Quitting a New Job(yolken.net)
yolken.net
Quitting a New Job
https://yolken.net/blog/quitting-a-new-job
245 comments
> But after I announced my departure, a few engineers from other teams came up and told me they wished I'd let them know before quitting, since they would have been glad to have me on their team instead.
You know I know folks who've actually taken these kind of opportunities and sometimes it works, but other times it results in a) you finding out there are problems with the transfer (headcount or manager blocks transfer) and b) being distracted from getting out of your current situation.
It's 20/20 hindsight, for sure - but I like to think of opportunities missed as simply "outside my light-cone". How likely was it you would have broadcast your departure early?
You know I know folks who've actually taken these kind of opportunities and sometimes it works, but other times it results in a) you finding out there are problems with the transfer (headcount or manager blocks transfer) and b) being distracted from getting out of your current situation.
It's 20/20 hindsight, for sure - but I like to think of opportunities missed as simply "outside my light-cone". How likely was it you would have broadcast your departure early?
I've done this and having a strong manager advocating for me made all the difference.
How did the initial conversation with your manager go about you leaving? I've definitely left companies before instead of just switching teams because it felt like I had a tough time explaining that my wanting to switch teams wasn't the manager's fault and it was easier to explain wanting to switch companies instead without making it seem like a personal affront to the manager. I'm wondering now if I wasn't giving my old manager enough credit for taking bad news well.
I was rebuked in my transfer request at a startup because "transfers were rewards" and my manager didn't like me.
They knew the reasons I was feeling frustrated, and felt confident that those issues were either not a problem on their team, or were at least being worked on. I still kind of wonder how true that was, and what would have happened if I'd made the switch internally, instead.
That's always a judgement call on your part. Were your problems just with your part of the management tree, or were they more systematic with the company? If it's the former case, switching teams might help. In the latter, best to get a fresh start and new perspective. Most people feel a bit of exceptionalism when it comes to their team being not like the others, without knowing what your particular issues with your current situation are. In my personal experience "if only you'd have let me know beforehand" comes more from a place of self-interest in finding/retaining talent than necessarily interest in the other person's career.
That's always a judgement call on your part. Were your problems just with your part of the management tree, or were they more systematic with the company? If it's the former case, switching teams might help. In the latter, best to get a fresh start and new perspective. Most people feel a bit of exceptionalism when it comes to their team being not like the others, without knowing what your particular issues with your current situation are. In my personal experience "if only you'd have let me know beforehand" comes more from a place of self-interest in finding/retaining talent than necessarily interest in the other person's career.
You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
What people say they will do for you after you've already said goodbye and what they'll do when you just ask for change are often very different things.
It's one of the reasons they say not to take the counter-offer. Because one day while you're brushing your teeth you realize that if they could cough up that much money or control when you tried to quit, why hadn't they factored that into your previous review, when half as much might have prevented the situation in the first place?
What people say they will do for you after you've already said goodbye and what they'll do when you just ask for change are often very different things.
It's one of the reasons they say not to take the counter-offer. Because one day while you're brushing your teeth you realize that if they could cough up that much money or control when you tried to quit, why hadn't they factored that into your previous review, when half as much might have prevented the situation in the first place?
I can appreciate this — I stayed with my previous company for 5 years, which seems like an eternity to most folks I talk to, but I worked on 3 very different teams during that time period. It felt like joining a brand new company each time with new challenges and things to learn. I'd recommend exploring that route before leaving if it's open to you.
I've done this as well. Been at MSFT for 7 years, been on 5 different teams, and switched between PM and Dev a few times. It's been great from a quality of life perspective, I think. I've got a lot of experience I wouldn't have had if I stayed on the same team and work has stayed pretty interesting. I've also got a pretty large network of folks I know, which is helpful for a variety of reasons.
Biggest downside is economic; can't negotiate new pay when changing teams by policy and you've gotta build a new case for promos/etc. People who have changed companies 2-3 times are likely making significantly more money than I am. I try to keep it in mind that I'm paying for quality of life by staying, so I need to get my money's worth or it's not worth it.
Biggest downside is economic; can't negotiate new pay when changing teams by policy and you've gotta build a new case for promos/etc. People who have changed companies 2-3 times are likely making significantly more money than I am. I try to keep it in mind that I'm paying for quality of life by staying, so I need to get my money's worth or it's not worth it.
Maybe find a team you think you can really impact with your PM+Dev skills, deliver an impactful project, then use that as leverage to get promoted within this team and/or a fleet of teams. I like what you have to say r.e. learning and enjoyment, but don't sell yourself short. You're probably a lot more valuable to the group/division than you realize.
This strongly depends on the company structure and the political structure. There are many managers that would rather have an employee leave than go to a rival team.
If there are rival teams, then doesn't that mean that by definition resources are allocated less efficiently? (and by extension that competitors will be able to outbid for talent)
Some recent Apple threads seem to support the idea that there was intense internal competition and lower overall compensation at Apple, compared to other tech companies of similar caliber.
Some recent Apple threads seem to support the idea that there was intense internal competition and lower overall compensation at Apple, compared to other tech companies of similar caliber.
> If there are rival teams, then doesn't that mean that by definition resources are allocated less efficiently? (and by extension that competitors will be able to outbid for talent)
If they have enough resources, it doesn't matter. Google and Apple don't seem to have any trouble paying talent.
If they have enough resources, it doesn't matter. Google and Apple don't seem to have any trouble paying talent.
Considering that they colluded to avoid paying talent, it seems that do have some trouble. Having money isn't the same as spending it.
> An internal team change is often a lot less stressful and less risky than going to a different company.
This statement really nails it. If you change teams and are still unhappy you can always quit. If you quit without having changed teams and then hate your new job, you might not be able to go back to your previous company (but new team). I think it's general good practice to give another team a change before you leave the company if you're on the fence. If you know it's a company problem, bail, but if you think it could just be your team, give it a shot.
Maybe it's just me, but I like to minimize the amount of decisions I make that I cannot undo.
This statement really nails it. If you change teams and are still unhappy you can always quit. If you quit without having changed teams and then hate your new job, you might not be able to go back to your previous company (but new team). I think it's general good practice to give another team a change before you leave the company if you're on the fence. If you know it's a company problem, bail, but if you think it could just be your team, give it a shot.
Maybe it's just me, but I like to minimize the amount of decisions I make that I cannot undo.
Does this solve the other problem, that job hopping is the best way to get a raise?
Not only that, but I'm getting the feeling a developer's best option these days for maximizing pay increases is to spend their free time on Leetcode. Which in my opinion is a problem from an industry perspective.
> Which in my opinion is a problem from an industry perspective.
Why? If a person can learn bunch of algorithms and apply them to custom problems they probably can do quite a bit with computers. And it shows that they probably can learn new stuff rapidly as well. I don't get why so many developers hate Leetcode. I love it personally, I think it's great. And also, I think people are just lazy and don't want to learn new stuff so they whine instead. I don't think whining will help them.
Why? If a person can learn bunch of algorithms and apply them to custom problems they probably can do quite a bit with computers. And it shows that they probably can learn new stuff rapidly as well. I don't get why so many developers hate Leetcode. I love it personally, I think it's great. And also, I think people are just lazy and don't want to learn new stuff so they whine instead. I don't think whining will help them.
We're looking at a target audience of people who already can "do quite bit with computers", know all the algorithms they need for the job they are going to do, and don't really want to spend time on leetcode because they would rather be doing or learning something else, or perhaps they have done leetcode or stuff like that a lot ten or twenty years ago and they wouldn't learn anything new, just re-adapt to do useless things quickly once again.
I'm not trying to denigrate it by labeling it useless - competitive problem solving/"sport programming" is a fun activity and can be a rewarding hobby, but it's important to recognize it as such, as a hobby that's only tangentially related to most actual development work once you move above a certain base competency level ( I'll grant it that it is useful for people without much practice in actual programming to do a bit of it.)
It's a problem from the industry perspective if we as industry have many people spend a lot of time doing things that don't benefit the employer (since grinding leetcode doesn't make a non-junior person better at their development job, it's an orthogonal skill) and that doesn't benefit themselves personally (we're talking about people who don't want to do leetcode just because they enjoy it) but only through the zero-sum game of competing for jobs effectively by "peacock signaling" of who invested/wasted the most effort in leetcode. This is effectively a lose-lose competition, spending a lot of everyone's time without a net benefit.
I'm not trying to denigrate it by labeling it useless - competitive problem solving/"sport programming" is a fun activity and can be a rewarding hobby, but it's important to recognize it as such, as a hobby that's only tangentially related to most actual development work once you move above a certain base competency level ( I'll grant it that it is useful for people without much practice in actual programming to do a bit of it.)
It's a problem from the industry perspective if we as industry have many people spend a lot of time doing things that don't benefit the employer (since grinding leetcode doesn't make a non-junior person better at their development job, it's an orthogonal skill) and that doesn't benefit themselves personally (we're talking about people who don't want to do leetcode just because they enjoy it) but only through the zero-sum game of competing for jobs effectively by "peacock signaling" of who invested/wasted the most effort in leetcode. This is effectively a lose-lose competition, spending a lot of everyone's time without a net benefit.
Because LC problems has no applications in day-to-day work. You're just doing it for interview practice. It only seems "useful" because it's programming problems, but it's as ridiculous as studying chemistry or calculus as interview prep.
Because learning a bunch of algorithms doesn’t translate well into day to day programming capability. This is exactly why those dumb whiteboard problems aren’t good for interviews; you’re not measuring what makes someone successful on a day to day basis.
> This is exactly why those dumb whiteboard problems aren’t good for interviews; you’re not measuring what makes someone successful on a day to day basis.
If that was the case, you think all of the biggest tech companies that have billions of dollars would continue using it? Did you ever consider that you might be wrong?
If that was the case, you think all of the biggest tech companies that have billions of dollars would continue using it? Did you ever consider that you might be wrong?
I mean, for a while there Google thought that asking how many basketballs could fit into a school bus was a good way to find good coders. Just because Google does it doesn’t mean it’s smart.
And when is the last time you had to balance a binary tree or write Djikstra’s algorithm from memory anyways?
And when is the last time you had to balance a binary tree or write Djikstra’s algorithm from memory anyways?
Curiously, in my non coding management role, I busted out Djikstra’s algorithm last year to the amazement of most of the developers, who thought the problem in front of them was insoluble. It turned out that yes, it is in the general case, but it was totally possible to brute force the results required for the constrained task at hand on a laptop in Python and store the ~60k optimal solutions in a lightning fast key/value store.
I didn’t reproduce it from memory though (but I did choose to port a Java version in preference to any of the existing Python versions I found, because it’s code was structured in a way that I grokked much easier. Possibly due to my not totally expert idiomatic Python skills, I’m really a Perl coder deep down.)
(And I never had to do any whiteboard performative coding to land this gig either.)
I didn’t reproduce it from memory though (but I did choose to port a Java version in preference to any of the existing Python versions I found, because it’s code was structured in a way that I grokked much easier. Possibly due to my not totally expert idiomatic Python skills, I’m really a Perl coder deep down.)
(And I never had to do any whiteboard performative coding to land this gig either.)
Interesting anecdote non-withstanding, a white board interview would have not been a good way to predict your ability to have done that. The limiting factor was not your ability to remember the algorithm from memory, which you didn’t do, but the ability to make complex decisions based on real world constraints and data. In a whiteboard situation, chances are the “correct” answer would be “it’s not possible”, since without knowing the actual data set that’s true.
Yeah - totally agree, this was just intended an a serendipitous anecdote. In this case it was, though, a clearly constrained problem space. For only a few hundred rarely changed nodes, an O(n^4) algorithm (running O(n^2) against every possible n^2 pair of nodes) is perfectly amenable to brute force and caching the results.
Totally wouldn't work for Google Maps doing shortest path routing globally, but for an event with only a couple of hundred POIs and intersections, it's a cheat that seems almost magical to people who have some concept of the algorithmic problem, but haven't worked out the "trick".
If I were asked to whiteboard this, I would 100% be asking that constraints of the dataset up front. (I'm not too sure I'd have been smart enough to do that a couple of decades back, when I last had a "perform for us code-monkey!" type of job interview...)
Totally wouldn't work for Google Maps doing shortest path routing globally, but for an event with only a couple of hundred POIs and intersections, it's a cheat that seems almost magical to people who have some concept of the algorithmic problem, but haven't worked out the "trick".
If I were asked to whiteboard this, I would 100% be asking that constraints of the dataset up front. (I'm not too sure I'd have been smart enough to do that a couple of decades back, when I last had a "perform for us code-monkey!" type of job interview...)
Cynical response: Because thats what the people already at the big company had to put up with during hiring, and damned if they’re gonna let any prospective newbies off with an easier recruiting process, no matter how broken and pointless it is...
Or, nobody has a better idea, at least not one that’s possible to administer cheaply.
> Or, nobody has a better idea...
No...
> at least not one that’s possible to administer cheaply.
Ah, yes. AFAIK, Behavioural interviewing works, but it does require training and thoughtfulness. You have to know what you're looking for, and ask questions specifically targeting that. You definitely cannot just throw a random employee into an interview with a list of questions and expect it to work.
No...
> at least not one that’s possible to administer cheaply.
Ah, yes. AFAIK, Behavioural interviewing works, but it does require training and thoughtfulness. You have to know what you're looking for, and ask questions specifically targeting that. You definitely cannot just throw a random employee into an interview with a list of questions and expect it to work.
I gave you only one upvote but I’d give you more if I could!
The toughest parts of my software career have been managing relationships with my peers & working on my own attitude. For too long time I thought I could code my way out of any problem and/or win any argument with the technically more correct solution. I was super wrong. No amount of knowledge about how to write a weight balanced binary tree prepares one for the day to day grind of working with actual people.
And even when it's "computer stuff" you find out that there aren't that many n^2 problems to solve, and you'll recall every n^3 problem you fix because they almost never happen.
Mostly what you deal with is architectural problems. And when it comes time to fix slow code, the problem won't be O(n^2) code but a mountain of code where the constant factor C is somewhere between log(n) and sqrt(n).
Mostly what you deal with is architectural problems. And when it comes time to fix slow code, the problem won't be O(n^2) code but a mountain of code where the constant factor C is somewhere between log(n) and sqrt(n).
How much time do you expect to spend dancing in your future marriage? Less than 1%?
Now imagine your dance skills accounted for 99% of your score during the courtship (hazing) ritual.
Leetcode is even less relevant. I can google algorithms. Dancing's an actual skill.
Now imagine your dance skills accounted for 99% of your score during the courtship (hazing) ritual.
Leetcode is even less relevant. I can google algorithms. Dancing's an actual skill.
Because it's like hiring an industrial petrolium chemist based on how many party tricks he can do with fireworks.
To be fair, I would probably give the candidate with the most party tricks extra points. It demonstrates an interest in the subject matter as well as an ability to demonstrate it in an exciting way. Also, how fun would that interview process be? Just sayin...
