Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#161

Post by ptero » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:21 PM UTC

wjossey wrote: post #22

I’ve been reviewing a lot of career path documents recently for different engineering orgs, and every one is fairly uniform in that you either progress into management, team leadership, or architecture (or some blend of the three). If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. I’ve been noodling on this for a while, and I think maybe a fourth track at a lot of organizations should be spe…

> If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less.

It may be semantics, but I think "stagnating at a pretty high level" may be a pretty good endgame for a smart engineer who does not want to go to either people or technology management.

If this means significant autonomy, mentoring role and decent compensation what is wrong with stagnating at this level? This is not for everyone, bit may be OK for some. An honest question.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#162

Post by jasonkester » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

mtberatwork wrote: post #157

jasonkester wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing that thing I warned you not to do... I go to bed every night not worrying about whether my company remains sustainable. As do I. The key is to build the business to the point where it replaces your income before you quit your dev job. Once it's ticking away, there's very little that can happen over the course of the night (or a month) that can much affect its profitability. The same amount of money appea…

> You're doing that thing I warned you not to do... > The key is to build the business to the point where it replaces your income before you quit your dev job. So your counter argument is for people to build a successful business on their own that will last for the remainder of their careers while working a full time job (and most likely while supporting a family and raising children)? Yes...it's just that simple.

Close. It doesn't need to live forever though. Just long enough for you to build something to replace it.

You appear sceptical, but it really isn't hard to do. There are lots of examples here that come up every time anybody asks.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#163

Post by RhodesianHunter » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

mtberatwork wrote: post #157

jasonkester wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing that thing I warned you not to do... I go to bed every night not worrying about whether my company remains sustainable. As do I. The key is to build the business to the point where it replaces your income before you quit your dev job. Once it's ticking away, there's very little that can happen over the course of the night (or a month) that can much affect its profitability. The same amount of money appea…

> You're doing that thing I warned you not to do... > The key is to build the business to the point where it replaces your income before you quit your dev job. So your counter argument is for people to build a successful business on their own that will last for the remainder of their careers while working a full time job (and most likely while supporting a family and raising children)? Yes...it's just that simple.

I mean if this guy did it than anyone can right?

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#164

Post by exelius » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

ptero wrote: post #161

wjossey wrote: post #22

I’ve been reviewing a lot of career path documents recently for different engineering orgs, and every one is fairly uniform in that you either progress into management, team leadership, or architecture (or some blend of the three). If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. I’ve been noodling on this for a while, and I think maybe a fourth track at a lot of organizations should be spe…

> If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. It may be semantics, but I think "stagnating at a pretty high level" may be a pretty good endgame for a smart engineer who does not want to go to either people or technology management. If this means significant autonomy, mentoring role and decent compensation what is wrong with stagnating at this level? This is not for everyone, bit may be…

The person who has “stagnated” while drawing a high salary will be the first one let go when the economy gets less rosy.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#165

Post by wjossey » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

ptero wrote: post #161

wjossey wrote: post #22

I’ve been reviewing a lot of career path documents recently for different engineering orgs, and every one is fairly uniform in that you either progress into management, team leadership, or architecture (or some blend of the three). If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. I’ve been noodling on this for a while, and I think maybe a fourth track at a lot of organizations should be spe…

> If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. It may be semantics, but I think "stagnating at a pretty high level" may be a pretty good endgame for a smart engineer who does not want to go to either people or technology management. If this means significant autonomy, mentoring role and decent compensation what is wrong with stagnating at this level? This is not for everyone, bit may be…

Not in my book. Don’t let yourself be peter principled if you know you’re exactly where you want to be. Not everyone is that self aware, but there’s no shame in choosing your own path.

Counter to my own point, I have had conversations with HR individuals who encourage managers to fire employees that don’t get promoted every ~2 years. Basically their thought is that is an easy way to identify “bottom” performers. I don’t agree with this sentiment, but it’s not an unheard of position.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#166

Post by narnianal » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

If you are a good developer, you are probably smart, right? So why would a smart person let something happen to him that he can't fix? Would it be possible for a dev manager to apply as senior dev in another company?

