The Passive-Aggressive Programmer: or Why Nothing Gets Done

http://homepage.mac.com/s_lott/iblog/architecture/C551260341/E20071129060000/index.html

by smanek • 18 years ago

24 16 18 years ago

homepage.mac.com

This probably doesn't explain every case that the guy is talking about, but I used to adopt this attitude in various jobs -- usually a few months before I ended up leaving the job for something else.

I've found that I have a specific lifecycle in regular jobs. It goes like this:

1. Enthusiasm. No matter how many times I've gotten burned in other jobs, this one is going to be different! Management seems to be really open to improving things, or doing things as best as practically possible. Hurrah!

2. Passive-Aggressive apathy. Well, I was wrong. Again. Hells, this place moves slowly. No, management's plan or idea won't work, and I'll say so, but I don't feel like explaining it anymore because clearly they aren't interested in my opinion. I will slouch in my chair and grudgingly do what I'm told.

3. Complete apathy. I won't even bother to say that I disagree with their bad ideas anymore. Discussion is pointless; they simply want to do it their way, and that's that. I'll browse through the classified ads on my lunch break.

(Get new job, go back to 1.)

I don't think that particular lifecycle is unique to me. So, the author may be dealing with some folks that are completely disenchanted by their work environment, but for whatever reason they can't or won't find another job.

allenbrunson4• 18 years ago

I have to admit, I've often been in that cycle myself. But there are companies where that doesn't happen, so you have to ask yourself: why am I always ending up in these lousy companies?

ecuzzillo• 18 years ago

It could be that stages 1-3 mirror the company lifecycle. Companies start out not sucking (as startups) and slowly either become lousy and big, or get bought into a lousy and big company.

ComputerGuru• 18 years ago

Absolutely no disrespect intended.... but perhaps it is not the companies at fault? I mean to say, are the other fellow hackers/employees present just as disenchanted with the management and direction of the company as yourself, or was it always just you?

Tamerlin• 18 years ago

It hasn't been every company for me, but I've been through that a few times now... and I think it fits every BIG company I've worked for, and it happens a lot less at the smaller ones.

Part, probably most, of the cause for me has been that the bigger companies have invariably had a much higher requirement for maintenance work than the smaller ones. At the big companies, I find that the senior and newbie developers are sharing the same tasking, so the newbies (and the less capable seniors) are generally satisfied, and the talented folks are underutilized and bored, and end up leaving.

That also means that the higher the bar for hiring at the larger companies, the higher the percentage of dissatisfied developers.

edw5192• 18 years ago

Interesting examples of the "PAP". A good follow-up might examine why a programmer is passive-aggressive.

thaumaturgy hits on one common reason: the programmer is a product of his environment.

Another very common reason is that the programmer is in over his head and uses "fog" to protect himself. Why? It's easier. And it works. Problem is that the programmer has done nothing to get out from being in over his head. And probably never will. They're everywhere.

My first mentor once told me why he thought there were so many mediocre programmers: all they have to do is stay one step ahead of the user. In a commercial environment, not so hard to do.

phil_collins• 18 years ago

it sounds like this guy is a consultant, who management brings in, and everyone there automatically hates him.

edw5192• 18 years ago

Ooh, another reason to be a PAP:

"I had a chance to meet this young man and boy does he have Straight to Upper Management written all over him."

gaius• 18 years ago

Yes, and could well be proposing the exact things that the staff engineers already proposed, but were rejected by management!

DenisM• 18 years ago

PAP has no stake in the outcome, he does not own the place, his stock options are worthless and the only way to climb up the ladder is to show accomplishment to his own name. Other PAPs have the same motivation.

In other words, PAP is not interested in having consultant succeed. Entirely rational behavior. That's how you get to having to call in consultants in the first place, so this goes with the territory.

The Passive-Aggressive Programmer: or Why Nothing Gets Done

Related Stories