Showing initiative will go a long way but is not always enough for someone with zero decision making power. Management is unable to come up with solutions because they are not familiar enough with the source material, or they are too often out of the office during critical times. This absence drags out problem resolution. Getting the support you need takes more effort than it should; The default attitude is that change is the enemy. Placing more trust in your employees would cause a marked improvement in their performance.
Vacation time is insufficient. One of the maxims at Zoot is "Work hard, play hard." I worked nearly every weekend during one short Montana summer and missed many opportunities to enjoy the glorious weather outside. There is the myth of comp time. I have worked well over 45 hours every week since I started, but I have only received two additional days off for my efforts.
Many of the antiquated processes are long and drawn out. Inferior support is explained away by "The Process" or "That's just how we do things around here." A company that concedes to doing things just because that's the way they always do things has no future for improvement. It has decided to fail ahead of time.
Recklessness requires the heroism of supporting team members who are needlessly forced to endure long hours, poor communication, and lack of judgment imposed upon them by other departments. Decision-makers ignore the intuition of their workers and forget history quickly. These situations could be avoided by spending more time doing a risk assessment and coming up with contingency plans for the inevitable disasters that plague the software development teams.
Many people stay in this environment because their teammates would suffer if they left. This foxhole mentality further reinforces the negligent behavior because someone will always step up to become the next martyr. The people who can work past this idea have all moved on to better positions and rarely have anything good to say about Zoot's decision making and development practices.
Pay is substandard in regards to similar positions within Bozeman. Some of the people doing the most critical work in the company are worried about money. There are plenty of other tech companies that are stealing talent from Zoot with only fair compensation as their lure. The better development practices and mature business models are just a bonus.
Company Values conflict with reality.
Some Examples:
•Work/Life Balance and Flexible Schedule
It doesn't matter how many perks a company has if the business decisions work counter to the "work/life balance" and "flexible schedule" statements. With that said, I did notice that much of management enjoyed several vacations a year and would take days off during critical phases in our development process. The people doing the actual work, however, ended up fighting with ailing software and brittle systems to get things to work. So, if you are going into a management position, you'll probably get all of the perks claimed. If you are less than management, be prepared to be walked on and "volunteered" to work nights and weekends due to poor decision making from management.
•Everyone owns quality.
While this is excellent lip service, it's just that. Often, many of the changes performed by the team building internal tools are far too complicated to test efficiently and effectively. Lots of significant issues occur, and they affect EVERYONE downstream. Some team managers ignore these issues. Inevitably, faulty software is deployed to the rest of the company because "we have a deadline" or "it's been in development for months, and we can't afford a delay" or "that's just an edge case" or "we are following best practices."
•Zoot has best practices.
Some managers inject "best practices" into every disagreement to disarm a complaining party. When encountering a significant issue that breaks a web standard or how the rest of the world does software development, it is summed up to "best practices." No evidence, research, or even reference to this "best practice" is provided. It is a weapon used to combat opposing opinions, critical thinking, and context.
