I totally agree. Don't be "pro-active" be "re-active" - is my way of putting it.
Frankly, most orgs will not reward pro-activity, in fact you can even be punished for it, since if a problem is not yet known by stakeholders then why are you solving it.
There have been times in my career where I spotted issues from other teams on preview or staging servers and helped to fix it. Then I later got blamed (or dragged into the subject) when a similar issue occured on live which I had no association with.
It's better to just sit back and do the minimum, but do it well and professionally. Most importantly, don't make yourself too available:
> Don't respond immediately to messages and emails.
> Don't propose solutions, that you will have to own (at least partly).
> Don't answer questions outside of your responsibility space - even if you know the answer. Instead, direct people to others who should be answering those questions.
I like the sentiment of this comment, but I think it is a little too black and white. I am in science, so your mileage may vary.
I have found a little bit of pro-activity on things you like to do anyway is a good way to turn your job into the job you actually want to do rather than the one you got hired for. I started my current job doing wetlab biology, but I currently do coding and grant writing. I like wetlab, but its exciting to transition into a different area I have wanted to get into for years.
To be clear though, I am still often re-active. I generally won't push hard on things I am not enthusiastic about. It helps to have a friendly and permissive boss.
> “It helps to have a friendly and permissive boss.”
I think this is the most impactful factor in achieving pro-activity at a level you are comfortable with. The company might not reward you directly, but being able to change your own job description, find ways you can contribute better, etc. are all more motivating than financial incentives.
It’s easy to get burned out doing too much without a boss that’ll recognize your efforts and encourage you to do less from time to time though. A little bit of love and care, however superficial, goes a long way here.
I agree with doing the bare minimum at an expected quality if you are working in an inflexible system, but getting too comfortable there might leave you doing that until retirement.
> a little bit of pro-activity on things you like to do anyway is a good way to turn your job into the job you actually want to do rather than the one you got hired for
I used to like (still do) building tools that help with my job. Little command line tools or browser extensions that just make things easier. As soon as management discovered these tools (because i shared them with other devs) it became a full time responsibility for me to maintain them - I had to port them from my personal Github onto the companies.
I also now get feature requests from global teams to add updates to these tools. Now, I don't have a problem with this - I enjoy working on these tools but the issue is they are added on top of my actual work (which is a lot). In hindsight i regretted sharing these tools and adding more responsibility to myself. Mostly because I didn't get a meaningful pay rise or promotion to reflect my additional contribution or lets say expanded job description.
But again, all depends on where you work and with whom.
I moved from development to management a few years ago and as a manager I have to say my proactive developers are far more valuable to me. I recognise their value and I give them more interesting work and more financial rewards as a result. I also do everything I can to be sure that they're happy and not overworked because I'd hate to lose any of them.
I think because you were a developer, so you have that appreciation. I've always preferred working with PM's who were actual Developers. It just makes your life easier.
Unless you work with interns or very junior devs [1], manager deciding whom to give what, also favoring some subset group, giving them interesting tasks and financial rewards, while keeping "boring" stuff for the rest of the team lights up quite a few red flags to be honest. You might want to reconsider what management means.
[1] - favoritism is not acceptable in this case as well.
> Don't be "pro-active" be "re-active" - is my way of putting it.
As much as I recognize this can be good advice, this comment makes me sad.
It's like "start underperforming" is the answer given to bad management problems.
Which I agree actually makes sense in a lot of companies (if pro-active efforts are not already being recognized, then it's hard to change the culture).
I also think that a lot of comments here are directed toward financial success, but many people are actually looking for meaningful ways to contribute. People for which the "re-active" approach might not be a solution.
What would be the solution for those people? How unlikely is it to actually switch to a company which recognizes employees willing to be more involved?
i think it depends on your goals. If you're ambitious and driven and willing to take on extra responsibilities - perhaps with little immediate reward then go for it. For some, it's more about finding a balance to avoid getting too jaded or burnt out.
Some of the best devs I've worked with are those who just like to work. They are also up for any problem and rarely complain even if (imo) they have too much on their plate. It really just comes down to your personality and needs at that stage of your life.
