Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Becoming a VP of Engineering

honeycomb.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 400 posts

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#391

Post by jtmarmon »

wpietri wrote: post #387
jtmarmon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is hilariously bad. The argument goes: I like CSS more than Tailwind -> Why don't people like CSS more? -> Maybe because 'CSS, which makes things look ‘pretty’, is considered feminine' You're entitled to like CSS more, and I could even agree making things look pretty is feminine coded, but it obviously doesn't explain people's preference for Tailwind because Tailwind also exists to make things look prett…

That is not in fact the argument. If that's all you're getting from it, I suggest you try again. As to your other views, I think you have several errors. The biggest is declaring "it has nothing to do with gender" in a very gendered society, one with a long history of bias, and thinking having one (weak) alternative explanation is sufficient to explain executive hiring patterns.

Obviously it is the argument, that's why it's titled "Tailwind and the Femininity of CSS". Or do you think the 5 paragraphs about how sexism causes people to dislike CSS is a non sequitur from the introduction about how the author prefers Tailwind to CSS. Break it down for me!

"It has nothing to do with gender" is with regard to the ratio of BE to FE people in engineering leadership. I'm not making the argument that gender bias plays no role in promotion anywhere. It is possible for some things in the world to not be explained by gender bias.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#392

Post by borski »

dennis_jeeves1 wrote: post #389
geodel wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Never understood why workers collectively put up with that patronizing, condescending nonsense. Its simple because only few people find it condescending or nonsense. Most people I know either ignore it without judgement or find it valuable at work. Ignoring soft skills or social graces work fine in some privileged roles where hard skills have some great premium. As one can see in case of top chefs, doctors, movie s…

>For others listening to corporate leaders sermons is just way of life not some unbearable atrocity. Pretty sorry state of affairs, correct? Implicate in all this talk of soft skills is the fact that it can also a force for manipulation of the holocaust league.

What? Please clarify, because at first glance it sounds like you’re making an extremely racially charged analogy?

And no, it isn’t necessarily a sorry state of affairs; having to sit through a talk you’re uninterested in is hardly a terrible price to pay as compared to most other labor.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#393

Post by dasil003 »

jarjoura wrote: post #194
dasil003 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiring the right people is competence when it comes to corporate leadership. That's pretty much the only lever they have. Sure they make a few strategic decisions, but for the most part they are just reviewing and signing off on things that get bubbled up. I think this bothers a lot of engineers who pride themselves on being able to understand complex things, and see "soft skills" as something ancillary and lesser. I…

You sir sound like someone who is in that upper management realm. People ARE hard. Something that has kind of annoyed me with upper management folks. At the companies I've worked for in the bay area, they all copy each other with the same management theories. They love to re-org and reshuffle to tree-shake out the fluff. They also love to drive towards exceedingly unrealistic goals because they expect pushback and wa…

I'm actually middle management at a largish SV company, but I have also been leadership at smaller startups as well as the developer bootstrapping a 2-person SaaS app to 6-figure revenue, in addition to over a decade as a vanilla web developer working as an employee and freelancer.

What this experience has taught me is a visceral understanding of the leadership position (where you are responsible for the life and death of a company) and the IC position (where you are responsible for the nuts and bolts of shipping and operating internet-based software). In a small company it's easy to understand both sides. Once a company gets large the gulf is enormous.

I won't debate all your observations, other than to say that they are reductive and not reflective of the motivations and reasoning of executives I've known and worked with. To take one example:

> I'm always curious to understand why upper management folks are obsessed with keeping things chaotic

Chaos is not a goal (let alone obsession)— it is the merely the result of allowing significant individual agency among the creatives and craftspeople that do the work. The reason SV executives accept this is because reducing chaos requires a stronger command and control structure, but command and control structures don't work for building quality software products. Ultimately there are always minute details in the code and UX that end up being crucial and having outsized impact beyond where they are discovered. Most employees have your attitude of caring only about what is immediately asked of them by their supervisor ("I did what was expected, or more, and got rewarded for it, so doesn't really impact me"), but you actually need a healthy mix of people at the ground level who are intrinsically motivated by the overall quality of the product, and will work to resolve things with the global optimum in mind even if its "not their job". This is incredibly difficult work—often going unrecognized, or even posing a career risk, in some cultures—but absolutely necessary for any company that depends on customer satisfaction. The only way this can work is if the culture allows for good ideas to be floated from anywhere and acted on without being squashed by a rigid official-org-enforcing processes and bureaucracy.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#394

Post by dennis_jeeves1 »

borski wrote: post #392
dennis_jeeves1 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For others listening to corporate leaders sermons is just way of life not some unbearable atrocity. Pretty sorry state of affairs, correct? Implicate in all this talk of soft skills is the fact that it can also a force for manipulation of the holocaust league.

