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

Getting things “done” in large tech companies

seangoedecke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 228 posts

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#121

Post by cubefox »

gwbas1c wrote: post #91

Yesterday I pointed out to the founder of the company that I work for, in the context of tech debt: "Well, since we moved the goalposts on that project, now we're out of 'credit card' tech debt and now in 'Adjustable Rate Mortgage' tech debt. Our goal should be to get to 'Fixed Rate Mortgage' debt." The problem is that too much tech debt can hold back feature development, or even materially impact hosting costs. In o…

Yeah. I would phrase it like this:

There is two things to avoid: "overengineering" and "underengineering". The first case has happened when it later turns out that the developer did put in too much work into a feature than was necessary in retrospect, in the second case that they did put in too little work.

At the time of engineering it is usually not clear how much work would constitute over- or underengineering, as this depends on how much the feature gets to be used and evolved in the future.

But usually it makes sense to "err on the side of overengineering". Because (limited) overengineering merely means some development effort was wasted, while underengineering can easily mean years of painful tech debt that is an order of magnitude or two more expensive than the wasted effort from overengineering.

(It's similar to building a house. You usually want to make doubly sure you really do everything right or more than right, because if there are any flaws that turn up later, this often gets very expensive to rectify, sometimes so expensive that it isn't even worth fixing at all.)

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#122

Post by dreamcompiler »

malfist wrote: post #77
icedchai wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good PMs are worth their weight in gold and actually make engineers' jobs easier. Bad PMs create a useless "translation" layer that doesn't help anyone (except, perhaps, themselves.)

My previous PM was ultra valuable. Put devs in contact with the customers, got out of the way of deciding what to build, and then sheltered the devs from the chaos of customers. He was also smart about what could be done and in what timeline, always working from the estimates engineers gave, working backwards and deciding what scope could be cut and where, who if another team could loan us people. He was the right ba…

> That behavior was rewarded, for whatever reason.

Sounds like you're describing someone with narcissistic personality disorder. Such people are often extraordinarily good at convincing the people above them they walk on water while shitting on everyone below them.

My greatest wish is for managers to be trained to recognize people with NPD and other disorders and to remove them from the company quickly. They can cause tremendous damage to the organization in a very short time.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#123

Post by whstl »

sharkweek wrote: post #114
codingbot3000 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity: Why didn't you continue being product manager?

I read the comment and had the same question! I did this myself and ended up with a really satisfying 4ish years as a PM. That being said while I was perhaps fairly cynical about why PMs needed to exist before trying the role myself, after being in the role for an extended period of time, fully understand why the role exists now. Of course there can be bad PMs, a good/great one is super worth it.

We probably agree with each other!

I'm not really cynical, and even before I wasn't!

I just think it's a role that's way too critical, and a bad PM can do a lot of damage.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#124

Post by thinkingtoilet »

masom wrote: post #118
_fat_santa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's kinda the beauty of it. If you get laid off from one of these places the next place doesn't know that you took 300k home to do jack, all they know is you worked for a super prestigious company for 10 years and you can plausibly make up the rest about what you actually did there.

This becomes quickly apparent in a smaller company or if you have a manager that knows what they are doing. You'll get hired, if you pass the technical interviews, but if you cannot contribute at the level they hired you, you'll be exited and that will be suspicious for your next application.

>but if you cannot contribute at the level they hired you, you'll be exited

But this is the case for anyone anywhere, it doesn't effect the OPs position one way or another.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#125

Post by d_burfoot »

This is one of a whole genre of HN-boosted blog posts that are basically saying to engineers: "you can't just write code, you actually have to do sales also". People who don't like sales think that they can go to a big company and just do engineering work. Nope, it doesn't work that way: you still have to promote your work, you still have to sell your work, you still have to talk to your customers, you still have to understand business, you still have to make deals, etc etc.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#126

Post by johnnyanmac »

_fat_santa wrote: post #9
whstl wrote: post #3

I don't disagree with the article, but after working in big tech, two HN startups, a couple unicorns and others, in two continents, I don't really find this too actionable. In the last ten years (and even in the 20-people HN startups), the day to day work of engineers has become so incredibly specialised and divorced from the needs of decision-makers and the customers that there is almost nothing I can do to influenc…

> At least the pay is alright. I don't know why but this part of your comment really stuck out to me. I have a whole different take on getting stuff done specifically at big tech companies, mainly that being "stagnant" is not such a bad thing at a place like Google or MS. Say you're like an L-whatever at one of these big tech companies and you bring home say $300k/yr. You don't live in a HCOL so the pay is astronomic…

>you bring home say $300k/yr. You don't live in a HCOL

Oh, I didn't know we were fantasizing about 2022.

