My Angry Letter to My Ex-Employer(angrylettertoexexployer.blogspot.com)
angrylettertoexexployer.blogspot.com
My Angry Letter to My Ex-Employer
http://angrylettertoexexployer.blogspot.com/
15 comments
It's never a good idea to write an angry letter to your ex-employer. Just find a new job and move on; it doesn't do any good to burn any potential bridges. This letter sounds like something I could have written to my last employer, but I didn't, and I still have a good relationship with them and my company is doing contract work for them. In fact, they are paying my outsourcing company more now than they paid me to work there full time.
This, to me, speaks to the issue more than all the other responses here. Yes, it's stupid to burn bridges and Yes, it accomplishes nothing. But more important than all of that is you never know when someone from your past is going to pop back up or in what capacity they'll be when they do. You risk making yourself a liability to a new employer if you've made enemies out of people they might want to partner with, hire, etc...
you never know when someone from your past is going to pop back up
Very true. In some cases, you may be the one to pop back up. I left my old company in part because I was brought on specifically to work on a number of projects that were later shelved because of the economic downturn. I eventually left to pursue them on my own, and they may be interested in buying the finished product. That possibility would be off the table if I had written a nasty letter when I left.
Very true. In some cases, you may be the one to pop back up. I left my old company in part because I was brought on specifically to work on a number of projects that were later shelved because of the economic downturn. I eventually left to pursue them on my own, and they may be interested in buying the finished product. That possibility would be off the table if I had written a nasty letter when I left.
Yeah, I agree generally, but the letter contained no direct personal attacks and I hope that it can generally be understood as professional criticism, not an indictment of personality or a refusal to interact with the involved players later down the road. Of course, that's the most likely interpretation, regardless of the situation.
The company had already hired me as a contractor; I quit, they hired me back for a short contract, and this letter was written and sent after they terminated my services forty-some hours early this afternoon.
You'd think the six months I worked there previously would have been sufficient time to decide whether my work met their standards or not, but I guess it wasn't.
I wanted to try this largely because I don't know what kind of reaction I will get. The most likely is the cold shoulder, but the executives are really frustrated with IT right now, and I was hoping this letter would give some insight into the reasons why, and they just might be frustrated enough to change something. The letter isn't really angry, it doesn't go off on personal inadequacies or annoyances, just professional misconduct. We'll see if anything comes of it.
The company had already hired me as a contractor; I quit, they hired me back for a short contract, and this letter was written and sent after they terminated my services forty-some hours early this afternoon.
You'd think the six months I worked there previously would have been sufficient time to decide whether my work met their standards or not, but I guess it wasn't.
I wanted to try this largely because I don't know what kind of reaction I will get. The most likely is the cold shoulder, but the executives are really frustrated with IT right now, and I was hoping this letter would give some insight into the reasons why, and they just might be frustrated enough to change something. The letter isn't really angry, it doesn't go off on personal inadequacies or annoyances, just professional misconduct. We'll see if anything comes of it.
Do you believe that a prospective employer who through a Google search on your name finds this rambling letter (no matter how accurate or anonymous) will be more or less likely to hire you?
I believe less. It's not like some others that I've read that are absolute bars, but IMO, this one doesn't help out your job search.
I believe less. It's not like some others that I've read that are absolute bars, but IMO, this one doesn't help out your job search.
I don't know. I actually used to go to job interviews in street clothes intentionally to help provide assurance that my bosses wouldn't be tightwads; that's when I was a teenager and I dress up more now, but I still try to live by the same general philosophy when seeking employment. I'm honest in the interview and I don't try to project myself as something that I'm not; it's just a waste of time, imo, because neither of us will be happy if I make a misrepresentation to get my foot in the door, and it will just result in another bad sad story, of which I've had quite enough. I'm tired of roving. I need to find something that I'll be content to stick with for a long time. That's part of why my major focus is my own business right now.
I hope this letter does come up in a job search and that the employer allows me to provide context if he runs across it. I think it represents my personality; I'm not afraid to talk to you, I won't submit to scare tactics or disrespect any longer than absolutely necessary, and I expect respect and influence in my next position. I've never considered myself a "code monkey", that is, an inputless pawn of the higher-ups with no authority or place to influence or change systems, someone on staff only to implement things exactly as specified by his departmental superiors. I didn't get into programming to be a chump, I'm in it because I like solving problems, I like the actual engineering process. It's the difference between your civil engineer and your construction worker; the engineer designs the bridge, the construction worker puts it together. I don't mind wearing both hats, as long as it's established that I'm included, respected, and now I'd probably demand invested with the authority to determine direction in the actual engineering phase.
