Workers who choose the path of least resistance may not speak up about barriers to work that they face for fear of conflict or apprehension to change.
Or because it’s not their job to do that. Tech perpetuates this “entrepreneurial mindset” bullshit, saying that for the wage paid for your work, you are also responsible for the company as a whole. Fuck no, especially since most devs can’t do shit about it. If you own a company and decide that I spend most of my productive time in bullshit meetings, you still pay me, just not for stuff you can actually sell. If the meetings start grinding my gears, I might hop over to a place where stuff makes more sense.
Workers are not there to make up for the bullshit management pulls. If your company is inefficient and mismanaged, look for the problem in management.
The moment i’m told that i’m responsible for the success of the company as a whole, i’m asking to be promoted to CEO. I’m doing my job, as hired for. No more, no less
Not to mention, in many cases, the CEO is also the CEO of something else, and is on the board of a third and fourth entity (or something like that).
How about we apply the same standard to CEOs that the rest of us fucking peons have to abide by? Because I can sure as shit focus on two jobs better than my CEO can focus on 4+ jobs, and I’ve got ADHD.
Having clear and healthy boundaries is incredibly important here. Otherwise you’re doing multiples of extra work for the same money. If they want more from you, they should also expect to pay more for you
Personally, I understood that sentence as mainly pointing out that you’re hindered in your work.
If you don’t have to perform activitism to get things changed, and you don’t have to fear any kind of consequences for pointing them out, then having a good rant in a retroperspective is therapeutic, fun.
You even just considering this to be extracurricular work, already seems indicative of some problem with management to me…
Or because it’s not their job to do that. Tech perpetuates this “entrepreneurial mindset” bullshit, saying that for the wage paid for your work, you are also responsible for the company as a whole. Fuck no, especially since most devs can’t do shit about it. If you own a company and decide that I spend most of my productive time in bullshit meetings, you still pay me, just not for stuff you can actually sell. If the meetings start grinding my gears, I might hop over to a place where stuff makes more sense.
Workers are not there to make up for the bullshit management pulls. If your company is inefficient and mismanaged, look for the problem in management.
The moment i’m told that i’m responsible for the success of the company as a whole, i’m asking to be promoted to CEO. I’m doing my job, as hired for. No more, no less
Not to mention, in many cases, the CEO is also the CEO of something else, and is on the board of a third and fourth entity (or something like that).
How about we apply the same standard to CEOs that the rest of us fucking peons have to abide by? Because I can sure as shit focus on two jobs better than my CEO can focus on 4+ jobs, and I’ve got ADHD.
You’ve just described my 50 years in the workforce, jumping from job to job, only just barely anything resembling an actual career.
deleted by creator
Having clear and healthy boundaries is incredibly important here. Otherwise you’re doing multiples of extra work for the same money. If they want more from you, they should also expect to pay more for you
deleted by creator
We’re in the same boat. Hope it all works out for you. You got this
Personally, I understood that sentence as mainly pointing out that you’re hindered in your work.
If you don’t have to perform activitism to get things changed, and you don’t have to fear any kind of consequences for pointing them out, then having a good rant in a retroperspective is therapeutic, fun.
You even just considering this to be extracurricular work, already seems indicative of some problem with management to me…