Job related question.

[yoda291]

Hey folks,

My situation: I started a new job for almost a week now and I'm already entertaining vague notions of leaving.

On the plus side, the compensation is more than generous. The nature of the position itself will also look impressive for my career if I do stick around and stay. The company is poised to be acquired inside of a rather short timeline (< 3 years) as there are very large firms dependent on products we produce. The company itself is cash positive at ~6M/yr. The reason these last 2 points matter is I have received equity as part of my compensation package(it is still a fair package without equity though).

On the minus side, the work environment is borderline hostile. The worst part is that the people are just unrelatable to me. Maybe 3 people there seem to have the ability to crack a smile and we get along peachy. Everyone else seems to feel they're too cool to be happy or even polite. I've also inherited a minor nightmare of an infrastructure. No standards or procedures to speak of really and virtually the whole kit and caboodle needs to be overhauled because of failure points and scalability issues. This isn't a problem in and of itself. I've dealt with and fixed worse before, but the thing is, I'm definitely going to piss off a platoon of these people. I very nearly started a riot on day 4 by stating developers shouldn't have access to production database clusters.

I was thinking that a week of employment isn't really enough to make a judgement, but how long would be reasonable to stay before resigning would harm my search for employment elsewhere? Am I crazy for even staying past a week considering my notions thus far? Should I just suck it up and be a pariah until I can cash out on my equity?

 

[aesthetics]

Hmm... that is a tough situation. I'd say stick it out, though. Give it a few more weeks... you may find that it just takes time to weasel your way into the social structure of it all. In a month or two, if you're still wishing you could leave and/or hang yourself from the rafters... don't bother staying. There's definitely no point in keeping a job you hate. Make sure you give them plenty of notice, though. Also, make sure you have another job lined up and don't put yourself in a bad position.

Good luck!

 

[Capt Caveman]

When you interviewed, didn't you try and assess the situation you were getting into? And one week is hardly enough time to make any real judgments.

 

[olds]

Give it more time.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: yoda291
very nearly started a riot on day 4 by stating developers shouldn't have access to production database clusters.

Did you do a lot of research into *why* they have access to it before making that statement? I know of some companies that have their developers do maintenance on production environments, and removing that would be removing a nontrivial part of their jobs. And then there are those companies that permit development directly on production databases. Making a statement such as what you did at a company that's permitted that (or worse yet, doesn't have any alternative so far) would probably be suicide.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you, but try to figure out why things are the way they are before saying *anything*. If you aren't willing to play the political ballgame and put up with some less-than-acceptable solutions in the short-term (you're not going to win unless you win them over socially, or have a supervisor that supports you unconditionally), just quit, and leave this job off of your resume.

 

[yoda291]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
When you interviewed, didn't you try and assess the situation you were getting into? And one week is hardly enough time to make any real judgments.

when I interviewed, a lot of things were mis-represented. From my job responsibilities, my scope of control, my area of responsibility. What I gathered was this wasn't done maliciously, but rather because they genuinely did not know otherwise.

Example, I was told there was a pair of DBAs on-staff to field issues with database performance issues. The truth of the matter is, their DBAs are 2 php developers who have expertise in using ADO for the components that use ADO, but have no actual database administration experience outside that particular scope.

 

[yoda291]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: yoda291
very nearly started a riot on day 4 by stating developers shouldn't have access to production database clusters.

Did you do a lot of research into *why* they have access to it before making that statement? I know of some companies that have their developers do maintenance on production environments, and removing that would be removing a nontrivial part of their jobs. And then there are those companies that permit development directly on production databases. Making a statement such as what you did at a company that's permitted that (or worse yet, doesn't have any alternative so far) would probably be suicide.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you, but try to figure out why things are the way they are before saying *anything*. If you aren't willing to play the political ballgame and put up with some less-than-acceptable solutions in the short-term (you're not going to win unless you win them over socially, or have a supervisor that supports you unconditionally), just quit, and leave this job off of your resume.

I understand your point and it is valid. I understand many small shops don't have the resources to have extra systems around.

