become a contractor, but even as an employee you can think
like a contractor. You can still be bought into the project and still be a
good team member while thinking about it as "you" working for "them," rather
than everything being "we" and "us." If they make bad decisions and ask you to
do something that doesn't make sense, you can have a less negative outlook
than if we make bad decisions.

So my suggestions are: start out as highly skeptical and assume that
management decisions are crap from the start because they probably are and
don't internalize the team's failures or poor decisions when you had nothing
to do with them.

------
Mz
You know, this career thing is just not easy to work out. Our school system
and hiring system..etc..really don't have a good model in place for how to
match people successfully to a very good fit niche. When I got hired at my
job, I had been a homemaker for years. After testing, they said "You still
qualify for both positions. Which one do you want?" and I said "What do they
entail? Those job titles mean nothing to me." I made the decision I made in
part because one started two weeks earlier than the other and I was living
with relatives. I wanted a job and out of that house.

It happened to work out that I chose the job that was better for me
personally. But I really had no idea at the time that I got hired. Only after
working for some time did it become clear to me that the other job would have
been terrible for me.

I don't know what you need to do to find your niche. But you are not the only
person that struggles with this.

------
peterwwillis
You are experiencing what I like to call "not my company" syndrome. When the
company or management isn't making the decisions _you_ want them to make, you
get pissed off. You don't seem to internalize the fact that this is not _your_
company, and you don't get the right to judge them. Instead, realize that it's
your job to do the best you can with what you have and try to do good, but
realizing that people are fallible and the company won't go in the direction
you want or expect it to.

This is of course different than if the work environment is toxic or the work
is dull, or something of that nature. There's no need for you to stick around
at a job you hate. But if it's just management you're upset about, heh, I hate
to break it to you, but every company's management sucks balls.

As an alternative, either become a team lead/manager/exec, or start your own
company.

------
ericedge
Given your description, I wonder if perhaps you're burning out due to over-
committing to your work. Caring about the work one does is laudable, but if
it's the only thing one cares about, it will never completely satisfy, and a
passion-then-quit cycle like you describe seems to be a familiar result.

There are plenty of suggestions online for ways to avoid burnout, but it seems
like it's even harder to diagnose than prevent, and usually involves a lot of
soul searching. I unfortunately don't have any good recommendations for either
diagnosis or prevention, but it might be worth considering as a possibility.

If you're not familiar with the patterns of burnout, I found this article to
be a good introduction:
[http://nymag.com/news/features/24757/](http://nymag.com/news/features/24757/)

------
pilom
The answer is cut your spending and start saving a huge percentage of your
income. If you can save 50% of your income you are about 15 years away from
never needing to work again if you don't want to. At that point you can work
on whatever you want regardless of if a company is working on it or not.

------
penguinlinux
I've worked in all sort of places. There have been places where business used
to make the wrong decisions, but the only thing that kept our team together
was our manager. He defended us and took one of the team many times trying to
shield us from the crazy decision made from above.

Once he left the company I left afterwards. I was loyal to him not to the
company. He was my manager and I respected him and always wanted to do my best
to make his life easier. I worked with him not against him. I didn't care
about the business decisions as long as I got paid. We did great work but as
always bad decisions can make or break a company. When I join a company I
don't know what is going to happen 1 or two years but I can try to ask
questions to my potential manager to see if we are going to be good fit or
not.

------
softatlas

        Life is a mess[0]:
            Don't work.
            Avoid telling the truth.
            Be hated.
            Love somebody.
    

—

[0]: [http://interesting_posts.quora.com/Don%E2%80%99t-Work-Be-
Hat...](http://interesting_posts.quora.com/Don%E2%80%99t-Work-Be-Hated-Love-
Someone)

------
shanusmagnus
A job is a relationship. The fictions you get force-fed as part of growing up
in Western civilization (not sure about other civilizations) about romantic
relationships mislead in the same way.

Most notably, a relationship is different from years [2,4) than it is from
year [0,2) and there's no way to make that not true. Maybe you really like the
[0, 2) thing -- the excitement, the sense of possibility, the novelty -- and
there's nothing wrong with that, but it's an important thing to know about
yourself.

Of course, as with romantic relationships, you might find that as you get
older it's harder to keep jumping from one [0, 2) gig to another, without
facing consequences you might not like: reduced choice in jobs; reduced pay;
getting a reputation as someone a company shouldn't invest in, etc.