I did ACM programming competitions at both high school and collegiate level. So I'd like to think I have a pretty favorable opinion the types of things leetcode tests -- algorithms, data structures, big-O and big-theta, etc. They are incredibly important.
But these topics are very, very far from being everything important. I would put them under soft skills, especially in cross-collaboration and working with non-engineering groups. And I would put them under having the type of knowledge and experience in approach that, especially combined with the above soft skills, allow us to push the direction of the company forward.
As a dumb example off the top of my head: It's great if you know how to average a batch of numbers efficiently. It's better if you know how to do such in a streaming fashion, and recognize that we can use that within our architecture to materialize savings. And, it's best if you can convince the business that there's no need to calculate the average because we can do streaming estimates for any quartile.
But these topics are very, very far from being everything important. I would put them under soft skills, especially in cross-collaboration and working with non-engineering groups. And I would put them under having the type of knowledge and experience in approach that, especially combined with the above soft skills, allow us to push the direction of the company forward.
As a dumb example off the top of my head: It's great if you know how to average a batch of numbers efficiently. It's better if you know how to do such in a streaming fashion, and recognize that we can use that within our architecture to materialize savings. And, it's best if you can convince the business that there's no need to calculate the average because we can do streaming estimates for any quartile.
Does leetcode really do much in terms of algorithms though? In my experience, a lot of problems can be solved with sheer brute force, or by merely using the language built-in data structures and memoization tricks.
I think algorithms per se don't necessarily give you much of an advantage. For example, LIS[0] is fairly frequently-run algorithm if you work with web stuff, but nearly no one in that specialization knows how to write it from memory (and knowing about it doesn't translate to being able to write other algorithms)
Where I think leetcode helps is in giving you an opportunity to practice the skill of putting together various building blocks in a semi-realistic fashion (e.g. having to use a memoization trick to get under the run time threshold is something that is similar to real life performance work, despite the exercise itself being completely unrealistic).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_increasing_subsequence
I think algorithms per se don't necessarily give you much of an advantage. For example, LIS[0] is fairly frequently-run algorithm if you work with web stuff, but nearly no one in that specialization knows how to write it from memory (and knowing about it doesn't translate to being able to write other algorithms)
Where I think leetcode helps is in giving you an opportunity to practice the skill of putting together various building blocks in a semi-realistic fashion (e.g. having to use a memoization trick to get under the run time threshold is something that is similar to real life performance work, despite the exercise itself being completely unrealistic).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_increasing_subsequence
I think people who think software development is about 'do[ing] quite a bit with computers' have blinded themselves to the fact that you mostly need to do quite a bit with people. They didn't know that was going to be the case when they signed up for college classes and now they rationalize as hard as they can that they can actually treat the profession that way.
I think people are just lazy and don't want to learn new stuff so they whine instead.
I think people are just lazy and don't want to learn new stuff so they whine instead.
Leetcode, Project Euler, etc. may not feel like a programmer's daily tasks, but they may yet be a good proxy for many behaviors that large employers desire.
For example, a large employer may want a willingness to do arbitrary, difficult tasks that appear meaningless. These same employers may have a variety of software maintenance tasks that require recognizing a pattern of problem, knowing the appropriate algorithm from Ye Olde Textbook, and quickly applying it.
For example, a large employer may want a willingness to do arbitrary, difficult tasks that appear meaningless. These same employers may have a variety of software maintenance tasks that require recognizing a pattern of problem, knowing the appropriate algorithm from Ye Olde Textbook, and quickly applying it.
> These same employers may have a variety of software maintenance tasks that require recognizing a pattern of problem, knowing the appropriate algorithm from Ye Olde Textbook, and quickly applying it.
These edge cases might exist, although I argue the more likely problem is that hiring is hard, expectations can be unrealistic, and so it’s easier to fall back on puzzles and call them an objective measure of technical competency and soft skills. Project Euler is fun, but Stack Overflow is likely more relevant for your day to day for solving business problems with software.
These edge cases might exist, although I argue the more likely problem is that hiring is hard, expectations can be unrealistic, and so it’s easier to fall back on puzzles and call them an objective measure of technical competency and soft skills. Project Euler is fun, but Stack Overflow is likely more relevant for your day to day for solving business problems with software.
I also measure my candidates' ability to fix bugs by learning the details of a language feature they're not familiar with, by finding examples and documentation.
I find that many junior-level candidates scrape by with Stack Overflow, but sadly have little competence when it comes to reading documentation. Candidates for more senior roles have a similar problem regarding systems design. They can find and parrot little statements they've seen on forums, but when you ask them to explain, their understanding turns out to be shallow.
I don't use programming exercises as a sufficient measure, but they are a necessary one.
Now I feel obligated to add that footer: We're hiring! ;-)
I find that many junior-level candidates scrape by with Stack Overflow, but sadly have little competence when it comes to reading documentation. Candidates for more senior roles have a similar problem regarding systems design. They can find and parrot little statements they've seen on forums, but when you ask them to explain, their understanding turns out to be shallow.
I don't use programming exercises as a sufficient measure, but they are a necessary one.
Now I feel obligated to add that footer: We're hiring! ;-)
I absolutely agree they’re necessary, but should be a realistic problem that needs solving (as you’re doing).
>For example, a large employer may want a willingness to do arbitrary, difficult tasks that appear meaningless
Exactly! Thank you for formulating what I always knew subconsciously.
Exactly! Thank you for formulating what I always knew subconsciously.
[deleted]
In my experience, no. I did an internal team transition at a company several years ago, and while it gave me a pretty good salary increase, it was not as big an increase (percentage-wise) compared to my wife's job hopping during roughly the same time span. I hopped jobs a couple more times a few years later and currently make three times more than I did back then. Some of this is attributable to differences in pay levels between cities but there's generally just a lot more room for negotiation with a new company than there is within the same company. I know many colleagues that left a company because of the ease of negotiating better offers outside of one's company.
It could even go the other way because now your yearly review is thrown out of whack.
In my admittedly limited experience, nope. Team changes are almost never accompanied with a raise; usually your job title isn't even changing.
That's not to say they're a bad option, but it still seems like you've gotta jump to a different company to maximize earnings.
That's not to say they're a bad option, but it still seems like you've gotta jump to a different company to maximize earnings.
The power move is to have an offer in hand and then tell your company that you're considering leaving for <reason>, but you'd like to give them a chance to beat your new offer by <increasing salary to $X, resolving reason X with a team move>.
Some companies will flat-out refuse to negotiate in this way as a matter of policy, and some will really appreciate you giving them the opportunity to bid to keep you; it really depends on the company and their comp strategy. I think as long as you're earnest about the conversation and don't try to run a bidding war, most companies won't burn bridges with you over a round of negotiations in this fashion.
Some companies will flat-out refuse to negotiate in this way as a matter of policy, and some will really appreciate you giving them the opportunity to bid to keep you; it really depends on the company and their comp strategy. I think as long as you're earnest about the conversation and don't try to run a bidding war, most companies won't burn bridges with you over a round of negotiations in this fashion.
Do you really think you’ll be treated the same by management if you pull that?
To ~howlgarnish’s point, this is how I got my most recent promotion and it was very much a case of myself and my direct manager arguing against an opaque HR/Payroll team who generally didn’t approve promotions. no egos to damage in our immediate area by pushing hard.
The biggest issue we encountered was arbitrary requirements in the paper documentation of the role we were aiming to move me into, including a ‘hard’ requirement for an engineering degree with honours, which suddenly became less of an issue when the argument was ‘im going to accept another role but you can match it with x salary and title’ in a polite discussion with department head.
This will only apply to very large companies though, ymmv.
The biggest issue we encountered was arbitrary requirements in the paper documentation of the role we were aiming to move me into, including a ‘hard’ requirement for an engineering degree with honours, which suddenly became less of an issue when the argument was ‘im going to accept another role but you can match it with x salary and title’ in a polite discussion with department head.
This will only apply to very large companies though, ymmv.
In larger companies management, HR and compensation are all separate teams, and a decent manager will be negotiating "with" you and "against" the other two to get your salary match.
Ah, that’s a fair point and I can definitely see that working out.
I have a habit of slogging through difficult patches that has, for the most part and with only perhaps two notable exceptions, served me well. However, I want to tell the story of one of these exceptions as a counterpoint to other comments here.
A few years ago I started a job where, within the first week or two, I had serious enough doubts about whether or not it was going to work that I spoke to my manager and said that I wanted to leave (even though I had nothing else lined up). He was really good about it and after we talked I decided to make more of a go of it, but it was the wrong decision and I've always regretted it.
In the end I stayed for 8 months and was miserable and frustrated for the entire time. This was, I think, a contributory factor (though by no means the only factor) to the breakup of a relationship that I valued very deeply, and that I have also always regretted the end of. The end of that relationship was really the final straw: the moment I realised I needed to bail, and that I should have bailed long before.
I still I didn't have anything definite lined up, although I did have three options on the table. In the end I chose one of them and started after taking a month off to recover. Even had I left at the beginning, I don't think I'd have struggled for work though.
Every situation is different, and staying is not always the right thing to do especially not - as was the case in my situation - where the cultural and ways of working gulf is so large. I have no awkward explaining to do about my CV but there are sometimes more important concerns in life.
(I've omitted a lot of specifics because I don't want to name either the organisation involved, or impugn the people either - many of them were great. There was certainly nothing unpleasant going on of the sort we've seen discussed a few times recently on HN. It was simply a case of an unresolvable culture clash. The commute was also a horrible slog - anything between 60 and 90 minutes each way even on a motorcycle, and I hadn't realised how exhausting that amount of riding every day would be.)
A few years ago I started a job where, within the first week or two, I had serious enough doubts about whether or not it was going to work that I spoke to my manager and said that I wanted to leave (even though I had nothing else lined up). He was really good about it and after we talked I decided to make more of a go of it, but it was the wrong decision and I've always regretted it.
In the end I stayed for 8 months and was miserable and frustrated for the entire time. This was, I think, a contributory factor (though by no means the only factor) to the breakup of a relationship that I valued very deeply, and that I have also always regretted the end of. The end of that relationship was really the final straw: the moment I realised I needed to bail, and that I should have bailed long before.
I still I didn't have anything definite lined up, although I did have three options on the table. In the end I chose one of them and started after taking a month off to recover. Even had I left at the beginning, I don't think I'd have struggled for work though.
Every situation is different, and staying is not always the right thing to do especially not - as was the case in my situation - where the cultural and ways of working gulf is so large. I have no awkward explaining to do about my CV but there are sometimes more important concerns in life.
(I've omitted a lot of specifics because I don't want to name either the organisation involved, or impugn the people either - many of them were great. There was certainly nothing unpleasant going on of the sort we've seen discussed a few times recently on HN. It was simply a case of an unresolvable culture clash. The commute was also a horrible slog - anything between 60 and 90 minutes each way even on a motorcycle, and I hadn't realised how exhausting that amount of riding every day would be.)
About the commute.
If you have a 45 minute commute which is allegedly "normal". It's an hour and a half. I would add another hour to that to make that a true door-to-door figure, i.e. from the time you decide to get ready (past breakfast/morning coffee) to when you're actually productive at your desk. Same in the evening from the time you shut work to when you're back home.
If you sleep 7 hours a day, you have 21 waking hours. You're spending 15% of your time (2.5 hours) on a commute. That in my opinion is a lot of waste.
My point being most people seriously underestimate the cost of the commute. It's almost like saying you have to work at least 2.5 more hours a day but you won't be paid for it.
If you have a 45 minute commute which is allegedly "normal". It's an hour and a half. I would add another hour to that to make that a true door-to-door figure, i.e. from the time you decide to get ready (past breakfast/morning coffee) to when you're actually productive at your desk. Same in the evening from the time you shut work to when you're back home.
If you sleep 7 hours a day, you have 21 waking hours. You're spending 15% of your time (2.5 hours) on a commute. That in my opinion is a lot of waste.
My point being most people seriously underestimate the cost of the commute. It's almost like saying you have to work at least 2.5 more hours a day but you won't be paid for it.
> It's almost like saying you have to work at least 2.5 more hours a day but you won't be paid for it.
Exactly this.
The way it worked for me is that on the way in just the ride itself would be 70 - 80 minutes, and then on the way home it would be anything between 90 and 115 minutes.
The longer duration on the way home was firstly because the traffic was generally worse, and secondly because I'd always have to stop for fuel. My tank range was 160 - 180 miles, and I was doing around 115 for the round trip. In theory I could alternate fuel stops between morning and evening, stopping on every third trip, but I never like to run the tank that low in case - for whatever reason - something happens that means I need more fuel.
The net result was between 2h40 and 3h05m of travel time every single day. And that's with filtering through traffic. If I weren't doing that you could probably add another 30 - 45 minutes on to both trips, which would mean spending up to 4h35m commuting. That's on top of 8 hours in the office.
Riding a motorcycle is much more tiring than driving a car. Partly this is because it is more physical, and you are of course exposed to the elements so your body will be burning more energy to stay warm even wearing proper winter gear, but also because you have to concentrate a lot more and be a lot more aware of your surroundings because you're so much more vulnerable.
That amounts to an 11 hour day where you're "on" - i.e., basically working. You're probably more "on" during the commute than you are in the office because, believe me, you cannot afford for your attention to waver for a second. This in itself suggests the commute is too damn dangerous and you probably shouldn't be doing it. A couple of minor incidents, and one that was more serious where somebody drove into the side of me, brought this starkly into focus, and also contributed to me moving on.
Exactly this.
The way it worked for me is that on the way in just the ride itself would be 70 - 80 minutes, and then on the way home it would be anything between 90 and 115 minutes.
The longer duration on the way home was firstly because the traffic was generally worse, and secondly because I'd always have to stop for fuel. My tank range was 160 - 180 miles, and I was doing around 115 for the round trip. In theory I could alternate fuel stops between morning and evening, stopping on every third trip, but I never like to run the tank that low in case - for whatever reason - something happens that means I need more fuel.
The net result was between 2h40 and 3h05m of travel time every single day. And that's with filtering through traffic. If I weren't doing that you could probably add another 30 - 45 minutes on to both trips, which would mean spending up to 4h35m commuting. That's on top of 8 hours in the office.
Riding a motorcycle is much more tiring than driving a car. Partly this is because it is more physical, and you are of course exposed to the elements so your body will be burning more energy to stay warm even wearing proper winter gear, but also because you have to concentrate a lot more and be a lot more aware of your surroundings because you're so much more vulnerable.
That amounts to an 11 hour day where you're "on" - i.e., basically working. You're probably more "on" during the commute than you are in the office because, believe me, you cannot afford for your attention to waver for a second. This in itself suggests the commute is too damn dangerous and you probably shouldn't be doing it. A couple of minor incidents, and one that was more serious where somebody drove into the side of me, brought this starkly into focus, and also contributed to me moving on.
I have changed my first project because manager was unbearable. After spending one more year in the same company but different project and almost ideal manager i have realized that company in general has so many problems that make me unhappy that i have started job search outside. It's really hard sometimes to predict what difficulties are waiting for you in new team/company.