I understand chain-of-command and can acquiesce appropriately, as long as the circumstances are agreeable. As noted in the letter, I'm not willing to play the chump, I'm not willing to sell my sanity or emotional well-being or that of my family to line your pockets, and I'm sick of being put down by arrogant or dangerously naive patsies. If that's what you're looking for, then I hope you don't hire me.
That said, I don't really intend on getting another job. I've had enough of productions like this one, I'm really quite tired of it. I don't think I'll accept another full-time position unless I can be placed as an IT overlord; not necessarily singly, I don't mind and would probably appreciate a cooperative effort, but I don't want to be subject to a developer with six years less experience than me again, because it's happened a few times before this and it's never been very fun. I've had quite enough of that, I think.
I hope this letter does come up in a job search and that the employer allows me to provide context if he runs across it. I think it represents my personality; I'm not afraid to talk to you, I won't submit to scare tactics or disrespect any longer than absolutely necessary, and I expect respect and influence in my next position. I've never considered myself a "code monkey", that is, an inputless pawn of the higher-ups with no authority or place to influence or change systems, someone on staff only to implement things exactly as specified by his departmental superiors. I didn't get into programming to be a chump, I'm in it because I like solving problems, I like the actual engineering process. It's the difference between your civil engineer and your construction worker; the engineer designs the bridge, the construction worker puts it together. I don't mind wearing both hats, as long as it's established that I'm included, respected, and now I'd probably demand invested with the authority to determine direction in the actual engineering phase.
I understand chain-of-command and can acquiesce appropriately, as long as the circumstances are agreeable. As noted in the letter, I'm not willing to play the chump, I'm not willing to sell my sanity or emotional well-being or that of my family to line your pockets, and I'm sick of being put down by arrogant or dangerously naive patsies. If that's what you're looking for, then I hope you don't hire me.
That said, I don't really intend on getting another job. I've had enough of productions like this one, I'm really quite tired of it. I don't think I'll accept another full-time position unless I can be placed as an IT overlord; not necessarily singly, I don't mind and would probably appreciate a cooperative effort, but I don't want to be subject to a developer with six years less experience than me again, because it's happened a few times before this and it's never been very fun. I've had quite enough of that, I think.
People get fired all the time for the stupidest thing, this including, but writing angry letters is a complete waste of time (other than venting your anger, nothing will change) and it hurts your credibility and reputation. Move on.
Venting anger helps. Often when I was pissed off at my client I wrote angry letter pinpointing all the inadequacies in his behavior. After I wrote it I was calm enough to write another letter where I proposed constructive ways to alleviate the problems we had.
Of course I was just sending the second letter because only useful purpose of the first one was to help me calm down.
Of course I was just sending the second letter because only useful purpose of the first one was to help me calm down.
If you felt that strongly, then letting it out is the same as letting it go. Psychologically, it probably set him properly for his next role.
Good on him for not cowing under the "business norms" here.
And as to hurting his reputation: that sounds like you're referring to rep to upper management, who will probably not care, and will have hardly anything to do with his next hire, anyway.
People who will be choosing to hire him are pretty likely to identify with him at some level, even if it's historically, for a start. If they'd be worried about his "honesty", he really wouldn't be happy working there, anyway. In my experience, people who've been totally honest about their opinions to colleagues and managers have been, on average, more successful and definitely more respected.
Then again, perhaps that's just a antipodean perspective.
Good on him for not cowing under the "business norms" here.
And as to hurting his reputation: that sounds like you're referring to rep to upper management, who will probably not care, and will have hardly anything to do with his next hire, anyway.
People who will be choosing to hire him are pretty likely to identify with him at some level, even if it's historically, for a start. If they'd be worried about his "honesty", he really wouldn't be happy working there, anyway. In my experience, people who've been totally honest about their opinions to colleagues and managers have been, on average, more successful and definitely more respected.
Then again, perhaps that's just a antipodean perspective.
Here's a more interesting scenario: assume that I own a significant amount of stock options from that company. Don't I have an incentive to make sure that the company succeeds (even though they fired me) and therefore try to explain to management what the current problems are?