I think they are not unhappy. They just don't want to admit it. Either they really enjoy this additional human interaction, or they actually really found coding stressful or meaningless. But of course it helps them bond with their engineers more if they can show that despite their +120% income and despite their more beautiful house and wife, and despite having more power they actually suffer because they are not a fellow developer anymore.

One can also argue that the developer who stays developer his whole career is actually not someone who was overlooked at promotions, but someone who really enjoys the coding grind, the low amount of visibility and the low amount of responsibility. But the bonding with their friends is much higher if they can hate on the management together instead of admiting that they actually like what they do and how they do it.

Altogether these realizations made me more relaxed about life. In the end it's not that the world is full of suffering, but we actually choose the suffering that makes us most happy.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#167

Post by scarface74 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #148

scarface74 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of going into management because you don’t like management and want to stay an individual contributor, you now become not only the manager of your own company, now you have to worry about marketing, finances, etc. I go to bed every night not worrying about whether my company remains sustainable. If they don’t, as long as it is a microeconomic issue (company failed) and not a macroeconomic issue (economy is…

You're doing that thing I warned you not to do... I go to bed every night not worrying about whether my company remains sustainable. As do I. The key is to build the business to the point where it replaces your income before you quit your dev job. Once it's ticking away, there's very little that can happen over the course of the night (or a month) that can much affect its profitability. The same amount of money appea…

As do I. The key is to build the business to the point where it replaces your income before you quit your dev job. Once it's ticking away, there's very little that can happen over the course of the night (or a month) that can much affect its profitability.

And you’re still “managing” your business - the whole subject of the article was about people who didn’t want to manage.

But yeah, back to the point at hand: try not to scare yourself off by the "business stuff" of running a business. You can do as much or as little of it as you like, and so long as the product is good and your marketing is in place, it's just not a big deal.

It’s not that “I’m scared” of managing a business. I’m a proud MBA drop out, I have plenty of business acumen. I don’t want to manage a business. People were commenting about giving up management and dev lead roles because they didn’t want them - as did I. If I don’t want the headaches of being a dev lead, why in the world would I want the headache of owning a business and managing employees?

You can do as much or as little of it as you like, and so long as the product is good and your marketing is in place, it's just not a big deal.

You mean all I have to do is create a product people want, get funding, find the right people and then life becomes easy? Wow, I didn’t know it was that simple. Do you have a newsletter?

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#168

Post by scarface74 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #162

mtberatwork wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're doing that thing I warned you not to do... > The key is to build the business to the point where it replaces your income before you quit your dev job. So your counter argument is for people to build a successful business on their own that will last for the remainder of their careers while working a full time job (and most likely while supporting a family and raising children)? Yes...it's just that simple.

Close. It doesn't need to live forever though. Just long enough for you to build something to replace it. You appear sceptical, but it really isn't hard to do. There are lots of examples here that come up every time anybody asks.

It’s called “survivorship bias”.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#169

Post by phendrenad2 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

cryptica wrote: post #114

I cannot relate to this article at all. It's the polar opposite of my experience. I've been desperately trying to get into a management position for years. I started programming at age 14 and am now approaching 30. I created projects using basically every major programming language, created and maintained a complex open source project which now has over 5K GitHub stars and several tens of thousands of weekly download…

Do you have yearly reviews with your manager? Make it clear that you want to get into management. At the very least, they won't be surprised if they fail to move you to management and you leave (and they'll be forced to confront the choice in those terms before making it).

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#170

Post by scarface74 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

ses1984 wrote: post #133

scarface74 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of going into management because you don’t like management and want to stay an individual contributor, you now become not only the manager of your own company, now you have to worry about marketing, finances, etc. I go to bed every night not worrying about whether my company remains sustainable. If they don’t, as long as it is a microeconomic issue (company failed) and not a macroeconomic issue (economy is…

One. 45 is the very beginning of when ageism starts to show (at most companies). There are certainly some companies that would be biased against a 45 but maybe you don't work there. Just wait. Two. You're not going to multiply your salary by 2x-20x unless you start to take on more responsibility, like worrying about sustainability.

So you mean if I work really hard and double my income, I can have the big house in the burbs, cash flow my son’s way through college, and in a few years and just work part of the year as a consultant/contractor?

Oh wait. I’ll already be able to do that as a bog standard enterprise developer/architect in a mid cost of living area as part of a dual income household. So why do I want the headache?