This story isn't boring at all - it's valuable advice, particularly for younger engineers. This is yet another comment on here that I really wish I could email myself twenty years ago.....:)
I'm about a month into a new FAANG job, and I hate it so far. I can't decide if it's better to quit sooner as to not waste the companies time (and avoid suffering more), or if I should give it some more time. My team's work seems super boring, I'm not interested in the tech we use, the setup process has been a shit-show, and I'm feeling zero motivation.
I've mostly worked for startup to mid sized companies in the past, but I decided I'd try to do things differently by cramming leetcode and chasing that fat FAANG pay check. Now I'm kicking myself, this is what happens when you follow money over passion. The silly thing is I'm fine financially, yet I lusted after a job with technology I'm not interested in working on just for the lure of the almighty dollar.
I've mostly worked for startup to mid sized companies in the past, but I decided I'd try to do things differently by cramming leetcode and chasing that fat FAANG pay check. Now I'm kicking myself, this is what happens when you follow money over passion. The silly thing is I'm fine financially, yet I lusted after a job with technology I'm not interested in working on just for the lure of the almighty dollar.
> I've mostly worked for startup to mid sized companies in the past
I saw an anecdote a few years ago about a hiring manager basically saying, "If you worked happily for a small startup, you will most likely be unable to put up with the bureaucracy of a large enterprise from now on"
I've often wondered how much truth there was to that statement.
I saw an anecdote a few years ago about a hiring manager basically saying, "If you worked happily for a small startup, you will most likely be unable to put up with the bureaucracy of a large enterprise from now on"
I've often wondered how much truth there was to that statement.
The bureaucracy sucks, but I think I could deal with that. The biggest buzzkill for me is working on such minuscule parts of enormous systems. In software, the results of your work are already pretty abstract, but working for a huge company, it's on another level, and I just can't find any motivation in it. It's never interested me, and I'm not sure why I thought it would for the right price.
> The biggest buzzkill for me is working on such minuscule parts of enormous systems
I think that was also part of whatever I saw had to say. But I don't remember where I read such a thing, so who knows.
I think that was also part of whatever I saw had to say. But I don't remember where I read such a thing, so who knows.
Personally I have found it to be quite accurate. The smaller the company you work for the likelihood of 'flexibility' in your role increases. Those companies just don't have the headcount to have a full suite of engineers so rely on people dipping their toes in other tasks to keep the machine ticking along (e.g. frontend devs handling deployment).
With a larger company you will typically find they have already hired specialists to handle very specific tasks. You can always do some things but more often than not the rigor of corporate structure says "If you need anything done in dev ops, please speak to _Bob_ and he will sort it out".
Jumping from the challenge of constantly adapting to different tasks to being there to only do a single 'role' can be quite jarring.
With a larger company you will typically find they have already hired specialists to handle very specific tasks. You can always do some things but more often than not the rigor of corporate structure says "If you need anything done in dev ops, please speak to _Bob_ and he will sort it out".
Jumping from the challenge of constantly adapting to different tasks to being there to only do a single 'role' can be quite jarring.
This is something that has made me a bit nervous to switch jobs. I don't live on the coasts, so prospects are already a bit more limited. I've spent the past decade more or less on a team of ~5 engineers as part of a ~10 person company.
I did interview at a different startup a couple years ago, which was I think around 100 employees at that point. They claimed to be very lean and quick on their feet, but I got the feeling that we were talking about different levels of volatility.
I suppose the thing that actually keeps me where I am is I have both a very long leash and a high degree of influence. Hard to level-set that against other positions I see listed.
I did interview at a different startup a couple years ago, which was I think around 100 employees at that point. They claimed to be very lean and quick on their feet, but I got the feeling that we were talking about different levels of volatility.
I suppose the thing that actually keeps me where I am is I have both a very long leash and a high degree of influence. Hard to level-set that against other positions I see listed.
Probably a lot. Unless you're getting paid enough to put up with it:) That being said, I think a lot people that aren't singularly money-focused overestimate how much money will outweigh other factors in their job.
I was super motivated by the money when I was doing leetcode prep, and then when negotiating and playing offers against each other. And that makes sense, the work I was doing had a direct correlation to the total compensation I ended up signing for. But now that those fat pay checks are coming in, they provide zero motivation, it's just a slightly bigger number in my bank account.
Do you have goals outside of work that the additional money will help you accomplish?
Just started my first big enterprise job yesterday. Looks like this might be true.
Is it Amazon? Sounds like Amazon.
Personally I would just work the minimum amount and do open source or other side projects (indie hacking) with the rest of the time. Then leave after 12-18 months.
Problem is when I have a job I dislike, I loose all motivation outside of work too. So even if I slack off I'll still be miserable.
> the upper rungs of Stripe’s engineering individual contributor (IC) ladder put a lot of emphasis on cross-team coordination and other, managerial-like activities that I didn’t enjoy and felt I wasn’t very good at.
That's just the reality of senior IC engineering positions. At some point, there's a limit to the amount that you can contribute by sheerly by your own work - to have a bigger impact, you'll need to need influence/improve/impact others
That's just the reality of senior IC engineering positions. At some point, there's a limit to the amount that you can contribute by sheerly by your own work - to have a bigger impact, you'll need to need influence/improve/impact others
I'd argue that it's the reality of most senior IC engineering positions. As a Googler (opinions are my own), to get higher ranks, you need to lead larger projects that are cross team (it's even in our engineering ladder description) and do leadership type work.
BUT, I've met a few people where that is not always true. They tend to be people that can come up with unique solutions to difficult problems that are actually useful in the long run. They tend to be people that have PhD's and thrive in that type of work (and are actually good at it, while also being able to work as a team).
BUT, I've met a few people where that is not always true. They tend to be people that can come up with unique solutions to difficult problems that are actually useful in the long run. They tend to be people that have PhD's and thrive in that type of work (and are actually good at it, while also being able to work as a team).
The problem with Google's promo/perf process for years is that this trajectory towards upper level positioning was essentially mandatory. When I started they used to say that if you didn't get to L5 in 4 years or so, you would start getting scrutiny applied to you. L5 is sort of "team-lead light" and does require inter-team collaboration, project/code leadership/ownership, etc. I always felt like this process is corrosive towards individual contributors, and doesn't recognize long-standing committed but less-ambitious or less-social people.
This policy was eventually dropped, thankfully, but among some managers I feel like the attitude has remained.
This policy was eventually dropped, thankfully, but among some managers I feel like the attitude has remained.
The policy was not dropped, the terminal level was just moved to L4.
This is true. It takes a while for some people to really accept this, as it breaks the lone coder myth. There are some people who consider communication and influence to be politics, and think they can do their job solely by programming.
The people downvoting you are likely those you reference. Which is painfully ironic as this comment is should at the top of the thread: work is fundamentally a social endeavour, and if you expect to be promoted, you need to demonstrate the ability to think/talk/socialize/synthesize challenging problems that almost always require cooperation if not collaboration with others.
you can also lead by example instead being verbal and deliberate in your communication.
Not every place is so enlightened. Plenty of places will focus on your individual contributions at review time, essentially devaluing any communication or force multiplication work you've done.
Gee it's too bad you saved everyone on the team 8 hours of work a week because you only got 80% as much work done as they did (ie, we're actually punishing you for making everyone else more productive by comparing you to the yard stick that you just changed).
Gee it's too bad you saved everyone on the team 8 hours of work a week because you only got 80% as much work done as they did (ie, we're actually punishing you for making everyone else more productive by comparing you to the yard stick that you just changed).
I can imagine this happens due to malicious-ness, but it seems unlikely.
Individual contributions are necessarily easier to measure and easier to attribute than force-multiplication or communication, so it's going to be easier / less work for managers to pull them out at review time.
Sadly, that means that you need to highlight your own work (in a vaguely PR/Marketing) way that you don't have to for individual contributions.
That means that you both have to communicate well to other engineers "look at this easy way to save 10% of your time", but also communicate the effects of that to management so they'll a) reward you for it and b) invest in making it happen.
None of that is "easy".
Individual contributions are necessarily easier to measure and easier to attribute than force-multiplication or communication, so it's going to be easier / less work for managers to pull them out at review time.
Sadly, that means that you need to highlight your own work (in a vaguely PR/Marketing) way that you don't have to for individual contributions.
That means that you both have to communicate well to other engineers "look at this easy way to save 10% of your time", but also communicate the effects of that to management so they'll a) reward you for it and b) invest in making it happen.
None of that is "easy".
Does anyone else find it kind of funny that a lot of companies' "Individual Contributor" roles so many times involve contributions of others once they get past a certain point? Doesn't that mean it's no longer an "Individual Contributor" position?
The IC/manager distinction is a useful false dichotomy, not an absolute rule.
You can also quit working for other people and pursue your own projects or seek out contract work. Yes yes, easier said than done, but so is advancing along a company’s career path.
a) Contracting definitely requires huge amounts of communication - you need to constantly ramp up on new areas, and handover to people once you are done.
b) A contractor who can only provide a single headcount is extremely limiting, and will get treated like a capped IC.
b) A contractor who can only provide a single headcount is extremely limiting, and will get treated like a capped IC.
"When I started my second job search, I was worried that the short tenure in the job I was trying to leave would be a turn-off to perspective employers. In reality, however, it wasn’t a big deal- people asked about it, but seemed satisfied with my 20 second summary and then moved on to other things."
Alternatively, you can simply leave your new position off your resume and not talk about it in the interviews at all. There is nothing wrong with saying "My last gig was a software engineer at Stripe. I left there to focus on looking for a better fitting opportunity".
There is no need to have your resume be a complete record of your employment. In fact, such resumes are often less desirable because they are long and don't highlight any specific strengths. Instead, make your resume highlight your most relevant and best accomplishments.
I've only been a professional for 10 years, but I am already condensing my resume, removing descriptions from my first few jobs. I imagine that as time goes on, I will even group jobs together like "2010 - 2015 - Software engineer at Companies A, B, C" to keep my resume a nice, neat one pager, and focus on the more important things I have done recently. Like the OP, I've also quit two jobs shortly after I stared them during my career and those are definitely not on the list - its simply not relevant.
Alternatively, you can simply leave your new position off your resume and not talk about it in the interviews at all. There is nothing wrong with saying "My last gig was a software engineer at Stripe. I left there to focus on looking for a better fitting opportunity".
There is no need to have your resume be a complete record of your employment. In fact, such resumes are often less desirable because they are long and don't highlight any specific strengths. Instead, make your resume highlight your most relevant and best accomplishments.
I've only been a professional for 10 years, but I am already condensing my resume, removing descriptions from my first few jobs. I imagine that as time goes on, I will even group jobs together like "2010 - 2015 - Software engineer at Companies A, B, C" to keep my resume a nice, neat one pager, and focus on the more important things I have done recently. Like the OP, I've also quit two jobs shortly after I stared them during my career and those are definitely not on the list - its simply not relevant.
Well, most companies run background checks which would reveal all the short and long jobs. At that point, you would still need to explain it somehow.
A few things here:
1. Background check companies usually only contact the positions you list to verify your dates of employment and title. They probably won't contact a job you don't let them know about.
2. If it helps you sleep at night, you can still fill out the background check form accurately, but leave stuff off your resume / not talk about it in the interview. Again, there is no rule that you need to talk about every job you have ever had in chronological order on your resume or in the interviews. As long as there is nothing untrue, or some sort of strange conflicts of interest, you are totally welcome to omit things that aren't relevant.
3. In the rare, extremely unlikely chance that you have to explain yourself, it seems perfectly acceptable to say "I've only been at this job for a few weeks. I am not sure I am going to stay longer, so I didn't think it was relevant".
If you are interviewing for the CIA, then definitely list every job. If it's a normal tech job, people simply don't care. Fill your precious chance to impress your interviewer with things that are actually impressive.
1. Background check companies usually only contact the positions you list to verify your dates of employment and title. They probably won't contact a job you don't let them know about.
2. If it helps you sleep at night, you can still fill out the background check form accurately, but leave stuff off your resume / not talk about it in the interview. Again, there is no rule that you need to talk about every job you have ever had in chronological order on your resume or in the interviews. As long as there is nothing untrue, or some sort of strange conflicts of interest, you are totally welcome to omit things that aren't relevant.
3. In the rare, extremely unlikely chance that you have to explain yourself, it seems perfectly acceptable to say "I've only been at this job for a few weeks. I am not sure I am going to stay longer, so I didn't think it was relevant".
If you are interviewing for the CIA, then definitely list every job. If it's a normal tech job, people simply don't care. Fill your precious chance to impress your interviewer with things that are actually impressive.
i’ve actually done this. my tact was to leave off resume and disclose in background check.
i got an email asking why the job i left out wasn’t that n my resume. i simply said having it on there always drives the conversation to why i’m morally opposed to that business after working there. that’s apparently a fine answer and i was given the offer.
going forward i’m just gonna leave it off the resume and the background check. i simply updated my other job dates to 2/2002 - 3/2003 && 5/2003 - 8/2005. if asked i say i took a long break. been fine since
i got an email asking why the job i left out wasn’t that n my resume. i simply said having it on there always drives the conversation to why i’m morally opposed to that business after working there. that’s apparently a fine answer and i was given the offer.
going forward i’m just gonna leave it off the resume and the background check. i simply updated my other job dates to 2/2002 - 3/2003 && 5/2003 - 8/2005. if asked i say i took a long break. been fine since
[deleted]
Completely different type of work, but I once quit a new job at a factory after two days. First day, I arrive early to fill out the paperwork and watch the HR job safety video. Video finishes and I wait for the HR person to return. After a few minutes, I go look for her, but can't find her so I go back to the video room.
Eventually someone else (upset) comes in and tells me that I'm supposed to be working rather than sitting there. I tell him I'm waiting for the HR lady to come back. "She went home for the day." Okay, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing. Guy gets even more upset, takes me to the back room, points at one of the other workers, tells me to do what he's doing, and then I never see him again.
The only time anyone talks to me is (a) to tell me every couple hours I'm doing something wrong, (b) tell me it's break time, and (c) to shout at me for coming back from break two minutes early. (c) was my supervisor, and that was the only contact I had with him. When the second day was just like the first, I decided I didn't need that job.
Eventually someone else (upset) comes in and tells me that I'm supposed to be working rather than sitting there. I tell him I'm waiting for the HR lady to come back. "She went home for the day." Okay, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing. Guy gets even more upset, takes me to the back room, points at one of the other workers, tells me to do what he's doing, and then I never see him again.
The only time anyone talks to me is (a) to tell me every couple hours I'm doing something wrong, (b) tell me it's break time, and (c) to shout at me for coming back from break two minutes early. (c) was my supervisor, and that was the only contact I had with him. When the second day was just like the first, I decided I didn't need that job.
[deleted]
holy, what industry?
