In my corner of the software industry, I’ve witnessed reluctance to adopt it. I was a fledgling back then, eager to learn new technologies. Growing up playing DOS games, I thought the GitHub terminal was cool. As I glanced over at a more senior engineer, they looked like a deer in headlights.

I still vividly recall that blank stare, struggling to process the difference between fetching, pulling, and rebasing code.

As a fledgling, I felt proud of myself learning GitHub terminal. Thinking back, I was insensitive and judgmental of that engineer who seemed to freeze on the concept of it.

Fast forward to now…

There’s AI.

And everyone is saying we’re inching closer to career doomsday.

Now that I’m more senior, I’m realizing I’m the deer in headlights.

Being older and stuck in my ways of software development, it was earth-shattering for me that AI could simply build applications from a prompt.

I’ll admit I wasn’t initially a “champion” for change. I’m not sure I’m one now either.

But I paused and wondered:

Why was I so hesitant?

Why wasn’t I excited to learn it?

And why did I feel so unsettled when thinking about AI?

Fear of Uncertainty

My fear of AI was not just about being left behind on a social trend. This wasn’t about being hip. This was about survival. My 15+ years of software experience, the foundation of my livelihood, suddenly felt like it had an expiration date.

And the industry wasn't exactly making it easier to breathe. Articles constantly talk about how our jobs will be eliminated in the next 6 months to a year. What makes it harder is that the uncertainty isn’t shared equally. Some people in this industry can afford to watch AI unfold with curiosity. Meanwhile, the rest of us are counting down the years until retirement and doing the math on our mortgages. I’ve spent 15 years thinking of myself as a craftsman. And now anyone can do it.

I realize I have become the villain from the Pixar movie, Ratatouille.

“Anyone can cook”?… Aaabsolutely.

“Anyone can code”?… Pish-posh... Blaasphemy.

At some point I had to be honest with myself. I can’t swim against this wave. The only thing I can control is me. So I stopped feeling sorry for myself and started moving.

Like anything in life, emotions become helpful ONLY when you stop and listen to them.

Problem Solving Anxiety

As I was piecing together my fragmented thoughts, I looked back on that moment decades ago, when GitHub was first dropped. An unfamiliar technology, a senior deer in headlights, and a fledgling who didn’t know enough to be afraid.

What made the difference then?

And did that answer still apply now?

For me, it was simple. I wasn’t afraid. I was young, curious, and had nothing to lose. Fear can freeze you from taking action. It can stifle curiosity before it even gets started.

But that senior engineer learned it too, just differently. They leaned on what they already had: years of experience, resourcefulness, and the ability to break something overwhelming into smaller pieces. Gradual exposure. Stack Overflow rabbit holes. The same skills that made them senior in the first place.

So then I turned to my existing strengths. I, too, relied on my resourcefulness. I created smaller tangible goals. Each new concept or mini-project is exposure therapy.

Slowly, the freeze started to lift.

Whether you're excited about AI or anxious like me, my advice is:

AI is here to stay. If you are afraid of being left behind, let that be the motivation to learn it.

As a software engineer, I felt AI was taking something from me. My value, my edge, my identity. If you feel the same, then let’s “take that power back” together.

For me, I started with the most minimal effort needed, watching a lot of YouTube videos while on the toilet. From there, I’ve built several applications with the help of AI. I also experimented with MCPs, plugins, and prompt engineering. There was effort indeed, but the biggest hurdle was myself.

Start wherever you are. The bar is lower than you think.

Somewhere out there, that senior engineer who froze at the GitHub terminal is probably fine. They might be retired actually... Lucky… And if the GitHub terminal could feel that overwhelming, I can survive this too.

I’m still thawing out, but hey, I’m AI-ing now.

One week, after their release, the bears headed off to the woods to enjoy their paid time off. As they were away, a user named GoldieCow stumbled upon their released applications.

With a business reason to explore these applications, GoldieCow found herself genuinely entertained. A few clicks into Wee-Little Bear's app, and she'd already made up her mind.

GoldieCow moved on to Mid-Sized Bear's application next. A few clicks in, she decided:

And finally, GoldieCow pulled up Big Bear's application. GoldieCow barely got a look in before the earth-shattering brilliance sent her scrambling for cover. The thing was blinding.

