[for companies with idk 100 or less headcount] Good culture boils down to:
1. Predictability. Flavors of it: deliver features on time, roadmap stays mostly stable, on demand requests are known about ahead of time, business struggling or doing well transparent, tech debt / upkeep are first class citizens of planned work. All of this is project management and communication.
2. Org pays market rate and has good benefits. Employment is an exchange and esp for those who work hard, they deserve the recognition.
3. “People” (aka HR) is taken seriously. The team is expected to be checked in. Those who aren’t get fired. Ideally, there’s enough in place for individuals to come to their own conclusion that they should be fired. See #1. When a req is open it’s a top priority of whoever is in charge.
You can be PM-nonexistent or PM-heavy with lots of meetings and JIRA. Maybe you can accomplish all 3 above in both worlds. My experience is that process when done right moves the needle. No process leads to nonsense and process for the sake of process grinds it to a halt. It all gets better when the leaders are bought in or self aware enough to get out of the way.
If you push for change long enough, and aren’t an asshole about it, just genuinely interested and motivated, there’s a chance you’ll see your vision for better culture materialize.
> If you push for change long enough, and aren’t an asshole about it, just genuinely interested and motivated, there’s a chance you’ll see your vision for better culture materialize.
Throughout my career, I’ve described this as “polite persistence is how you effect change.”
This is so important. One of the things that kills company culture before the company even takes off is getting a sense from the founders that they're just trying to fool desperate/clueless people into working for them for less than what they're worth.
The startups that actually succeed have the philosophy "find the best people and pay them a lot". All the successful unicorns and decacorns over the last 15 years have a reputation of paying people well. There is literally not one startup I can think of that succeeded but has a reputation of underpaying.
And if you're unable to pay employees well then you're simply not well-capitalized enough and should drop the project.
By definition, paying employees well means paying them above-market, not market rate. If you pay people market-rate, nobody writes home about the compensation. Market-rate is also not "underpaying" i.e. below-market.
Paying above-market rates is walking a tightrope. On the one hand, experienced employees who are well-versed in your systems and your organization are indeed worth more than market-rate (i.e. someone new), and compensating them as such will retain them. On the other hand, it also retains poor performers, who you want to steer to finding roles elsewhere. Being ruthless about firing fast is one option, but it's a deal with the devil - it erodes psychological safety among people who stay unless the firing is unanimously desired and there is a consensus among everyone who remains that it was necessary. So if you handle the firing wrong, you affect performance and social cohesion everywhere. If you pay market-rate, it's easier to just make someone miserable until they self-select out and find work elsewhere.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), all successful startups pay above-market because equity compensation in the right company can be a life-changing amount of money. So most successful startups seem to successfully walk that tightrope.
It really depends on the organization, its mission, the employee pool, and the local cost of living.
Most software engineers are relatively well-paid compared to the wider labor market, even the engineers who are "underpaid". Kahneman's research showed that once you have enough money to pay your bills, making more than that has rapidly diminishing returns for your happiness. It's much more important to fit in - like your boss, like your coworkers, like your work, be recognized, have good work-life balance. None of that really requires above-market compensation.
When a firm pays below-market rates, it's a sign of one of two things: either they're abusing people who can't find work elsewhere, or people are happy to stay in spite of it. The latter are often really good places to work.
HN loves to complain about how money ruined the software industry. Let the people who will chase a raise from $180k to $210k go elsewhere. Let the people who want their moonshot at life-changing wealth go talk to a VC. There are other opportunities for people who realize that money isn't everything in life.
I don't think we actually disagree here. I agree broadly with everything you said. My point was mainly I don't see a reason to support that assumption that if pay pushes out low performers, I don't see a reason why it wouldn't equally push out high performers? This goes on the assumption that lower performers optimise more for pay than higher performers?
Low pay pushes people to leave, regardless of performance. The argument I'm making is that, in such an environment, you retain high performers through non-economic incentives (sense of belonging, appreciation, etc.) and push low performers out by not providing those. Why would anyone ever stay in an environment that also underpaid you and where you also weren't appreciated and gave you subtle hints to leave? Under-paying actually makes it easier to push out the people you don't want. Under-paying does indeed risk pushing out high-performers; my argument is that this is risk and not a guaranteed destiny, and that high-performers may be incentivized to stay by other means.
Even startups that beat the incredibly long odds to become successful mostly aren’t successful enough to make up for a long stretch of not earning BigCo RSUs.
I agree with most of this. However in my time I've never seen a company that was a., successful and b., prioritizing tech debt/upkeep at the same time. I presume AI will fix this however maybe not since it's so tempting to defer strategic decisions to it.
I have seen tech companies flourish which had tech, or tech-adjacent leadership. I've never seen a really good tech company that was lead by an MBA, a "vibe bro", or someone looking to get rich quick. It almost always comes from a genuine passion to solve problems in a certain domain.
One key point is also hires, hiring slowly and not keeping bad hires around. Bad hires really pull everyone down and it's really difficult to work around bad coworkers.
I personally actively filter out companies who don't use Slack. The way communication is done in a company reflects practically every company decision. (Conway's Law)
> I personally actively filter out companies who don't use Slack. The way communication is done in a company reflects practically every company decision. (Conway's Law)
Do you actually mean "don't use Slack" or actually just "use Teams"? If the former, I don't think that makes a lot of sense unless you own a lot of Salesforce stock. There's a number of Slack alternatives that pretty much deliver the same experience.
> I've never seen a company that was a., successful and b., prioritizing tech debt/upkeep at the same time.
Maybe you have only worked in start ups? I have certainly seen products fail or partially fail because of tech debt. One product was extremely unproductive to work on because of a patched together architecture. To the extent that bugs were introduced easily but took so long to turn around that customers left the product and told us that was the reason.
I think the points being made here are mostly good-ish. The last place I worked created a team of principles whose whole goal was to create a system to turn jira tickets into PRs and it was incredibly demotivating and bore no fruit before I left.
But, and maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I kind of wonder why we write articles like this. Like if a culture is bad, is it likely a CEO is going to be looking for random blog posts for constructive criticism?
Or even managers? I look at the market forces at play, and I just don't think many (any?) organization successfully create an incentive structure where performance on intangibles (specifically management) can be assessed well enough to make a bad culture into a better culture. I've worked at zero places where managers where seriously held to account for how "motivated" their employees were; when there were surveys of engagement engineers almost never truly believed they were anonymous (and why would they?) and were hesitant to give honest feedback.
In short, being a CEO is a skill of crafting and debugging a machine of people, a skill that I think life gives almost no training for, and a skill that most people with that title have no awareness or aptitude for. </rant>
Anyone who is looking for a job in the future would probably benefit from knowing what to look for (and what not to look for). I'm not likely to ever be in a position where I have outsized influence on the culture of the company I work at, but I do have the ability to influence what company I work at, and basically all of the criteria boil down to either compensation (not just salary, benefits too, since I live in a country where healthcare is a privilege rather than a right), and how happy I will be working there. As much as I hate how many companies don't treat their employees well, I also know that's not going to change any time soon, so to the extent I'm able to, I want to avoid working at companies where their culture sucks.
Right now I'm happy where I work, but I think most people recognize that so much can change almost literally overnight (either in terms of the employer still wanting to employ someone, e.g. sudden layoffs, or in terms of whether it sucks to work somewhere, e.g. massive policy changes like a job where you're comfortably remote suddenly trying to make you commute or even move). Until I'm at a point where I'd be able to retire if something like that happened, I need to continue to be aware of how to spot the red flags at prospective employers.
> But, and maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I kind of wonder why we write articles like this. Like if a culture is bad, is it likely a CEO is going to be looking for random blog posts for constructive criticism?