I don't know. They never gave me any training, never told me what the product was or who they were selling it to. It might not seem possible to not know the industry, but I responded to a job ad, so all I knew was the address and the name of the company. I posted a longer version on my website: https://lancebachmeier.com/trivia/bad-job.html
I quit a job before even starting. They called me and told me that they had decided to pay me a good chunk less than we had agreed upon. I was in the last days of my two weeks notice for my current job. I had no option. Except that... five minutes later, my current boss made a counter-offer. And ten minutes later it was me who called those charming people to apologize for the inconvenience.
After what they had done, it was a surprise how bad they took it. Very serious threats to my future employability and well being. I really suffered during the whole call, trying not to laugh and keep it professional.
It was also a hardware company. I worked for another hardware company later. Not sure if there are other kind of hardware companies there in the Valley. But for me, there's a clear rule: never work for another hardware company.
After what they had done, it was a surprise how bad they took it. Very serious threats to my future employability and well being. I really suffered during the whole call, trying not to laugh and keep it professional.
It was also a hardware company. I worked for another hardware company later. Not sure if there are other kind of hardware companies there in the Valley. But for me, there's a clear rule: never work for another hardware company.
Given their behavior, sounds like you dodged a bullet anyway, but this is also a good time to point out if you're job hunting while already employed, you should never give in your notice at current co until you have a signed employment contract from the new one.
I had a contract signed.
No idea what happens where you live, but in Spain, a signed job contract is not worth the paper it's written on. They could just fire me the first day (there's always a "test period" during which they can do it no questions asked).
We operate with some good faith assumptions. Actually it's the only time that such a thing happened to me.
No idea what happens where you live, but in Spain, a signed job contract is not worth the paper it's written on. They could just fire me the first day (there's always a "test period" during which they can do it no questions asked).
We operate with some good faith assumptions. Actually it's the only time that such a thing happened to me.
Margins for hardware tend to be thinner than software which typically means less salary, not as nice offices, and more bean counters.
I imagine there are exceptions to this rule (Nvidia).
I imagine there are exceptions to this rule (Nvidia).
I didn't care about offices, they were nice in the other place that I worked years later. It's the lack of software engineering culture.
They followed the "flag oriented programming" paradigm. The company tanked a few months after I left anyway, so no bad feelings. Edit: I meant the other hardware company. The we-dont-honor-contracts one I guess it's still there making the world a nicer place.
They followed the "flag oriented programming" paradigm. The company tanked a few months after I left anyway, so no bad feelings. Edit: I meant the other hardware company. The we-dont-honor-contracts one I guess it's still there making the world a nicer place.
I once quit a job after 6 weeks. From the day I started (when I saw my boss for about 30 seconds, was not given a computer or any information about how to get started/set up), it was clear things were not going well. The team I was joining had mostly disbanded (a mix of fired, left for greener pastures, or transferred to another region). As a result, there was no institutional knowledge, just as my team was put in charge of handling an immense new project.
I could see that in the best case, I would be there long enough to get up to speed on my position, just in time to leave. That wouldn't do a service to the company, so I gave my notice after 6 weeks.
To my boss' credit, he offered that I could stick around for a while until I found my next gig. Looking back, I guess this served his interests also — it would have been hard for him to recruit for this position if a newly-arrived team member left so quickly, following on the heels of several other departures.
I could see that in the best case, I would be there long enough to get up to speed on my position, just in time to leave. That wouldn't do a service to the company, so I gave my notice after 6 weeks.
To my boss' credit, he offered that I could stick around for a while until I found my next gig. Looking back, I guess this served his interests also — it would have been hard for him to recruit for this position if a newly-arrived team member left so quickly, following on the heels of several other departures.
I quit one after two weeks once. It was a small-to-medium consulting company that talked a great game in their interviews and then turned out to be a complete clown show.
After two weeks I was panicking over things like customer Hipchat meetings in which participants were using other channels to mock the customers (not shared with the customers, of course) with porn clips.
I noped out of there after two weeks. They gave me puppydog eyes and made all sorts of promises but...nope. Just, nope.
After two weeks I was panicking over things like customer Hipchat meetings in which participants were using other channels to mock the customers (not shared with the customers, of course) with porn clips.
I noped out of there after two weeks. They gave me puppydog eyes and made all sorts of promises but...nope. Just, nope.
Was the consulting company named after a type of gem stone? I had an eerily similar experience, that I also left after two weeks. The weirdest part of it all was the manager who was part of it all. She used to send a group chat saying she was going to take a nap, close her office door, turn the lights off, and lay down on the floor to sleep for a few hours.
What really did it for me was when we all went out for someone's "birthday" (it wasn't their birthday, the team had put cards in at a few restaurants with different dates for their birthdays to get free stuff, whatever, the restaurants don't care, but it was just weird) and most of the team berated a guy who was trying not to drink so he didn't order a beer. You could tell the guy was uncomfortable, and they just kept goading him for the entire 2hr lunch.
After a week and a half I called back a company I had turned down for this one and asked if they would still take me. Started there the next Monday. That was 10yrs and 2 jobs ago, and easily the best decision I had made for my career.
What really did it for me was when we all went out for someone's "birthday" (it wasn't their birthday, the team had put cards in at a few restaurants with different dates for their birthdays to get free stuff, whatever, the restaurants don't care, but it was just weird) and most of the team berated a guy who was trying not to drink so he didn't order a beer. You could tell the guy was uncomfortable, and they just kept goading him for the entire 2hr lunch.
After a week and a half I called back a company I had turned down for this one and asked if they would still take me. Started there the next Monday. That was 10yrs and 2 jobs ago, and easily the best decision I had made for my career.
I realized a few days into my current job that it was a bad fit for me. Unfortunately I'd have to pay back the $10k relocation package if I left, so I decided to stick it out.
Last year I interviewed with a company and was ready to take the job but I had drinks with the manager and decided it was too much of a brogrammer shop for me. Looking back, if I had taken the job, I would have worked with friends, the brogrammer aspect wasn't as bad as I thought, and I'd be planning my retirement after 3 years of work.
Sometimes you just never know. It does pay to do your due diligence though. Same thing with buying a house. Big changes, like jobs or living arrangements, demand adequate investigation.
Last year I interviewed with a company and was ready to take the job but I had drinks with the manager and decided it was too much of a brogrammer shop for me. Looking back, if I had taken the job, I would have worked with friends, the brogrammer aspect wasn't as bad as I thought, and I'd be planning my retirement after 3 years of work.
Sometimes you just never know. It does pay to do your due diligence though. Same thing with buying a house. Big changes, like jobs or living arrangements, demand adequate investigation.
> Unfortunately I'd have to pay back the $10k relocation package if I left, so I decided to stick it out.
For the future, this kind of stuff is very easy to negotiate with the new company, and should definitely not be the thing holding you back. E.g. "you would have paid relocation for me but I'm in the same city so help me pay back my current company for it instead".
For the future, this kind of stuff is very easy to negotiate with the new company, and should definitely not be the thing holding you back. E.g. "you would have paid relocation for me but I'm in the same city so help me pay back my current company for it instead".
Not necessarily, but worth a try. Had to turn down an offer from a prospective employer due to a company unwilling to help with this, ended up burning alot of my and their time for no good reason and it was made clear early in the process this was needed.
I have never heard of anyone paying back signing or relocation bonuses if they didn’t want to. It’s usually not worth it for the company to pursue.
On the point of returning to a company you previously left for good reasons... don’t. I made this mistake, and things of course boiled to a breaking point for me after another year. Chances are nothing has changed, listen to that gut feeling. This probably isn’t everyone’s experience I don’t know, but it’s my experience for what it’s worth to anyone reading this.
[deleted]
As a CS graduate I had this a few years ago.
After 4 months, I felt numb and that would last every week from Monday to Friday. I wanted to be somewhere else so bad.
But instead of option 2 ("Start exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up"), I chose option 3 ("Stick it out for at least a year") for these reasons:
- With only €800 saved up (had just invested €5,000 in a fishing business that had failed) at the moment I realized it wasn't a good fit I couldn't afford even a month of bills.
- It would look bad on the resume, and might have to justify it to next prospective employers.
Also due to unfortunate circumstances, my life was administratively a mess: there was a massive 6-month delay in the delivery of new residence permits. And by the time my papers got processed, social security information was no longer up-to-date (only valid for 3 months), causing an additional nerve-wracking 5-month delay. As a consequence I couldn't quit or even get fired as, in addition to the mess above, I would have to update employment information (and get possibly another 5-month delay). After my annual review with my boss and a PIP, my salary got cut 10% (had no choice)
The happy ending? When I finally managed to get my residence permit and successfully updated my social security information 18 months after I joined the company. I looked for and found a new job, handed in my resignation and joined the other company.
After 4 months, I felt numb and that would last every week from Monday to Friday. I wanted to be somewhere else so bad.
But instead of option 2 ("Start exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up"), I chose option 3 ("Stick it out for at least a year") for these reasons:
- With only €800 saved up (had just invested €5,000 in a fishing business that had failed) at the moment I realized it wasn't a good fit I couldn't afford even a month of bills.
- It would look bad on the resume, and might have to justify it to next prospective employers.
Also due to unfortunate circumstances, my life was administratively a mess: there was a massive 6-month delay in the delivery of new residence permits. And by the time my papers got processed, social security information was no longer up-to-date (only valid for 3 months), causing an additional nerve-wracking 5-month delay. As a consequence I couldn't quit or even get fired as, in addition to the mess above, I would have to update employment information (and get possibly another 5-month delay). After my annual review with my boss and a PIP, my salary got cut 10% (had no choice)
The happy ending? When I finally managed to get my residence permit and successfully updated my social security information 18 months after I joined the company. I looked for and found a new job, handed in my resignation and joined the other company.
I've done this before. Got an offer while I was still interviewing with a few other companies. Accepted the offer then a few weeks later another, significantly better, offer came through.
I have absolutely no qualms about it, and I don't put the tiny stint on my resume. My work and expertise speaks for itself. It's sad that job hunting has become rife with Machiavellian machinations in the past three decades, but this is the world we live in. Acting otherwise is self-sabotaging.
Long gone are the days where we'd become "company men" loyal to CEOs and corporate pillars. We'd get to retire in our late 50s with pretty wives, a few kids, and decent savings. Job hopping is the most reliable way to get a raise. If you don't job hop, you might be on the chopping block come the next layoff wave.
This is all on top of the fact that engineers are woefully underpaid. I have finance friends that make literal millions in yearly bonuses. This is virtually unheard of in software, even though we provide orders of magnitude more value.
It is what it is.
I have absolutely no qualms about it, and I don't put the tiny stint on my resume. My work and expertise speaks for itself. It's sad that job hunting has become rife with Machiavellian machinations in the past three decades, but this is the world we live in. Acting otherwise is self-sabotaging.
Long gone are the days where we'd become "company men" loyal to CEOs and corporate pillars. We'd get to retire in our late 50s with pretty wives, a few kids, and decent savings. Job hopping is the most reliable way to get a raise. If you don't job hop, you might be on the chopping block come the next layoff wave.
This is all on top of the fact that engineers are woefully underpaid. I have finance friends that make literal millions in yearly bonuses. This is virtually unheard of in software, even though we provide orders of magnitude more value.
It is what it is.
> This is all on top of the fact that engineers are woefully underpaid. I have finance friends that make literal millions in yearly bonuses. This is virtually unheard of in software, even though we provide orders of magnitude more value.
That doesn't necessarily mean engineers are woefully underpaid. It may just be that your finance friends are obscenely overpaid.
Though whether all/most engineers provide "orders of magnitude more value" may be questionable. Some of the highest-paid engineers, AIUI, devote their considerable expertise to optimising ad click rates. "Provide value"? Hmmm. To whom? Not humanity in general, I think.
That doesn't necessarily mean engineers are woefully underpaid. It may just be that your finance friends are obscenely overpaid.
Though whether all/most engineers provide "orders of magnitude more value" may be questionable. Some of the highest-paid engineers, AIUI, devote their considerable expertise to optimising ad click rates. "Provide value"? Hmmm. To whom? Not humanity in general, I think.
> Some of the highest-paid engineers, AIUI, devote their considerable expertise to optimising ad click rates.
I worked on an ad product with a team of 10 or so data scientists + engineers. I'd wager most of us made between 100k-175k + some tiny bonuses here and there. The product we built was making the company $2.5 million a month.
But hey we all got some cool jackets and a pat on the back. Give me a break. Money talks. I don't know why engineers are so shy when it comes to wanting more.
I worked on an ad product with a team of 10 or so data scientists + engineers. I'd wager most of us made between 100k-175k + some tiny bonuses here and there. The product we built was making the company $2.5 million a month.
But hey we all got some cool jackets and a pat on the back. Give me a break. Money talks. I don't know why engineers are so shy when it comes to wanting more.
i would guess that a hypothetical survey of the software engineering profession would rank "solving intellectually challenging and interesting problems" as one of the top values if not the top.
if you buy that, it's no surprise that many software engineers (albeit not necessary ultra professional ones) are willing to give away their labor for free to the world, on the internet, in their (spare?) time. to them, it's just a fulfilling use of time, and that it may be valuable on its own or on behalf of capital, isn't really a big deal.
it should also be no surprise, then, that despite potentially automating away entire industries (e.g. transportation) whose proceeds will ostensibly go to those deploying the labor of the engineers, they're perfectly willing to settle in for a "good salary", "cool perks", "comfortable lifestyle", and, most importantly, being fed very difficult problems to hack on. as long as the SWE isn't too bored or too uncomfortable, i think they'd continue to plow ahead, even if their employers stand to gain $Billions from whatever they're doing.
if you buy that, it's no surprise that many software engineers (albeit not necessary ultra professional ones) are willing to give away their labor for free to the world, on the internet, in their (spare?) time. to them, it's just a fulfilling use of time, and that it may be valuable on its own or on behalf of capital, isn't really a big deal.
it should also be no surprise, then, that despite potentially automating away entire industries (e.g. transportation) whose proceeds will ostensibly go to those deploying the labor of the engineers, they're perfectly willing to settle in for a "good salary", "cool perks", "comfortable lifestyle", and, most importantly, being fed very difficult problems to hack on. as long as the SWE isn't too bored or too uncomfortable, i think they'd continue to plow ahead, even if their employers stand to gain $Billions from whatever they're doing.
every time engineering salary discussions come up something like this gets posted. We made the company $xx millions and we only get a tiny fraction of it in pay. As if the company should pay engineers whatever they make. What about:
1) All the other things that goes into making that money. Like sales, marketing, HR, etc.
2) Supply and demand. Doesn't matter if you made the company $xx millions, what's your market value?
3) Risk. If you and your team doesn't make the company money, should you not get paid?
1) All the other things that goes into making that money. Like sales, marketing, HR, etc.
2) Supply and demand. Doesn't matter if you made the company $xx millions, what's your market value?
3) Risk. If you and your team doesn't make the company money, should you not get paid?
> As if the company should pay engineers whatever they make.
You're attacking a strawman, no one in this thread is arguing that the company should pay engineers whatever they make.
You're attacking a strawman, no one in this thread is arguing that the company should pay engineers whatever they make.