> you can still say you spent 10 years working at MS or Google and that would get you red carpet treatment just about anywhere.

well, not in 2025. Market is rough and it's all topsy tuvrvy out there, with lots of companies pretending to hire but not.

>If I was at one of these big tech companies and someone told me I was stagnant and would never get prompted I would just tell them so what. I bring home $300k for my family and I have a good work life balance

Even tech isn't immune to "move up or move out". Google's had plenty of layoffs these past few years and that's an easy way for the gravy train to end. Hope you got plenty of savings.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#127

Post by NickC25 »

abhisek wrote: post #58
icedchai wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good PMs are worth their weight in gold and actually make engineers' jobs easier. Bad PMs create a useless "translation" layer that doesn't help anyone (except, perhaps, themselves.)

How will you define a good PM? I have been looking for this definition for a while. In my startup experience, it seems to me the best PMs are the CTO and the early engineers who has near infinite business and user context.

Was a PM before I went off and started my own non-tech company.

My definition of a good PM is someone who can champion both customers/users and developers concurrently, while sticking to the company's value prop and competitive edge.

In some cases, it's boiling down the needs of the customer into something achievable before sales gets in the way with over-promising and under-delivering. In other cases, it's telling the executives to stop wasting engineering's time with excessive meetings and scope-creep. It could be simply going and getting the engineers coffee. It could also be telling engineering to stop over-engineering the MVP and to simply get what needs to be done, done.

In simple terms, someone who can go to bat for any facet of the company at any time externally or internally, in order to make sure right product is being built in a timely manner that aligns with both business needs and most importantly, customer needs.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#128

Post by johnnyanmac »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #124
masom wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This becomes quickly apparent in a smaller company or if you have a manager that knows what they are doing. You'll get hired, if you pass the technical interviews, but if you cannot contribute at the level they hired you, you'll be exited and that will be suspicious for your next application.

>but if you cannot contribute at the level they hired you, you'll be exited But this is the case for anyone anywhere, it doesn't effect the OPs position one way or another.

it'd be quicker if they feel you either lied or do not live up to your name. Easier to fire you and find someone on your level but much cheaper.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#129

Post by johnnyanmac »

joezydeco wrote: post #85
yawgmoth wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can plausibly make up the rest about what you actually did there. I would never do this, and if you would do this I wouldn't want to work with you. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I sleep alright.

You haven't been on LinkedIn in the last few years, then.

unfortunately I have. It is indeed a hellscape of, as the kids say, "aura farming". Microsoft really seem to want to turn it into Instagram for some reason.

I still use it as a job board, personally.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#130

Post by t8sr »

Would you rather work with (hire for your startup) someone who:

1) Always pleased middle management in a large bureaucracy by moving metrics, then bailed out just before the project collapsed

2) Ignored the noise, fixed real problems and left the project better than they found it?

After 20 years of tech career and 3 FAANGs, I know my answer. This article is decent enough advice for the first 5 years of your career, so you get some seniority and money.

Once you have those two things, what they give you is the agency and the safety to walk away from bullshit.

After that the game changes: it's about credibility and being sought after by your peers, who, at this point, should also hold senior IC positions at companies whose help you need, sit on standards committees, have maintainer rights in the Kernel, etc.

Your long-term professional success will come from being an excellent technical peer, rather than pleasing random middle managers you will never work with again. Your personal job satisfaction will come from honing your craft and solving real problems for real customers, not from hitting some arbitrary business milestones. (Obviously those two things sometimes align, but if you're forced to make a choice.)

Post reply on HN