I think the odds of any particular article making it onto a CEO's radar are low, and the odds of them actually taking good advice to heart (let alone implementing it) are even lower. That said... I also get the impression that the shittest kinds of C-levels and VPs are disproportionately swayed by whatever opinion they last read in their daily email newsletter or heard on a five-minute podcast snippet. So at least in theory, if you were able to inject a seed of a good idea into the zeitgeist, that idea might reach the level of saturation where it turns into a form of white-collar peer pressure.
Unfortunately I also think the ideas that reach the peer pressure saturation point tend to be less "be nice to your employees" and more "put shock collars on them and make them beg for their jobs," but I guess it can't hurt to try?
I think sharing such ideas openly allows people to converge on similar feelings and experience which eventually leads to people experimenting these for real. We need to take into account that a lot of people reading and writing these kind of thoughts seriously may not be CEO at present but that does not prevents the possibility of them becoming the CEO's in future
> whole goal was to create a system to turn jira tickets into PRs
I love companies like that! Everything is documented, stuff just works, CI builds...
If something is broken, you just open ticket, and responsible person takes care of it! You do not have to investigate when Judy returns from holidays...
With remote work I can spend more time with kids..
"Company culture" usually means you have to listen to shitty stories, provide social life for some lonely people, and do unpaid emotional labour!
And do not dare to say anything even remotely controversial, in this "open" environment that "foster communications"!
> "Company culture" usually means you have to listen to shitty stories, provide social life for some lonely people, and do unpaid emotional labour!
Yes, a company culture is about dealing with other humans. Such as having empathy and compassion for your coworkers, help each others grow and go through tough times. Removing the human aspect from companies is how you end up with soulless environments where problems aren’t address
> Like if a culture is bad, is it likely a CEO is going to be looking for random blog posts for constructive criticism?
The CEO (or at least the founder) created and cultivated the culture of the company thus far. If the culture is bad, they are the single largest reason why.
You are right in that execs won't seek out the blog article which criticizes their strategy... unless they actually want to steelman against their own position (which is a very useful activity but few people do it).
But the CEO doesn't need to find it on their own. They surround their self with a Board, investors, sales people, managers / leadership team, people from their MBA program, etc. the article just has to plant a seed which grows somewhere in that ecosystem.
That said, the article may not be right. The largest and most successful companies in the world aren't the ones with the best company culture. They simply work in industries where the money is so prolific that the people who want to work in the industry are already highly motivated. The CEO doesn't need access to this information because it isn't true; it simply tickles your cognitive biases.
How do you effectively steelman against your own position without a dynamic “adversary” responding to counter-claims? I feel like every static argument except the most absolutely resolute is vulnerable.
Part of the value is to help the people stuck in bad cultures realize that it's the culture that's broken, not them. It's easy to lose sight of that! If you can recognize it, it's easier to do something about it whether that's changing your behavior and expectations, trying to change the culture bottom up or leaving altogether.
It might be a pipe dream but I'd like to see some sort of checklist for dev companies using hard-to-bullshit objective criteria to highlight that they either have a good culture or that their culture is toxic.
I remember many years ago companies used to advertise their "joel score" (not quite the same thing but related) to attract employees.
This is something which I think investors could also use as an indicator of company quality.
A lot of cultural problems also have quite easy fixes they just require shining a light on specific abuses of executive power which simultaneously hurt employees and destroys shareholder value. There is a lot more of this than I think people realize.
yeah absolutely. In theory that was supposed to be glassdoor (or blind) but I haven't found scores there to be meaningful signals.
>A lot of cultural problems also have quite easy fixes they just require shining a light on specific abuses of executive power which simultaneously hurt employees and destroys shareholder value. There is a lot more of this than I think people realize.
What do you mean? Who would "shine this light", on which executive, and who would they whistle-blow to exactly, the board? Short of embezzlement or sexual harassment (and not even all sexual harassment cases) I can't think of any cases where calling out an executive's behavior won't result in immediate retaliation. This is a genuinely tricky problem, but most of all I get the sense executives would rather own the wrong decision than have a subordinate get credit for swaying them to the right decision.
> But, and maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I kind of wonder why we write articles like this.
Good question.
Personally, it feels good to read these when stuck in a bad situation/culture. Feels good (relieving) to write too. I don't really believe these reach and/or change the relevant category of people.
>> but I kind of wonder why we write articles like this
I think its a way to speak out and get it out there, than stay unspoken. Author as well others who share same opinion get some validation that they are not only ones.
Most people have only a handful of job experiences to think through how things work or should work, so articles like this help broaden one's perspective.
I think most small or mid-sized company CEOs are much more incentivized or even, interested to "do it right". Once a board or shareholders get involved, it's different, because their (the CEO's) job also changes: they have a duty to serve the shareholders financial interest, not to create a good corporate culture.
> The last place I worked created a team of principles whose whole goal was to create a system to turn jira tickets into PRs
Demotivating work aside, that also seems like a complete dead-end to me, because somebody else who focused their company around it will do it better and cheaper (even before considering subject-specific VC money).
I'd be curious, in the last year, how many front-page articles do you remember? To avoid recency bias, maybe let's ignore the last week. What % of CEOs do you think read HN?
> In short, being a CEO is a skill of crafting and debugging a machine of people, a skill that I think life gives almost no training for, and a skill that most people with that title have no awareness or aptitude for.
Indeed, but the CEO is Queen Promethium, and you are just one of the people she's transformed into a bolt to go into her infernal machine.
I worked on a 20-ish team of good-but-not-brilliant engineers. Our secret weapon was liking each other and having very low turnover over the course of 10 years.
As a principal engineer at Meta and LinkedIn, it’s still the most productive team I’ve ever been on
No matter how much I try to explain to some executives that you don't want the most productive individuals, you want the most productive team, they just don't get it.
Imo a good example are soccer teams. To be in the top 5 the team has to work as one hivemind which only works if the people making up the team (coaches and players) actually work together on both the sport side as well as on the social side of things.
Different to corporate jobs those teams spend tremendous amounts on scouting, analysis etc.. They don't just look for the best player but also one who fits as a person.
I think the core issue is that management hasn't picked this up yet and understanding team chemistry etc is totally undervalued. I'd argue this is partly due to this being hard to measure and very hard to do.
The real test of this is whether a manager can fire their single most productive employee because he/she is ruining the social harmony of the team.
I've seen managers in my career bend over backward to protect people who were outright abusive to their coworkers but were individually very productive. Those managers didn't go very far. Your team is not a car collection.
AI seems to compound this issue. One person can appear incredibly productive, say by submitting a huge volume of PRs, but that can slow down the rest of the team by deluging them with PRs and operational issues that they have to solve.
A lot of people hate it, but if you have a rotation, that will force this person to deal with what they create during their rotations, and the operational issues will be an explicit part of your job when you're dealing with them.
When it kind of goes to random people, the conscientious people who fix the bugs and operational issues look unproductive, and the aggressive people throwing slop over the wall who never bother look great.
Forcing this through a rotating cast, and having other people not worry about it unless management decides it's too much for one person and they need help during this rotation, really avoids some of the most toxic outcomes around this.
On-call doesn't have to mean someone is getting paged at 3am. It does mean everyone rotates through, and it is clear who has the monkey, so you don't have passive-aggressive vs. conscientious behavior hiding issues like that.
Executives can fire individuals and keep the train running for a while. They can't fire "teams" unless they know that product doesn't need to be maintained anymore.
This might just be hanlon's razor and I'm overthinking it, but part of me wonders if it's less "executives don't get it" and more "executives do not want to get it".
It's hard because you have to constantly make "sub-optimal" decisions. If you optimise for things you can measure, or at least see right now, you get a low performing team of high performers, or you get a collection of local maxima. Optimising for a global maximum requires making decisions that have unclear pay-off, that are harder to justify. Another problem is that one of these decisions that was actually wrong, vs one that hasn't paid off yet, look the same.
I suspect executives very much get it, but realise that there's no obviously good answer here.
Part of me wonders whether trying to optimise at all is the problem.
