I'm going to start taking some time off in the beginning of the year but am curious what tech companies have a good work life balance in the peninsula? I understand there will be a hit on total comp but I have a young kid now and that has totally changed my perspective on how I spend my time.
Controversial stance, but... almost any big company, as long as you don't care too much about promotions or the social hierarchy of your coworkers.
Get a $150k job as a senior software engineer, show up to meetings, do good-enough work and be polite and friendly to your coworkers and you'll basically be fine.
At performance review time you'll get the low-performer raise of 3% instead of the high-performer raise of 4%, but your hourly wage comes out ahead. Maybe you'll be a little more likely to get laid off in lean times, but those are sufficiently arbitrary that you could work nights and weekends and still get laid off.
Plenty of people have lived happy, well-rounded lives putting their energy into their families, hobbies and self-fulfillment while coasting through their career as a lower-than-average-performer in a series of 1-4 year stints at different companies.
> show up to meetings, do good-enough work and be polite and friendly to your coworkers...as a lower-than-average-performer
I'd argue that this shouldn't be considered 'lower than average' performance. It should be considered average. And based on some companies I've been at, that should probably be considered above-average.
I know that's often not the case by managers and executives (hell I just saw an article about a CEO that is running an AI startup and tells people in interviews that they're expected to work 84 hour weeks[1]), but employees should really push back and insist that this should not be considered 'below average' performance.
You are right, but Microsoft (a small local site of a few years ago) disagreed- "meet expectations", which in my eyes is close enough to average if the expectations were set correctly, was consistently treated as bad or lower than average.
Work-life balance describes personal and situational priorities, a property of your needs and circumstances. It does not describe a property of a company.
Figure out what you need, specifically, to get to the work-life balance you want. With a child that may mean work from home, flexible schedule, good insurance, day care subsidies.
From my own experience as a parent working in the software field, I found that companies that employed many other parents in my age range helped. If no one else on your team has a family they may not sympathize with the demands on your time you face.
I escaped a FAANG to a small company of about 22 people and that was awesome. I’ve been working for a state org that’s considerably larger for over a year with great results. Forget about working someplace that brings you glory or prestige. It makes life a lot better when your life matters more than your career.
Yes, exactly. Government orgs also need IT, developers, etc. I get to end my day at the same time every day and while major changes make for a week or so of a ton more work responding, there aren’t sprints to deliver important PR-sensitive releases. My off time is my own.
I have never worked in start ups, but I've many friends in various mid-size companies. You know that `Best Mid Size Companies To Work For` survey they put out? Use that, while individual teams/business unit might be different, that list is fairly accurate from feed backs of my circle. Pick a few companies that are in your industry and see if you can apply for jobs there.
+1 for Atlassian. One of my close mates is a US FTE for 10 years and he's always trying to recruit me, specifically on the merits of work-life balance. Surely varies from team to team but their Team Anywhere (fully remote, all positions) is very appealing.
Atlassian's hiring is strange, at least in my country (India) where it's either competitive or they just don't seem to hire unless you have a referral. I think I applied via a referral but still didn't get through.
I'd say Atlassian is good at least in AU not sure about US. You have to work the 40 but thats it. I do more than 40 because I enjoy but no pressure. Also Team Anywhere and as long as you are there for some meetings it can be flexible around kids etc.
- 5 weeks paid vacation, you can decide per day basis whenever you want (really)
- plus all annual holidays
- 320 paid days (70% salary) of parental leave per kid, divided between as you wish
- 40h work week
- regulatory maximum of 60h voluntary overtime per year
- free nice healthcare
Plus:
- free sick child care service (at your home)
- massage benefit, travel benefit, culture benefit, electric bike benefit, car benefit, lunch benefit etc.
Everything except ”plus” is for all Finnish companies with atleast 20 people. Smaller compnies don’t have to provide the healthcare part (then it’s just free public one).
Plus benefits are common for most tech companies and best ones include the child care as well.
You will have a good life balance. The pay is usually above average (speaking about the UK, not sure about the US). The benefits are also top notch. The colleagues you work with are really top notch too.
So what's the catch? well, if you want to get promoted, you probably will not. The reason is simple: Cisco has a really bad habitude of promoting people from within who have spent decades there. There are exceptions here and there, but if someone spent twenty something years at Cisco and they apply for a job, they have a better chance to get it than anyone else. Also, almost 90% I met there where already >10 years at the company. People leave Cisco and come back to it again.
PS: There have been layoffs recently, so thing may have changed.
Can’t help you with the Bay Area specifically, but I would look for smaller remote companies working in non-trendy fields. Stuff like B2B for plumbers, or WordPress plugins.
You can absolutely work in trendy fields and have a good work life balance. Trends don't require ridiculous loads. Working smart not longer. I work on quantum computing and you can easily do a 9-5 and still evolve the current. The issue is outlook, many believe hard work means hours, not skill or talent utilised in a good way.
I think it depends. Because I used to think larger companies would have better work life balance but I have experienced and seen awesome and shitty at larger companies and so at startups.
Also, unless it's a decidedly shitty work life balance company like Amazon's (or few others which might be in general good), there usually no such things as "company's work life balance" but as I said above - team's.
I wish it was not this non-straightforward but it really depends on your team and especially on your lead/manager who actually set that tone and ensure that people work in or around that tone. A shitty manager fucks up the work life balance of the entire team which in some cases might have been awesome for years and often leads to exodus of people who preferred and more often those voids get filled by people who manager prefers and of course sings the same tune manager sings.
Also, some people say "work life balance" is personal. Fuck no. Just like there are generic health and medicine guidelines for populace in general (even though there are some exceptions) there are generic work life balance (which DIRECTLY leads and relates to mental and physical health and well being) - hours, timing, leaves, breaks, clear demarcation of "after office hours", availability expectations esp. after office hours and its frequency, stress, pressure, atmosphere etc etc - and how much agency an employee has in these or deciding on these!
So in short - my experience says manager is the decider of work-life balance in a team.
I'm curious, if you're interviewing at a company, what's the best way to figure out of the lead/team has this balance? What kind of questions could you ask without sounding like you're trying to be lazy?
What works better than it should: just take a good look at the people you are talking to.
Basically, do they look like they are chronically sleep deprived zombies? Are their eyes bloodshot? Hair kinda greasy? Movements shaky? Do they stare off into space? Reaction times slowed down? Essentially, do they look like a harried medical resident?
If it's just one person, maybe they are having a bad day, getting sick, or that's just their style. If it's everyone - you know the answer.
Why does this work better than it should? Because once you start down the path of sacrificing long term health for short term gains, there's nothing stopping you (or the management doing the pushing) from escalating further. The difference between normal and zombieland is quite stark.
Note that this is not a good heuristic when talking to managers of said team. They tend to always look fit and polished and well rested. Only the rank and file tend to look this sad.
Get a $150k job as a senior software engineer, show up to meetings, do good-enough work and be polite and friendly to your coworkers and you'll basically be fine.
At performance review time you'll get the low-performer raise of 3% instead of the high-performer raise of 4%, but your hourly wage comes out ahead. Maybe you'll be a little more likely to get laid off in lean times, but those are sufficiently arbitrary that you could work nights and weekends and still get laid off.
Plenty of people have lived happy, well-rounded lives putting their energy into their families, hobbies and self-fulfillment while coasting through their career as a lower-than-average-performer in a series of 1-4 year stints at different companies.