------
eli_gottlieb
It is just you, but it's not that you're crazy or incompetent or entitled.
It's just that _nothing_ ever feels as exciting after a year or two as it did
at the start. You can't expect to realistically gauge your jobs on the basis
of your novelty-excitement.

------
kailuowang
Finding a good Startup is hard, really hard. Just think about how a top VC
works with startups. How many startups they vet, out of which how many they
invest, and then out of which how many of them they even expect to succeed.

How long did it take you to find your next startup when you were looking?

------
ceekay
None of the above. Seems like you've been picking early stage startups where
this chaos is inevitable or growth stage startups with bad management.

Some tips if they're helpful: 1\. Find a growth stage series A or B funded
startup with a product market fit where focus is now on scaling up. They are
beginning to know what they are doing.

2\. I give more weight to the team than the project or idea itself. Ideas
change all the time. So its more important to work with great people. Find a
place where you admire and like the people.

3\. Voice your opinions. You're not working for a "manager", you're working
for a "company". You should be open about what you think and feel. If that's
not welcome, you're in the wrong place.

------
ashleyw
Sounds completely normal. You're joining ambitious companies who want to be
the next billion dollar hit. But that kind of success isn't formulaic, it's
extremely rare and 9/10 attempts will end up flailing around until they either
make it by chance or ultimately die. The management each so dearly want the
company they're part of to be a big success for their own sakes, they'll try
anything and everything to make it happen when things are starting to look
south. It isn't pretty.

This isn't unique to technology companies, it's human nature whenever there
are high stakes in play. Don't worry about it, just get better at predicting
it, and jump ship when necessary.

------
wmnwmn
I felt the same way at a company called RealNetworks, hence quit early and
thereby missed out on substantial stock option wealth. For a startup to find a
paying niche isn't easy. Managers promise this, promise that, in order to keep
the game going. To thrive in that arena you just have to grow a thick skin and
decide to enjoy being a jerk sometimes. Remember that startups aren't about
pursuing a fun hobby project, although they can begin that way, but about
realizing a big financial score. Even if some founders still talk like it's
their hobby, that just isn't the way it works in a business which actually
becomes a business.

------
sailfast
I can definitely empathize. One thing you may try to do to figure out where
you stand on the scale is ask for ownership of something and try running it -
see if you can meet your own expectations of what a manager should be doing to
be successful. If you can't, you may have your answer.

Sometimes expectations are too high, other times, you're just seeing the truth
as it is, but it can be difficult to see the whole picture until you've
actually got the responsibility. Next tough decision is whether to try and
change the place because you like the project and it's too important to fail,
or skip out because life's too short.

------
aniijbod
Are you finding that you are getting better at asking the kinds of questions
whose answers identify potential problems that would have otherwise only been
apparent after you had accepted the job? It's just possible that this might be
too much to ask, especially if the problems are sufficiently different every
time. The answer to the 'is it me' question may quite possibly have less to do
with your compatibility or suitability but may have more to do with
'diagnostic skill', in which case, perseverance may just pay off as you get
better at it over time.

------
_pmf_
> 5/ Just a normal bullshit intolerant guy

I assume this. The problem with bullshit is that big companies get away with
it for years (decades, even) while in a startup, this leads to very short-term
consequences.

------
analyst74
For a lot of people, it is difficult to have a boss, especially a boss who you
do not respect and is giving bullshit orders. There are a few options:

1) work for a boss who you respect

2) work for a manager who let you be your own boss most of the time

3) be your own boss - either start your own startup, or consulting

And on a side note, most people care about what's in it for themselves. The
fact that you see bullshit coming from them means you are not understanding
what they think. It's an important life/leadership skill to understand how
different people operate, what motivates them, etc.

------
ISeemToBeAVerb
I think you have to be comfortable with the nature of the industry you're
working in. Startups are volatile beasts. One minute you're on top, the next
you're picking up quarters off the floor trying to keep things afloat. I think
what you're experiencing, more than anything, are the natural growing pains of
being an early employee in a fledgling company.

I don't think you're deficient in any of the ways you list, but perhaps you
are looking for a more stable work environment with a proven business model.

------
FlacidPhil
Personally, it's always been about trying to separate my frustrations with the
company I'm working for, and frustrations with work. No matter what job you
have, it's still a job and there will be things that you are unhappy about.
The thing you need to figure out is whether those frustrations would be
resolved by switching companies, or if they are frustrations that come no
matter where you work. Sometimes the grass is damn green on the other side,
but when you move over the same problems follow you.