The worst managers I've had were optimisers (and had the worst teams), and the best managers with the best teams weren't optimisers.
The best ones didn't care about metrics at all, but would work to get their teams the tools and/or conditions they wanted to do a good job. Of course it probably only works with a certain level of talent and alignment in the team
There's also the executive's incentives, and "I'll be gone, you'll be gone": the payoff for that is very long, and it will be hard for them to take credit, and their own tenure might not be as long as that team's.
Yep, same experience. We were a company of largely bootcamp grads with past experience in the product area. Most people had tenures of 5+ years and everyone had great rapport. Made it to unicorn status and then some. Then, for whatever reason, the C-suite decided to let go of most of the senior engineering team (rumor was cost-cutting measures at the behest of investor(s)).
Went from IPO hopeful to struggling to position to sell the company now that it was obviously down-trending. Everyone else worth their salt left within a year. Biggest takeaway was how effective everyone was despite not having a traditionally strong engineering background, just because everything traveled so fast because everyone knew everything about the product and everyone was happy and eager to talk to one another, and how quickly that disappeared.
I was very unproductive at Meta because there was so much tribal knowledge context gatekept by others who were too busy to continuously offer any meaningful support despite giving lip service. In other words the flow of information sucked ass compared to when I worked at a startup, even though I didn’t feel much politics at my level (senior).
Given that you work for Meta/LinkedIn, I don't think 'productive' is the correct adjective. It would be like saying that Ted Bundy was more 'productive' than Jeffrey Dahmer.
AI accelerates dysfunction. It will help you get to the wrong place faster if you're already heading there.
I do believe the opposite is true too. If you have a strong culture, a product or idea with promise, and a team of smart and capable people, it can move you faster in the right direction too.
The problem is that every person or company in group 1 thinks they are in group 2.
I think that every person or company in group 1 thinks they are in group 2 because they see ‘speed’ in ‘completing work’ as a signal in better performance. Especially since VCs are pushing for speed (https://x.com/Alfred_Lin/article/2084636778791858256), a lot of misguided person and company who is moving fast thinks they are in group 2, when the speed they have only doubles them down group 1
It always felt like AI adoption should come from the bottom up, driven by people who are actually in a position to assess whether it makes any positive impact. Granted, that only works if your culture encourages agency in the first place.
Welcome to a day in the life. The company I work for prides themselves on a culture of agency and letting developers be developers. I am pushing the AI revolution but the compliance requirements and modern Luddite zeitgeist are a daily source of frustration. If the AI isn’t perfect then it’s slop. But we’ll gladly excuse the existing 2 million lines of spaghetti code because of past deadlines and lack of resources to pay down the tech debt today. Fingers crossed though. Every failure brings you one step closer to an inevitable success.
>But we’ll gladly excuse the existing 2 million lines of spaghetti code because of past deadlines and lack of resources to pay down the tech debt today.
Well, if the AI is so efficient, it should be able to cut down on tech debt, no? Be a great way to kill two birds with one stone.
The issue is that the tech debt was there for years, likely before most people started there. The AI is in their control to utilize or refuse.
* announce that effective immediately, the company will begin its transformation to an "AI-first" organization, with AI driving most development workflows by end of year
* percolate the message through upper management down to line managers that they are to assure their reports that the aim of the transformation is to augment current employees, not reduce headcount
The idea that we shouldn't be able to vote for our bosses is completely ridiculous. If we had truly collaborative workplaces it would probably unlikely another $50 trillion worth of value once you give workers the ability to exercise their voice (passionate workers want stable working environments, if executives are never held accountable by their subordinates how can we argue such an unfree system is worth preserving?).
No, this is called exit and it assume that monetary reasons are the only important thing in an economy. That is false, workers should be allowed to exercise their voice about bad management and change bad management. If you want to leave that is fine but thinking that every worker wants the same thing as you is extremely foolish.
Congrats as a single individual doing something, LMK when it amounts to real material change like obtaining a pension, or securing more PTO, or getting better health insurance.
Responding to "hey, we could make our workplaces better by making it possible to elect our bosses rather than having them imposed on us as absolute dictators within the workplace" with "but you can already choose your boss—all you have to do is abandon all your coworkers, your salary, your routine, and likely your home and geographical region to go pick a different unaccountable absolute dictator" just shows that you aren't even having the same conversation that shimman is having.
And the worst part is you don't even seem to recognize it.
You got yourself into an extremely lucky position one time, and now that's made you think that's a viable solution for everyone who has problems with their bosses—and that anyone who thinks otherwise is just "not bringing value".
The only possible way to make our workplaces systemically better is by collective action. Unions. Workplace democracy. Stronger labor protections.
You can also exercise your voice by... talking. That might mean trying to convince leadership, it might mean trying to coordinate a bunch of people who agree with you but don't want to act on their own, or, who knows, it might mean something else. But there are quite a lot of things you can do that are short of threatening to quit or simply leaving.
(And sometimes just leaving really is the best step!)
I would argue that’s an asymmetric game. If your boss’s boss or higher already dislikes your boss, then convincing leadership would be easy. But bad bosses don’t become the big bad boss by winning over their subordinates. They spend more time with their own boss than you do, your boss is likely going to have a better relationship with their own boss than you do, simply by proximity. Assuming they aren’t just a flat asshole of course.
A vote would in turn provide a mechanism to prevent such abuse. The boss works for the people not for their boss. Likewise the boss is no longer bound to the whims of their own boss. Their boss is the people below them. A group they will inevitably rejoin with new found appreciation for the troubles of management.
Depends on the job market, sadly. No way in hell people are doing this unless they already have "fuck you money" or are truly the best in their field (which usually comes with "fuck you money"). Otherwise, people who can't t afford to take 6-12 months off a job can't really do that.
Reading your post, I just realized that "bad culture" perfectly explains what bothered me about my last workplace. So thank you for that concise tag to put on what I was seeing.
As for your "now what", companies with a bad culture will be at a competitive disadvantage. Their efforts to wring more productivity out of their broken culture usually make the culture worse. My advice would be to leave ships once you realize that they're sinking. (That doesn't make you a rat!)
Glad I could help, but if the solution is "good culture" and culture is made by managers and C-levels, and they're not doing it, writing blogs that are, effectively, saying "good management makes people productive" is so obvious that it hardly seems worth saying.
What might be more pointed, instead of pointing to the "useful effects of good culture" why not have actual tactics on how to reform or remove bad management and preserve and expand good management?
I'm sure there are such things - if you're the CEO. If you're a minion, though, then all that's available is praying, enduring, or leaving, because a minion's ability to change a toxic C-level culture is zero.
But I don't think my comment is as hopeless as all that. There are places with better culture; all other things being equal, they should be out-performing places with bad culture. That means that they should be more likely to hire, and more likely to pay better. So, if you're in a place with bad culture, don't just sit there. Go looking.
I remember the devops guys preaching about this "better culture". They talked about a no-blame culture for one. It resulted in a bunch of virtue signaling where I worked. At the end of the day, the people repeatedly causing ops related problems were canned anyway. They were still blamed of course, just behind closed doors. This "culture" went so far that there was even a company named after it called "Blameless", which fell into the depths of oblivion.
It's still around and in use a lot of places, but that means you actually have to have an engineering culture at the company and less of an entrenched MBA type.
> Without good culture, everything else won’t work well
Except the market is full of proof this isn't true. You can still do very well with a broken culture if you have an oligopoly, through tactics like vendor lock-in, by buying up upstart competition early, using VC funding to capture the market by selling below cost, etc.
And now that you have hundreds of thousands of people who have been laid off from high-paying jobs, it's an employer's market.
Those examples all had good culture at some point. It's just that once you're too big to fail (and/or have captured regulatory bodies) you get to tear apart the culture and extract the short term rewards. Literally killing the golden goose.
It's short sighted yes... And that's the point once your means of making money is not tied to societal productivity.