Overjoyed about these applications, GoldieCow waited for the bears to come back.

Days later, the bears returned from the woods. GoldieCow had been waiting, and she came bearing a large-scope request for a new application. Without a second thought, she turned to Big Bear. Of course she did.

When she asked for an estimated delivery date, the Big Bear said:

Eyebrow still raised, GoldieCow moved on to Mid-Sized Bear. Surely he could offer a more palatable timeline. The Mid-Sized Bear cleared his throat and said:

GoldieCow let out a long sigh and lowered her eyebrow in defeat. As she conceded to the timeline, Wee-Little Bear, practically bouncing, promised:

As the Mid-Sized Bear and Big Bear stood there silently, GoldieCow’s eyes sparkled with joy. An earlier delivery date was like music to her ears.

The Big and Mid-Sized Bears, still motionless, were replaying the estimation process in their heads. There was so much scope, so how would Wee-Little Bear pull this off?

Armed with a can-do attitude and with zero regard for work-life balance, Wee-Little Bear worked nights and weekends. He typed with fierce, emphatic purpose, determined to deliver by Spring.

Day after day, hour after hour, the clock moved forward without mercy. "Just 5 more minutes," Wee-Little Bear assured himself, as another three hours slipped by. He muttered to himself: “I can’t wait to make GoldieCow proud! I can’t wait to impress my colleagues.” Through sheer will and misguided optimism, he continued to build relentlessly until Spring.

Spring had arrived and GoldieCow had returned to see the promised product. Feeling triumphant after the biggest project of his life, the Wee-Little Bear was eagerly waiting for GoldieCow’s praise.

The App that’s “just right”

For as long as products have existed, there has been a battle between the definition of what makes a product “just right”. A Product Manager’s definition may lean towards rich functionality with the best user experience. An Engineer’s definition may lean towards scalable solutions that are high quality and maintainable. Even if Product and Engineering manage to align on what is "just right", there can be disruptive opinions from the outside; from Business Leaders, Executive Stakeholders, even the Board of Directors.

From GoldieCow’s point of view, more features translate to better products:

GoldieCow may want more features to improve the user experience. Or maybe her manager wanted more bells and whistles. Or maybe, just maybe, GoldieCow wanted to wow her friends at a business dinner with that one extra thing.

Whatever the reason, if your company had infinite money and resources, sure, maybe this rainbow unicorn gold-plated product can be achieved.

But if your company or department has tight budgets, then you are destined to negotiate between scope, timeline and resources.

These 3 attributes usually act as levers during your negotiation.

Just like physics, you can't get something for nothing. Every change in one corner of the triangle requires a transformation in the others to maintain equilibrium.

As you increase scope, you either increase the timeline or resources.

Regarding scope and time, let’s see how the 3 EnginBears estimated their work:

I’m certain the math is mathing so far… Poor Wee-Little Bear had underestimated the work. Ambitious and eager to please, his energy was genuine, but misguided. Large scope brings more unknowns, more risks. Tighter delivery windows only compound that, and work rushed through nights and weekends has a way of showing it.

Mid-Sized Bear and Big Bear were once little themselves. Experience had taught them to see around corners, to anticipate the risks that Wee-Little Bear hadn’t yet learned to spot.

But experience cuts both ways. Like someone who has survived a painful heartbreak and vowed never to be hurt again, Big Bear’s past had built walls around his estimates. Well-intentioned walls, but walls nonetheless. And a product wrapped in too much protection has its own kind of problem: over-engineered, over-cautious, and gold-plated in all the wrong ways.

So if you find yourself chained to an aggressive timeline like Wee-Little Bear, something has to give; either decrease the scope or increase the resources, before things crash and burn.

And pushing the date is not always the answer. Chances are, not all of the scope carries equal weight. If the product is in a race to the market, some of the scope can be deadweight that is quietly slowing down the release.

Each debate leads to different lever calibrations. But while everyone is busy calibrating, one question keeps getting lost in the noise.

Followed by:

When scope is very large, what comes with it is also a large wager on business impact. You truly won’t know the impact until you release it. So until then, this is what GoldieCow would envision:

GoldieCow wasn’t wrong to want everything. She just didn’t realize what she was betting. When dealing with large scope in a release, you are gambling with more time and resources.

Here is an illustration of the business impact had this scope been delivered in smaller, phased releases.