I think he's helped his reputation. I'd hire him.
Employers that are stupid enough to make these sorts of mistakes are too stupid to deal with even constructive criticism, let alone a round of firebombing.
Yeah, that may or may not be true. The only reason we have those people in IT is because the bosses don't know better. Everyone is really scared of the bosses; they both have tons and tons of money, and rumors circulate about the ruthlessness of at least the primary administrator. I don't know if anyone has ever given them a plain overview of the situation, so I decided to see where it would go since I had nothing left to lose.
I hope something good comes out of it, though I realize that the probability of such is quite low.
I hope something good comes out of it, though I realize that the probability of such is quite low.
I sympathize, but this really seems like one of those times where you should have deleted the letter after writing it, instead of mailing and definitely instead of posting it where others can read it.
Write it. Never send it. Don't look back. Politely respond "sorry, no thanks" if they call.
Moving forward is the best (and oddly easiest) solution.
Moving forward is the best (and oddly easiest) solution.
"Moving forward is the best (and oddly easiest) solution."
The best revenge is to live well. (Making it big rubs it in ;-) )
The best revenge is to live well. (Making it big rubs it in ;-) )
I agree but it's a fun idea to anonymize such unsent angry letters and publish them for own and other peoples amusement.
Plus you can learn a lot from other peoples mistakes, may that be mistakes of the criticized ones or the critic himself.
Plus you can learn a lot from other peoples mistakes, may that be mistakes of the criticized ones or the critic himself.
Quit dancing around the issue. Tell us how you really feel.
ranting and anger are never appropriate in the workplace. They have a job that needs to get done and money they are willing to pay, either you can get that money or you can't. Don't get so involved in a job, save the emotional energy for your own work.
Unless you're desperate and have to work with malignant people, why shouldn't you care about your work?
I agree that in a bad situation it's best to move elsewhere, because people almost never change.
I agree that in a bad situation it's best to move elsewhere, because people almost never change.
Most companies are about making money and most jobs offer very little ownership. They're hiring you to get something done on THEIR project. When we get emotionally invested, I think it is typical to want to see things done our way. If it's some early stage startup where you get to help set the direction, this is different but rare. This doesn't mean you should be apathetic, of course you should care about your work. However, I think everyone should have their own goals and most jobs should just be a means to an end.
I agree, but it's hard not to get attached to something you dedicate a lot of time building, even when it's on a strictly for-pay basis. That's what happened here; it was bad when I left, but coming back and seeing what became of the system I spent so much time designing and looking after in the beginning was really difficult. They really did a lot of bad things to a good base.
People get emotionally involved in things by nature, and it's generally for the better. I just wish I could find an employer with some amount of comprehension on these things.
People get emotionally involved in things by nature, and it's generally for the better. I just wish I could find an employer with some amount of comprehension on these things.
I agree that it is difficult and I have been there myself. The thing is - if it's a typical work relationship, it's theirs to do with as they wish, even if you built it. That is the difficulty of doing creative work for hire. I think it is a tight rope walk, balancing sufficient investment to do a good job without becoming overly invested. It helps me to think of everything in terms of a means to an end. I still feel the same emotional attachment, but I run all my actions through a filter of whether that particular action is beneficial. Writing such an email and sending or publishing it simply cannot ever do you any good.
Don't white knight this situation.
You quit. You got fired shortly into a 60 hour contract. Your losses are small, you planned on leaving early, and the contract should have protected you from something like this.
Move on, very little to gain by attempting to show them their wrong ways. You can't make changes from the outside.
You quit. You got fired shortly into a 60 hour contract. Your losses are small, you planned on leaving early, and the contract should have protected you from something like this.
Move on, very little to gain by attempting to show them their wrong ways. You can't make changes from the outside.
I must be even more blunt than I thought, because this didn't really sound all that angry to me. More "frustrated."
Most people, I think, would have to be quite angry before they would bother writing all this about a place they were never going to set foot in again, so we assume he's seething, even though the tone isn't even as angry-sounding as Zed used to be.
Rather than continuing with the passive aggressiveness, the professional thing to do would have been to exchange a firm handshake, make the usual nonspecific promises about looking forward to mutually beneficial opportunities in the future, and parting amicably.