Right. So these are all examples of market forces being irrelevant. This isn't the market showing that culture doesn't matter: when the winner is predetermined, culture or anything else couldn't _possibly_ matter, as long as it is not so critical that getting it wrong kills the company in the most literal sense.
I understand your angle, but I'm coming from a different one: these are the "market forces" that matter today across a wide swath of industry, and, most importantly, the most lucrative industry.
Capital beats culture most of the time today, so companies optimize how they use capital.
Yes, my objection is to the use of "market forces", which are widely assumed to favor efficiency. What we're talking about is, pedantically, something else, something like "capital allocation game theory". A different game that is not known to favor anything in particular, as far as I know.
TFA argues that good culture is important for productivity/efficiency, so any counterpoint would need to come from a game that does say something about efficiency.
After 35 years in the industry in various capacities (from architect, engineer, VP, and different products, small and large companies, ...) I can heartily confirm this.
A company with a good culture is like a good football or soccer team. They work with each other to win, they know each other (enough for the job at least).
I am working at a bigger place now and the AI mandates handed down have been quite unproductive... As if we wouldn't have been able ourselves to figure out how to use the new tools - like we have since the beginning of software.
If management trusts you do to your job and has your back, then you trust the management and will naturally do a better job. Now there are always a few people who are exceptions to this, and part of good culture to identify those and remove them.
> I am working at a bigger place now and the AI mandates handed down have been quite unproductive... As if we wouldn't have been able ourselves to figure out how to use the new tools - like we have since the beginning of software.
This is so true. We have figured out how to use an endless list of software tools. Hardly anyone is as prepared to use the new tools as software engineers.
A bit weird writing style, and I don’t know if this is Substack or the lack of proofreading.
It quotes a problematic statement and then after one or two paragraphs, it says this:
> But here is an important thing that many people forget:
> There is no better productivity hack than a great culture. No AI tools will provide bigger productivity gains.
> I’ve unfortunately seen and heard this sentence quite a few times, either directly or from an engineer or engineering leader who has reported that to me.
So the problematic sentence is the one that talks about a great culture being the biggest productivity hack? I had to scroll up again and see what it was referring to.
I like to say AI is like the super soldier serum from the MCU. Teams take it and either become Captain America or Red Skull, it depends on what you were to begin with.
I wish. The "captain Americas" are more like Tony Stark's jury rigged suit used in the desert (for now). It's not the suit truly doing innovation, it's the man inside who knows the suit (and its many limitations/flaws) inside out. Using the strengths long enough to escape before the hunk of metal inevitably fell apart.
Good culture is basically dont-be-an-asshole culture. Which is very hard to do.
In a distant past, my team was one of the teams under a senior manager. This guy never threw his weight around, asked questions, listened to us, trusted us and instead of pretending everything was an emergency, actually cut some slack but told us in no uncertain terms when we were supposed to be full steam ahead. Below him, my manager and me and other folks were technical people who just wanted to get stuff done.
It was amazing how excited we were to, not only do new stuff but improve existing stuff (sometimes by trying new things). The senior manager shielded us from the political games, his vertical got the credit for good stuff we did and we actually looked forward to coming to office. The pay sucked so I had to move on but I didn't see that experience replicated anywhere else - either the managers will just trying to slave-drive and/or there were always people trying to fuck things up for their own gain. Basically, asshole behavior.
The elephant in the room nobody's willing to notice is the asinine idea of infinite growth, which absolutely throws all opposition to using any New Shiny Tech X That Multiplies Productivity X² Times out of the window.
The adherents of this infinite growth seem to be bound by some kind of blood-signed obligation to use everything and anything out there that could sustain their doomed run.
Fucking know your limits.
Because if scientists prove that ancient (and not so ancient) human sacrifices were in fact business boosters on some arcane quantum level of reality, you know what's coming next after the AI hype.
Infinite growth isn't a myth in general, the world economy does grow over time and for obvious reasons. But of course this doesn't necessarily translate to individual companies growing at the same rate all the time.
Can we finally just admit that using AI for coding is equivalent (or maybe even slightly inferior) to web search?
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Giving junior devs or non-devs what is essentially automated stackoverflow copypasta on steroids only amplified all the downsides of inexperience that we already learned well over a decade ago.
If your position is AI for coding is equivalent or worse than web search, I am curious how you arrived there. I could see that a few years ago, but with the state of the tooling now it is hard for me to understand.
imo we're all being treated to a live demonstration of why the pareto principle is stupid. AI agents are excellent at making prototypes, and a lot of people are happy to just stop there (well, I wouldn't say happy. More like can't/won't take ownership once the rot of code they dont understand has taken hold) I find it all the time where I start side projects but fail to feel any connection to the output, I can't show people or feel proud. I need to start trying to go back to entirely no LLMs tbh
Bugs and security flaws are just oversights. Those oversights are caused by inattention either through fatigue or acting too quickly. An inexperienced person delegating what they don't understand to AI produces more bugs, not less.
Those mindlessly copying from stackoverflow were in a similar situation, but only because they ignored or didn't understand the warnings from the discussion. You're rolling the dice if you expect AI to explain itself, as it can only ever know at most what it scraped from (stackoverflow and poorly documented github repos).
As it was not too long ago, searching on stackoverflow was already a hail mary play. AI just makes the problem worse. At best, with AI there's a lot of reinventing the wheel with no hope of ever doing better than merely approximating the wheel.
To extend these metaphors, AI is adding supports to your tunnel, nudging your steering wheel to keep you going straight, and ensuring that the code you produce doesn't have vulns.
Not by default. Not for the vast majority. The term of "AI Slop" didn't spread becsuse AI is known for quality output, even if a skilled user driving the AI could nudge it towards quality output.
To me it is obvious that an org with a good culture will be more able to identify and reach its targets than a dysfunctional org lacking trust and safety.
[for companies with idk 100 or less headcount] Good culture boils down to:
1. Predictability. Flavors of it: deliver features on time, roadmap stays mostly stable, on demand requests are known about ahead of time, business struggling or doing well transparent, tech debt / upkeep are first class citizens of planned work. All of this is project management and communication.
2. Org pays market rate and has good benefits. Employment is an exchange and esp for those who work hard, they deserve the recognition.
3. “People” (aka HR) is taken seriously. The team is expected to be checked in. Those who aren’t get fired. Ideally, there’s enough in place for individuals to come to their own conclusion that they should be fired. See #1. When a req is open it’s a top priority of whoever is in charge.
You can be PM-nonexistent or PM-heavy with lots of meetings and JIRA. Maybe you can accomplish all 3 above in both worlds. My experience is that process when done right moves the needle. No process leads to nonsense and process for the sake of process grinds it to a halt. It all gets better when the leaders are bought in or self aware enough to get out of the way.
If you push for change long enough, and aren’t an asshole about it, just genuinely interested and motivated, there’s a chance you’ll see your vision for better culture materialize.
> If you push for change long enough, and aren’t an asshole about it, just genuinely interested and motivated, there’s a chance you’ll see your vision for better culture materialize.
Throughout my career, I’ve described this as “polite persistence is how you effect change.”
Unpolitely breaching walls and doors is also how you effect change, but I prefer the polite persistence for a better long term effect as well.
"You can just do things"
>Org pays market rate and has good benefits.
This is so important. One of the things that kills company culture before the company even takes off is getting a sense from the founders that they're just trying to fool desperate/clueless people into working for them for less than what they're worth.
The startups that actually succeed have the philosophy "find the best people and pay them a lot". All the successful unicorns and decacorns over the last 15 years have a reputation of paying people well. There is literally not one startup I can think of that succeeded but has a reputation of underpaying.
And if you're unable to pay employees well then you're simply not well-capitalized enough and should drop the project.
By definition, paying employees well means paying them above-market, not market rate. If you pay people market-rate, nobody writes home about the compensation. Market-rate is also not "underpaying" i.e. below-market.