As you can see, not all scope is created equal. Had it been broken down and prioritized initially, this would translate to iterative releases, meaning smaller bets. With each individual feature incrementally adding business value (or not) to your product, the feedback loop is quicker and therefore quicker to course correct your product.

Shifting your mindset toward iterative business impact leads to more reasonable targets. More reasonable targets translate to more successful negotiations between scope, timeline and resources.

Final Thoughts

I believe Product and Engineering are destined to negotiate till the end of time. Their operating systems were designed to focus on solving different problems. However, if they can align on business impact, it makes the negotiation easier.

If you can apply this perspective, if you can negotiate well, then scope stops being a gamble and starts being a strategy. And your GoldieCow will keep coming back to the right bear.

And why do all of this? It’s because no one enjoys working nights and weekends just to hear:

Remember group projects?

You know, the ones back in school.

Your teacher announces it with a smile as if it was a treat.

You scan the room, hoping to make eye contact with those who you trust. But then you get assigned this team instead.

You look at them. They look at you. Someone cracks a joke. Everyone laughs. Then it’s silent. It remains silent. Oh my, why is it still silent!?

The grade is shared equally and it’s up to your group on how you execute.

Zero guidelines given. You are an over achiever. The others are procrastinators.

Two weeks before the deadline…

One week before the deadline…

Days before the deadline…

No one takes initiative. No one defines roles. No one splits the work. It feels like an unplanned game of chicken. Who will lift up the pen and start on the work?

As the over-achiever, you think to yourself, “It’ll just be this one time” that you carry the team to completion.

You submit the project. You get a good grade. Then your team says:

“Absolutely not a great team”, you think to yourself as you quietly snap.

Little did you know, as an emerging adult, you demonstrated “Extreme Ownership”

Extreme Ownership

In your career, you may have heard this term thrown around. It is a general philosophy where leaders take responsibility for team delivery. They protect the team. When the team is successful, it is the team’s shared success. If the team fails, it is the leader’s fault.

As a team member, it sounds great. If your leader is the one taking the fall, you feel psychological safety. Safety leads to more transparency across the team and to more focus on team performance.

On paper it sounds like the perfect strategy for company-wide performance. If you’re surrounded by extreme owners, the team synergy is balanced. Everyone shares the burden of filling the gaps that lead a group project to completion. Leaders as a result benefit as there’s less need for supervision on the daily team execution.

If you are an extreme owner yourself, you expect to be rated as a high performer with high potential. Those who exercise it well tend to have promising careers.

On paper, extreme ownership sounds like the perfect leadership philosophy.

In practice, however, the experience can feel very different.

The Curse of Group Projects

The curse isn’t the group project itself. It’s what happens when you’re held responsible for the outcome but have no authority over the people doing the work. When I started as a Senior Engineer, I struggled working in team projects. Although I did my tasks, I would be held responsible when deadlines were missed. Why did I miss them? Usually it was through miscommunication of expectations around team members and external dependencies.

Every time I tried explaining this, my manager shuts it down with the same analogy:

“If you hired contractors to paint your house and they missed the deadline because one of them overslept, would you accept that excuse? As their client, the answer is no. You wouldn’t.”

I heard this so many times that it’s a part of how I think today. The message was clear: I own outcomes, not excuses.

So I stopped making excuses. Instead, I started filling gaps. If someone dropped the ball, I would pick it up. If a task was falling behind, I absorbed it. I told myself it was leadership. In reality, I was recreating the group project. However, the stakes were higher. My livelihood depended on me doing a good job.

The problem wasn’t the workload. It was that I had taken responsibility without authority. I couldn’t tell people what to do. I could only do it myself.

That’s the curse.

I used to tell myself that once I became a manager, it would all change. More authority meant more control. The curse would be finally broken.

I did eventually become a manager. And I was wrong.

The “group project” doesn’t disappear. It just operates on a higher scale. Now your teammates may be fellow leaders, other teams, other agendas. Everyone is accountable to their own priorities, but not accountable to yours.

The curse lives on.

Extreme ownership cuts both ways.

Swing in the right direction, projects succeed. People grow. The organization moves forward and the team shares the credit.

If you swing it the wrong direction, the project fails. Upper management does not look at the balls dropped. They do not look at the misaligned priorities or the silent teammates. When the outcome is bad, they look at the one who wields the sword.