Is it? The post I responded to was saying the company makes 2.5 million a month and they got a pat on the back. Sure, no one is asking for exactly what the company makes, but the implication is always they should get paid proportionally to the company's additional revenue due to their work. I'm just saying that's not how it works.
> the implication is always they should get paid proportionally to the company's additional revenue due to their work
Being proportionally paid with the value you bring isn't even remotely comparable to being paid everything you make. In fact, proportionality of pay is quite common in plenty of industries, e.g., real estate, law, etc.
Being proportionally paid with the value you bring isn't even remotely comparable to being paid everything you make. In fact, proportionality of pay is quite common in plenty of industries, e.g., real estate, law, etc.
Real estate also gets very little (nothing?) if no sales are made. Is that what you're proposing? That software developers work on commission and don't get paid if the stuff they build doesn't make the company money? Or should it be like sales folks with a target? Seems like some folks want the best of both worlds. A bit fat salary that's guaranteed regardless, but also a big fat bonus if what they work on makes money.
> Is that what you're proposing?
You are being extremely uncharitable, and are attacking a straw man yet again. I don't think my argument is particularly hard to follow. A degree of proportionality between value generated and compensation isn't some far-fetched kooky idea.
You are being extremely uncharitable, and are attacking a straw man yet again. I don't think my argument is particularly hard to follow. A degree of proportionality between value generated and compensation isn't some far-fetched kooky idea.
Double your teams salary to get the cost to the company including benefits like health insurance (which are very real).
From their numbers, it doesn't matter much. Even if we take the highest number from their range ($175k) and double it, that is $3.5M/year for the 10-person team. That is still an order of magnitude less than $30M/year.
Depends on where you are. Cost of benefits doesn't really scale with geographical increases. In Boston, my last several startups have used 1.35x salary as the fully loaded cost for engineers.
It typically costs an employer double what your pay is, once including benefits, matching social security contributions, etc. So your employer had 10 people it was spending 200k-350k a month on, so 2000k-3500k in expenses, for a product that made 2500k a month.
That's less true as salaries increase. Some of the increased costs like matching social security contributions or 401k matching are proportional to salary (to the tune of ~8-25% in aggregate depending on a ton of factors), and many of the other large benefits like health care are fixed and consequently take a much lower percentage of a large salary (10% would be a large overestimate for total employer health care costs for the salaries listed).
"Double" is a much better (but still probably a bit high unless you're also factoring in HR and other similar overhead) estimate for low-paid white-collar workers. Lots of fields in vast swathes of the country start out around $30k/yr but still have full benefits. A $3k-$15k/yr healthcare benefit on top of the other variable costs can push you close to double.
"Double" is a much better (but still probably a bit high unless you're also factoring in HR and other similar overhead) estimate for low-paid white-collar workers. Lots of fields in vast swathes of the country start out around $30k/yr but still have full benefits. A $3k-$15k/yr healthcare benefit on top of the other variable costs can push you close to double.
200k per year * 10 people is $2m/yr.
It was making $2.5m/mo.
It was making $2.5m/mo.
I dont think its double, its more like 1.6
[deleted]
Well, we have this myth of meritocracy, but some proffessions are systemically underpaid like teachers - millions of future earnings depend on them, but noone ambitious wants to become a teacher, so our schooling kida sucks
It's a supply and demand problem. There are a lot of folks who are willing and able to be teachers for a low amount of pay, but it turns out you can't live off discount engineers or finance people.
I assure you, if SV could get away paying $12 an hour to engineers or finance, they would.
I assure you, if SV could get away paying $12 an hour to engineers or finance, they would.
There are a lot of folks who are willing and able to be president for a low amount of pay. Might even do a better job than Trump.
The idea was that if teaching was a prestigious profession, we would see large returns on that investment. We have an entire underclass of population that is poorly educated, so maybe we shouldn't be living off 'discount teachers' as we are doing now.
The idea was that if teaching was a prestigious profession, we would see large returns on that investment. We have an entire underclass of population that is poorly educated, so maybe we shouldn't be living off 'discount teachers' as we are doing now.
Really great teachers could probably find a way to make huge incomes. I tutored competition math on the side to rich families’ kids for nearly $500/hr.
The whole point of my post was that we need the best teachers in the classrooms, not tutoring a few select rich kids.
Your original claim was that the teaching profession is systematically underpaid but in fact you’re talking about a very specific set of public sector employees whose compensation is more complex than just annual salary.
This 'very spesific set' is like 90% of all teachers.
The argument was -you cannot get away underpaying developers, you get crap develipers and crap code. But compare teaching outcomes, and you will see that countries with better paid teachera have better outcomes in primary education, so we are suffering the consequences in both cases. Its just that we've chosen different tradeoffs
The argument was -you cannot get away underpaying developers, you get crap develipers and crap code. But compare teaching outcomes, and you will see that countries with better paid teachera have better outcomes in primary education, so we are suffering the consequences in both cases. Its just that we've chosen different tradeoffs
I haven’t made any arguments. You may be confusing me with someone else on the thread? In any case, the outrageously paid developers are probably less than 10% of all software engineers, especially if you consider that foreign engineers are part of the labor pool in a way foreign teachers are not.
"Provide value"? Hmmm. To whom? Not humanity in general, I think."
The organization they're employed at. Which is obvious because we're talking about jobs here; that's what salaries are, in part, based on.
The organization they're employed at. Which is obvious because we're talking about jobs here; that's what salaries are, in part, based on.
In that case, finance people with said bonuses indeed make that kind of value.
Though I am not quite sure the average finance person makes more than the average software engineer.
Though I am not quite sure the average finance person makes more than the average software engineer.
I didn't claim to agree with the original comment. I didn't even give an opinion. I just clarified where value is being measured.
I had a friend that did this last year. He job hunted for about 3 months, then took a job at a company he thought he would enjoy for about 6-8 business days (1.5 weeks) and then got a job offer with another company that came through from his earlier job search.
He felt really bad leaving so early but he wasn't particularly happy with the environment after the first week and took the next opportunity that came his way and paid significantly more.
Of course he said that the second job hasn't been much better to his happiness, but his logic was that if you are going to do something you hate, you might as well get paid more to do it. The second job is also more convenient for his commute.
He told me that he doesn't plan on putting the one week job on his resume going forward.
He felt really bad leaving so early but he wasn't particularly happy with the environment after the first week and took the next opportunity that came his way and paid significantly more.
Of course he said that the second job hasn't been much better to his happiness, but his logic was that if you are going to do something you hate, you might as well get paid more to do it. The second job is also more convenient for his commute.
He told me that he doesn't plan on putting the one week job on his resume going forward.
I did this and still feel gross about it even though I don't regret the decision. Accepted an offer for a Java/Spring developer, but a week later I got a better offer for a Scala engineer at Apple that had swept me off my feet. I don't know why I still feel gross having to renege after accepting the first offer; I think its because I annoyed the recruiter. That even if the first offer had salary-matched the other offer, I'd rather be programming in Scala than Java/Spring and that wasn't something they could compete with.
It’s not about how much value your labor provides. It’s about how much unique value your labor provides.
Most IBs aren’t making millions in the same way that most engineers are making what a Principal at a FAANG makes.
Most IBs aren’t making millions in the same way that most engineers are making what a Principal at a FAANG makes.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Anthony Levandowski got a $120m bonus. What makes you think he is less of an outlier than your friends are in finance? (although FWIW unless your friends are very senior I suspect they're lying about getting million plural bonuses)
Having worked in hardware for most of my career, I can tell you that hardware labs are generally dark and messy.
Commutes are hell. If you are working on hardware, especially secret hardware, it's unlikely that you'll be allowed to work from home.
Note in the Apple Press Events, they always have this zoom thing, where they burrow into the earth to show you the hardware labs.
Sort of like The IT Crowd...
Commutes are hell. If you are working on hardware, especially secret hardware, it's unlikely that you'll be allowed to work from home.
Note in the Apple Press Events, they always have this zoom thing, where they burrow into the earth to show you the hardware labs.
Sort of like The IT Crowd...
I definitely can relate to this. I also went to work for a software/hardware company which had tight, open office desks, hardware everywhere, no remote options, longer hours, stressful deadlines, etc. I knew I made the wrong decision during my orientation. I choose option 3, which was was stick it out for two years. Ironically by the time 2 years was up, I was in a much happier state. I had just become used to the situation. I learned a ton from the experience and all the smart people working there, but I would never want to go back.
Oh man. I left a remote job in like, late 2017 because of some problems I had with their ethics. I took a job that paid less and required me to drive (not too far, and I was missing seeing people's faces a bit anyway).
It was a bigger company that had acquired probably 7-8 businesses--my team's job was to integrate them all together to help the business operate more fluidly. It took me about 2 days to realize that a) the project was doomed, b) all the people working here (except Dave, the guy who told me to "abandon all hope" as I sat down on the first day) were just faking it and c) literally every person with decision-making capacity was incompetent.
The SMEs were all siloed into a different (you might even say competing) team. They were actually trying to encode all the business rules into something akin to MuleSoft. They were inaccessible to us.
The architect on the project couldn't write code to save his life. He was in love with some inane microservices architecture for which the example project wouldn't even compile. It was basically a mock of a microservice architecture, but built on top of SOAP. It was a bunch of crazy nonsense. He got fired shortly after I left.
The development manager was a nice enough guy, probably too nice. I'm not sure what he did other than set up interviews for me and a couple of the other senior developers to conduct.
I left after 3 months, for a job that was still a pay-cut from my first job, and was twice as far to commute to. But at least it wasn't a total crapshow.
I still keep up with Dave though. So I guess it wasn't a total waste :)
It was a bigger company that had acquired probably 7-8 businesses--my team's job was to integrate them all together to help the business operate more fluidly. It took me about 2 days to realize that a) the project was doomed, b) all the people working here (except Dave, the guy who told me to "abandon all hope" as I sat down on the first day) were just faking it and c) literally every person with decision-making capacity was incompetent.
The SMEs were all siloed into a different (you might even say competing) team. They were actually trying to encode all the business rules into something akin to MuleSoft. They were inaccessible to us.
The architect on the project couldn't write code to save his life. He was in love with some inane microservices architecture for which the example project wouldn't even compile. It was basically a mock of a microservice architecture, but built on top of SOAP. It was a bunch of crazy nonsense. He got fired shortly after I left.
The development manager was a nice enough guy, probably too nice. I'm not sure what he did other than set up interviews for me and a couple of the other senior developers to conduct.
I left after 3 months, for a job that was still a pay-cut from my first job, and was twice as far to commute to. But at least it wasn't a total crapshow.
I still keep up with Dave though. So I guess it wasn't a total waste :)
I also did this, worked at a startup for 3 months and left for FAANG. Everyone was surprised, and my manager wasn’t super happy, but on the whole my coworkers understood and tbh it was the best decision of my life. Definitely do not regret it in any way.
They'd be quick to lay you off when times get tough. I'm sure you wouldn't be super happy if that occurred.
This post was just a couple of months too late.
I recently started a new, lucrative team lead job in a problem space I was interested in that promised to be structured, ambitious, and full of opportunity. I even requested a follow-up post-offer to make sure it was a good fit. But after only two weeks, I realized it was a command-and-control death march.
No product ownership. Design your database up front. Complete waterfall but with developers and team leads responsible for each phase. A drive-by micromanaging executive with a team far too large to micromanage. Implementation teams of (only) junior developers had spent months prior to my arrival talking/meeting/designing - with virtually nothing to show for it.
Every day was a calendar full of meetings to prepare for other meetings. Other teams and their managers were reporting fraudulent statuses creating the illusion of progress when no actual progress actually existed. Asking questions or offering any pushback was met with passive-aggressive anger. Any effort to create a little bit of structure amidst the chaos was, almost immediately, thrown away.
So I decided it was best if I resigned. They even kept me around for a couple of weeks after I resigned which was nice, and that two weeks confirmed I made the right decision. A number of other team members and peers reached out and expressed agreement or envy - they wanted to leave as well.
But despite those assurances that I'd made the right choice, it was a tough pill to swallow. I've never worked anywhere less than 18 months. I love building good software and I hate job hunting. I'm debating whether to put this experience on my resume or not because it's such an outlier in my professional experience and was such a short stent.
Here's hoping the next opportunity is a better match. If you're an employer in DFW (or willing to take on a remote) looking for a Team Lead or hands-on Development Manager that can code, I'd love to chat.
I recently started a new, lucrative team lead job in a problem space I was interested in that promised to be structured, ambitious, and full of opportunity. I even requested a follow-up post-offer to make sure it was a good fit. But after only two weeks, I realized it was a command-and-control death march.
No product ownership. Design your database up front. Complete waterfall but with developers and team leads responsible for each phase. A drive-by micromanaging executive with a team far too large to micromanage. Implementation teams of (only) junior developers had spent months prior to my arrival talking/meeting/designing - with virtually nothing to show for it.
Every day was a calendar full of meetings to prepare for other meetings. Other teams and their managers were reporting fraudulent statuses creating the illusion of progress when no actual progress actually existed. Asking questions or offering any pushback was met with passive-aggressive anger. Any effort to create a little bit of structure amidst the chaos was, almost immediately, thrown away.
So I decided it was best if I resigned. They even kept me around for a couple of weeks after I resigned which was nice, and that two weeks confirmed I made the right decision. A number of other team members and peers reached out and expressed agreement or envy - they wanted to leave as well.
But despite those assurances that I'd made the right choice, it was a tough pill to swallow. I've never worked anywhere less than 18 months. I love building good software and I hate job hunting. I'm debating whether to put this experience on my resume or not because it's such an outlier in my professional experience and was such a short stent.
Here's hoping the next opportunity is a better match. If you're an employer in DFW (or willing to take on a remote) looking for a Team Lead or hands-on Development Manager that can code, I'd love to chat.
I'll put my experiences down as a cautionary tale.
I've had 3 relatively short stints in tech jobs, but none where I left responsibilities on the table, like leaving in the middle of a project, or promising some work only to bail. Notice was always given, and I made the best effort to transition by completing all work before the end date. My reasons for leaving each are a bit more serious than a lifestyle downgrade, but none-the-less, that doesn't matter to future employers.
There are lots of sectors to jump between that utilize programming and IT knowledge (DevOps, Cloud roles, security roles), so even when you go to try them out, it's being considered a job hop by recruiters/hiring managers. If it doesn't work out, you're now potentially job hopping twice when you try to go back to something you know you can do due to world events.
Not only is this the major take-away from the article, it also applies to switching industries, and in my experience for switching industries, it applies even if you have a recent certification in the new industry which gets requested by a lot of companies:
>It’s ok to quit after a few weeks (just don’t make it a pattern)
Unfortunately, companies won't see the notice you gave or the transition work you did. Those companies likely can't verify that, so they really only have your employment dates to look at. If they don't like it, they just won't put you forward regardless of how much they like your skills.
For some people, there will be companies where they don't fit in with because of personality traits. If you get particularly unlucky, you'll run into 2 or 3 of those companies in quick succession, with the latter positions being even worse than the first, and so you'll have to stick it out and endure more. This unluckiness doesn't do you any favors, though. But it's really up to you if those personality traits need to be fixed or not.