The reason they have access to the production clusters, however, is because they have no other database system to develop on. When presented with the option of an actual development server, they didn't want to have to change their current workflow and were in an uproar that the head of an entirely different dept(me) would have the gall (they literally used that word), to dictate how they should be able to develop.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: yoda291
I understand your point and it is valid. I understand many small shops don't have the resources to have extra systems around.

The reason they have access to the production clusters, however, is because they have no other database system to develop on. When presented with the option of an actual development server, they didn't want to have to change their current workflow and were in an uproar that the head of an entirely different dept(me) would have the gall (they literally used that word), to dictate how they should be able to develop.

Yeah, I know that feeling... few people like change, and even fewer like being told how their department will work by some other department. Good luck fighting that battle.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: yoda291
Hey folks,

My situation: I started a new job for almost a week now and I'm already entertaining vague notions of leaving.

On the plus side, the compensation is more than generous. The nature of the position itself will also look impressive for my career if I do stick around and stay. The company is poised to be acquired inside of a rather short timeline (< 3 years) as there are very large firms dependent on products we produce. The company itself is cash positive at ~6M/yr. The reason these last 2 points matter is I have received equity as part of my compensation package(it is still a fair package without equity though).

On the minus side, the work environment is borderline hostile. The worst part is that the people are just unrelatable to me. Maybe 3 people there seem to have the ability to crack a smile and we get along peachy. Everyone else seems to feel they're too cool to be happy or even polite. I've also inherited a minor nightmare of an infrastructure. No standards or procedures to speak of really and virtually the whole kit and caboodle needs to be overhauled because of failure points and scalability issues. This isn't a problem in and of itself. I've dealt with and fixed worse before, but the thing is, I'm definitely going to piss off a platoon of these people. I very nearly started a riot on day 4 by stating developers shouldn't have access to production database clusters.

I was thinking that a week of employment isn't really enough to make a judgement, but how long would be reasonable to stay before resigning would harm my search for employment elsewhere? Am I crazy for even staying past a week considering my notions thus far? Should I just suck it up and be a pariah until I can cash out on my equity?

I can understand that. The place I work at has the production system up 24/7, we only take it down for 15 minutes every 6 months for absolutely necessary updates. Otherwise, any downtime costs us and our clients money, which ends up costing us more money if they leave.

Used to be all of dev could upload and query the production system, they changed that a while back and they're still complaining about it, but lo and behold we have a lot less untested code being uploaded at random now

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: yoda291

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: yoda291
very nearly started a riot on day 4 by stating developers shouldn't have access to production database clusters.

Did you do a lot of research into *why* they have access to it before making that statement? I know of some companies that have their developers do maintenance on production environments, and removing that would be removing a nontrivial part of their jobs. And then there are those companies that permit development directly on production databases. Making a statement such as what you did at a company that's permitted that (or worse yet, doesn't have any alternative so far) would probably be suicide.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you, but try to figure out why things are the way they are before saying *anything*. If you aren't willing to play the political ballgame and put up with some less-than-acceptable solutions in the short-term (you're not going to win unless you win them over socially, or have a supervisor that supports you unconditionally), just quit, and leave this job off of your resume.

I understand your point and it is valid. I understand many small shops don't have the resources to have extra systems around.

The reason they have access to the production clusters, however, is because they have no other database system to develop on. When presented with the option of an actual development server, they didn't want to have to change their current workflow and were in an uproar that the head of an entirely different dept(me) would have the gall (they literally used that word), to dictate how they should be able to develop.

Well tell them to get used to it cause when your company gets bought out, they will have to comply with SOX. Any kinda company that has any kind of audit won't let developers touch production system directly.

I guess as the head of the dept, you have to start learning politics and push where needed push but also know when to get higher up on your side as well. In addition, you also need to consider their position and propose workflow that make sense and don't add work to the developers.

Anyway, leaving work just a few weeks in don't look good on resume. It's something you need to consider carefully and something you should have a good explanation on when you look for the next job.

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: yoda291

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: yoda291
very nearly started a riot on day 4 by stating developers shouldn't have access to production database clusters.