You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.

Alone with the sword, you internalize everything. You self-criticize. You just absorb. Then quietly, without realizing it, you stop leading and start surviving. You put on your “game face”. You convince others you have everything under control. Underneath it all, you’re really trying to convince yourself the same.

This is where extreme ownership breaks down. Not because the philosophy is wrong, but because it was never meant to be carried alone.

I’ve wielded this double edge sword for the past decade. I’ve burned out more times than I can count. Oddly enough, I still genuinely believe in ownership. I really do. My past manager’s analogy remains a mantra that I hold deeply throughout any project.

So what changed for me? I still don’t have authority over everything. What will break this curse? Accountability.

For example, say another team is blocking your project. You don’t need authority to address it. You simply state the facts: here is the risk, here is the deadline, and here is what needs to happen. You’re not issuing orders. You’re making the problem visible and asking someone to own it. Most of the time, that’s enough.

That’s the shift. From absorbing everything yourself, to naming what needs to be owned and by whom.

After this hard earned realization, you learn that others should be owners too. You don’t need permission to hold people accountable. With this mindset, you’ll no longer feel isolated again.

That’s the difference between extreme ownership as a burden and extreme ownership as actual leadership.

Final thoughts

To this day, I am an extreme owner. I’m sure that sounds strange. Everything I described may have scared you away from it.

What I learned was that extreme ownership is not the problem. Yes, it is still a double edge sword to some degree. It just depends on how you use it.

If mis-used, it’s exhausting and isolating. When used well, it is extremely powerful for the team. It comes down to whether accountability is shared or not.

I also learned something else too. Companies quietly depend on extreme owners. When one person can absorb the slack of an understaffed team, there’s less pressure to hire. There’s also less pressure to fix broken processes. There’s less of a need to address any structural problems if the outcomes yield positive results.

I like to call it corporate shrinkflation. Same output. Fewer resources. Nobody talks about what it costs.

So should extreme ownership be an expectation? Considering the mental toll it can take on people, I certainly hope not. However, if you find yourself in that position, and chances are you will, the most important thing you can do is to stop carrying the sword alone.

Circelle was exceptional at fitting through circles. So exceptional, she became known for it.

One day Circelle was applying for a job. She was interviewed by the hiring manager, Squar-emy. Squar-emy is impressed that Circelle is so good at jumping through circles.

Knowing that this is a rare talent, Squar-emy hires Circelle.

Excited to be in this company, Circelle starts her first day of work. Every time she jumps through a circle, the leaders get very delighted.

One day, Squar-emy then asks Circelle to jump through a square hole instead.

Circelle tries and tries but has not successfully fit through the square hole. This is when the honeymoon phase of her new job ends.

Squar-emy then shares his concerns with Circelle. Her performance with square holes is lacking and that she needs improvement in that area.

Concerned with her job security, she then turns to other teammates to see how they adjust.

As she sees other shape people, she becomes disheartened. They were able to fit the squares easily, but they no longer looked like themselves.

Circelle looks at the scissors.
Then at the square hole in front of her.

Everyone else moves through effortlessly. No friction. No resistance.

She hesitates.

If she doesn’t cut, she won’t fit.
If she cuts, she won’t be the same.

The room keeps moving.

Slowly, she reaches for the scissors.

And that’s how it happens.

Iteratively, swiftly, quietly.

New company, new rules

When you join a company, you’re not entering a blank canvas. You’re stepping into a structure that already exists. Employees often adapt to company norms without realizing how much they’re being shaped by them.

Like Circelle, you have been hired because you brought something new to the table. Management sees value in your skills but may not always be aware of how to utilize you in their current workflows. Meanwhile, Squar-emy only knows how to jump through squares. It has been a proven playbook throughout his career, so why not keep doing what’s familiar.

While everyone else may have developed habits jumping through square holes, they themselves start losing ownership in how they do things. It’s simply an assembly line of getting tasks done and they start to lose the most important question behind these tasks.

This is naturally the first question that would come to mind for a newcomer and is naturally the last question long-term employees would ask. “It’s because it’s always been this way”.