The only thing that seems to count is your tenure, so don't fuck it up. You might not even get to the leetcode step if you do.
I've had 3 relatively short stints in tech jobs, but none where I left responsibilities on the table, like leaving in the middle of a project, or promising some work only to bail. Notice was always given, and I made the best effort to transition by completing all work before the end date. My reasons for leaving each are a bit more serious than a lifestyle downgrade, but none-the-less, that doesn't matter to future employers.
There are lots of sectors to jump between that utilize programming and IT knowledge (DevOps, Cloud roles, security roles), so even when you go to try them out, it's being considered a job hop by recruiters/hiring managers. If it doesn't work out, you're now potentially job hopping twice when you try to go back to something you know you can do due to world events.
Not only is this the major take-away from the article, it also applies to switching industries, and in my experience for switching industries, it applies even if you have a recent certification in the new industry which gets requested by a lot of companies:
>It’s ok to quit after a few weeks (just don’t make it a pattern)
Unfortunately, companies won't see the notice you gave or the transition work you did. Those companies likely can't verify that, so they really only have your employment dates to look at. If they don't like it, they just won't put you forward regardless of how much they like your skills.
For some people, there will be companies where they don't fit in with because of personality traits. If you get particularly unlucky, you'll run into 2 or 3 of those companies in quick succession, with the latter positions being even worse than the first, and so you'll have to stick it out and endure more. This unluckiness doesn't do you any favors, though. But it's really up to you if those personality traits need to be fixed or not.
The only thing that seems to count is your tenure, so don't fuck it up. You might not even get to the leetcode step if you do.
> The only thing that seems to count is your tenure, so don't fuck it up. You might not even get to the leetcode step if you do.
This is flat wrong. Are you only applying to Fortune 500s or something?
This is flat wrong. Are you only applying to Fortune 500s or something?
How do you prove to the next company that you won't leave? You really can't. You can easily prove you've been working on leetcode problems. If they don't want to hire people with short stays, you can't really fix that. If they don't want to hire people who haven't practiced leetcode, you can fix that. So to an employer, does it really matter if you are good at leetcode if they feel you won't stay around long? So the tenure takes precedence.
Some companies won't care, but finding those is just about as easy as finding a company that's a good fit before you've worked there.
Some companies won't care, but finding those is just about as easy as finding a company that's a good fit before you've worked there.
> does it really matter if you are good at leetcode if they feel you won't stay around long?
Yes. Hard technical skills are even more important in that situation.
Yes. Hard technical skills are even more important in that situation.
[deleted]
Though I like the sentiment of the post, it's funny and maybe remarkable how software engineers are in such a privileged bubble most probably don't even realize. Quitting jobs after a year at arguably the most innovative fintech company because you didn't feel satisfied, taking a vacation, casually mentioning you can "hack" interviews by focusing on leetcode problems for some weekends, working somewhere for 2 days, taking another vacation and then switching to a new job. Probably hopping through a few salary negotiations and gaining tens of thousands of dollars. Be sure to take a moment to realize.
I didn't enjoy the sentiment of the post as it came across as far too entitled.
- Disappointed that Stripe wouldn't just give him a job and the same pay back. - Referring to the new job as a downgrade when in fact it was simply a bad fit. - Job hopping every 18 months as if that is perfectly acceptable and sustainable for the employers.
- Disappointed that Stripe wouldn't just give him a job and the same pay back. - Referring to the new job as a downgrade when in fact it was simply a bad fit. - Job hopping every 18 months as if that is perfectly acceptable and sustainable for the employers.
I don't agree with all his actions but I appreciate the transparency. The writing gives exposure, documentation of his CV and is arguably showcasing a skill. Job hopping isn't sustainable and shouldn't become a permanent pattern, but it's not unacceptable. Early career it's the fastest way to gain salary, experience different kitchens/industries and arguably just how the job economy is; you will not be rewarded for job loyalty so why optimize for it.
Nonsense. There are plenty of white-collar and even some blue-color jobs where it’s the same or even more extreme. Personal anecdote - when i was working low level construction jobs during pre-2008 boom two of my foremen quit without notice to grab a job somewhere else. A lot of companies don’t really optimize for tenured employees anyway so you get what you pay for in a sellers market
A pretty informative post. I like the mindset and towards the end, yup, the only big mistake that was made was not trying to switch to other teams at Stripe first. But certainly nothing wrong with switching jobs like that.
Live and learn.
Live and learn.
I haven't had success switching teams at all. I had a few that wanted to still interview me. I had a vp say he won't let me switch. The only time I ever switched teams, I had that decision made for me, worked out fortunately.
Having another internal team still want to do a technical interview was ridiculous to hear though.
Having another internal team still want to do a technical interview was ridiculous to hear though.
I have a friend at Microsoft that decided to switch teams. He absolutely regretted it. This isn't to say Microsoft is bad (he had plenty of good things to say about it) but he said that switching teams gets really messy. The people on the previous team feel betrayed, the people on the new team feel like you are an opportunist, and unless you are running away from a specific department manager there is likely going to be very little change between the teams. He also complained that he feels like he started a new job, is starting on the bottom of the new team, but without the benefits of new job title or salary.
He regretted switching to the new team, when he expressed his disastisfaction to the new team manager the team manager felt like he simply wasn't a good fit and transferred him to a third team. Now he is the guy who has been on 3 teams in 6 months and he feels all the same problems as before, but with the label of being a "team switcher" whenever something doesn't go right.
Over Christmas he told me he plans to start applying for new jobs outside of the company at the start of the year.
As a manager, I have personally moved employees from other teams to my team twice and neither time did it work out well. There is often a reason that the previous team wasn't working out. Many people see switching teams as an easy and secure way to get a new job. But it is a lateral move and not a job switch. I haven't seen it work out well in either of the two times I have allowed it. Both employees lasted less than 6 months after switching teams.
He regretted switching to the new team, when he expressed his disastisfaction to the new team manager the team manager felt like he simply wasn't a good fit and transferred him to a third team. Now he is the guy who has been on 3 teams in 6 months and he feels all the same problems as before, but with the label of being a "team switcher" whenever something doesn't go right.
Over Christmas he told me he plans to start applying for new jobs outside of the company at the start of the year.
As a manager, I have personally moved employees from other teams to my team twice and neither time did it work out well. There is often a reason that the previous team wasn't working out. Many people see switching teams as an easy and secure way to get a new job. But it is a lateral move and not a job switch. I haven't seen it work out well in either of the two times I have allowed it. Both employees lasted less than 6 months after switching teams.
A lot of this comes down to company culture and size. In some companies it's completely expected and even encouraged to switch teams. In others you're treated basically like an external hire.
This is almost as bad as those folks who have to interview for their own jobs...usually during lay offs, or in the midst of big organizational changes. Maybe on paper some of these ideas seem ok, but it really is either silly or humiliating or both.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm referring here to folks who are already employed at some firm, and that same firm is asking them to interview (again) for their existing job, or a new job that is almost identical to the legacy job...all within the same firm.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm referring here to folks who are already employed at some firm, and that same firm is asking them to interview (again) for their existing job, or a new job that is almost identical to the legacy job...all within the same firm.
[deleted]
I realize that HN is very employee-centric, but "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with. If someone's just started, they're generally a net-negative, so the individual is both drawing pay and sucking resources. This is almost 'quitting in-place'.
If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees.
If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees.
This is the risk with at-will employment in CA. The employer could very well decide after two days of you working there that they wanted to let you go -- there's no part of the contract keeping either side from ending things early.
I don't think it's unethical to leave after a short amount of time given the employer has no equivalent expectation.
I don't think it's unethical to leave after a short amount of time given the employer has no equivalent expectation.
A buddy of mine got a new job, quit the old one, showed up day one and was laid off immediately. Apparently their budget had changed. Oof!
We also hired a c-level exec who came aboard apparently having already accepted a different offer and came on for under a month to collect pay and get some juicy stock. Apparently they negotiated well and walked off very, very well paid.
Edit: not sure if I have a point there other than both employees and companies can be jerks. We should all be better.
We also hired a c-level exec who came aboard apparently having already accepted a different offer and came on for under a month to collect pay and get some juicy stock. Apparently they negotiated well and walked off very, very well paid.
Edit: not sure if I have a point there other than both employees and companies can be jerks. We should all be better.
A friend of mine, ex-IT, is now a Physician Assistant. He was an Alaska native, living outside Seattle. He had been doing a lot of contract work at a large Urgent Care in Alaska, and talked about it with his family.
They talked about making him full-time. Negotiated an offer, relocation package, etc., all good. He set about selling his home, finding his kids new schools, etc. And then about a week before his start date, he got a phone call.
"The clinic has been sold to new owners. They are reviewing finances and rescinded any job offers, including yours. They will allow you 30 days to repay your relocation assistance."
Oh hell no. He lawyered up. He'd sold his home. Had a whole bunch of language in the employment contract that the new owners were unaware of, to ensure things went "smoothly".
He didn't end up repaying his relocation assistance. And his "new" "employer" ended up paying three months salary and the closing costs on his house for the inconvenience.
They talked about making him full-time. Negotiated an offer, relocation package, etc., all good. He set about selling his home, finding his kids new schools, etc. And then about a week before his start date, he got a phone call.
"The clinic has been sold to new owners. They are reviewing finances and rescinded any job offers, including yours. They will allow you 30 days to repay your relocation assistance."
Oh hell no. He lawyered up. He'd sold his home. Had a whole bunch of language in the employment contract that the new owners were unaware of, to ensure things went "smoothly".
He didn't end up repaying his relocation assistance. And his "new" "employer" ended up paying three months salary and the closing costs on his house for the inconvenience.
> We also hired a c-level exec who came aboard apparently having already accepted a different offer and came on for under a month to collect pay and get some juicy stock.
At a previous job, I worked fairly closely with a sales representative who, it turned out, was working in sales “full time” for two different tech companies in different fields.
Needless to say, once he was discovered he was jobless (unless, of course, there were more undiscovered jobs out there).
At a previous job, I worked fairly closely with a sales representative who, it turned out, was working in sales “full time” for two different tech companies in different fields.
Needless to say, once he was discovered he was jobless (unless, of course, there were more undiscovered jobs out there).
How was he discovered? It would be easier to do this nowadays, given the whole remote thing.
The other employer found out, IIRC, through his LinkedIn profile and contacted us. Been several years though so I’m only moderately confident in that memory.
I am conflicted abiut this - he was working full time at 2 places and performing adequately? Was he that good?
If this continued for a while and you were happy with his work prior to discovering this, why let him go?
If this continued for a while and you were happy with his work prior to discovering this, why let him go?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’m a peon, so I don’t know what options were discussed, but I suspect once you’ve been revealed to be that dishonest, it’s hard to trust that you aren’t pulling other shenanigans.
I agree with this. However, I will say unless there is something major wrong with you or major at the company, you are now going to be fired very quickly. The company also doesn’t want that reputation.
I work in finance and certain hedge funds have a reputation for cutting people quickly they don’t like. It attracts people that are ok with that and most stay away.
That all said - you got to look out for you and your family and friends, so you got to do it sometimes. Just wanted to say that, most of the times, the feeling of a commitment to each other goes both ways during the honeymoon period between company and person.
I work in finance and certain hedge funds have a reputation for cutting people quickly they don’t like. It attracts people that are ok with that and most stay away.
That all said - you got to look out for you and your family and friends, so you got to do it sometimes. Just wanted to say that, most of the times, the feeling of a commitment to each other goes both ways during the honeymoon period between company and person.
now or not going to be fired quickly?
Nailed it. At-will employment in CA, so the employee can be fired or laid off instantly in an afternoon - happens all the time. But, they're generally expected (not required) to give 2-3 weeks notice. I always found this a bit asymmetric.
> But, they're generally expected (not required) to give 2-3 weeks notice.
California at-will employment cuts both ways and requires neither employer nor employee to give notice.
Many employers will typically notify employees 30 days in advance of layoffs and provide severance on top of that.
Many employees give employers two weeks’ notice before quitting.
Some employers and some employees do neither, which is fully within the bounds of at-will employment in California.
California at-will employment cuts both ways and requires neither employer nor employee to give notice.
Many employers will typically notify employees 30 days in advance of layoffs and provide severance on top of that.
Many employees give employers two weeks’ notice before quitting.
Some employers and some employees do neither, which is fully within the bounds of at-will employment in California.
Many companies in CA, while you absolutely do not have to give notice, legally, will refuse to provide a reference or employment verification or flag you as "not eligible for rehire", (most companies I've worked with lately don't ask for references, per se, but _do_ verify dates of employment and eligibility for rehire) including to prospective employers, if you do not.
[deleted]
Would you have a different expectation if the employment agreement specified severance compensation for the employee, or if the law required severance?
If the law required severance the law is also pretty likely to make requirements of the employee as well so things will still be equal - when I say pretty likely I mean in every case I have ever seen.
Yes, I would openly encourage different types of work contracts in California / the US. I'd commit, for example, to 1-2 year auto-renewing contracts. Probably would need a few conditions:
* If I am terminated without breach of contract I still will receive full compensation (at least for some months).
* Contract may not be broken related to any unexpected health issues.
* No arbitration requirement if one side accuses breach of contract.
Of course this would benefit me more than the employer :-)
* If I am terminated without breach of contract I still will receive full compensation (at least for some months).
* Contract may not be broken related to any unexpected health issues.
* No arbitration requirement if one side accuses breach of contract.
Of course this would benefit me more than the employer :-)
You're equating legal obligations with expectations. Firing someone after two days because you realize you found someone better might be legal, but a company would be rightly criticized for doing that.
This is absurd. Even with a beefy severance package, employees can face very serious risks after being laid off, while companies face minimal risks.
It’s not unethical though it may take some explaining later on.
When I was a manager, I had a rule that all my directs had to always be looking for new opportunities. If they find something better, I wanted them to leave. It made sure of 2 things for us: 1. We knew that anyone could leave at any moment, and we always planned accordingly. 2. We knew we had to keep people happy. If someone didn't like something, we had to change if possible or that person might leave. Conversations about having interviews and being contacted by recruiters became open, honest, and casual. There was no fear about someone might find out if you were looking, and people shared what they found out about talking to potential employers.
Had a manager at Microsoft that made me do that. Thought it was really weird at the time, and certainly wasn't anything like a company policy, but here we are 20 years later. It's a story I tell my reports all the time and it just works so much better to be able to rely on everyone being around because they have decided they want to be.
> "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with.
How so?
> If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees.
I'm not sure what an ethical action from an employee would look like under this framework; quit and live without an income during any job search?
How so?
> If we expect startups and companies to act ethically (in terms of pay, benefits, options, etc.), we should expect the same of employees.
I'm not sure what an ethical action from an employee would look like under this framework; quit and live without an income during any job search?
>How so?