Paying above-market rates is walking a tightrope. On the one hand, experienced employees who are well-versed in your systems and your organization are indeed worth more than market-rate (i.e. someone new), and compensating them as such will retain them. On the other hand, it also retains poor performers, who you want to steer to finding roles elsewhere. Being ruthless about firing fast is one option, but it's a deal with the devil - it erodes psychological safety among people who stay unless the firing is unanimously desired and there is a consensus among everyone who remains that it was necessary. So if you handle the firing wrong, you affect performance and social cohesion everywhere. If you pay market-rate, it's easier to just make someone miserable until they self-select out and find work elsewhere.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), all successful startups pay above-market because equity compensation in the right company can be a life-changing amount of money. So most successful startups seem to successfully walk that tightrope.
> On the other hand, it also retains poor performers, who you want to steer to finding roles elsewhere
If paying people less encourages poor performers to find roles elsewhere, it encourages your high performers to do this even more probably...
It really depends on the organization, its mission, the employee pool, and the local cost of living.
Most software engineers are relatively well-paid compared to the wider labor market, even the engineers who are "underpaid". Kahneman's research showed that once you have enough money to pay your bills, making more than that has rapidly diminishing returns for your happiness. It's much more important to fit in - like your boss, like your coworkers, like your work, be recognized, have good work-life balance. None of that really requires above-market compensation.
When a firm pays below-market rates, it's a sign of one of two things: either they're abusing people who can't find work elsewhere, or people are happy to stay in spite of it. The latter are often really good places to work.
HN loves to complain about how money ruined the software industry. Let the people who will chase a raise from $180k to $210k go elsewhere. Let the people who want their moonshot at life-changing wealth go talk to a VC. There are other opportunities for people who realize that money isn't everything in life.
I don't think we actually disagree here. I agree broadly with everything you said. My point was mainly I don't see a reason to support that assumption that if pay pushes out low performers, I don't see a reason why it wouldn't equally push out high performers? This goes on the assumption that lower performers optimise more for pay than higher performers?
Low pay pushes people to leave, regardless of performance. The argument I'm making is that, in such an environment, you retain high performers through non-economic incentives (sense of belonging, appreciation, etc.) and push low performers out by not providing those. Why would anyone ever stay in an environment that also underpaid you and where you also weren't appreciated and gave you subtle hints to leave? Under-paying actually makes it easier to push out the people you don't want. Under-paying does indeed risk pushing out high-performers; my argument is that this is risk and not a guaranteed destiny, and that high-performers may be incentivized to stay by other means.
Even startups that beat the incredibly long odds to become successful mostly aren’t successful enough to make up for a long stretch of not earning BigCo RSUs.
[dead]
I agree with most of this. However in my time I've never seen a company that was a., successful and b., prioritizing tech debt/upkeep at the same time. I presume AI will fix this however maybe not since it's so tempting to defer strategic decisions to it.
I have seen tech companies flourish which had tech, or tech-adjacent leadership. I've never seen a really good tech company that was lead by an MBA, a "vibe bro", or someone looking to get rich quick. It almost always comes from a genuine passion to solve problems in a certain domain.
One key point is also hires, hiring slowly and not keeping bad hires around. Bad hires really pull everyone down and it's really difficult to work around bad coworkers.
I personally actively filter out companies who don't use Slack. The way communication is done in a company reflects practically every company decision. (Conway's Law)
> I personally actively filter out companies who don't use Slack. The way communication is done in a company reflects practically every company decision. (Conway's Law)
Do you actually mean "don't use Slack" or actually just "use Teams"? If the former, I don't think that makes a lot of sense unless you own a lot of Salesforce stock. There's a number of Slack alternatives that pretty much deliver the same experience.
You are completely right, it's more the latter than the former.
> I've never seen a company that was a., successful and b., prioritizing tech debt/upkeep at the same time.
Maybe you have only worked in start ups? I have certainly seen products fail or partially fail because of tech debt. One product was extremely unproductive to work on because of a patched together architecture. To the extent that bugs were introduced easily but took so long to turn around that customers left the product and told us that was the reason.
What's the transition threshold at which paying down tech debt becomes worthwhile? Maybe it's a gradient.
[dead]
[dead]
I think the points being made here are mostly good-ish. The last place I worked created a team of principles whose whole goal was to create a system to turn jira tickets into PRs and it was incredibly demotivating and bore no fruit before I left.
But, and maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I kind of wonder why we write articles like this. Like if a culture is bad, is it likely a CEO is going to be looking for random blog posts for constructive criticism?
Or even managers? I look at the market forces at play, and I just don't think many (any?) organization successfully create an incentive structure where performance on intangibles (specifically management) can be assessed well enough to make a bad culture into a better culture. I've worked at zero places where managers where seriously held to account for how "motivated" their employees were; when there were surveys of engagement engineers almost never truly believed they were anonymous (and why would they?) and were hesitant to give honest feedback.
In short, being a CEO is a skill of crafting and debugging a machine of people, a skill that I think life gives almost no training for, and a skill that most people with that title have no awareness or aptitude for. </rant>
Anyone who is looking for a job in the future would probably benefit from knowing what to look for (and what not to look for). I'm not likely to ever be in a position where I have outsized influence on the culture of the company I work at, but I do have the ability to influence what company I work at, and basically all of the criteria boil down to either compensation (not just salary, benefits too, since I live in a country where healthcare is a privilege rather than a right), and how happy I will be working there. As much as I hate how many companies don't treat their employees well, I also know that's not going to change any time soon, so to the extent I'm able to, I want to avoid working at companies where their culture sucks.
Right now I'm happy where I work, but I think most people recognize that so much can change almost literally overnight (either in terms of the employer still wanting to employ someone, e.g. sudden layoffs, or in terms of whether it sucks to work somewhere, e.g. massive policy changes like a job where you're comfortably remote suddenly trying to make you commute or even move). Until I'm at a point where I'd be able to retire if something like that happened, I need to continue to be aware of how to spot the red flags at prospective employers.
> But, and maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I kind of wonder why we write articles like this. Like if a culture is bad, is it likely a CEO is going to be looking for random blog posts for constructive criticism?
I think the odds of any particular article making it onto a CEO's radar are low, and the odds of them actually taking good advice to heart (let alone implementing it) are even lower. That said... I also get the impression that the shittest kinds of C-levels and VPs are disproportionately swayed by whatever opinion they last read in their daily email newsletter or heard on a five-minute podcast snippet. So at least in theory, if you were able to inject a seed of a good idea into the zeitgeist, that idea might reach the level of saturation where it turns into a form of white-collar peer pressure.
Unfortunately I also think the ideas that reach the peer pressure saturation point tend to be less "be nice to your employees" and more "put shock collars on them and make them beg for their jobs," but I guess it can't hurt to try?
I think sharing such ideas openly allows people to converge on similar feelings and experience which eventually leads to people experimenting these for real. We need to take into account that a lot of people reading and writing these kind of thoughts seriously may not be CEO at present but that does not prevents the possibility of them becoming the CEO's in future
Yes, this. It’s also a great way to find similarly-minded people and work with them.
> whole goal was to create a system to turn jira tickets into PRs
I love companies like that! Everything is documented, stuff just works, CI builds...
If something is broken, you just open ticket, and responsible person takes care of it! You do not have to investigate when Judy returns from holidays...
With remote work I can spend more time with kids..
"Company culture" usually means you have to listen to shitty stories, provide social life for some lonely people, and do unpaid emotional labour!
And do not dare to say anything even remotely controversial, in this "open" environment that "foster communications"!
My assumption was that engineers were building an AI system to do this, not that they only made PRs from tickets - but I could be wrong.
> "Company culture" usually means you have to listen to shitty stories, provide social life for some lonely people, and do unpaid emotional labour!