[Edit to add: Even supposing sending the letter was a good idea, it is terribly written, and it is entirely the author's fault that (quoting the last line) "I'll be surprised if anyone except IT reads this far".
Here, let's try this again:
Subject: Why Project X Has Missed Its Deadline
Dear Boss 1 and Boss 2:
Project X is currently 4 weeks past its planned deadline, $87,000 over budget, has 20% of the feature set yet to be implemented, and performance is 30% worse than the legacy system it replaces. These circumstances were preventable.
Functional code was repeatedly discarded during development, resulting in delays and cost overruns. This occurred as late as two days before the predicted shipping date, at which point a rewrite was guaranteed to negative impact the schedule. The technical justification for replacing the functional code did not advance company objectives.
Management of X was apprised at the time that the team was unable to resolve their difference of professional opinion as to whether to keep the functional code or reimplement for aesthetic reasons. Management was apprised that the decision to reimplement would negatively impact timely deliverability of X. Please find attached supporting memos #41 (request from team member to reimplement authentication), #47 (opposition by self to team member's request to reimplement authentication), #49 (decision by manager to reimplement authentication), #51 (warning by self that schedule would be negatively impacted), and #73 (request for authorization of 3 man-months to address slippage).
I am writing you out of professional courtesy. Management is aware of all facts in this memo. I recommend action to avoid further cost overruns to the company in the future; no reply to myself is required.
Respectfully yours,
[Edit to add: Even supposing sending the letter was a good idea, it is terribly written, and it is entirely the author's fault that (quoting the last line) "I'll be surprised if anyone except IT reads this far".
Here, let's try this again:
Subject: Why Project X Has Missed Its Deadline
Dear Boss 1 and Boss 2:
Project X is currently 4 weeks past its planned deadline, $87,000 over budget, has 20% of the feature set yet to be implemented, and performance is 30% worse than the legacy system it replaces. These circumstances were preventable.
Functional code was repeatedly discarded during development, resulting in delays and cost overruns. This occurred as late as two days before the predicted shipping date, at which point a rewrite was guaranteed to negative impact the schedule. The technical justification for replacing the functional code did not advance company objectives.
Management of X was apprised at the time that the team was unable to resolve their difference of professional opinion as to whether to keep the functional code or reimplement for aesthetic reasons. Management was apprised that the decision to reimplement would negatively impact timely deliverability of X. Please find attached supporting memos #41 (request from team member to reimplement authentication), #47 (opposition by self to team member's request to reimplement authentication), #49 (decision by manager to reimplement authentication), #51 (warning by self that schedule would be negatively impacted), and #73 (request for authorization of 3 man-months to address slippage).
I am writing you out of professional courtesy. Management is aware of all facts in this memo. I recommend action to avoid further cost overruns to the company in the future; no reply to myself is required.
Respectfully yours,
Heh, like they have memos or anything more than a verbal communication and private notes in that company. I could have referenced commit hashes, but decided that legally it'd be more prudent not to.
I did consider the succinct route but decided against it. Yes, I understand that makes it less likely that management will read it all or that it would come off whiny, but I think it shows more involvement and seriousness.
The executives already know everything is weeks behind schedule. I wanted to give them an idea why.
I did consider the succinct route but decided against it. Yes, I understand that makes it less likely that management will read it all or that it would come off whiny, but I think it shows more involvement and seriousness.
The executives already know everything is weeks behind schedule. I wanted to give them an idea why.
Also, the executives also know I was unhappy with the situation and attempting to make a ruckus, though I'm not sure they understand what parts I was ruckussing about. There is some point behind the exposition, though admittedly much of it is venting.
Other than his only working 10 hours a day (which seems generous of him if true), what could be considered passive-aggressive?
Nearly that entire note is in the passive voice.
Never, ever, burn your bridges.
Why not? There are many more programming jobs than there are qualified programmers.
I was hoping this wouldn't burn them, but I realize that's the most likely outcome. It is sad indeed, but I think that these things need to be said.
Gosh, I had heard jokes about naming conventions resulting in religious wars, but I had thought they were only jokes.
How I wish that were true. This is the second time in my relatively short professional life that I've come across an otherwise competent programmer that got so caught up in style conventions (opening bracket on new line or same line, etc.) that he was unable to see any value in or provide any value to anyone else on the team.