------
levlandau
It sounds like what you want is to do is to limit yourself to a startup that's
already in growth stage (so series A and above with a clear hockey stick
present and future). Within this group of startups you want to find team and
passion fit. Companies with good people that are already doing well tend to
have less BS going on within them. It's obviously tough to get into such
startups but you didn't ask for easy answers. [As for which categories i think
you are...my suggestion implies 1) and 5)]

------
eranation
> Is there any way I can find a boss I respect beyond a couple of years?

Yes, be your own boss. You sound like a smart person, who can be a tech co
founder. Or you can find your boss from your pool of friends. Find someone you
know for a few years that you think will be great to work with.

It doesn't have to be a YC 1 billion$ company that you build. Even doing
freelance will give you more freedom. And you will have less attachment to a
specific startup as it will be part of the expectation that you "see other
people".

------
PakG1
Spend a few days reading www.randsinrepose.com. The guy does a really good job
of explaining management to developers in a way that developers can finally
understand and respect management (assuming the management is good).

[http://randsinrepose.com/archives/category/management/](http://randsinrepose.com/archives/category/management/)
[http://randsinrepose.com/archives/](http://randsinrepose.com/archives/)

------
yabatopia
Don't be too hard on yourself. You're probably just an intelligent guy with a
good bullshit detector, but with midterm attention span. After a period of
time, you need new impulses or challenges. That can cause some frictions in a
business environment, especially as an employee dealing with incompetent
management.

Maybe your not 100% employee material. How about a more independent career?
Consulting is one possibility, starting your own company another, maybe a so-
called lifestyle business?

------
smalldaddy
Luck plays a HUGE role. If the company is doing really well, rather than
"limping along," then the environment is motivating in itself. I am ready to
bet none of the places you have worked have been doing really well.

When the company is "average" then it is the management team (importantly your
direct manager) that hold the keys to you being happy.

The question is, "Would a really good manager stick around at a company that
is limping along?"

------
kross
You are an entrepreneur that hasn't figured it out yet.

~~~
daimyoyo
This seems the most likely reason behind your discontent. People who start
companies rarely fit well into other peoples organizations.

------
haenx
I've learned to cherish my co-worker and let the boss do his bossy stuff as
long as he didn't fight against the team.

Stand together with your co-workers as a team. I think thats more usefull and
can balancing out the shity boss stuff.

Maybe one good boss under a million bosses will exist i think. If you can't
find it, do it by yourself and be your own boss. But at least, there is no
boss like the girlfriend||wife that waits for you at home! :D

Just some thoughts.

------
jfrisby
As someone who's spent some 17 years doing almost nothing but startups, allow
me to add my $0.0296 ($0.02, adjusted for inflation1)

Some combination of #1, #4, and #6.

#6 is the one where you don't truly respect the process of management works
(in much the same way we all get frustrated at managers who don't understand
how the process of software engineering works), and are oblivious to the
challenges and concerns involved.

This is an easy trap to fall into and most engineers I know have fallen into
it at some point in their careers. Good management is often virtually
invisible, but bad management sticks out like a sore thumb -- or so the
conventional wisdom goes. Remember:

1\. Management is a skill, just like coding. It's deep and complex and multi-
faceted and you're only seeing the surface of it. 2\. In startups, many
entrepreneurs are getting their first taste of a completely different world.
It's a learning process even for an experienced manager/executive. Imagine
being a career web developer and say, cutting over and doing 3D game
development on a console system in C++ for the first time. Only it's not a
hobbyist thing, it's your job and people are counting on you. 2\. Startups are
not like normal environments. Inaction is usually worse than a bad action,
because at least with a bad action you've learned something and narrowed the
search space a bit.

You should EXPECT that in a startup, seeing management trip up and make
"mistakes" will be a common, everyday occurrence. Oftentimes the right
decision will look, externally, like the wrong decision. If you want a well-
oiled machine in a well-understood problem domain, go work at Cisco.

Startups are about discovery. Product-market fit, paths of least resistance,
etc.

I'm personally inclined to this form of myopia myself, so as a rule, I only
work within my personal network at this point because I have a group of
entrepreneurs, executive-level programmers, and so forth who I trust
implicitly. I may not understand a given decision, and any given decision may
be a mistake but I'm entirely comfortable leaving their domain in their hands
while focusing on doing my best in my domain. I find it's less stressful, and
more rewarding whether the venture succeeds or fails.

(1 - Yeah, I looked it up on WolframAlpha. I'm bored, what I can I say.)

------
jusben1369
It strikes me that you can choose 2 out of 3. i) Work for a business where you
find their business model/vision to be very compelling, ii) Work for an
established company that will (largely) stay the course and not migrate away
from that vision too dramatically over time so you don't become cynical/jaded
iii) or work for an early stage startup and know change is inevitable.

------
the_watcher
Sounds like you are a great candidate to start something yourself, and
implement all the things you remember about optimal management. Is there a
reason you haven't tried to start something yourself (just to be clear, I'm
assuming that as a developer, you have made enough money to pay off any
unsecured debt, and have the option of freelancing for side income if
necessary).