Yes, a company culture is about dealing with other humans. Such as having empathy and compassion for your coworkers, help each others grow and go through tough times. Removing the human aspect from companies is how you end up with soulless environments where problems aren’t address
> Like if a culture is bad, is it likely a CEO is going to be looking for random blog posts for constructive criticism?
The CEO (or at least the founder) created and cultivated the culture of the company thus far. If the culture is bad, they are the single largest reason why.
You are right in that execs won't seek out the blog article which criticizes their strategy... unless they actually want to steelman against their own position (which is a very useful activity but few people do it).
But the CEO doesn't need to find it on their own. They surround their self with a Board, investors, sales people, managers / leadership team, people from their MBA program, etc. the article just has to plant a seed which grows somewhere in that ecosystem.
That said, the article may not be right. The largest and most successful companies in the world aren't the ones with the best company culture. They simply work in industries where the money is so prolific that the people who want to work in the industry are already highly motivated. The CEO doesn't need access to this information because it isn't true; it simply tickles your cognitive biases.
How do you effectively steelman against your own position without a dynamic “adversary” responding to counter-claims? I feel like every static argument except the most absolutely resolute is vulnerable.
Part of the value is to help the people stuck in bad cultures realize that it's the culture that's broken, not them. It's easy to lose sight of that! If you can recognize it, it's easier to do something about it whether that's changing your behavior and expectations, trying to change the culture bottom up or leaving altogether.
It might be a pipe dream but I'd like to see some sort of checklist for dev companies using hard-to-bullshit objective criteria to highlight that they either have a good culture or that their culture is toxic.
I remember many years ago companies used to advertise their "joel score" (not quite the same thing but related) to attract employees.
This is something which I think investors could also use as an indicator of company quality.
A lot of cultural problems also have quite easy fixes they just require shining a light on specific abuses of executive power which simultaneously hurt employees and destroys shareholder value. There is a lot more of this than I think people realize.
yeah absolutely. In theory that was supposed to be glassdoor (or blind) but I haven't found scores there to be meaningful signals.
>A lot of cultural problems also have quite easy fixes they just require shining a light on specific abuses of executive power which simultaneously hurt employees and destroys shareholder value. There is a lot more of this than I think people realize.
What do you mean? Who would "shine this light", on which executive, and who would they whistle-blow to exactly, the board? Short of embezzlement or sexual harassment (and not even all sexual harassment cases) I can't think of any cases where calling out an executive's behavior won't result in immediate retaliation. This is a genuinely tricky problem, but most of all I get the sense executives would rather own the wrong decision than have a subordinate get credit for swaying them to the right decision.
> But, and maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I kind of wonder why we write articles like this.
Good question.
Personally, it feels good to read these when stuck in a bad situation/culture. Feels good (relieving) to write too. I don't really believe these reach and/or change the relevant category of people.
>> but I kind of wonder why we write articles like this
I think its a way to speak out and get it out there, than stay unspoken. Author as well others who share same opinion get some validation that they are not only ones.
> Like if a culture is bad, is it likely a CEO is going to be looking for random blog posts for constructive criticism
No, but the CEO will absolutely seek out my recommendations and I do read random blog posts
Most people have only a handful of job experiences to think through how things work or should work, so articles like this help broaden one's perspective.
I think most small or mid-sized company CEOs are much more incentivized or even, interested to "do it right". Once a board or shareholders get involved, it's different, because their (the CEO's) job also changes: they have a duty to serve the shareholders financial interest, not to create a good corporate culture.
> The last place I worked created a team of principles whose whole goal was to create a system to turn jira tickets into PRs
Demotivating work aside, that also seems like a complete dead-end to me, because somebody else who focused their company around it will do it better and cheaper (even before considering subject-specific VC money).
> random blog posts
The irony of writing this comment for a post that made the front page of one of the most widely read aggregators in tech, in said comment section
I'd be curious, in the last year, how many front-page articles do you remember? To avoid recency bias, maybe let's ignore the last week. What % of CEOs do you think read HN?
> In short, being a CEO is a skill of crafting and debugging a machine of people, a skill that I think life gives almost no training for, and a skill that most people with that title have no awareness or aptitude for.
Indeed, but the CEO is Queen Promethium, and you are just one of the people she's transformed into a bolt to go into her infernal machine.
I worked on a 20-ish team of good-but-not-brilliant engineers. Our secret weapon was liking each other and having very low turnover over the course of 10 years.
As a principal engineer at Meta and LinkedIn, it’s still the most productive team I’ve ever been on
No matter how much I try to explain to some executives that you don't want the most productive individuals, you want the most productive team, they just don't get it.
Imo a good example are soccer teams. To be in the top 5 the team has to work as one hivemind which only works if the people making up the team (coaches and players) actually work together on both the sport side as well as on the social side of things.
Different to corporate jobs those teams spend tremendous amounts on scouting, analysis etc.. They don't just look for the best player but also one who fits as a person.
I think the core issue is that management hasn't picked this up yet and understanding team chemistry etc is totally undervalued. I'd argue this is partly due to this being hard to measure and very hard to do.
[dead]
The real test of this is whether a manager can fire their single most productive employee because he/she is ruining the social harmony of the team.
I've seen managers in my career bend over backward to protect people who were outright abusive to their coworkers but were individually very productive. Those managers didn't go very far. Your team is not a car collection.
AI seems to compound this issue. One person can appear incredibly productive, say by submitting a huge volume of PRs, but that can slow down the rest of the team by deluging them with PRs and operational issues that they have to solve.
This is why I strongly like on-call.
A lot of people hate it, but if you have a rotation, that will force this person to deal with what they create during their rotations, and the operational issues will be an explicit part of your job when you're dealing with them.
When it kind of goes to random people, the conscientious people who fix the bugs and operational issues look unproductive, and the aggressive people throwing slop over the wall who never bother look great.
Forcing this through a rotating cast, and having other people not worry about it unless management decides it's too much for one person and they need help during this rotation, really avoids some of the most toxic outcomes around this.
On-call doesn't have to mean someone is getting paged at 3am. It does mean everyone rotates through, and it is clear who has the monkey, so you don't have passive-aggressive vs. conscientious behavior hiding issues like that.
Executives can fire individuals and keep the train running for a while. They can't fire "teams" unless they know that product doesn't need to be maintained anymore.
This might just be hanlon's razor and I'm overthinking it, but part of me wonders if it's less "executives don't get it" and more "executives do not want to get it".
It's hard because you have to constantly make "sub-optimal" decisions. If you optimise for things you can measure, or at least see right now, you get a low performing team of high performers, or you get a collection of local maxima. Optimising for a global maximum requires making decisions that have unclear pay-off, that are harder to justify. Another problem is that one of these decisions that was actually wrong, vs one that hasn't paid off yet, look the same.
I suspect executives very much get it, but realise that there's no obviously good answer here.
Part of me wonders whether trying to optimise at all is the problem.
The worst managers I've had were optimisers (and had the worst teams), and the best managers with the best teams weren't optimisers.
The best ones didn't care about metrics at all, but would work to get their teams the tools and/or conditions they wanted to do a good job. Of course it probably only works with a certain level of talent and alignment in the team
[dead]
There's also the executive's incentives, and "I'll be gone, you'll be gone": the payoff for that is very long, and it will be hard for them to take credit, and their own tenure might not be as long as that team's.
Sometimes they get it but don't know the recipe to cook it themselves so they get takeout (talent acquisition)
If only they taught N+1 > N in Business Math class
Yep, same experience. We were a company of largely bootcamp grads with past experience in the product area. Most people had tenures of 5+ years and everyone had great rapport. Made it to unicorn status and then some. Then, for whatever reason, the C-suite decided to let go of most of the senior engineering team (rumor was cost-cutting measures at the behest of investor(s)).
Went from IPO hopeful to struggling to position to sell the company now that it was obviously down-trending. Everyone else worth their salt left within a year. Biggest takeaway was how effective everyone was despite not having a traditionally strong engineering background, just because everything traveled so fast because everyone knew everything about the product and everyone was happy and eager to talk to one another, and how quickly that disappeared.
