

 The Passive-Aggressive Programmer: or Why Nothing Gets Done - smanek
http://homepage.mac.com/s_lott/iblog/architecture/C551260341/E20071129060000/index.html

======
thaumaturgy
This probably doesn't explain every case that the guy is talking about, but I
used to adopt this attitude in various jobs -- usually a few months before I
ended up leaving the job for something else.

I've found that I have a specific lifecycle in regular jobs. It goes like
this:

1\. Enthusiasm. No matter how many times I've gotten burned in other jobs,
this one is going to be different! Management seems to be really open to
improving things, or doing things as best as practically possible. Hurrah!

2\. Passive-Aggressive apathy. Well, I was wrong. Again. Hells, this place
moves slowly. No, management's plan or idea won't work, and I'll say so, but I
don't feel like explaining it anymore because clearly they aren't interested
in my opinion. I will slouch in my chair and grudgingly do what I'm told.

3\. Complete apathy. I won't even bother to say that I disagree with their bad
ideas anymore. Discussion is pointless; they simply want to do it their way,
and that's that. I'll browse through the classified ads on my lunch break.

(Get new job, go back to 1.)

I don't think that particular lifecycle is unique to me. So, the author may be
dealing with some folks that are completely disenchanted by their work
environment, but for whatever reason they can't or won't find another job.

~~~
allenbrunson
I have to admit, I've often been in that cycle myself. But there _are_
companies where that doesn't happen, so you have to ask yourself: why am I
always ending up in these lousy companies?

~~~
ecuzzillo
It could be that stages 1-3 mirror the company lifecycle. Companies start out
not sucking (as startups) and slowly either become lousy and big, or get
bought into a lousy and big company.

~~~
allenbrunson
there is definitely some of that. i can think of two former employers where i
was one of the first ten employees, and i really enjoyed the work in the
beginning. then they got bigger and things started to suck.

at the other end of the spectrum, there are the rockstar programmers who
pretty much never have this kind of problem. they are always sought after,
they can pretty much name their own game. they don't have to deal with lousy
employers for one second, because there's always somebody offering them
something better.

i'm not one of those guys. but i'm aiming to get good enough at the game that
i don't always dislike my job, at least.

------
DenisM
PAP has no stake in the outcome, he does not own the place, his stock options
are worthless and the only way to climb up the ladder is to show
accomplishment to his own name. Other PAPs have the same motivation.

In other words, PAP is not interested in having consultant succeed. Entirely
rational behavior. That's how you get to having to call in consultants in the
first place, so this goes with the territory.

------
edw519
Interesting examples of the "PAP". A good follow-up might examine _why_ a
programmer is passive-aggressive.

thaumaturgy hits on one common reason: the programmer is a product of his
environment.

Another very common reason is that the programmer is in over his head and uses
"fog" to protect himself. Why? It's easier. And it works. Problem is that the
programmer has done nothing to get out from being in over his head. And
probably never will. They're everywhere.

My first mentor once told me why he thought there were so many mediocre
programmers: all they have to do is stay one step ahead of the user. In a
commercial environment, not so hard to do.

------
phil_collins
it sounds like this guy is a consultant, who management brings in, and
everyone there automatically hates him.

~~~
gaius
Yes, and could well be proposing the exact things that the staff engineers
already proposed, but were rejected by management!