~~~
snorkel
Yes, start something yourself, and then you'll understand why the startup
management you've worked for thrashes around so much because they're learning
the art of business management while on the job.

If you going to work for a startup then just expect that there will be a new
business plan put forward every week, and the management tiers will want to
latch onto whatever fads are trendy this week. Comes with the territory. On
the other hand you can work for a super big corp where the business plans
haven't changed in 5 years but project titles change every 3 weeks.

------
Bahamut
It's hard to screen out for these aspects, unless you're told up front that
the company got too much work to do due to business development overselling.

On the other end of the spectrum, you could be like me and pick a company that
looks good on all these aspects, but adds great stress due to having to catch
up on work to meet deadlines due to being understaffed for too long.

------
ss1111
5\. Humans will let you down.. bullshit occurs, its extremely frustrating.
I've spent 10 years like you, trying to do the best I can for good companies
but the good companies always turn to s __* at some point.

The only sane option seems to be: be the boss yourself. Take a leading role
somewhere where you can influence the running of the business, better yet
start it yourself.

------
jevin
Honestly, I think it's a mix of you being too demanding and the company not
being sincere. Once the company honeymoon over, you're treated like any other
guy no matter how hard you work.

Side note, I wrote a post about this: [https://medium.com/maybe-its-
fiction/5bac4f20203a](https://medium.com/maybe-its-fiction/5bac4f20203a)

------
saltyknuckles
Sounds like building your own business is up your alley. You may be all of
them except 3. It could be that you see yourself as a much better manager and
you probably are. Try something small that you hear there is a need for and
you might be able to find more fulfillment from that than job hopping.
Business isn't for everyone but you can give it a shot.

------
allochthon
My experience has been nearly identical to yours. Although it is usually good
to assume the problem is with oneself, I wouldn't do so in this case. It can
be hard to find work in which the people making decisions are the ones who are
adding value. And when people who are not adding value are making decisions,
weird things can happen.

------
napolux
6/ You should own your own business. :-)

------
scope
you're NORMAL by my books

at least you lasted a year, i have quit TWO jobs (well paying i might add) -
one in one day, the other in a week.

so, i got a job where i don't have to code shit [network and maintenance]

i stay in the coding scene [which i LOVE] by doing side projects and doing my
OWN and OPEN projects [nothing beats the feeling of getting a PR on GitHub]

------
rmason
You're truly cursed. The only thing that you can ever do to achieve career
happiness now is to do your own startup.

One of two things will happen, you will either succeed or your patience for
the struggles of management will grow and you will be happier at the company
you work for next.

------
neutralino1
Maybe I should have mentioned I work in Europe (France). I guess it doesn't
change any of your well laid out arguments but it was very refreshing to see
how similar things are across the pond. Anyway, I quit today so I'm now up for
hire (wink wink nudge nudge ;-).

------
yesimahuman
Shit, that's why I became a founder! It's a lot easier to be consistently
passionate about something that's yours over time. That's especially true in
jobs that don't reward you for going above and beyond, which your own startup
might very well do.

------
antidaily
As if giving 100% for a couple years isn't enough? Don't feel bad about poor
leadership from the top. Most startups fail even with good people giving their
best efforts. Move on if you have better options. Until then, just make sure
the checks cash.

~~~
neutralino1
Thank you for your reply. I don't actually feel bad for the company, I am just
starting to wonder if the problem is me or them ;-)

------
vladimirralev
How much stake do you have in these startups? It is a huge difference in
perspective if you have 0, 10, 20, 50 %. It makes for a completely different
experience. Like totally different, it's like a new job even if you are doing
the same things.