What? Please clarify, because at first glance it sounds like you’re making an extremely racially charged analogy? And no, it isn’t necessarily a sorry state of affairs; having to sit through a talk you’re uninterested in is hardly a terrible price to pay as compared to most other labor.

>What? Please clarify, because at first glance it sounds like you’re making an extremely racially charged analogy?

in a manner speaking, yes it's a radically charged analogy, I'm making.

>And no, it isn’t necessarily a sorry state of affairs; having to sit through a talk you’re uninterested in is hardly a terrible price to pay as compared to most other labor.

There's a collective price that we all pay when we regard all those sermons to be just a simple nuisance. A familiar quote will put it in a better perspective than I can: "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Of course I agree that if you're the only one who opposes the sermon, you risk your livelihood.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#395

Post by spencerchubb »

lapcat wrote: post #226
spencerchubb wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment says: "I automatically become CEO, CTO, etc., by starting my own company, and this is true of anyone who started their own companies, including the ones that are now BigCos. Founders don't need any specific qualifications or characteristics to merit their positions."

Yes, I'm aware of what I said. You have copied and pasted the quote without fail. But it's still unclear what your point is supposed to be.

The parent comment seems to believe that BigCo founders have no qualifications. This is wrong because BigCo founders attain that position by winning in the market.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#396

Post by lapcat »

spencerchubb wrote: post #395
lapcat wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm aware of what I said. You have copied and pasted the quote without fail. But it's still unclear what your point is supposed to be.

The parent comment seems to believe that BigCo founders have no qualifications. This is wrong because BigCo founders attain that position by winning in the market.

> The parent comment seems to believe that BigCo founders have no qualifications.

This is a misinterpretation. I said, "Founders don't need any specific [emphasis added] qualifications or characteristics to merit their positions." In other words, there's no specific list of "Must have X, Y, and Z in order to become a founder."

That's not the same as saying founders have no merit, which I'm not claiming.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#397

Post by wpietri »

jtmarmon wrote: post #391
wpietri wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not in fact the argument. If that's all you're getting from it, I suggest you try again. As to your other views, I think you have several errors. The biggest is declaring "it has nothing to do with gender" in a very gendered society, one with a long history of bias, and thinking having one (weak) alternative explanation is sufficient to explain executive hiring patterns.

Obviously it is the argument, that's why it's titled "Tailwind and the Femininity of CSS". Or do you think the 5 paragraphs about how sexism causes people to dislike CSS is a non sequitur from the introduction about how the author prefers Tailwind to CSS. Break it down for me! "It has nothing to do with gender" is with regard to the ratio of BE to FE people in engineering leadership. I'm not making the argument that…

Nah, the smirking "change my mind" routine is one I no longer bother with, because it indicates people who are very invested in not changing their minds. There are just an ocean of guys in tech who will argue forever against acknowledging the gender biases in tech. Presumably because they would then have to question what portion of their success was unearned. Hopefully you'll figure this out on your own. But I wouldn't bet on it. It's not just science that progresses one funeral at a time.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#398

Post by eru »

zer8k wrote: post #101
marcinzm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>After a while you merit your position by not running the company into the ground, but instead making it succeed. That's not merit for the position but not being a five alarm dumpster fire at the position. There is a difference. As long as the company is lucky or there's enough overall competence in leadership or they hired the right employees that incompetence may not be destroy the company. That doesn't mean they'r…

> After a while you merit your position by not running the company into the ground, but instead making it succeed. Apparently whoever wrote this has not worked at a somewhat stable company. C-levels get a lot of undeserved respect when in fact usually they're protected by a very (understandably) conservative board. The board will choose inaction over action in almost every case unless the failure is so bad it's publi…

> Apparently whoever wrote this has not worked at a somewhat stable company.

My comment was specifically talking about startups. Not about stable companies. Please see context of the preceeding comment, too.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#399

Post by eru »

mrits wrote: post #35
eru wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I automatically become CEO, CTO, etc., by starting my own company, and this is true of anyone who started their own companies, including the ones that are now BigCos. Founders don't need any specific qualifications or characteristics to merit their positions. If you are involved in starting a company, you _get_ the position of CEO, CTO, etc essentially arbitrarily. That's initially. After a while you merit your pos…

You could run your company into the ground but constantly getting bailed out by investors with sunken theory syndrome.

If you can woo investors that much, I'd count that as success. You should probably stop running your silly company, and hire out your skills in investor-schmoozing to other people.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#400

Post by m_rpn »

icedchai wrote: post #207
m_rpn wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In modern, tech-enabled knowledge industries managers aren't leaders, they are just a waste of money that could instead go to the people actually getting things done.

This isn't 100% true. Some are good leaders and protect their team from BS and distractions, letting them focus on getting things done instead.

Unfortunately good leadership is so rare that it's not worth having the entire category just to retain the 1 in a million good leaders.
Post reply on HN