If you were in this situation, what would you do? Have you had a Squar-emy in your life? Perhaps you’ve also felt pressure from a Squar-emy to do things their way. You can use the scissors like Circelle and reshape yourself, but one day, leadership may question why you can’t jump through circle holes anymore. I mean, they hired you for that ability.

Culture Clash

As a new employee, you feel the pressure immediately. Adapt quickly or risk being labeled underperforming. Push back too hard and risk being seen as abrasive.

If we choose to conform, we lose agency. If agency fades away, problem solving becomes mechanical. What’s easily lost in companies is that there are different ways on “how” to get things done. Each playbook should depend on every unique circumstance. And that usually starts with asking “Why?”.

There’s a time and place for square holes as much as there’s a time and place for circle holes. Let me give you a real example for this.

Working Harder vs Working Smarter

There was a company that cared about delivering results fast. “How” it achieved delivery was through nights and weekends.

Does the product have a lot of scope?
Did it start small but later had scope creep?

Didn’t matter, because the nights and weekends would cover that. This has worked throughout this company’s existence.

As a new employee, I felt pressure to cut myself into the shape of the company. I believed in sustainable delivery. They believed in relentless delivery.

As a manager, it was even harder. I wasn’t just pressured to conform. I was expected to model it.

I had seen firsthand what happened to those who challenged the playbook. They disappeared quietly.

So the real question wasn’t, “is this the best way?”
It was, “is this a battle worth risking my job for?”

Everyone around me accepted it as normal. Challenging it would have made me the problem.

The company was a startup in pursuit of revenue. Whether if revenue was certain or theoretical behind a new product, there was a high sense of urgency to deliver. The foot was always on the gas pedal because there was a constant need for company survival.

For this playbook, the accepted trade-off was: speed now, debt later.

As for me, working nights and weekends was not “how” I prefer to deliver fast. My alternative wasn’t to work less. It was to question more. Tighten scope. Prioritize impact. Deliver fast without defaulting to exhaustion.

When I work this way, I have more time for best practices as well as more time to ensure a quality product.

From experience, when I was coerced to rush a delivery, I end up tripping over myself. Technical debt and bugs end up slowing down development.

As I mentioned, there is a time and place for which playbook to follow. I’d be lying if I said I never worked nights and weekends, but it depends on the situation.

When a genuine crisis hits, I choose to push hard. But it’s a choice, just not my default, because I’d rather not burn out.

Reflection

Looking back, this was never about hard work versus smart work. It was about identity.

In this specific example, I was concerned whether my manager would harshly critique my performance. However, since I achieved quick results, the “how” behind the delivery proved to be irrelevant. The results made the argument for me. And my manager acknowledged that my approach had merit.

Not every leader values outcomes over conformity. Some value predictability more than possibility.

Being able to regain agency, I was able to continue delivering on my own terms. Along with this agency, I did occasionally choose to work harder given the circumstances.

Scale your personal toolkit

Understanding where company expectations end and personal boundaries begin is a skill, and one worth practicing.

When you face a culture clash, it actually isn’t as simple as adapting or conforming to different practices. Agency isn’t about refusing to adapt. It’s about choosing when and how you adapt. So then instead of feeling pressure to change yourself, how about you change your toolkit.

There’s a difference between reshaping yourself and expanding yourself.

One is survival. The other is growth.

So instead of changing Circelle, give her a utility bracelet.

The scissors take away.
The bracelet adds.

Imagine being in a high performing team in the workplace. Your project has high visibility because it introduced a new revenue stream for the company. In each demo, your team is acting as role models and has built a reputation for building fast. Besides meeting product deadlines, you’re also disciplined in following engineering best practices.

Imagine the project was one of the finest executions you’ve experienced in your career. Executives in the company are impressed with the output. You are driven, trusting in your capabilities and in the team’s ability to make a difference in your company.

Imagine expecting a hefty raise for such a stellar year, but instead of a raise, you get a severance package. In fact, majority of your team got a severance package as well. By the way, this is not a hypothetical situation. This happened to me.

Being laid off is such a multi-layered experience. HR tells you that you did well, but then explains the company must cut costs… So you’re being told you did a good job but it made no difference... Shortly after the call, the company cuts off your access. You are left with nothing but an infinite loop of questions.