~~~
neutralino1
Was promised some, still waiting.

~~~
vladimirralev
Well that explains everything. That's not a startup, it's a startup scam. It's
not possible to stay motivated without having a stake. Even if they pay a lot
which they probably don't. And the level of bullshit is much lower. They are
treating you like a stupid customer and you are supposed to buy into their
bullshit.

------
julie1
most startups have bogus business plan: the recession is worldwide, and the
web2.X gold rush is about selling productivity to startups (mainly). Like in
the gold rush the one who are making actual money are not the one digging gold
but the landlord selling the "startup ground" (incubators), and the companies
selling the tools to dig. Secondly whatever they say no silver bullets
appeared in the last 10 years: the mythical good developers with a
productivity = 10x average (quantity & quality) are still a resource. They are
scarce, I have met some, I don't belong to them. As a result, business plan
relies for their costing on a resource that is very unpredictable. As a result
companies relying too much on "new technologies" based their hiring policy on
a brute force attack.

Wait, you tell me there are a lot of devs on the market? No, there are a lot
of clueless young people on the market with a huge student loan that studied
CS but that maybe the worst developer ever but have a strong incentive to get
hired (cheat): they have to reimburse their loans before they sleep under the
bridge.

So, brute force attack require to hire a lot of expensive broken arms. If I
were a recruiter, I would never hire a student with a loan to refund that
young I would prefer an autodidact that understand the basic of economy: don't
spend money you don't have and don't be a sheep.

Lastly the money for startups even if QE is turning in all worldwide economies
is not there! Central banks are printing bank notes like mad men (China,
Japan, US, Europe...) but this money is directly used in stock options and the
bank never landed that few money (or when they do the compound interests are
just mad). And public and private debts are fucking high. The economy is on
the brink of a bubble explosion for which new startup are responsible.

So there is no money to turn startup that don't master their costing/pricing
in real companies. (no money available on the credit market)

Yes basically startups is a phony ecosystem.

My advice: have balls.

Go for companies that do not label them startups that seems «unsexy», even
with lower wages, and accept the job after you accept and understand their
mission/business model.

Maybe helping family planning communicate better on their mission can be more
satisfying in life than helping a delusive «self made man» have is first
million before 25 based on a ponzi scheme (buying tools to startups that buys
me tools without generating new products is a little mad, isn't it?).

------
arihantar
It only happens in dreamland :) option (4). In practical, its a human tendency
that after some time either we get irritated by each other or we start finding
flaws in any decision taken by the management or vice versa.

------
bhalp1
Some of these issues can be related to issues like depression in our field.
This is a great watch on the topic:
[http://vimeo.com/72690223](http://vimeo.com/72690223)

------
stratigos
You are hardly different. In NYC, for most developers, this is the norm. I
used to think there was something wrong with me too, but now that Im at my 7th
job in my 10 year career, I realize that something is wrong with society's
employment model in general.

We operate a bit differently in this field because we are empowered more than
most others in the contemporary western workplace. We have refined skills,
engineering backgrounds, and are very high in demand. On top of that, there is
a very large amount of average to below average talent in this field (ie code
bootcamps, php for dummies readers, etc), so having a track record which
demonstrates high level of talent makes one even more desirable for any
position. Programming is a hot field right now, especially web development, so
again, there is a surplus of jobs. Our role is not rocket science, but its not
trivial either. Few other employment opportunities have these qualities -
there isnt nearly as massive demand for rocket scientists as there is for web
developers. There is a demand for accountants, but their specialization and
employment opportunities make them less in demand. We are also very empowered
when it comes to base salary negotiations. The point im making is, few people
in 2014 have the ability to say "f this job, it sucks, im finding another one
next week" and actually go out and find 50+ jobs to choose from.

My first company refused to pay me anything reasonable, but it was my first
job ever. I left after 3 years of asking for more money to work for one of the
biggest media companies in the world. They paid me a decent salary, treated
all developers like dirt, and used fear as a motivation to work harder. I
found another gig after one year. In this third job, I wasnt utilizing my
skills at all (back end dev), I was basically making mundane HTML changes and
surfing tumblr out of boredom. A friend offered me a great job with more
money, so I quit, and joined him. Two years after that, they completely forgot
to enter my tax information (yah thats illegal), and due to a complicated
process I wasnt able to access my payroll for that tax year to even know about
it. I got screwed heavily on taxes, the company wouldnt do anything for me
unless I sued them, so I quit.

The pattern here is reasonable, rational, logical dissatisfaction with a job.
Its odd that someone can just say "f it, im finding a new job" and do so very
easily, regardless of their career choice. Like the original poster, I dont
care about salary and benefits nearly as much as the product Im working on and
the balance I get between life and work. Most people, when tremendously
unsatisfied with a job, face a paycut, or a big move to a new area, or both.
Software Engineers can just surf the web for a few hours, and most likely find
something better in their local area.

Add this to traditional corporate culture in America. Its seen as "better" or
"stronger" to have a long lasting relationship with a company, even if its
entirely superficial and your experience there was miserable. There is
absolutely nothing logical or rational about corporate culture in America -
its designed to exploit the worker for maximum yield to the employer. Right
now, Software Engineers are empowered enough to escape this situation,
although we usually just find the same themes resounding in the next business.

Ultimately, NOTHING IS WRONG WITH YOU. Everything is wrong with the jobs
themselves. You arent unstable - YOU RESPECT YOURSELF. You actually have the
power to do something about it when you feel disrespected, disenfranchised, or
disengaged. Other people simply dont have this power, they can only smile and
obey.

...and of course if the tech bubble bursts, we all lose this power as well.

------
stcredzero
Most founders are not exactly who they think they are. Some few succeed
anyways out of luck. Even fewer succeed consistently because they have some
insight at the level of first principles.

------
tokipin
It sounds like you haven't encountered people who are good at what they do
("animals", as PG might say). Probably just bad luck or not enough good luck,
or something else.

------
jf22
There is a saying that if you look around and all you see are assholes, you're
probably the asshole.

I think there is more to that quote but that's the jist of it.

------
miles_matthias
I solved this problem by working somewhere that doesn't have managers. We all
share the project management tasks for our client work.

------
kenferry
> I specifically choose companies whose business I find appealing.

You might try prioritizing the people you work with rather than the business.

------
coldtea
Just a normal bullshit intolerant guy. There's too much BS in a lot of
startups. After all, that's why most fail.

------
brianbarker
This sums up my career. We should grab a beer and bitch about work. That's
what most of my colleagues do to cope.

------
jmnicolas
The only way to avoid all of what you describe is to work for yourself though
you may still bullshit yourself ...

------
jes5199
Things make me miserable that other people are fine with. I change jobs every
two years. It's just life.

------
icedchai
Sounds normal. I suggest you lower your expectations and perhaps take on a
more mercenary-like attitude.

------
acex
it might be the case of a developer who loves to build things more than to be
pm. the 'symptoms' you describe are signs of your maturity as a person capable
of leading a project.

