To say it with the words of my first boss that stuck with me:

"Love it, change it or leave it. No amount of complaining will ever do anything else than paint you as a naysayer."

Was a hard pill to swallow, but my own experience proved me again and again he was spot on.

I'm starting to doubt this advice. I'm a "change it" sort of personality by nature - a reformer. When faced with these 3 options, I've chosen "change it" many times. And more often than not, I've found myself in a political crossfire, with new unwelcome knowledge of the various forces (typically some combination of self interest, ego, and turf-guarding) that are responsible for the thing I'm trying to change.

My current lesson is - most things that look like an easy win would have been claimed a long time ago if not for some unholy hidden mess. If I'm to vote for "change", I should be prepared to deal with the unholy mess. It doesn't matter that I don't see it, it's out there somewhere.

Since I rarely want to take on an unholy mess, and I'm not good at the kind of doublethink that would allow me to love a thing I'm not inclined to love, usually that just leaves one option.

> If I'm to vote for "change", I should be prepared to deal with the unholy mess. It doesn't matter that I don't see it, it's out there somewhere.

Yes. This is the old point about the Serenity 'prayer': grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference. Or, as soldiers say more succinctly, "Pick your battles".

I've slowly internalised this over the years. It also applies on a micro-level: when reviewing someone else's work, if something that isn't critical actually gets the job done, just go with it, unless there is an actual problem with an obvious solution that you can suggest. Don't complain just because something is done differently to how you would do it.

The point about Unknown Unknowns is also totally relevant. And cans-of-worms. You really must be very confident you are right before opening them.

"I'm a "change it" sort of personality by nature - a reformer."

One of the things I've learned is that authority is a real thing. If you don't have the authority to change something, don't try. You will fail, and it will do nothing but cost you. I've jousted with this many times, and it was a failure every time. (More technical type stuff, but the same holds for this sort of thing too.)

Authority doesn't have to be given from on high; there is also some distributed authority that arises from the unofficial de facto org chart that every organization has. I've managed to push some things through with that (and relevant amounts of consensus) when I was more careful to ensure I had the authority.

But if you don't have at least some authority, you will fail.

This comment is is, not ought. You are welcome to feel about it however you like. But when it comes time to determine your own actions, you should work in the space of is and not ought.

That doesn't mean the only option is to give up. One may attempt to acquire the authority. This can either be by direct appeal, or in some cases, through the long-term acquisition of authority called "respect". One may attempt to convince an existing authority to help with whatever your issue is. Though in this specific case if the problem is specifically fighting existing authority that may not help. There are other options.

But it is a total wishful thinking myth that if you're just smart enough and good enough and just take charge, by golly, you can get anything done! In fact, after a while, when you see someone and on day 3 you see them charging around just trying to change things, you start to see someone who isn't going to be there long.

(Now, I actually like fresh perspectives on my team and don't squash people if they have new ideas, but at the same time, I ask them to take a couple of weeks and be sure they fully understand the changes they are proposing before we consider their suggestions. The end result is better suggestions, and we have taken many of them. This is why I'm specific about it being "day 3"; on day 3, you may know enough to have identified a problem, but you don't know the solution yet.)

But if you can't acquire some authority somehow, your options are reduced to deal with it or leave it. There is no "just bull through and change things anyhow". The entire political structure built into our very genes will not permit it. You're fighting not just your current organization but millions of years of evolution. You will not win.

I think this is an excellent point. At the start of my career I would blithely assume that my authority was that which was formally given to me, in the official org chart. I'm still learning how to gauge how much real (formal plus unofficial) authority I have at a given moment, what it entitles me to do, and how to build it if I need to.

I guess this is what it looks like when a nerd learns how to do politics.

>If you don't have the authority to change something, don't try. You will fail, and it will do nothing but cost you.

My theory has been that you look for things people already want to do but can't, and try to enable them with the resources at hand. You can change things that you don't have formal authority for (possibly not for the better) by simply removing roadblocks.

I agree - from experience - but your assertion the easy wins are deceiving also reminds me of the joke about the economist who won't pick up a ten dollar bill in the street because in an efficient market someone else would have already got it.

Worse yet, IME, being a keen participant in HN's technical side almost precludes one's ability to overcome the other players, those who fight in the name of some combination of self interest, ego, and turf-guarding.

To vanquish these, in the name of The Right Way, one ultimately must engage them in social combat, whether by proxy or directly. And they're better at it than you are. Nerds may be clever, and they may actually be right, but the other players are usually more convincing. And I don't mean merely argumentatively.

Exactly. I was once tasked with replacing a piece of software. Enterprise software is such a mess, but I had 4 vendors before the downselect, and one was clearly the optimal choice both for price and performance. Presented it to upper mgmt and was asked to keep researching the options. Did this dog and pony show for another month until one of the sales engineers for the #1 vendor mentioned that my executive had a previous relationship (at another company) with the sales exec. A bad relationship. So my exec was never going to sign off on a sale that would benefit the sales exec, but he didn't want to come out and tell me outright. He simply wanted me to read between the lines and skew the evaluation in favor of the other candidates.

The "Schmoozer" class is full of this type of crap. I'm convinced that outside of a few unicorn companies, meritocracy is an illusion.

I hear ya--influencing change is indeed exhausting. I think the love and change aren't mutually exclusive, though it depends on we're defining it. For me, if I don't "love" a place, I won't care to change it. If I do love it, I'll put in the work, and I'll be pretty loud about it because if change doesn't happen relatively quickly, then there's no point in my sticking around.

I think you're missing the point. If you don't love it, then either change it or leave. It doesn't require doublethink to love something. If you get somewhere, and you don't love it, _then_ you're left with two choices. If you're unwilling/unable to go through a change process, or if you've selected a company that's bad at change, then yes, now you only have one option.

Creating change isn’t easy. But it is an option.

In this case, would the 'change it' option be to just work from home and see what happens?

I read “change it” as encompassing any modification to the status quo short of quitting it altogether. So, yes. But so also would be writing a petition to reinstitute work from home as a “performance bonus” and getting it signed by as many other company bright-lights as possible. Lots of options.

Exactly, but only if you’re ready to get fired.

I'm doing this, new company policies are half a week in office. I get there 2 days a month since December (4 days this month but I needed to met coworkers). I do get email from the management occasionally but I either ignore them or use a poor excuse 'i didn't feel well enough to take the train this week '. They know I'm able to find a new job so they don't have any leverage.

find a fully remote job if you can

Whats the market like right now? I have a feeling extremely tight as everyone wants a remote job now?

Reporting in, both as employer and targeted as employee through recruiting channels. Recruiters are in full swing and it is hard to find people with data/analytics skillsets. Developers seem similar. Knowing coding seems like foot in the door, modern applications have all kinds of disparate dependencies like k8s, docker, virtualization, Kafka, etc.

At least give it a try. I suspect based on join dates that I’m similar or older than the OP. The more senior you get, the more time it can take on a search, but with remote work, you should definitely be trying.

You can also just bear it, live with it.

Actually that's often the best choice, you need to pick your battles.

This. "Accept it" or "ignore it" are perfectly valid options, and perhaps the healthiest for one's mental and emotional state.

That said the dog has only one nail to deal with. Adult life means balancing rent / stability / safety / job. It's sad that manager never understand what people want to be happy for their company and so easily find ways to make us go into cynical mode (slow down and cope with side project).