Imagine if this happens to you someday. How would you process this experience? Layoffs are quite common nowadays. Perhaps you have already experienced this right of passage in your life. While digesting this experience, I re-evaluated my insecurities and ruminated a lot about all recent events that led up to this sudden lay off sneak attack.

As I try to imagine being in the shoes of the company, it leads me to this annoying phrase:

Why does it feel personal though? It’s because my livelihood is impacted. It’s because my naive belief in meritocracy is challenged. Is meritocracy a lie?

Nobody enjoys layoffs. You either are the one laid off, the one doing the layoff, or simply the one who remains with survivor’s guilt. Now that I’ve taken a couple of weeks processing my recent experience, I would like to revisit my relationship with work. I want to share with you my breakdown of a company/employee relationship. If you are interested to continue on with me, I will first walk you through how these relationships begin. If we can better understand this relationship, perhaps there’s hope for us to establish “healthy” relationships with work. It would be nice to not feel pressured to owe a company my life, after getting hired or after surviving a layoff. I mean, why should I feel obligated to sacrifice more? From the other end, I’m certain that companies do not share that same obligation of commitment.

Your first date with the company

Interviewing at a company is the same as dating a new person. When you first apply for a new job, it’s typical to read up on their mission statement. You’re naturally curious and can sometimes even be excited to start this new chapter. Of course, you are finding a job that will pay for your livelihood. However, if you share common values and interests, it’s easier to endure the challenges of work because you established a connection with work. And with that connection, work becomes more meaningful.

Connections

Some people may be able to associate personal history to the mission statement, the company’s dream if you will. It’s quite easy to become passionate about work if the company’s dream is aligned with your own personal values. These types of connections tend to be initiated by the individual.

If not manifested from within the individual, companies find ways to manufacture that connection. They do this by pitching their dream to the employee. I myself have been in companies that had a “cult”-ish community. There may be all-hands meetings where customers may show up for a scripted interview or where there was a pre-recorded video of customers thanking the company for making a difference. As quoted from the TV Series “Silicon Valley”, companies love to “make the world a better place”.

As the organization spends effort to encourage employees to inherit their dream, middle-management and upcoming leaders are tasked to champion company core values to their teams. Besides indirect encouragement, there is also direct encouragement as some companies assess employee performance against how aligned they are with core values.

Once aligned with core values and the dream, the connection is now established. Employees are now driven to deliver work effectively… Working harder, working smarter, pushing your work family to the promised land... together off in the sunset. This is why “Company Culture” exists.

With company culture, employees believe they are “owners” of the impact. As teams bond over success, they begin to develop a kinship, transforming a workplace into a “work family”. Feeling like a part of something bigger than themselves, the work family positively reinforces each other as they help the company make more money. Oh, and of course, this helps the company make the world an even better place.

The Hard Truth

This is where I have some bad news to share with you. You do not own this dream. The company does. As an employee, you were granted privileges to borrow this dream. As for the work family, that’s not always a cozy group. Some people would say “the difference between a work family versus your real family is that you get to choose your work family”. Companies own that too. You’re family until you’re not.

When the company is doing well, this hard truth does not surface. When profitable, the cult lives on with zero disruption. Each employee chooses how invested they are in the dream. Those who champion it best with strong merit are more likely to get promoted because there is a business need to promote when a business is thriving. As a growing business, you need loyal dreamers to help extend the dream across the organization.

However, once a company is not doing well, then who gives a fuck about culture? We gotta cut costs, usually with layoffs. Are you passionate about the dream too? Cool, but make me money first. As my therapist would put it, the workplace can be a war zone. There are survivors and non-survivors. At this point, it depends on which business units have the highest chance of survival. If your product is not aligned with the business need, you likely will be sacrificed for “the greater good”. If you have strong merit and potential but your product doesn’t make revenue, I am sorry. You’re likely at risk of a layoff. This goes back to the hard truth:

Given this hard truth, what should we do? I recommend reframing your job as a “two-way” relationship.

Co-own Your Relationship

My goal is not to open a can of worms by saying companies are evil. My goal is to challenge your loyalty and sacrifice. Redirect that energy towards yourself. My recommendation is to reframe your perspective of a job. It is your choice to adopt the dream. Perhaps the dream truly aligns with your personal values. It’s ok to adopt a dream. However, make sure to remember that a job is simply a “two-way” relationship. This “two-way” dynamic was no different than your first date with the company. In the early dating phase, you were looking for company fit while the company was looking for employee fit.