~~~
neutralino1
I have worked for one year as a Product Manager and quit over strategic
differences with management.

------
shitgoose
5.

You are the minority, so better adjust your attitude and take it like a man.

------
bananas
Definitely 5 and it's not specific to startups!

------
sogen
Option 6: Start you own business.

This took me a while to realize.

------
piyush_soni
Your best bet is to start your own business. :)

------
trhtrhth
Maybe you should stop working at startups.

------
benjamincburns
I've had this problem in the past as well. Regarding the "is it me?" question,
I don't think there's anywhere near enough info to answer, but the fact that
you're being introspective on the matter is a very good sign.

I can offer a few pieces of advice. First, be direct but exceedingly rational
with your co-workers - especially your superiors. Sometimes it helps to start
conversations regarding conflicting ideas under the assumption that you're
wrong.

Also, watch your assumptions. Sometimes when people get frustrated about
things it's really easy for our assumptions to solidify into fact, and it's
just as easy to feel justified launching into a spirited argument fuelled by
all this fact.

Finally, if you think you're expressing yourself well, and you don't agree
with the direction things are taking, you're 100% totally justified in
leaving. I don't care if you're a minimum wage employee, your time is your
scarcest resource. Don't invest it in something you don't want to own.

Annnd really long (but hopefully interesting) anecdote time...

I used to work for a very small, now fairly famous start-up non-profit which
was cofounded by Edie Widder of Discovery Channel/Giant Squid fame. She wasn't
running it because she didn't feel that she had the fundraising or business
acumen. She decided to cofound with a former marketing exec, and to make him
CEO.