Yeah, I am confused by that one as well. If you are delivering value in the same capacity as you did before you started the job search (aka you ain't slacking and doing the bare minimum, with the rest overflowing onto the rest of engineers on your team), then how is it harmful or even noticeable to anyone at all?
Yeah, I am confused by that one as well. If you are delivering value in the same capacity as you did before you started the job search (aka you ain't slacking and doing the bare minimum, with the rest overflowing onto the rest of engineers on your team), then how is it harmful or even noticeable to anyone at all?
[deleted]
Don’t throw the ethics word in the sole business that the employees have some leverage. Employers will let you go without a second thought about your family / health situation and you will be told that this is just business.
Very true. My ex- was nervous about accepting a vet tech position for about a year before she started vet school.
She was nervous because they "required"/"only wanted" someone who "was going to be there long term".
I asked her: "They want you to make commitments to them that you will be there for a long term. Are they willing to make the same commitment to you? Or are you out the door the moment you are unneeded?"
"Business is tough. But here at BlahCo, like we told you, we're a family. So like we required from you, we're keeping you on and paying you!" - hah, no. At least not the very very vast majority of the time, more like "Come in, close the door, have a seat".
She was nervous because they "required"/"only wanted" someone who "was going to be there long term".
I asked her: "They want you to make commitments to them that you will be there for a long term. Are they willing to make the same commitment to you? Or are you out the door the moment you are unneeded?"
"Business is tough. But here at BlahCo, like we told you, we're a family. So like we required from you, we're keeping you on and paying you!" - hah, no. At least not the very very vast majority of the time, more like "Come in, close the door, have a seat".
If we expect startups and companies to act ethically...
Oh, I gave up on that a long time ago. So where does that leave me in light of the second half of your sentence?
I know where it leaves me: it leaves me in the place where employers pushed for "at-will" employment in the state legislature, and just like an employer might want me to train my replacement, I'm going to "not quit until something better is lined up". I'll still do the work that I was hired to do, but I'm not quitting until it suits my needs, just like an employer won't keep me around even one minute longer than suits their needs.
Ethics don't come into play, these are the rules that have been foisted upon us while no one asked us our opinion on the subject. To argue ethics in this case makes me suspect manipulation at worst, naivety at best.
Oh, I gave up on that a long time ago. So where does that leave me in light of the second half of your sentence?
I know where it leaves me: it leaves me in the place where employers pushed for "at-will" employment in the state legislature, and just like an employer might want me to train my replacement, I'm going to "not quit until something better is lined up". I'll still do the work that I was hired to do, but I'm not quitting until it suits my needs, just like an employer won't keep me around even one minute longer than suits their needs.
Ethics don't come into play, these are the rules that have been foisted upon us while no one asked us our opinion on the subject. To argue ethics in this case makes me suspect manipulation at worst, naivety at best.
> we should expect the same of employees.
No we shouldn't. The reason being that this puts employees at a significant disadvantage compared to the multitude of companies doing much worse things.
Obviously, there is always a line that one should not crossed. EX: don't do anything that is blatantly illegal.
But taken advantage of at-will employment status, which is fully within someone's legal right to do so? Go for it. If the company is upset about it, then they should have offered better employment terms.
No we shouldn't. The reason being that this puts employees at a significant disadvantage compared to the multitude of companies doing much worse things.
Obviously, there is always a line that one should not crossed. EX: don't do anything that is blatantly illegal.
But taken advantage of at-will employment status, which is fully within someone's legal right to do so? Go for it. If the company is upset about it, then they should have offered better employment terms.
I think the general theory is that the employee has the net disadvantage. If they lose their job, it's 100% of their livelihood, whereas for the employer, losing one employee out of a dozen or more is rarely an existential threat. Also, the employer has more power over the work environment.
How come almost no company that wants that kind of loyalty is willing to pay for it?
Like, say, 6 months of guaranteed pay if you are let go for any reason non-criminal.
Like, say, 6 months of guaranteed pay if you are let go for any reason non-criminal.
It is harmful to the team you're with, but there's no alternative right now. It is substantially easier to find a new position when you are currently employed, even if your stint has been brief. This is common knowledge, and as such self-reinforcing: if you quit, then apply somewhere else, the new place will assume you were forced out, since nobody on their own volition leaves a job before finding another one.
So there's no way around it right now, so here's my advice: unless you are about to have a breakdown, never quit until you find something else.
I'm confused by the statement on ethics. What ethic is being broken by the employee, who is searching for a new job from a new company, while still under employment with his current company?
capital can feel free to take a good faith first step by doing things such as sharing salaries, equity control, how much $ you would actually get were the company to be sold for $1B tomorrow, etc., or offering contractual employment (not at-will).
until then, no thank you - if you are hoping to win people over by using warm-sounding moving targets like "ethics", well, hopefully we've seen enough of that to know better by now.
until then, no thank you - if you are hoping to win people over by using warm-sounding moving targets like "ethics", well, hopefully we've seen enough of that to know better by now.
>I realize that HN is very employee-centric, but "exploring new opportunities but don’t quit until something better is lined up" is rather harmful to the team you're working with.
And how about their bills? People have to pay for shelter and other things. There's ethics and there are material needs. Not everyone is a made man / woman.
And how about their bills? People have to pay for shelter and other things. There's ethics and there are material needs. Not everyone is a made man / woman.
I was set to criticize OP for never having tried out the commute, until I remembered that I once took a job without having worked or lived a single day within 9 time zones of the place of employment. It's somewhat par for the course for foreign hires, and indeed, some of them discover they (or, even more frequently, their partner) don't enjoy the location.
I did ask them to show me what a typical office would look like, though.
I did ask them to show me what a typical office would look like, though.
Trying out the commute is huge. Losing two to three hours a day is a big drain. Worth it if you have an ideal job but not otherwise.
Tangentially, how many jobs do you normally need to apply for at once to have multiple offers on the table at once?
I once applied to 7-10 jobs in the same week. Of the 4-5 that decided to interview me, the interview processes didn't even interleave at all.
I once applied to 7-10 jobs in the same week. Of the 4-5 that decided to interview me, the interview processes didn't even interleave at all.
This statement is just sad "After a few weekends of furiously-paced Leetcoding".
I don't think it's sad to prepare for the interview process. I see it this way - whatever you do at your current job might be very specific to your current tech-stack/product/problem-domain/team/company. When you're looking for a new job, you can't possibly learn the stack or problem domain of each and every company that you will interview with. In that sense it's great that you're assessed on more general skills like data structures and algorithms. Those few weekends of brushing up on skills you had anyway allow you to apply for a wide range of jobs. You then pick a new job and specialise in it until the next time you need to switch. Sounds healthier than most of the alternatives.
My girlfriend is an accountant. Almost universally, if someone ignored her degree, and wanted to run through a skills test, it'd be considered extremely insulting.
She also works in a field that nobody can enter without the necessary education and some additional professional accreditation. Software is a lot more open, without hard requirements for a degree and without oversight bodies. Maybe this is because it's a much newer field, maybe it's because the industry has been consistently growing for the past couple of decades and putting hard barriers to entry would have slowed down that growth. Whatever the reason is, I'm glad that we aren't at accountant-level yet.
Not true - you can gain accreditation (i.e. a CPA), and an employer can mandate a level of education, be it an Associate, Bachelor or Master, but (at least in our state) these are not _required_ to be "an accountant".
There are definitely those of us without formal degrees in software engineering, programming, what-have-you, too. But similarly, I can see some of these employers saying "Oh, you have a CS degree from Stanford? That's cool. How do you perform preorder traversal in a given binary tree? Whiteboard is over here."
There are definitely those of us without formal degrees in software engineering, programming, what-have-you, too. But similarly, I can see some of these employers saying "Oh, you have a CS degree from Stanford? That's cool. How do you perform preorder traversal in a given binary tree? Whiteboard is over here."
> But similarly, I can see some of these employers saying "Oh, you have a CS degree from Stanford? That's cool. How do you perform preorder traversal in a given binary tree? Whiteboard is over here."
I'm not sure why you're putting this out there like it's a bad thing. Surely, we want all candidates to be assessed against the same hiring standards and not give some people a pass because of the school they went to.
I'm not sure why you're putting this out there like it's a bad thing. Surely, we want all candidates to be assessed against the same hiring standards and not give some people a pass because of the school they went to.
Sad that this is what we all have to compete against.
Reply that I posted to another comment:
Why? If a person can learn bunch of algorithms and apply them to custom problems they probably can do quite a bit with computers. And it shows that they probably can learn new stuff rapidly as well. I don't get why so many developers hate Leetcode. I love it personally, I think it's great. And also, I think people are just lazy and don't want to learn new stuff so they whine instead. I don't think whining will help them.
Why? If a person can learn bunch of algorithms and apply them to custom problems they probably can do quite a bit with computers. And it shows that they probably can learn new stuff rapidly as well. I don't get why so many developers hate Leetcode. I love it personally, I think it's great. And also, I think people are just lazy and don't want to learn new stuff so they whine instead. I don't think whining will help them.
>I don't get why so many developers hate Leetcode.
Because they think that the employer should recognize their greatness by just looking at their resume and having a simple conversation with them, instead of assessing them on some skill that they have to brush up on.
After being on the interviewer side myself recently, I think those people just don't realize how hiring actually works. I've seen some people with impressive resumes and who could bullshit their way around a conversation greatly, to the point where they make you believe they are one of those magic 10x-ers. And when you get to algorithmic problems, they struggle to figure out when or how to use a hashmap and cannot even do some super basic bruteforce parsing of binary trees or even know what they are used for.
Of course there are some edge cases where a great developer would fail a leetcode-style interview, but those exceptions are very rare and only seem to affirm the rule. I know that leetcode style interviewing is far from perfect, but I struggle to think of anything that would work better. A take-home coding project sounds like a great option, until you realize that each one of them takes about a week of working on it a couple of hours a day, which is an unacceptable time sink for any adult with responsibilities and who interviews at more than one place at a time.
Because they think that the employer should recognize their greatness by just looking at their resume and having a simple conversation with them, instead of assessing them on some skill that they have to brush up on.
After being on the interviewer side myself recently, I think those people just don't realize how hiring actually works. I've seen some people with impressive resumes and who could bullshit their way around a conversation greatly, to the point where they make you believe they are one of those magic 10x-ers. And when you get to algorithmic problems, they struggle to figure out when or how to use a hashmap and cannot even do some super basic bruteforce parsing of binary trees or even know what they are used for.
Of course there are some edge cases where a great developer would fail a leetcode-style interview, but those exceptions are very rare and only seem to affirm the rule. I know that leetcode style interviewing is far from perfect, but I struggle to think of anything that would work better. A take-home coding project sounds like a great option, until you realize that each one of them takes about a week of working on it a couple of hours a day, which is an unacceptable time sink for any adult with responsibilities and who interviews at more than one place at a time.
There are more cases that get under your radar: good developers that won't suffer a coding interview. Folks that don't do well with someone looking over their shoulder and talking to them while they're trying to work. Folks interviewing for a job that isn't simple algorithms.
To be honest, most data structure wonks are great at scaling cloud services or massive middleware business logic. But not all programming is like that.
It's easy to fall into "If they won't do a coding interview, they have something to hide!" But it doesn't (only) work like that.
To be honest, most data structure wonks are great at scaling cloud services or massive middleware business logic. But not all programming is like that.
It's easy to fall into "If they won't do a coding interview, they have something to hide!" But it doesn't (only) work like that.
> Folks that don't do well with someone looking over their shoulder and talking to them while they're trying to work
I am one of those people myself, absolutely cannot do it. But interviewing isn't like that and shouldn't be. It is more like, cooperatively working on a problem with a colleague and then presenting and explaining it to your teammates. That's a pretty valuable skill at work, even necessary, I would say.
The whole "loner dev in his cave" stereotype, most of the time, just materializes in the form of a dude writing code that no one can understand or maintain, with a cherry on top being that dude not being able to effectively explain it to other people either.
I am one of those people myself, absolutely cannot do it. But interviewing isn't like that and shouldn't be. It is more like, cooperatively working on a problem with a colleague and then presenting and explaining it to your teammates. That's a pretty valuable skill at work, even necessary, I would say.
The whole "loner dev in his cave" stereotype, most of the time, just materializes in the form of a dude writing code that no one can understand or maintain, with a cherry on top being that dude not being able to effectively explain it to other people either.
Sure that's exactly the same thing. At least what I was talking about. Talk to me while I'm trying to get into the code, is like trying to talk to someone trying to write a book or balance a checkbook or really concentrate on anything at all. Re-casting it as simple cooperation is disengenuous. Sure you want to explain things to a teammate; that's entirely missing the point.
If I'm talking, if I'm listening to you, then I'm not coding. They are orthogonal activities, at least for me. Want me to 'talk you through' my design thoughts? Thanks for your time, goodbye.
If I'm talking, if I'm listening to you, then I'm not coding. They are orthogonal activities, at least for me. Want me to 'talk you through' my design thoughts? Thanks for your time, goodbye.
> After being on the interviewer side myself recently, I think those people just don't realize how hiring actually works.
As an interviewer I've never had to give a coding test and I'm not about to start now. I've had people try and bullshit -- not really on purpose -- but asking specific questions weeds them out easily. Often times they don't even know they're failing the questions.
I have a less-technical manager come in on my meetings and by the end he could spot those people who failed without any knowledge of programming at all.
> Of course there are some edge cases where a great developer would fail a leetcode-style interview, but those exceptions are very rare and only seem to affirm the rule.
I did all this binary tree stuff in University decades ago -- I only have so much brain space and studying all this again is going to push out the interesting stuff I'm working on right now.
As an interviewer I've never had to give a coding test and I'm not about to start now. I've had people try and bullshit -- not really on purpose -- but asking specific questions weeds them out easily. Often times they don't even know they're failing the questions.
I have a less-technical manager come in on my meetings and by the end he could spot those people who failed without any knowledge of programming at all.
> Of course there are some edge cases where a great developer would fail a leetcode-style interview, but those exceptions are very rare and only seem to affirm the rule.
I did all this binary tree stuff in University decades ago -- I only have so much brain space and studying all this again is going to push out the interesting stuff I'm working on right now.
Leetcode focused on tricks and memorizing algorithms.
I've rejected a good bunch of candidates that can pass coding tests while not having any good understanding of theory, hardware, OS, networking, security
I've rejected a good bunch of candidates that can pass coding tests while not having any good understanding of theory, hardware, OS, networking, security
>I've rejected a good bunch of candidates that can pass coding tests while not having any good understanding of theory, hardware, OS, networking, security
Those are valid points, fully agreed. I think the discussion of those topics must be included in an interview process and discussed in-depth too, leetcode-style problems are not sufficient enough on their own.
>Leetcode focused on tricks and memorizing algorithms.
Strong disagree on "memorizing" and only partially agreed on "tricks". Those "tricks" (like knowing that you should use a hashmap when you need a key-value datastructure, or memoizing [aka caching] repeated operations) are very useful in real life problem-solving situations at work. I can tell you for a fact, I don't remember almost any particular problem from leetcode, and I ended up solving certain problems multiple times on leetcode, because I couldn't recognize them at all. However, thanks to leetcode, I obtained a pretty solid intuition on which approach to use in a particular situation, and it helped me out in the workplace immensely (even if I don't directly implement those approaches or remember the specifics 99% of the time).