At the other place, the guy was boss of IT/engineering and just resorted to hiring designers and giving them on-the-job programming training so that he could mandate the habits before they were set instead of trying to counteract extant tendencies. And that guy refused to even produce a formalized style guide. I quit after about a month.
The programmer has in both instances been a relatively successful "lone wolf", self-taught programmer; he's built a successful business on his own right out of the gate, either as an independent freelancer or the technical savior to a struggling ad firm, and as such, has almost never been exposed to other styles, conventions, or thought processes, except those present in the (obviously unsatisfactory) systems he was hired to replace. I'd avoid bringing guys like this on anywhere without leadership willing and able to teach professional etiquette, courtesy, and mutual respect on the job.
At the other place, the guy was boss of IT/engineering and just resorted to hiring designers and giving them on-the-job programming training so that he could mandate the habits before they were set instead of trying to counteract extant tendencies. And that guy refused to even produce a formalized style guide. I quit after about a month.
The programmer has in both instances been a relatively successful "lone wolf", self-taught programmer; he's built a successful business on his own right out of the gate, either as an independent freelancer or the technical savior to a struggling ad firm, and as such, has almost never been exposed to other styles, conventions, or thought processes, except those present in the (obviously unsatisfactory) systems he was hired to replace. I'd avoid bringing guys like this on anywhere without leadership willing and able to teach professional etiquette, courtesy, and mutual respect on the job.
This is somewhat of a side note, but I don't get why people who certain could do better, choose to work in "IT" (vs. in an engineering department of an Internet or software firm). There's much less challenge (writing internal applications in PHP), the people you work with are neither passionate nor particularly bright and I am guessing the pay or career options aren't great either.
I don't mean it in an offensive way, could somebody explain some of the reasoning behind why people might want to make that choice?
I don't mean it in an offensive way, could somebody explain some of the reasoning behind why people might want to make that choice?
I can only surmise, but I have thought about this same question every time I end up in an engineering department that turns "IT" underneath me -- it has happened a couple of times now. I have left both times, after making attempts to push the organization back the other way hard enough to be threatened with termination.
People make this choice because they have convinced themselves they never had a choice. They remain there because they are convinced they still don't have a choice.
The explanation is usually a story of falling or being forced into a position followed by stating the tautology of it being a job. They are willing to take a painful known quantity over an unknown quantity elsewhere -- which is assumed to be at least as painful --, all the while saying to themselves repeatedly "I need to be stronger than the pain for the people who rely on me." Sometimes this will become even more self-fulfilling, and they will assume they have no other options, painful or not.
Along with this, they will provide rationalizations about how, even if they had a choice, it really would not matter. The purpose of a job is money. Full stop. If you make it anything else, you are martyring yourself to your employer. Thus, it doesn't matter where you work, so long as you are. Any desire you have to make those hours of your day more meaningful need to be bottled away, because they never will be. Those who don't accept this are ignorant of the facts of life, which are assumed to be true by means of circular logic and a desire to rationalize one's own rut in life.
Humans are amazingly good at rationalization, even when it starts from the usually faulty premise that where they are now is the best things can possibly get.
Hope this provides some insight about your question.
People make this choice because they have convinced themselves they never had a choice. They remain there because they are convinced they still don't have a choice.
The explanation is usually a story of falling or being forced into a position followed by stating the tautology of it being a job. They are willing to take a painful known quantity over an unknown quantity elsewhere -- which is assumed to be at least as painful --, all the while saying to themselves repeatedly "I need to be stronger than the pain for the people who rely on me." Sometimes this will become even more self-fulfilling, and they will assume they have no other options, painful or not.
Along with this, they will provide rationalizations about how, even if they had a choice, it really would not matter. The purpose of a job is money. Full stop. If you make it anything else, you are martyring yourself to your employer. Thus, it doesn't matter where you work, so long as you are. Any desire you have to make those hours of your day more meaningful need to be bottled away, because they never will be. Those who don't accept this are ignorant of the facts of life, which are assumed to be true by means of circular logic and a desire to rationalize one's own rut in life.
Humans are amazingly good at rationalization, even when it starts from the usually faulty premise that where they are now is the best things can possibly get.
Hope this provides some insight about your question.
You needed to say these things before separating from your employer. In fact, you needed to say these things as they came up, rather than letting them pile on and form into a huge rant like this. I'm actually having a hard time following each and every point you have, even though some of the ones I can pick out seem pretty valid. It is overwhelming, and overwhelming usually means nothing is going to get done, because no one knows where to start.