I worked for them indirectly and directly for a combined 5 years. It was the
kind of life-consuming work that one only does when they're very passionate.
And I was as it was _incredibly_ rewarding.

Our mission was to develop very inexpensive sensors for very broad scale in-
situ monitoring of estuarine environments (the mission has broadened since
then). When I first came on directly, we made a huge push to win a seven
figure grant. Engineering was told by the CEO to push, and to push hard
because this would be the money we'd be using to go from prototype to small-
scale manufacturing.

Except after we won it, engineering wasn't given a budget. As time went on,
our feeling was that we were having to beg for every expenditure. In the mean
time lots of money was being spent on marketing, with the justification that
it would be bringing in the "real big bucks." Of course, there was also plenty
of disagreement over certain expenditures. Was X really marketing-related, or
was that a personal expense?

Obviously there was lots of infighting -- mostly by people who typically like
to avoid confrontation. People would wait to address something until they were
so exasperated that it'd just boil out, and everybody involved would get very
defensive very quickly.

I started to wake up to the idea that we were working more on our arguments
and less on our mission. I'd spent every second I could over the past five
years building a monolithic realtime telemetry system with the idea in mind
that this was a step toward literally saving the world. Leaving felt wrong,
like I was abandoning my purpose and my friends, but after a while staying
felt more wrong.

On my last day there I sat down with Edie for an informal exit interview. For
the first time I explained to her my position as directly and rationally as I
could. This wasn't out of some new-found maturity, but because I had nothing
to lose and nothing to gain.

I stated my observations, listened to her responses, and conceded on the
points where my knowledge of the situation was lacking. At the end of the
conversation I still felt justified for leaving, but I think she understood my
justification. Prior to that, we were always putting her in a situation where
she had no other choice but to feel cornered and defensive.

Not long after I left the CEO became the former CEO. For a brief period during
this process, there were two separate sets of legal council arguing against
each other - I believe with each claiming to represent the company. When the
dust settled, relationships were tarnished, names had been dragged through the
mud, and most importantly the work had all but stopped.

Fast-forward to today and things are much different. In many ways they've been
terribly stunted, but there's better accounting, better employee
representation on the board, and most importantly - a unified focus. They have
turned into the organization I wanted to be working for back when I left. In
the mean time, I've been in a constant struggle to find something anywhere
near as rewarding. If I could afford to do so, I'd go back to work for them in
a second -- on my own dime.

You'll notice that I spend a lot of time talking about the "evil" CEO here.
That's not the point. The point is that a significant part of it _was_ me.
Sure, the company had some growing up to do, but I had just as much, if not
more.

Although, if anyone reading this happens to be looking to make a very high-
impact donation to a great nonprofit - give Edie a call. I promise she won't
disappoint.

------
bottompair
To turn this the other direction, here's some perspective from a startup exec.
This job requires constant compromise between doing what's right for the
business, the investors, and the employees of the company. In my management
experience I've found that I've always worked FOR my people, not the other way
around. My days are full of battling it out with the CEO over a pay raise I
know a good engineer deserves, or figuring out a way to provide additional
stock option bonuses when more cash just isn't feasible. The majority of my
time, however, is spent as keeper of the peace. People are tricky and all very
different. Some have thick skins, others don't. I spend countless hours being
a therapist and making sure everyone is able to work as close to peak
performance as possible without killing each other. This involves a ton of
moving parts.

In my last gig I managed five directors who all had their own teams under
them. The juggling to make sure these folks were well taken care of and their
teams were happy overall is tough. Things do fall through the cracks. A
developer might have a big problem with a product manager. I might not hear
about it until the developer has put in notice because my engineering director
thought he/she could take care of it without me. That engineer more often than
not probably thinks "hey, the CTO is ignorant and has no idea what's going
on." I accept that as part of the job and understand I'll never have 100% view
into everything that’s happening. I accepted a long time ago that in some
cases a member of my team might believe me to be incompetent. Comes with the
territory.

On top of those duties, the overall company strategy and operational plan
needs oversight and contributions from the executive management team. The
amount of time spent talking about ideas and direction is enormous. By the
time a pivot or major change has been decided on it’s generally been under
discussion for several weeks, sometimes even months. The inputs and process
for arriving at these decisions are a complex mix of research, customer
conversations, cogs analysis, competitive analysis, M&A discussions, go to
market strategy, pricing, technical feasibility, margin, etc. When the
decision is finally ready to be communicated to the troops it can often cause
confusion and the belief that “these guys don’t know what they are doing.”
While that may be true in some cases, I’ve never been involved in one of these
types of decisions that didn't have a lot of well thought-out reasons behind
it.