Did you do a lot of research into *why* they have access to it before making that statement? I know of some companies that have their developers do maintenance on production environments, and removing that would be removing a nontrivial part of their jobs. And then there are those companies that permit development directly on production databases. Making a statement such as what you did at a company that's permitted that (or worse yet, doesn't have any alternative so far) would probably be suicide.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you, but try to figure out why things are the way they are before saying *anything*. If you aren't willing to play the political ballgame and put up with some less-than-acceptable solutions in the short-term (you're not going to win unless you win them over socially, or have a supervisor that supports you unconditionally), just quit, and leave this job off of your resume.

I understand your point and it is valid. I understand many small shops don't have the resources to have extra systems around.

The reason they have access to the production clusters, however, is because they have no other database system to develop on. When presented with the option of an actual development server, they didn't want to have to change their current workflow and were in an uproar that the head of an entirely different dept(me) would have the gall (they literally used that word), to dictate how they should be able to develop.

Well tell them to get used to it cause when your company gets bought out, they will have to comply with SOX. Any kinda company that has any kind of audit won't let developers touch production system directly.

I guess as the head of the dept, you have to start learning politics and push where needed push but also know when to get higher up on your side as well. In addition, you also need to consider their position and propose workflow that make sense and don't add work to the developers.

Anyway, leaving work just a few weeks in don't look good on resume. It's something you need to consider carefully and something you should have a good explanation on when you look for the next job.

I'm neither a developer or a person that works with systems so this got me curious. Why aren't they allowed to do so? Is it just a matter of protocol or are their security sort of issues?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: yoda291

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: yoda291
very nearly started a riot on day 4 by stating developers shouldn't have access to production database clusters.

Did you do a lot of research into *why* they have access to it before making that statement? I know of some companies that have their developers do maintenance on production environments, and removing that would be removing a nontrivial part of their jobs. And then there are those companies that permit development directly on production databases. Making a statement such as what you did at a company that's permitted that (or worse yet, doesn't have any alternative so far) would probably be suicide.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you, but try to figure out why things are the way they are before saying *anything*. If you aren't willing to play the political ballgame and put up with some less-than-acceptable solutions in the short-term (you're not going to win unless you win them over socially, or have a supervisor that supports you unconditionally), just quit, and leave this job off of your resume.

I understand your point and it is valid. I understand many small shops don't have the resources to have extra systems around.

The reason they have access to the production clusters, however, is because they have no other database system to develop on. When presented with the option of an actual development server, they didn't want to have to change their current workflow and were in an uproar that the head of an entirely different dept(me) would have the gall (they literally used that word), to dictate how they should be able to develop.

Well tell them to get used to it cause when your company gets bought out, they will have to comply with SOX. Any kinda company that has any kind of audit won't let developers touch production system directly.

I guess as the head of the dept, you have to start learning politics and push where needed push but also know when to get higher up on your side as well. In addition, you also need to consider their position and propose workflow that make sense and don't add work to the developers.

Anyway, leaving work just a few weeks in don't look good on resume. It's something you need to consider carefully and something you should have a good explanation on when you look for the next job.

I'm neither a developer or a person that works with systems so this got me curious. Why aren't they allowed to do so? Is it just a matter of protocol or are their security sort of issues?

Well it's both protocol and security. Most production system impacts a company in certain way, financial system can impact the company's bottom line, HR system can contain sensitive personal records, warehouse/inventory/supply chain system can impact the operations. If a developer can access production system directly, and update programs, access data without independent oversight, you can have people mess up programs or worse maliciously stole important personal/financial info or corrupt, delete program/data and make important business function inoperable. It is a huge no-no for any public company to give developers direct access to production system.

Usually you have a development environment where you develop your program, that's usually your own PC. Once the program is done, you have a formal user acceptance/test environment where user go in and play around, they will be the ones approving the programs. once you have the approval, you have a operations people who don't know any business/program, to move the program from the test environment to the production environment. Any developer manager should know better to have a structure like this so the company can pass any internal/external audit if there is one.