I was very unproductive at Meta because there was so much tribal knowledge context gatekept by others who were too busy to continuously offer any meaningful support despite giving lip service. In other words the flow of information sucked ass compared to when I worked at a startup, even though I didn’t feel much politics at my level (senior).
Studies have been performed and they come to the conclusion the highest performing teams are the ones with greatest psychological safety:
https://psychsafety.com/googles-project-aristotle/
Given that you work for Meta/LinkedIn, I don't think 'productive' is the correct adjective. It would be like saying that Ted Bundy was more 'productive' than Jeffrey Dahmer.
[dead]
AI accelerates dysfunction. It will help you get to the wrong place faster if you're already heading there.
I do believe the opposite is true too. If you have a strong culture, a product or idea with promise, and a team of smart and capable people, it can move you faster in the right direction too.
The problem is that every person or company in group 1 thinks they are in group 2.
I think that every person or company in group 1 thinks they are in group 2 because they see ‘speed’ in ‘completing work’ as a signal in better performance. Especially since VCs are pushing for speed (https://x.com/Alfred_Lin/article/2084636778791858256), a lot of misguided person and company who is moving fast thinks they are in group 2, when the speed they have only doubles them down group 1
It always felt like AI adoption should come from the bottom up, driven by people who are actually in a position to assess whether it makes any positive impact. Granted, that only works if your culture encourages agency in the first place.
Welcome to a day in the life. The company I work for prides themselves on a culture of agency and letting developers be developers. I am pushing the AI revolution but the compliance requirements and modern Luddite zeitgeist are a daily source of frustration. If the AI isn’t perfect then it’s slop. But we’ll gladly excuse the existing 2 million lines of spaghetti code because of past deadlines and lack of resources to pay down the tech debt today. Fingers crossed though. Every failure brings you one step closer to an inevitable success.
>But we’ll gladly excuse the existing 2 million lines of spaghetti code because of past deadlines and lack of resources to pay down the tech debt today.
Well, if the AI is so efficient, it should be able to cut down on tech debt, no? Be a great way to kill two birds with one stone.
The issue is that the tech debt was there for years, likely before most people started there. The AI is in their control to utilize or refuse.
The "Luddite zeitgeist"? :) Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.
It's easier to deploy AI than it is to create good culture.
> It's easier to deploy AI than it is to create good culture.
Very agreed.
[dead]
The biggest stock-price hack for a CEO is:
* announce that effective immediately, the company will begin its transformation to an "AI-first" organization, with AI driving most development workflows by end of year
* percolate the message through upper management down to line managers that they are to assure their reports that the aim of the transformation is to augment current employees, not reduce headcount
* stealthily start lopping off heads anyway
The devops ppl talked about culture too. Seemed not too helpful.
Afaict toxic managers and C-level managers make for bad culture.
Now what?
Argue the need to implement workplace democracy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy
The idea that we shouldn't be able to vote for our bosses is completely ridiculous. If we had truly collaborative workplaces it would probably unlikely another $50 trillion worth of value once you give workers the ability to exercise their voice (passionate workers want stable working environments, if executives are never held accountable by their subordinates how can we argue such an unfree system is worth preserving?).
As a worker, you can exercise your voice... by getting another job. That is your vote.
The power of your vote is proportional to the value you bring.
A while back I threatened to quit because I had a team dynamic that was untenable. I made a management change mandatory.
I got a new boss. The old boss was later terminated.
No, this is called exit and it assume that monetary reasons are the only important thing in an economy. That is false, workers should be allowed to exercise their voice about bad management and change bad management. If you want to leave that is fine but thinking that every worker wants the same thing as you is extremely foolish.
Congrats as a single individual doing something, LMK when it amounts to real material change like obtaining a pension, or securing more PTO, or getting better health insurance.
You are talking about what is.
Shimman is talking about what could be.
Responding to "hey, we could make our workplaces better by making it possible to elect our bosses rather than having them imposed on us as absolute dictators within the workplace" with "but you can already choose your boss—all you have to do is abandon all your coworkers, your salary, your routine, and likely your home and geographical region to go pick a different unaccountable absolute dictator" just shows that you aren't even having the same conversation that shimman is having.
And the worst part is you don't even seem to recognize it.
You got yourself into an extremely lucky position one time, and now that's made you think that's a viable solution for everyone who has problems with their bosses—and that anyone who thinks otherwise is just "not bringing value".
The only possible way to make our workplaces systemically better is by collective action. Unions. Workplace democracy. Stronger labor protections.
Everything else is just crab-bucket mentality.
You can also exercise your voice by... talking. That might mean trying to convince leadership, it might mean trying to coordinate a bunch of people who agree with you but don't want to act on their own, or, who knows, it might mean something else. But there are quite a lot of things you can do that are short of threatening to quit or simply leaving.
(And sometimes just leaving really is the best step!)
I would argue that’s an asymmetric game. If your boss’s boss or higher already dislikes your boss, then convincing leadership would be easy. But bad bosses don’t become the big bad boss by winning over their subordinates. They spend more time with their own boss than you do, your boss is likely going to have a better relationship with their own boss than you do, simply by proximity. Assuming they aren’t just a flat asshole of course.
A vote would in turn provide a mechanism to prevent such abuse. The boss works for the people not for their boss. Likewise the boss is no longer bound to the whims of their own boss. Their boss is the people below them. A group they will inevitably rejoin with new found appreciation for the troubles of management.
It just gets you in the bad books of the management for pointing out faults.
>by getting another job.
Depends on the job market, sadly. No way in hell people are doing this unless they already have "fuck you money" or are truly the best in their field (which usually comes with "fuck you money"). Otherwise, people who can't t afford to take 6-12 months off a job can't really do that.
>The idea that we shouldn't be able to vote for our bosses is completely ridiculous.
If it's publicly traded you get a say... It's must that in this case votes are in fact, bought. And we're out voted on the topic of company direction.
Reading your post, I just realized that "bad culture" perfectly explains what bothered me about my last workplace. So thank you for that concise tag to put on what I was seeing.
As for your "now what", companies with a bad culture will be at a competitive disadvantage. Their efforts to wring more productivity out of their broken culture usually make the culture worse. My advice would be to leave ships once you realize that they're sinking. (That doesn't make you a rat!)
Glad I could help, but if the solution is "good culture" and culture is made by managers and C-levels, and they're not doing it, writing blogs that are, effectively, saying "good management makes people productive" is so obvious that it hardly seems worth saying.
What might be more pointed, instead of pointing to the "useful effects of good culture" why not have actual tactics on how to reform or remove bad management and preserve and expand good management?
I'm sure there are such things - if you're the CEO. If you're a minion, though, then all that's available is praying, enduring, or leaving, because a minion's ability to change a toxic C-level culture is zero.
But I don't think my comment is as hopeless as all that. There are places with better culture; all other things being equal, they should be out-performing places with bad culture. That means that they should be more likely to hire, and more likely to pay better. So, if you're in a place with bad culture, don't just sit there. Go looking.
I remember the devops guys preaching about this "better culture". They talked about a no-blame culture for one. It resulted in a bunch of virtue signaling where I worked. At the end of the day, the people repeatedly causing ops related problems were canned anyway. They were still blamed of course, just behind closed doors. This "culture" went so far that there was even a company named after it called "Blameless", which fell into the depths of oblivion.
It's still around and in use a lot of places, but that means you actually have to have an engineering culture at the company and less of an entrenched MBA type.
https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/
In my experience, every company is great until things start going wrong. And when things start going wrong, no amount of culture is going to save you.
> Without good culture, everything else won’t work well
Except the market is full of proof this isn't true. You can still do very well with a broken culture if you have an oligopoly, through tactics like vendor lock-in, by buying up upstart competition early, using VC funding to capture the market by selling below cost, etc.