This is only the first step. The way the best leaders separate themselves in
this situation is their ability to communicate decisions and make everyone
BELIEVE it is the right thing to do. In startups there’s never a 100% clearly
correct answer. Faith comes in more often than I’d like to admit, and getting
everyone to drink the Kool-aid is pretty damned important in terms of morale.
The rightness or wrongness in the decision won’t often be known until a year
or more passes. If the decision causes the company to be successful the execs
are looked at geniuses. If it fails they are incompetent idiots. Many of the
factors that determine the outcome are out of the control of the executives. I
guess that’s life. My advice is always this: be self-aware about what you
want. If you have a passion for a product or space and enjoy your work, try
not to let the factors out of your control dictate your job satisfaction. If
you are unhappy with decisions being made or company direction, put yourself
in a position to have influence. It’s easier than you might think.

------
copergi
I would tend towards guessing 5. It is easy to blind yourself to management
stupidity at first as you focus on the work. But eventually that management
stupidity starts directly impacting you. I'm trying to figure out how to
escape from my current job for exactly this reason. Everything seemed great at
first, small company, little management, the president had a good vision for
where the company needed to go and how technology was going to get it there.
Then 2 years in the president is micromanaging web design saying "I know how
easy this is, just add some 1 pixel spacer gifs" as he demands that elements
from one page line up with elements from another page but can't grasp that
having a scrollbar or not changes the width of his browser window. The web
designer quit (obviously) and now I get to try to work with some sketchy web
dev shop where every task assigned to me in jira looks like "these ids are not
valid you have to change the ids!!!!!". That is more venting than telling you
about my experiences, but I think I needed to so thanks for the invitation.

------
benched
It sounds perfectly normal to me.

Management have to be true believers in whatever management decide. If you
disagree with the fundamentals of their decisions, then everything they say
will sound like bullshit.

For example, I work at a company that recently decided to change to a 100% in-
app-purchase business model. The first try failed, so they decided to do it
even more. It seems like cowardly, copycat decision-making to me, so
everything the president of the company says sounds like utter bullshit to me.
It's like pointlessly rallying troops (and trying to shake out defectors!) for
a battle everyone knows we're going to lose.

Also, a lot of managers are just plain bad managers. It isn't quite like hard
jobs, say software development, where you could be fired for not having a clue
what to do with a compiler.

------
michaelochurch
_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..._

Those are signs that it's a good idea to move on. Yes, this is common.
Sturgeon's Law: 90 Percent of Everything Is Crap.

For me, it tends to happen after 3-6 months. I'm pretty good at detecting
bullshit and it's a curse because it's hard to be motivated when you lose
faith in the people above.

 _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 ?_

A mix of #1 and #5. Definitely not #3, if you can hold a job for 1-2 years.
#2, #4 are what "they" want you to think. (Ever notice how the Boomer whining
about Gen-X/Millennial entitlement sounds _extremely_ entitled itself?) Those
are subjective calls (over what is "too demanding") but I think that if you
can hold your rage well enough to keep a job for 2 years, the problem isn't
with you.

You'll get better at choosing jobs as you get older, because you learn the
warning signs and get better at finding good _people_. Then you'll just talk
to people you trust to get the true story of what's happening at a company.

 _Is there any way I can find a boss I respect beyond a couple of years?_

Well, there's no 100% reliable way. You have to take risks on people just like
they are taking risks on you. However, you get better at this over time.

------
joesmo
"I care more about the project than about the salary and benefits. I suppose
that's the case for most of us."

No, it's not, and this is probably your mistake. As others have pointed out,
most people at any company care more about things outside the company such as
family, friends, side projects, hobbies, etc. In other words, they're _only_
there for the money. You don't have to care about the money, but if you start
caring about things outside the job, you'll realize you're only there for the
money too. Find something outside of work and work won't matter so much. It's
much easier said than done, but I can relate to having work as the only or
main passion and it's a terrible condition. Also, if you're staying a year or
two, it maybe just natural after that much time to lose interest or want to
move on. Around three to five years, it's almost be expected in the software
industry, especially if you don't want to move into management.

------
jbeja
I think you are either 2 or 4 since i can relate to you and those options the
most :p.

------
marincounty
5

