Where Is It Worth Getting Employed?

The Idea Behind

For quite some time now, I have been my own employer, so I am not actively looking for traditional employment. However, people I meet during various projects and trainings often ask where it is worth getting employed.

Having interacted with dozens of companies over the past few years, I decided to attempt a small typology of companies in terms of employment. I have encountered companies where I would not want to work under any circumstances, and others where I would gladly be employed. The following typology is purely subjective and the result of bold generalizations. I would love to hear your feedback if these generalizations do not apply to your situations.

Company Size

• Large Companies (aka corporations) often handle large projects, which implies that these projects have a long history. In practice, this means you have a good chance of maintaining and developing poorly written systems in not the freshest technology. I also have my own hypothesis that the average skill level is lower in larger companies than in smaller ones. There is more politics and time spent in meetings. Large companies have one undeniable advantage - a recognizable name, which looks great on a CV. The second advantage is that they can usually pay more (though this is not a rule). However, if you are a craftsman and an advocate of novelties, it is hard to find enough space for such things in a large company.

• Medium-Sized Companies are omitted here as they can vary greatly. What happens there can drift toward the drawbacks and advantages of a small or large company.

• Small Companies are divided into two types. The first type is complete makeshift, lacking rules and principles. If combined with an incompetent boss (often the company owner) and an inability to work with clients, the situation can be a disaster. The second type is a form of ideal. This type of company utilizes the full power of a small entity - agility, adaptation to changes, and the use of slightly newer technologies and approaches. If you are a craftsman, this might be the place for you. However, compensation typically looks worse, and such companies do not provide the same shine on a CV. Unless you are the owner, but then a knack for business is needed.

Software House or Department in a Company

• For a software house, software development is the core business. Technical positions matter, and the entire company is engaged in “that,” so most people you work with understand what system development involves. This also means you have better chances for training, knowledge exchange, and gaining valuable experience, as well as that projects will be carried out more professionally (although you cannot be certain).

• Unfortunately, departments in a company are in a much worse situation. They are typically seen as a cost department where there is continuous weighing whether external consultants might be more cost-effective. Teams are usually not very large and possess a smaller skill base. Hence, growth opportunities are significantly smaller. However, the toughest aspect is collaboration with the client, who, in this case, is evidently the business side. It often turns out that this is not a partnership.

Polish Company or Foreign Company

Here, generalizations can be faulty, so be cautious. Much depends on whether the Polish branch is treated as an equal partner or as cheap labor from the east.

• If the Polish branch is an equal partner, it’s a very favorable situation. This means that there is a strong likelihood that the organizational culture from the home country has been transferred to Poland (e.g., benefits, office layout, good project practices, knowledge exchange). If the parent company uses Scrum, you probably will too. In the west, agile approaches are usually implemented more professionally.

• If the Polish branch is considered cheap labor, it’s quite dire. You will most likely be maintaining a system that no one wants to look at in any civilized country. Additionally, your foreign colleagues will consider contact with you and sharing knowledge as a bad thing they will avoid at all costs. I’m slightly exaggerating, but there is a kernel of truth in it.

• Regarding Polish companies, it is hard to highlight any specific characteristics. In many companies (especially those not classified as “large”), a mental sense of lack prevails, which means constant project underestimation, working overtime, and a significant level of chaos and disorganization. These are companies that are constantly chasing, although not always aware of what. Large Polish companies are closer to their western counterparts; only the salaries are somewhat smaller. There is also a higher chance that your system users will be compatriots rather than Germans, Dutch, or Americans (who never know what they want). Because you are a local, there’s a higher chance that you (your team) will have more influence on technology or project approach choices.

What to Choose?

It depends on personal preferences. If you want to develop and have exposure to fresh technologies, choose software houses, preferably not the largest ones, and from Poland. Larger companies look better on a CV, but there is a high risk of dealing with old archives and struggling with corporate realities. If you value security, large companies might be better, as they are more financially stable. However, they are also more susceptible to global disturbances, especially in the case of foreign companies, headquarters problems, and the preference for locals over foreigners. Avoid international companies where Poland is treated as cheap labor. The rest you can infer for yourself.

How about in your case?

(Text translated and moved from original old blog automatically by AI. May contain inaccuracies.)