For myself, I sort of came to the conclusion that I won't encounter meaningful financial success in my day job. I would have to work another 20-30 years to accomplish (financially) what I used to expect I would have done already in my late 20s. So, it's more about trying to maintain some kind enjoyment in my work and also to protect my mental/physical health.
One thing I did learn though, is that if you spot a problem and then report it to the relevant stakeholder, along with a plan for how you think it could be resolved, that's a really easy way to work yourself up in a large organisation. You have to work the politics, not just the code.
Many cases, the stakeholders don't have an appreciation for what you're suggesting or even the consideration to balance your workload:
"Oh, thanks for bringing the problem to my attention, let me just add that to your massive pile of work and make it a P1 like everything else - and this problem space is also now your responsibility forever because you're (in my mind) the expert on it"
- unfortunately, there are many managers that operate this way. Just clueless.
That's why i always advocate a cautious, cynical, self preserving approach but again depends on the env and your relationships.
Why so? Delegation is a valuable skill, especially for those seeking a position in leadership.
It does matter how it's conveyed though - it can be interpreted as "not my problem" in certain cultures where people wear too many hats.
One of my workplaces has its engineers overwhelmed with too many responsibilities, like expecting front-end engineers to be wearing the DevOps hat any time a fire comes up related to their own staging environment.
I have found it's a matter of finding comfort in being assertive (and well aware) of the best and worst skills I have to offer in a realistic sense. If I'm particularly weak at a skill and I have little time to build it or refer to deep heady documentation, I ask a colleague who is capable to join me in looking, and they often find the problem within a few minutes, resulting in far less time wasted for all.
> Don't propose solutions, that you will have to own (at least partly).
I find that if I propose anything at all ever I immediately become the responsible party for it and forced to own that no matter what it was. Which has lead to me not wanting to propose anything anymore. If I expose that we have a problem with X, I am then the one tasked with solving it no matter how much is already on my plate. So now I try not to see things that aren't going to immediately put us all out of a job.
I feel you would of received a better response if you used the word Responsive not Reactive in this context and replaced "Don't" with Balance.
Being responsive to things that happen on a daily basis acknowledges that the company we are employed in is messy and stuff happens that you may need to urgently attend to. Yet it doesn't mean that you still can't achieve things that make your place of employment a better place for others.
Agreed with most of your post. Though I'd say a little proactive is still better than bare minimum, but I prefer to keep it private and work on that proactive 'things' at my own pace, no outside pressure.
Sometimes you want to work on something that you see it can be useful for you in the foreseeable future, voluntarily, without anyone asking(and you don't have to tell anyone) Said work occasionally benefit you, or even save your ass along the line sometimes.
but too much of it do you no good, that's for sure. And don't announce it to the world because it'll bring you all miserable things. :p
I found the perfect balance to be very pro-active and resourceful at the beginning of a project, both to structure it in a way that suits me and make a good impression. Later, not so much. And I am not lazy, but being too active means other team members (or even the customers) get too little say.
Although this does make you sound a bit like Wally from Dilbert, but done in the right amount I think it does make sense as taking on too much is the quickest way to never getting anything 'done'.
Well I would say that Wally is a true pragmatist, whilst Dilbert is an eternal optimist - despite the reality of his actions never meeting his expectations. Wally has learnt his lessons unlike Dilbert.
It's kind of the cliche of work smart not hard. Easier said then done but the sentiment being to elevate your status whilst simultaneously reducing your actual deliverables (or delegating them elsewhere) - isn't that ultimately the goal of career progression. Is there anyone that does less actual "work" than a CEO.
Frankly, most orgs will not reward pro-activity, in fact you can even be punished for it, since if a problem is not yet known by stakeholders then why are you solving it.
There have been times in my career where I spotted issues from other teams on preview or staging servers and helped to fix it. Then I later got blamed (or dragged into the subject) when a similar issue occured on live which I had no association with.
It's better to just sit back and do the minimum, but do it well and professionally. Most importantly, don't make yourself too available:
> Don't respond immediately to messages and emails.
> Don't propose solutions, that you will have to own (at least partly).
> Don't answer questions outside of your responsibility space - even if you know the answer. Instead, direct people to others who should be answering those questions.