I agree with the other comments so far that this shows a certain degree of passive-aggression which isn't particularly appetizing.
However, I will strongly disagree with the point in a couple of the other comments that the acceptable alternatives are: shut up, do as your told, and detach from your job as much as you possibly can while still performing it; part ways politely without indicating anything was ever other than you expected it. These take an adversarial stance that you and your employer have nothing more to offer one another than what was strictly agreed to as the job duties and wage, and that any such attempt at offering will only result in bad outcomes for the weaker party.
When did we get so fucking bitter and jaded? And when did we decide that this outlook was optimal? I honestly wonder if this sort of attitude contributes to polemics like this, because we insist that people have an seemingly infinite ability to remain stoic and bottle their frustration. The alternative of trying to separate emotionally from a job never, ever works. Doing bullshit for eight hours a day to fund eight hours of "recovery time" is not zero-sum; the effects are real, as much as people want to blame those effects on the mere state of being alive. You are not preprogrammed to be depressed; this is not a least-energy state!
The other option is to quit, but employees usually don't until the get to the polemic-spewing boiling-point of their frustration. It sneaks up on them, because they've been bottling it so long. Writing it and then deleting it is therapeutic, but doesn't accomplish anything. The next job will likely be the same, like a self-perpetuating prophecy, because a lot of employers suck, because a lot of employees within are trying every day to convince themselves they don't care. This is least-energy for the employer, not the employee.
If you really want to step off this cycle, perhaps it is time to admit what you've known all along: you do care what you are doing 8 hours a day, and who you are doing it for.
I agree with the other comments so far that this shows a certain degree of passive-aggression which isn't particularly appetizing.
However, I will strongly disagree with the point in a couple of the other comments that the acceptable alternatives are: shut up, do as your told, and detach from your job as much as you possibly can while still performing it; part ways politely without indicating anything was ever other than you expected it. These take an adversarial stance that you and your employer have nothing more to offer one another than what was strictly agreed to as the job duties and wage, and that any such attempt at offering will only result in bad outcomes for the weaker party.
When did we get so fucking bitter and jaded? And when did we decide that this outlook was optimal? I honestly wonder if this sort of attitude contributes to polemics like this, because we insist that people have an seemingly infinite ability to remain stoic and bottle their frustration. The alternative of trying to separate emotionally from a job never, ever works. Doing bullshit for eight hours a day to fund eight hours of "recovery time" is not zero-sum; the effects are real, as much as people want to blame those effects on the mere state of being alive. You are not preprogrammed to be depressed; this is not a least-energy state!
The other option is to quit, but employees usually don't until the get to the polemic-spewing boiling-point of their frustration. It sneaks up on them, because they've been bottling it so long. Writing it and then deleting it is therapeutic, but doesn't accomplish anything. The next job will likely be the same, like a self-perpetuating prophecy, because a lot of employers suck, because a lot of employees within are trying every day to convince themselves they don't care. This is least-energy for the employer, not the employee.
If you really want to step off this cycle, perhaps it is time to admit what you've known all along: you do care what you are doing 8 hours a day, and who you are doing it for.
From my experience I learned one thing.
AVOID DUMB PEOPLE.
Never work for dumb people. Never work with dumb people. No matter how beneficial for you the deal is (or seems to be) so far, if you notice that people you rely on are dumb, just quit as soon as you can.
Dealing with dumb people almost always backfires hurting you financially and psychologically.
I don't say that you have to quit as soon as somebody around you does something dumb, but you definitely should quit as soon as you learn that someone you rely on is dumb, even if he hasn't been dangerous for you so far.
AVOID DUMB PEOPLE.
Never work for dumb people. Never work with dumb people. No matter how beneficial for you the deal is (or seems to be) so far, if you notice that people you rely on are dumb, just quit as soon as you can.
Dealing with dumb people almost always backfires hurting you financially and psychologically.
I don't say that you have to quit as soon as somebody around you does something dumb, but you definitely should quit as soon as you learn that someone you rely on is dumb, even if he hasn't been dangerous for you so far.
Thanks for this post, I like it a lot and generally agree with it.
