Well.

[tithonium]

That wasn't the most unpleasant meeting I've ever been in. But I'm not sure we actually got anywhere. We discussed the team issues, lack of resources, need for SE support, the fact that nobody really signed on to be a deployment engineer, the feeling that we've become the bucket for the unwanted legacy features...

They recognize the need for deployment support, and are working on that. A team has agreed to put resources of that type towards our needs. We aren't the only people with legacy crap to deal with, perhaps not even the worst. These are the rebuttals, by the way.

We don't have enough internally-initiated innovation, the core of what a two-pizza-team should be.

For the division planning meetings this year, michael had to write up everything and submit them. Next year, he wants werner to write them up, and werner wants the team to contribute, we'll have meetings to figure out where we should allocate our resources. The team will get its input. Nevermind that michael didn't inquire with the engineers directly about this year's goals. Why are we doing things that come from above, like GiftyThingy? We need to do inline gifting, it's one of the things we are resourced for from the planning meetings. The GiftyThingy is just an idea, if we have a better one, do that instead.

We need a realistic plan for eliminating our operational burden. We think we have one. It's taken 6 months of engineers calling for it, ignoring the fact that we've been calling for it as a department for years, to get here.

Schedules and deadlines should be driven by projects, features, and resources, NOT the other way around. Some projects, there's no choice. Other projects, they are, you just need to push back appropriately. We can't /not/ set deadlines, or nothing would get done.

We discussed how we don't feel the engineers' input on planning and decision making is really listened to, and how this is one of the things that makes me feel undervalued. Didn't really get much from that.

After all of this, we finally transitioned to what it'll take to keep me. I don't know. They seem to feel that they've addressed all of the issues I've brought up. Those that they can't really change are company-wide, so moving groups won't help any. We got to the topic of money. After a few jokes involving large numbers, michael asked what amount I thought would be fair. I can't really say that I don't think my pay is /fair/, is the problem. At the time at least, I felt that I was fairly well paid for a web dev. Those others whose salaries I know are paid notably less than I. It's been pointed out since then that I don't know the pay rate for any other webdev 3s, and that, from what they knew, I was at the low end. My problem with the pay isn't so much the number itself, but the way it's changed.. I'm still - it turns out - angry about the cut last year. My take-home is still less than it was two years ago. Michael reiterated that he's working on making an adjustment but that it will take some time.


So, where are we? I closed with something to the effect of "Let us assume, for now, that my decision to leave is unchanged, but I will think about this". Which I shall do.

What are your thoughts?

Comments

[grymor.livejournal.com]

I wish I had a tape of the meeting, as from your rendition of their responses, I have to agree with you, but that has blatent inherent bias.

you deserve to be happy

[(Anonymous)]

leave the team.

[(Anonymous)]

Ask the same questions at your other interviews. That'll tell you whether its company wide or not, or whether it affects those groups to the same extent.

[dianthus.livejournal.com]

um...don't ask me, 'cause I make dumb career choices? That, and I agree with anonymous.

[kerrizor.livejournal.com]

Can I make a dumb career choice and come work for you? ^_^

[dianthus.livejournal.com]

um--I don't think I can afford to pay you. Due to my dumb career choices, you see...

[xmurf.livejournal.com]

There is a widely-held school of thought that one should never, ever, under any circumstances, accept a counteroffer once one has made the decision to leave. This isn't quite the same situation but IMNSHO it still holds. Either (a) things won't change, in which case you obviously shouldn't stay, or (b) things will change, in which case you are working with a group in which you have to threaten to quit to get anything done, which doesn't sound like a very good place to be.

So my vote is for leaving, FWIW.

[ilmarinen.livejournal.com]

Generally, I second this. Further, I would never *threaten* to leave. Current employment would only know once the deal was done and I had secured a new position. This rule is almost professional ethics to me. I would, however, discuss problems with the current employment before that point, and try to resolve them. Any decent manager knows an unhappy employee is likely to leave, and doesn't need to be told that.

If it takes a stick to get them to listen or change, you don't want to be in the some point again a year from now, needing a new stick.

-B.

[tithonium.livejournal.com]

For me, the professional ethics require telling them before it's done, giving them the chance to change my mind. Which is /DUMB/, but that just goes with my feeling that I have really stupid ethics.

I don't think the problem is company-wide

[(Anonymous)]

Or even division-wide for that matter. Gifting is the redheaded step-child of old, bad engineering design decisions and management blunders. So right now Gifting and Gifting's engineers are not set up to succeed. They are set up to, if they really bust their balls and sacrifice their health, maybe eventually break even (like get bug count down to zero and not innovate at all). Working under conditions like this will burn out anyone. And no matter how hard the engineers in this group work, they will always be behind and therefore the group as a whole will qualify for fewer benefits like bonuses. This is a problem management needs to recognize and address. The more engineers leave Gifting, the more management will be forced to address this issue (before their bosses do). I'd recommend changing groups, not leaving the company. You keep the $$ and the cred you've built up at Amazon over the years, but add to the ridiculously high turnover Hyman will have to report to Holden at the end of the year. :)

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

If you leave, will you still want the bunnies? ;)

[kerrizor.livejournal.com]

Leave, but raise these similar issues with the team you interview with, and make it clear that this is why you're looking for another group, to remedy these issues. That way, you won't get labelled as a prima donna.

Yeah, maybe there ARE company-wide things that Michael can't do anything about, but at the very least he should be working to make the whole team happy as a default and giving you work that counterbalances the crap. Any manager that scrambles like this to keep people happy only in response to losing them needs to rethink their entire approach to managing the group.