Those are valid points, fully agreed. I think the discussion of those topics must be included in an interview process and discussed in-depth too, leetcode-style problems are not sufficient enough on their own.
>Leetcode focused on tricks and memorizing algorithms.
Strong disagree on "memorizing" and only partially agreed on "tricks". Those "tricks" (like knowing that you should use a hashmap when you need a key-value datastructure, or memoizing [aka caching] repeated operations) are very useful in real life problem-solving situations at work. I can tell you for a fact, I don't remember almost any particular problem from leetcode, and I ended up solving certain problems multiple times on leetcode, because I couldn't recognize them at all. However, thanks to leetcode, I obtained a pretty solid intuition on which approach to use in a particular situation, and it helped me out in the workplace immensely (even if I don't directly implement those approaches or remember the specifics 99% of the time).
So why not give a simple coding test? Talk through peoples thought processes.
Giving leetcodes only reward people who have grinded leetcode.
Grinding leetcode gets you better at solving leetcode and takes tons of time
> So why not give a simple coding test? Talk through peoples thought processes
What do you mean? That's pretty much what leetcode-style problems are during interviews. You get a problem with some theme, like "here is a list of airplane flights in an array composed of tuples, with the first member being origin, and the second being destination. Write code that would create full-blown routes out of those flight entries."
You ask questions, clarify constraints, come up with a few approaches, discuss with the interviewer pros and cons of each, decide to go with one, implement it while walking the interviewer through your thought process. And then you discuss limitations and edge cases, scalability concerns, how you would test it if it was a problem you were solving at an actual workplace, etc.
Leetcode-style interviewing doesn't typically refer to "we just pulled a random problem from leetcode, go ahead and solve it while I am standing over your shoulder, and we will check how correct the solution is afterwards." In fact, interviewers care way more about the thought process and your approach, as opposed to caring about your solution matching theirs. In fact, there were many cases where people ended up not solving the problem and passed the interview anyway, as well as cases where people solved the problem and ended up not passing. Because the process of arriving at the solution and the reasoning you took to get there matters way more when hiring (even if you didn't get there all the way to the correct solution), as opposed to just getting the correct answer. The fastest way to fail a leetcode-style interview is to sit down and write down the correct solution as fast as possible, without explaining your reasoning process or even anything at all.
What do you mean? That's pretty much what leetcode-style problems are during interviews. You get a problem with some theme, like "here is a list of airplane flights in an array composed of tuples, with the first member being origin, and the second being destination. Write code that would create full-blown routes out of those flight entries."
You ask questions, clarify constraints, come up with a few approaches, discuss with the interviewer pros and cons of each, decide to go with one, implement it while walking the interviewer through your thought process. And then you discuss limitations and edge cases, scalability concerns, how you would test it if it was a problem you were solving at an actual workplace, etc.
Leetcode-style interviewing doesn't typically refer to "we just pulled a random problem from leetcode, go ahead and solve it while I am standing over your shoulder, and we will check how correct the solution is afterwards." In fact, interviewers care way more about the thought process and your approach, as opposed to caring about your solution matching theirs. In fact, there were many cases where people ended up not solving the problem and passed the interview anyway, as well as cases where people solved the problem and ended up not passing. Because the process of arriving at the solution and the reasoning you took to get there matters way more when hiring (even if you didn't get there all the way to the correct solution), as opposed to just getting the correct answer. The fastest way to fail a leetcode-style interview is to sit down and write down the correct solution as fast as possible, without explaining your reasoning process or even anything at all.
because leetcode problems tune for a narrow set of jobs. many software jobs bear no relation to leetcode problems in practice. so the sadness is either that employers might be continuing interview processes that bear no relation to the real job (not always true, but also at least partially true), or that OP feels like he needs to grind leetcode to get a job, when he may have other practical skills and experience that would serve him better in the job search.
Yeah people are "lazy" in that they don't want to spend precious few free hours of their weeks grinding out a gimmicky skill-set that is at best tangential to the actual work they would be doing.
I understand there is no simple solution to how to hire software engineers, but you should be able to recognize why a lot of us don't like the current status quo of interviewing (even if you thrive in it).
I understand there is no simple solution to how to hire software engineers, but you should be able to recognize why a lot of us don't like the current status quo of interviewing (even if you thrive in it).
> I think people are just lazy
Yep, that's me.
> don't want to learn new stuff
No, I like learning some kinds of new things. I read non-fiction regularly. I just don't want to practice algorithms.
Yes, this means I probably would be a failure as a BigCo employee.
Yep, that's me.
> don't want to learn new stuff
No, I like learning some kinds of new things. I read non-fiction regularly. I just don't want to practice algorithms.
Yes, this means I probably would be a failure as a BigCo employee.
I get what you're saying but in my view, it's more of a massive time sink. I think of it as having to spend many hours preparing for an exam. And I have to do this every time I switch jobs.
The algorithms and ideas do sort of stick to me somehow but I still have to repeat this silly exam prep over and over again. And it's sad because the truth is this part of the interview process has almost no relation to your actual job.
The algorithms and ideas do sort of stick to me somehow but I still have to repeat this silly exam prep over and over again. And it's sad because the truth is this part of the interview process has almost no relation to your actual job.
It’s arbitrary and takes loads of personal time. All leetcode does IMO is teach your arbitrary pattern recognition that helps you in leetcode.
It wasn't fair to others for you to stick it out because your heart wasn't in it so you wasted everyone's time training you for a few months only to quit when you are finally half productive.
The real reason you left is the commute and office decor. Moving from a 15 walk to an hour trainride is a big change. Moving to an environment where people care more about product than impressing people is a huge culture shift.
In the end covid would have forced everyone wfh anyhow.
"I figured it wasn’t really fair to my colleagues at Nuro to stick in a job that my heart wasn’t in."
So, in the end, I decided that option 2 was the best fit for me. I continued at Nuro and did my best to get up-to-speed and to contribute to my team’s work, but at the same time jumped right back into the job market"
The real reason you left is the commute and office decor. Moving from a 15 walk to an hour trainride is a big change. Moving to an environment where people care more about product than impressing people is a huge culture shift.
In the end covid would have forced everyone wfh anyhow.
"I figured it wasn’t really fair to my colleagues at Nuro to stick in a job that my heart wasn’t in."
So, in the end, I decided that option 2 was the best fit for me. I continued at Nuro and did my best to get up-to-speed and to contribute to my team’s work, but at the same time jumped right back into the job market"
At Stripe and each of my jobs before that, I had had a short commute to a beautiful office, and got to experience the instant gratification associated with developing purely software-based products. Now, I was stuck taking a crowded train to a dark office littered with hardware parts, working on a product that would take many years to reach mass-market adoption due to pesky little things like manufacturing and road safety.
This is after he went to a robotics company because it seemed different.
He may also have felt out of place with people who know computers, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. If all you know is webcrap, you may feel way over your head in a robotics company.
This is after he went to a robotics company because it seemed different.
He may also have felt out of place with people who know computers, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. If all you know is webcrap, you may feel way over your head in a robotics company.
> This is after he went to a robotics company because it seemed different.
> He may also have felt out of place with people who know computers, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. If all you know is webcrap, you may feel way over your head in a robotics company.
I agree with you, but that is worded really harshly. I was surprised to see it come from you, of all people. I usually love to read your comments.
> He may also have felt out of place with people who know computers, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. If all you know is webcrap, you may feel way over your head in a robotics company.
I agree with you, but that is worded really harshly. I was surprised to see it come from you, of all people. I usually love to read your comments.
"working on a product that would take many years to reach mass-market adoption due to pesky little things like manufacturing and road safety."
I know that sentence was probably meant to be humorous and not taken too seriously, but it comes off as smug and disdainful. Manufacturing is very difficult, and road safety is anything but trivial.
He joined the company because he believed in the mission, but then decided the lifestyle tradeoff wasn't worth it? His conviction must not have been very strong to begin with.
I know that sentence was probably meant to be humorous and not taken too seriously, but it comes off as smug and disdainful. Manufacturing is very difficult, and road safety is anything but trivial.
He joined the company because he believed in the mission, but then decided the lifestyle tradeoff wasn't worth it? His conviction must not have been very strong to begin with.
Speaking from experience leaving a successful company with huge revenue and profitability(?) to a non-critical path role (I assume he didn’t join perception team there or something) in a company that has no real customers beyond some PoCs can be a huge culture shock.
The comment about safety is obviously tongue in cheek
The comment about safety is obviously tongue in cheek
Pretty rude. I know a few folks at stripe and I actually interviewed the author for another robitics company (which he passed on =)) and i can assure you he doesn’t “just know webcrap”
It's likely this person is good technically, and there might be a place for them in large corps where software engineers are just cogs, but their attitude and their resume suggests some issues: their resume is listed with year long stints in every major company, and their attitude suggests that apparently nothing can keep them happy. And also not interested in solving the most important problems (as evidenced by the knock on what sounds like a reasonable promotion deal), just the ones they might (or might not, even they don't know apparently) be interested in. Sounds elitist as hell and doesn't reflect someone who's genuinely seeking growth in their career.
Which is fine, compared to twitch streamers making millions for doing squats this is still a great career, but if anyone's looking at all for constructive criticism then they should introspect how priviliged all this stuff sounds like and whether it's healthy for their own development to live in such a bubble for too long.
Which is fine, compared to twitch streamers making millions for doing squats this is still a great career, but if anyone's looking at all for constructive criticism then they should introspect how priviliged all this stuff sounds like and whether it's healthy for their own development to live in such a bubble for too long.
As a both embedded and softbank venture (two separate companies in my case) survivor this could be a double whammy - ultra long hw development cycles with no pressure to be anywhere (softbank billions) so it can actually be a cush job compared to “webcrap”. So if that’s the case then I don’t see anything “elitist” about wanting to be in a more dynamic environment. Also this word is thrown around way too much lately
The word is thrown around too much because a lot of people are acting deservedly so? By definition if someone's called elitist, the target audience probably disagrees with that judgement. But again, if self reflection is being considered, the target audience should try to think if there's any base to the accusation.
In this case I or others are not alleging this person owes the company much. They should feel free to move as soon as possible if they don't like the commute or the work. It does look like the hardware place looks like a crappy deal. I'm just curious if the OP is truly doing whats in their interest or if they're overindulging their cushy position (being an in demand engineer) to their own long term detriment.
In this case I or others are not alleging this person owes the company much. They should feel free to move as soon as possible if they don't like the commute or the work. It does look like the hardware place looks like a crappy deal. I'm just curious if the OP is truly doing whats in their interest or if they're overindulging their cushy position (being an in demand engineer) to their own long term detriment.
Apart from "webcrap", this seems an entirely apt comment to me. If you join a hardware company, you should expect to get some grease on you.
Author here. Just a few clarifications:
1. I have a ton of respect for people who do robotics work. I was trying to be a little humorous/cheeky in my descriptions here. Apologies if it comes across as flippant, that was not what I intended.
2. My undergrad was in EECS, so I know a little about the hardware side of the world (although, to be fair, I've never done it for work).
3. There's a bit more to the story than what I wrote about in my post. For reasons around confidentiality, etc. I had to focus on the things that were safe to talk about openly, some of which I agree are kind of petty. Ditto for the reasons about leaving Stripe.
1. I have a ton of respect for people who do robotics work. I was trying to be a little humorous/cheeky in my descriptions here. Apologies if it comes across as flippant, that was not what I intended.
2. My undergrad was in EECS, so I know a little about the hardware side of the world (although, to be fair, I've never done it for work).
3. There's a bit more to the story than what I wrote about in my post. For reasons around confidentiality, etc. I had to focus on the things that were safe to talk about openly, some of which I agree are kind of petty. Ditto for the reasons about leaving Stripe.
This person in the article is whining because hardware is difficult and software is easy in comparison. And calls it as "littered with hardware parts"
And HN responds by upvoting the article and downvoting @Animats!
And HN responds by upvoting the article and downvoting @Animats!
Honestly the best perk in a job is a short commute. I would take a huge paycut for a shorter commute. Anything over a twenty minute drive is a no go for me. A five minute bike ride is ideal.
Nothing wrong with quitting early. I'm a bit surprised at the reasoning, after all he knew how long the commute was, and what the product was. But it's fine, we don't all know how we'll feel, like any relationship that goes from maybe to signed up.
As an employer, I tend to think we dodged a bullet. I've had one or two early quits over the years, and it's fine, we mostly avoided investing too much in them. People come, they sniff around for a week, they leave. Or they come, we find out we don't like them, and they go. Both have happened.
I've also been on the employee side of that. I joined, and then found the place to be a mess. So I left immediately when something else presented itself a few weeks later.
The thing about jobs, as opposed to school, is that the only way a job ends is that someone calls time on it. School ends because you're done. You graduated, passed the viva, whatever. A job you have to decide to end if you don't like it. You can't just slog it out through that course that you don't like, because there's no end.
I wouldn't worry at all about the CV impact. Chances are you can explain what happened if you decide to have it on your CV. Alternatively, I don't think anyone would hold it against you if you omitted or obscured a few weeks of your life. I certainly wouldn't.
As an employer, I tend to think we dodged a bullet. I've had one or two early quits over the years, and it's fine, we mostly avoided investing too much in them. People come, they sniff around for a week, they leave. Or they come, we find out we don't like them, and they go. Both have happened.
I've also been on the employee side of that. I joined, and then found the place to be a mess. So I left immediately when something else presented itself a few weeks later.
The thing about jobs, as opposed to school, is that the only way a job ends is that someone calls time on it. School ends because you're done. You graduated, passed the viva, whatever. A job you have to decide to end if you don't like it. You can't just slog it out through that course that you don't like, because there's no end.
I wouldn't worry at all about the CV impact. Chances are you can explain what happened if you decide to have it on your CV. Alternatively, I don't think anyone would hold it against you if you omitted or obscured a few weeks of your life. I certainly wouldn't.
Seems to me like he felt out of place at a robotics company where the bar is quite a bit higher than your typical webapp company. Different strokes, different folks.
A few years ago, I was looking for a new job after being laid off. I had two competing companies to choose from, and chose the one that sounded like it would be more exciting. After about five months, though, I was miserable and called the other company to see if they'd still take me; they did, and I've been happily working here since.
But after I announced my departure, a few engineers from other teams came up and told me they wished I'd let them know before quitting, since they would have been glad to have me on their team instead. They knew the reasons I was feeling frustrated, and felt confident that those issues were either not a problem on their team, or were at least being worked on. I still kind of wonder how true that was, and what would have happened if I'd made the switch internally, instead.
Anyway, that was kind of a long and boring story - two whole paragraphs! - but I think this was probably the one of the more valuable parts of OP's post. An internal team change is often a lot less stressful and less risky than going to a different company.