But, it wasn't possible in my circumstance. I did try to talk to the super-high-level bosses (the bosses this letter was addressed to) once, and my immediate superior (Rocky in the letter) requested a meeting for me and the boss said "Absolutely not", and Rocky warned that I would be terminated by super-huge-boss if I pressed the issue further. This is the way they governed -- they had no care for what the peons thought and strongly believed in chain-of-command. Huge boss called us in one day to basically demand that we never address him and always go through Rocky.
As such, I was scared to talk to the major bosses the whole time. They know what Rocky is like; they deal with him every day, too. I just don't know that they understand that overall impact it has on the quality of their product.
I let Rocky know the issues as they materialized, of course, but as mentioned in the letter, as my favor with him waned my influence was eventually diminished to nothingness.
The bosses just like to get in and out -- they run it as a business should be run, that is, with some amount of autonomy, but they also do a really, really bad job of keeping personnel informed, controlled, and happy. Everyone there, even the VPs with whom they interact daily, is scared of them, and this leads to bad business decisions because the subordinates do what they can to make things appear better than they are out of fear of retribution, not to mention all of the negative effects of bad morale.
I did ultimately leave on principle and refusal to submit to disrespect and scare tactics, unlike everyone still there, and everyone who's been there for years.
I'm starting my own thing now, and it's getting some traction and clients, and that makes me immensely happy. I'm hoping that it can stick so that I can be free of all of these petty concerns, and if I get a job that turns south, I can just blow it according to my will and dictates without any concern about how I'm going to look after my pregnant wife's physical needs.
Independence is my real goal in the money-and-career part of life. It'd be great to be super rich and able to start programs and groups and schools and companies to promote peace, love, kindness, intelligence, reason, and so on, but that is all just a perk on top of the ability to not be held hostage by my employer. I must amass enough money that I can be a free person, and can choose who I work for, and not be forced to torture myself for months on end as described in this letter.
If anyone would like to help me meet this end, my consulting firm is happy to hook you up with programming services, etc. [email protected] . : )
But, it wasn't possible in my circumstance. I did try to talk to the super-high-level bosses (the bosses this letter was addressed to) once, and my immediate superior (Rocky in the letter) requested a meeting for me and the boss said "Absolutely not", and Rocky warned that I would be terminated by super-huge-boss if I pressed the issue further. This is the way they governed -- they had no care for what the peons thought and strongly believed in chain-of-command. Huge boss called us in one day to basically demand that we never address him and always go through Rocky.
As such, I was scared to talk to the major bosses the whole time. They know what Rocky is like; they deal with him every day, too. I just don't know that they understand that overall impact it has on the quality of their product.
I let Rocky know the issues as they materialized, of course, but as mentioned in the letter, as my favor with him waned my influence was eventually diminished to nothingness.
The bosses just like to get in and out -- they run it as a business should be run, that is, with some amount of autonomy, but they also do a really, really bad job of keeping personnel informed, controlled, and happy. Everyone there, even the VPs with whom they interact daily, is scared of them, and this leads to bad business decisions because the subordinates do what they can to make things appear better than they are out of fear of retribution, not to mention all of the negative effects of bad morale.
I did ultimately leave on principle and refusal to submit to disrespect and scare tactics, unlike everyone still there, and everyone who's been there for years.
I'm starting my own thing now, and it's getting some traction and clients, and that makes me immensely happy. I'm hoping that it can stick so that I can be free of all of these petty concerns, and if I get a job that turns south, I can just blow it according to my will and dictates without any concern about how I'm going to look after my pregnant wife's physical needs.
Independence is my real goal in the money-and-career part of life. It'd be great to be super rich and able to start programs and groups and schools and companies to promote peace, love, kindness, intelligence, reason, and so on, but that is all just a perk on top of the ability to not be held hostage by my employer. I must amass enough money that I can be a free person, and can choose who I work for, and not be forced to torture myself for months on end as described in this letter.
If anyone would like to help me meet this end, my consulting firm is happy to hook you up with programming services, etc. [email protected] . : )
Full time employees need to be 'busy' all of the time to justify investments the company makes in each person (opportunity to learn on the job is the biggest investment). If you go there and finish all of the work, there won't be anything left for the FTEs to do.
You're better off giving FTEs (full time employees) learning opportunities and telling them they are really bright.
And don't burn bridges - just fake it and pretend to be nice - life sometimes works out in really strange ways.