Well, he sucked in that team. It's good to know the kind of person you are. I've learned, somewhat the hard way, that I become a bit of a nightmare in situations where I can't make a difference quickly. This tends to lead me away from very large, very process-driven, very political organisations, because I simply don't have the temperament for it, and towards smaller, scrappier companies, where it's possible to make forward progress quickly.
One day, after all, I will die. I don't want to have spent too much time between now and then having to deal with torrents of organisational bullshit. The fact that I don't know how much time I have left only adds impetus to cut through the nonsense.
Whereas some people can survive, and indeed thrive, in that kind of environment. They have the patience to see it through, and gain their satisfaction in other ways than merely seeing the product taking shape quickly.
> Well, I AM actually stubborn!! But if the metrics had shown that BATCH was worse, I would absolutely be the first to change my mind.
He's self-critical. I also think he's only right about being stubborn in its original meaning (untameable) rather than the new colour the word seems to have (unwilling to change despite evidence).
What happened here was an NHL player joined a team thinking it was another major league team, but it wasn't even college ice. That's fine, but his mistake was not just leaving for a different team. If you come into a team thats slightly beneath you you can raise it up to your level and change peoples careers / lives for the better, but getting too far off just doesn't work. You're way too ahead of them and you're new so they don't trust you or want to listen to you. Just move on to a more pro project.
At the end of the day, if you do want to provide technical leadership, the skills to understand the team and how to interact with them effectively are at least as important as the technical skills.
So sometimes I have to kindly remind myself that its current state isn't indicative of some damning (yet oddly egotistical) personal failure, where I "shoulda" rewritten everything from scratch by now.
On the plus side, the QA team is gradually learning to do more than manual browser tests...
There's something about the writing style on that page too. Hard to describe.
(I'm totally kidding; your question is an excellent one.)
What's funny to me is how sometimes there are two qualities -- being both more competent (than one's peers) and not liked -- that in combination can further perceptions that someone "isn't a team player"..in the eyes of The Majority, the same people who are the real problem.
If the team says pigs can fly, the sky is red and Bob isn't a team player, all of those things might as well be true. After all, perception is reality.
The author was also smarter before he was empathetic. When he saw someone become touched after the criticism he put forth, he should have changed pace. And changed focus. Instead of focusing on the critiques, he could have focused on the outlying problems contributing to those critiques.
Instead of ignoring the responses everyone made to good suggestions, he could have been more accepting and started to beat the same drum.
Point is to find common ground first. Solutions come second.
1. The OP is obviously far ahead technically than his work environmment. He has the experience, know the practices and can improve the software process.
2. Second but key, he sucks at working in a team and also at communication. You don't change a mess such as the one he describes in 5 months. That culture of the company, if you are not the boss, only changes by soft proposals, influence, bond building, debate.... Nothing is going to change to new practices or behaviours if not for conviction (or fear). It's a slow process, an not one you can win only by logic. The subject is huge.
That said, I agree that it was better for him to leave.