Like any relationship, there is a beginning and there can be an end. If you were dating someone, it’s natural to support their dreams. There will be things that you like and dislike. As for the things you dislike, it is up to you on whether to accept them for what they are. If you benefit from the relationship, you choose to stay. Like how you have a choice to keep the relationship, so do they.

If you make a job related decision, it’s for yourself. If the business makes a decision, “It’s nothing personal, it’s business”.

Relationships can change over time so it is a constant evaluation on whether either party still wants to maintain it. You may care for them, but you also care about yourself. Yes, it’s ok to care about yourself. It’s not considered selfish, it’s considered self-care.

Understanding work families

Earlier I made a cynical comment about work families. I want to decouple the concept of a “work family” from the actual human relationship. When you make friends outside of work, it happens under organic circumstances. You likely met them through common interests and usually it is spontaneous. While it’s possible to make friends at work, they are established under inorganic circumstances. The company, as an entity, chooses your environment. The company assigns you to your team mates. It’s not arranged out of spontaneity but with the purpose to benefit the company.

Admittedly, I personally have been lucky to build real friendships in the workplace. However, it’s important to know the difference from friendships and the “work family”.

Both types of relationships can exist in the workplace.

I once knew someone who postponed their transition to another company because they wanted to help their work family deliver a company goal when the team was understaffed. This individual was going to get a really nice bonus from their family. As soon as the family discovered the individual was transitioning to another company, that bonus was rescinded. “You’re family until you’re not”. For the interest of the company, that bonus money can be used strategically to retain their remaining loyal family members. “It’s nothing personal... It’s business.”

Layoffs are a huge disrupter to your relationships. You can become friends, showing up to meetings everyday. That simple connection can swiftly end from layoffs. The work family had to prioritize which members to keep for the company business to continue. “You’re family until you’re not.”

In this diagram, see how the two relationships can change over time.

Hopefully this diagram shows how much the “work family” construct behaves under inorganic circumstances. So, do work families still deserve your loyalty and sacrifice?

Friendships, on the other hand, can still flourish. Some people in your “work family” may transition into genuine friendships. As mentioned, I’ve built meaningful friendships that scope outside of the workplace. Sometimes you are lucky to find a community that is your support system. Sometimes it’s the community that may recommend you for your next job.

It’s common that majority of the “work family” do not transition to friendships, and that’s ok. There’s nothing wrong with that because it was just a professional relationship.

Breaking up from your relationship

If you can reframe a job as a “two-way” relationship, then you can also reframe termination of employment as a breakup. You would be lucky to have closure in the end. It’s easier to establish closure if you’re the one leaving. When the company breaks up with you, they have more leverage on closure. Cutting costs can be their reason. And just like any breakup, it can be hard to accept the reason but it’s still some kind of closure.

Am I still hurt from being laid off? Of course! I did some of my best work. Breakups can be difficult, but oddly enough, you will experience gratitude once the dust settles.

During the relationship, I did meet several great human beings. Some of them became friends. I also grew a lot in different aspects of my career. Just like romantic relationships I had in the past, I am grateful for the opportunity to grow in the process. And with every upcoming relationship, all we can do is learn and grow from our experiences.

Final Thoughts

I’ll admit a part of this article is just to say that layoffs suck. There’s no escape from them in any industry. While companies layoff people to survive, it is the individuals who are left with mental and emotional trauma. If you can understand the relationship you have with a company, it’s easier to move on and to take back control of what’s best for you.

A company’s dream is theirs alone. During your relationship with a job, it’s your choice to stay or leave. Companies have that same choice. As loyal as you may be, it may not always be rewarded. Like romantic relationships, sometimes one party is more into it than the other. Sometimes these relationships are well balanced. Sometimes they are mutually beneficial until one has conflicting priorities.

So what can you do for yourself? Can you find something in the relationship where you are benefiting yourself? Will you stop sacrificing for another person’s dream? Can you remember that a job is a relationship so that if it ends abruptly, you can reframe the situation in such a way where it’s a little easier to heal and move on?

If you can remain loyal to yourself, if you can shape the needs of the company to benefit you, then perhaps one day you can then say to the company: “It’s nothing personal, it’s just business”.

Subscribe now