My Time Working at Stripe
An engineer’s candid account of burning out at Stripe prompts broader reflection on mental health, meaning, and management in big tech. Commenters highlight how performance-review culture, politics, and oversized emotional investment in work can erode well‑being, especially when impact feels abstract and careers become core to identity. Many advocate stricter boundaries, therapy, side projects, and seeing jobs as “just jobs,” while criticizing forced vulnerability exercises and managers who conflate people‑pleasing with performance.
Burnout, depression, and recovery
- Many commenters recognize the described symptoms as classic burnout: demotivation, “brain fog,” loss of interest even in hobbies, and wrecked sleep.
- Several share multi‑year recovery timelines and stress therapy, rest, and self‑compassion rather than self‑blame.
- Distinction is made between burnout and depression: overlapping loss of engagement vs. deeper hopelessness and suicidal ideation.
- Consensus that once you’ve “collapsed,” quitting or taking a long break is often the only real remedy.
Meaning, impact, and big‑company work
- Repeated theme: in large companies, individual impact feels negligible, deadlines feel meaningless, and endless backlogs erode motivation.
- Some left big firms for startups, self‑employment, or even simple service jobs and immediately felt more agency and satisfaction.
- Counterpoint: others say you can “move the needle” in big orgs by finding high‑leverage projects and sponsors, though such roles are scarce.
Work identity, ambition, and comparison
- Many criticize tying identity to employer, prestige, or founder admiration; performance reviews and billionaire attention are seen as fragile validation.
- Suggestions to redefine “meaningful” work to include small, concrete contributions and relationships, not grand missions.
- There’s tension between being driven and the damage from perfectionism, constant self‑comparison, and people‑pleasing.
Management, performance reviews, and politics
- The surprising “partially meets expectations” despite a clear technical win is widely viewed as poor management: late feedback, focus on process over outcome.
- Some defend big‑tech hiring and review systems as intentionally biased toward rejecting more candidates to avoid costly bad hires, accepting randomness and false negatives.
- Others argue results are indistinguishable from random and heavily shaped by politics and manager/team quality.
Workplace vulnerability and boundaries
- The “be 10% more vulnerable” exercise is one of the most contested points.
- Critics: inappropriate and coercive given power and group dynamics; risks oversharing, later weaponization, and unwanted amateur therapy at work.
- Defenders: optional, potentially healthy for tight‑knit teams if focused on modest or work‑related vulnerability.
- Strong thread that managers should not act as therapists; real friendships at work should form organically, and employees must protect privacy.
Coping strategies and advice
- Common advice: treat work as “just a job” from day one, cultivate a rich life outside work, set hard time boundaries, and don’t chase impact at the cost of health.
- Others emphasize meditation, philosophical frameworks (e.g., Buddhism/stoicism), or side projects as healthier outlets for ambition and creativity.