And now that you have hundreds of thousands of people who have been laid off from high-paying jobs, it's an employer's market.
Those examples all had good culture at some point. It's just that once you're too big to fail (and/or have captured regulatory bodies) you get to tear apart the culture and extract the short term rewards. Literally killing the golden goose.
It's short sighted yes... And that's the point once your means of making money is not tied to societal productivity.
You're listing examples where there is no market
Correction: I'm listing examples where "the market" doesn't function like an ideal, healthy market.
Search, social media, key SaaS markets, healthcare, insurance, etc.
Right. So these are all examples of market forces being irrelevant. This isn't the market showing that culture doesn't matter: when the winner is predetermined, culture or anything else couldn't _possibly_ matter, as long as it is not so critical that getting it wrong kills the company in the most literal sense.
I understand your angle, but I'm coming from a different one: these are the "market forces" that matter today across a wide swath of industry, and, most importantly, the most lucrative industry.
Capital beats culture most of the time today, so companies optimize how they use capital.
Yes, my objection is to the use of "market forces", which are widely assumed to favor efficiency. What we're talking about is, pedantically, something else, something like "capital allocation game theory". A different game that is not known to favor anything in particular, as far as I know.
TFA argues that good culture is important for productivity/efficiency, so any counterpoint would need to come from a game that does say something about efficiency.
After 35 years in the industry in various capacities (from architect, engineer, VP, and different products, small and large companies, ...) I can heartily confirm this.
A company with a good culture is like a good football or soccer team. They work with each other to win, they know each other (enough for the job at least).
I am working at a bigger place now and the AI mandates handed down have been quite unproductive... As if we wouldn't have been able ourselves to figure out how to use the new tools - like we have since the beginning of software.
If management trusts you do to your job and has your back, then you trust the management and will naturally do a better job. Now there are always a few people who are exceptions to this, and part of good culture to identify those and remove them.
> I am working at a bigger place now and the AI mandates handed down have been quite unproductive... As if we wouldn't have been able ourselves to figure out how to use the new tools - like we have since the beginning of software.
This is so true. We have figured out how to use an endless list of software tools. Hardly anyone is as prepared to use the new tools as software engineers.
[dead]
A bit weird writing style, and I don’t know if this is Substack or the lack of proofreading.
It quotes a problematic statement and then after one or two paragraphs, it says this:
> But here is an important thing that many people forget:
> There is no better productivity hack than a great culture. No AI tools will provide bigger productivity gains.
> I’ve unfortunately seen and heard this sentence quite a few times, either directly or from an engineer or engineering leader who has reported that to me.
So the problematic sentence is the one that talks about a great culture being the biggest productivity hack? I had to scroll up again and see what it was referring to.
Good culture is hard to define. it's almost like you can see it and you can feel it, but can't replicate it
This is an AI written advertisement with a bunch of platitudes.
AI style writing; didn’t bother.
I feel like this and all the AI productivity things could be boiled down to one simple rule: AI just amplifies whatever you already have.
I like to say AI is like the super soldier serum from the MCU. Teams take it and either become Captain America or Red Skull, it depends on what you were to begin with.
I wish. The "captain Americas" are more like Tony Stark's jury rigged suit used in the desert (for now). It's not the suit truly doing innovation, it's the man inside who knows the suit (and its many limitations/flaws) inside out. Using the strengths long enough to escape before the hunk of metal inevitably fell apart.
[dead]
How to develop good culture? Firstly remove AI.
Good culture is basically dont-be-an-asshole culture. Which is very hard to do.
In a distant past, my team was one of the teams under a senior manager. This guy never threw his weight around, asked questions, listened to us, trusted us and instead of pretending everything was an emergency, actually cut some slack but told us in no uncertain terms when we were supposed to be full steam ahead. Below him, my manager and me and other folks were technical people who just wanted to get stuff done.
It was amazing how excited we were to, not only do new stuff but improve existing stuff (sometimes by trying new things). The senior manager shielded us from the political games, his vertical got the credit for good stuff we did and we actually looked forward to coming to office. The pay sucked so I had to move on but I didn't see that experience replicated anywhere else - either the managers will just trying to slave-drive and/or there were always people trying to fuck things up for their own gain. Basically, asshole behavior.
Wow it's like: it was before, and it still is. Truly incredible!
The elephant in the room nobody's willing to notice is the asinine idea of infinite growth, which absolutely throws all opposition to using any New Shiny Tech X That Multiplies Productivity X² Times out of the window.
The adherents of this infinite growth seem to be bound by some kind of blood-signed obligation to use everything and anything out there that could sustain their doomed run.
Fucking know your limits.
Because if scientists prove that ancient (and not so ancient) human sacrifices were in fact business boosters on some arcane quantum level of reality, you know what's coming next after the AI hype.
Infinite growth isn't a myth in general, the world economy does grow over time and for obvious reasons. But of course this doesn't necessarily translate to individual companies growing at the same rate all the time.
Does culture eat strategy for breakfast?
My company has a great culture and also AI.
How good the culture is at a company is inversely proportional to how often the company talks about it.
If this is true, almost all of big tech is becoming unproductive; so that follows.
So True!
smart experienced people, unencumbered
[dead]
[dead]
Can we finally just admit that using AI for coding is equivalent (or maybe even slightly inferior) to web search?
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Giving junior devs or non-devs what is essentially automated stackoverflow copypasta on steroids only amplified all the downsides of inexperience that we already learned well over a decade ago.
If your position is AI for coding is equivalent or worse than web search, I am curious how you arrived there. I could see that a few years ago, but with the state of the tooling now it is hard for me to understand.
imo we're all being treated to a live demonstration of why the pareto principle is stupid. AI agents are excellent at making prototypes, and a lot of people are happy to just stop there (well, I wouldn't say happy. More like can't/won't take ownership once the rot of code they dont understand has taken hold) I find it all the time where I start side projects but fail to feel any connection to the output, I can't show people or feel proud. I need to start trying to go back to entirely no LLMs tbh
No, its not. Since when did stack overflow or google find and fix thousands of security issues.
I’m old enough to remember computers replacing thousands of pages of paper.
What does that have to do with productivity?
Bugs and security flaws are just oversights. Those oversights are caused by inattention either through fatigue or acting too quickly. An inexperienced person delegating what they don't understand to AI produces more bugs, not less.
Those mindlessly copying from stackoverflow were in a similar situation, but only because they ignored or didn't understand the warnings from the discussion. You're rolling the dice if you expect AI to explain itself, as it can only ever know at most what it scraped from (stackoverflow and poorly documented github repos).
As it was not too long ago, searching on stackoverflow was already a hail mary play. AI just makes the problem worse. At best, with AI there's a lot of reinventing the wheel with no hope of ever doing better than merely approximating the wheel.
> Bugs and security flaws are just oversights. Those oversights are caused by inattention either through fatigue or acting too quickly.
Being able to work more quickly is pretty much the definition of productivity.
> Being able to work more quickly is pretty much the definition of productivity.
Wrong.
You can dig a tunnel that fills in and kills you.
You can drive in a huge circle to get not the house next door.
You can kick out 1M lines of code a day that you don't understand and can't read.
It's only productive if the work produces value.
To extend these metaphors, AI is adding supports to your tunnel, nudging your steering wheel to keep you going straight, and ensuring that the code you produce doesn't have vulns.
Not by default. Not for the vast majority. The term of "AI Slop" didn't spread becsuse AI is known for quality output, even if a skilled user driving the AI could nudge it towards quality output.
this is just false...
Curious, how?
To me it is obvious that an org with a good culture will be more able to identify and reach its targets than a dysfunctional org lacking trust and safety.
it's simply not equivalent to web search, I mean, I don't understand how one would come to that conclusion?
we can argue about how much more productive you get, but, it's definitely not the same as what we had before
My bad! I thought you were commenting on the article, did not realize you replied to a comment. Sorry!
no problem!