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

The Problem with Job Titles

blog.workshape.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 103 posts

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#51

Post by logfromblammo »

lmm wrote: post #48
onion2k wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. Why? Someone has to do the testing, obviously, but why does it have to be you just because you want to write good quality software? Why can't you work with a brilliant QA[1] team who can generate an awesome set of processes and tests based on your specifications? You don't have to do the bit you find bori…

When you start dividing responsibilities horizontally like this, IME you end up producing worse software. Being responsible for testing drives you to good design. Being responsible for deployment raises considerations you might otherwise miss. When development and QA are separate it's all too common for only one to have an understanding of the actual customer requirements. Better to slice vertically. Everyone takes r…

If you have ever read about Carrot in Pratchett's Discworld series, you may have a new understanding of laziness.

Carrot, you see, is so lazy that he exercises every day, because it is easier to accomplish things in a fit body than in one that is fat and weak.

Testing your own code is that sort of laziness. You write automated unit tests so that you will never have to look at or touch that particular bit of code ever again.

Having that sort of laziness will also make you an expert in design, because good design allows you to write concise, maintainable code, which makes your job easier.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#52

Post by ukigumo »

hunglee2 wrote: post #46
ukigumo wrote: post #40

So, first things first: Love the software and the concept of visualizing your activity spread in a radar plot. Well done! Now for the rant: I am an IT architect. There are many architects working in IT but few of them do anything that is related to what I do. I see job postings for Enterprise Sharepoint Architect and I cry a little, others for CTO/Architect/senior developer and I question if they are maybe hiring for…

ukigumo, your experience is the reason why Gordon and I started Workshape.io - all the information out there is historical - what you have done in the past - and nothing at all on what you want to do in the immediate future. Glad you like the service - keep an eye on us, there's a lot more to come

Good to hear you guys have a vision.

May I offer some advice though? Big corp also needs help finding talent (maybe more so than startups) so you may want to _also_ target that market segment going forward.

Good luck!

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#53

Post by exelius »

jghn wrote: post #49
genericuser wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just me or isn't Data Science used in an even more vague manner than Software Engineer is used. I mean on a daily basis I encounter people that call themselves Data Scientists who would never be able to use the title Software Engineer or even programmer as they wouldn't be able to write a single line of code if asked.

Exactly. I have a lot of acquaintances who self-describe as data scientists. They really run the range all the way from "they poke around with Excel" (ie not only could I do that in my sleep, but you couldn't pay me enough to do soemthing that dull) all the way to "novel algorithm design at the frontier of the field" (ie I could take classes, train, be mentored, etc and never be able to do what they do).

You're looking at this through a purely technical lens.

The guy who "pokes around with Excel" probably operates in a business context. He interacts with people who have no clue about data science, and is able to use the data to tell a convincing story. This can be dangerous if he doesn't know what he's doing, but 90% of things people want to use "data science" for are pretty trivial technically and probably can be done in Excel.

The guy designing a novel algorithm probably operates in a technical context. People like this tend to be very "in the weeds" and incapable of succinctly explaining their findings to people without the same context they have. This is a universal problem -- people who are extremely technically skilled often have trouble explaining their craft to, say, a marketing exec wanting to know how a certain characteristic is derived. In fact, the marketing exec will probably call in the Excel data scientist to translate.

Does this mean the guy designing the novel algorithm is somehow lesser? Absolutely not! But when you choose a deeply technical career path, you run the risk of losing the external context. This is why many companies have managers in engineering who aren't super technical -- they're technical enough to understand the jist of the concept, but their core skill is communication. If they're doing their job well, the engineers are left alone to do their job without senior business people sticking their noses in everything.

Coincidentally (or maybe not), I think the "soft skills" are sorely missing in this skills matrix. Every engineer will have to give a presentation or work with an external team at some point in their careers, and some are better at it than others. In my opinion, the guys with hardcore engineering skills are great, but someone with solid engineering skills who can communicate well is a rock star. You can replace a badass engineer, but you can't easily replace the cross-team relationships that a good communicator has built that can often short-circuit requirements problems before they get turned into code.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#54

Post by mordae »

Sigh; the categories make no sense.

Seriously, someone is looking for RabbitMQ-something? I mean, do they really look for someone who deeply understands RabbitMQ or do they look for someone who can administer it or do they look for someone who can use it's language bindings correctly after skimming through docs?

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#55

Post by exelius »

jghn wrote: post #50
GordyMD wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your comments. Whilst we cannot remove ambiguity completely from our solution - we can minimise it. The ambiguity of text really comes into play in CVs and job descriptions. We attempt to minimise the ambiguity by asking software engineers/anyone involved in software development to describe their work in a uniform way and not relying up the traditional artefacts. So whilst the terms have ambiguity to them,…

I like the concept but personally when I look at a resume I never* look at job titles anyways - they're effectively meaningless when compared between companies. Instead I read what they self-describe themselves to be doing, which is basically what you're doing albeit in visual form. * Within a single company titles usually are meaningful, so title changes while staying at the same company I'll take note of - particul…

Once you get to a certain size of company, you have the normal career path of (entry level functional job) > manager > director > vice president. Depending on the size of the company, there may be sub-levels such as junior/assistant > senior > executive/general. The levels usually mean the same thing across companies.

If someone goes from a manager to a director at a big company, that usually means something. Depending on the company, some titles can have negative connotations - "executive director" at many companies means "director who will never get promoted to VP".

Also, if they worked at a bank, "vice president" means nothing. Nearly everyone working at a bank is a vice president - government regulations restrict access to certain customer data and the ability to enact transactions on behalf of the bank to VP and above, so the solution is to just give everyone the title of VP.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#56

Post by jghn »

exelius wrote: post #53
jghn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I have a lot of acquaintances who self-describe as data scientists. They really run the range all the way from "they poke around with Excel" (ie not only could I do that in my sleep, but you couldn't pay me enough to do soemthing that dull) all the way to "novel algorithm design at the frontier of the field" (ie I could take classes, train, be mentored, etc and never be able to do what they do).

You're looking at this through a purely technical lens. The guy who "pokes around with Excel" probably operates in a business context. He interacts with people who have no clue about data science, and is able to use the data to tell a convincing story. This can be dangerous if he doesn't know what he's doing, but 90% of things people want to use "data science" for are pretty trivial technically and probably can be do…

I'm not implying one is inherently better than the other (well, maybe my inner tech bias is showing, but in objective terms I agree - they all have their purpose) but the point was that "data scientist" as a job title is effectively meaningless. If you tell me that yor'e a data scientist it means absolutely nothing to me because the range it gets used is so broad

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#57

Post by jghn »

exelius wrote: post #55
jghn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the concept but personally when I look at a resume I never* look at job titles anyways - they're effectively meaningless when compared between companies. Instead I read what they self-describe themselves to be doing, which is basically what you're doing albeit in visual form. * Within a single company titles usually are meaningful, so title changes while staying at the same company I'll take note of - particul…

Once you get to a certain size of company, you have the normal career path of (entry level functional job) > manager > director > vice president. Depending on the size of the company, there may be sub-levels such as junior/assistant > senior > executive/general. The levels usually mean the same thing across companies. If someone goes from a manager to a director at a big company, that usually means something. Dependi…

I'm thinking more in the realm of things software developers (as that's what TFA is focused on) are often referred to as. For instance, an anecdote I like to give here is that I've worked at companies where "senior software engineer" meant "we didn't hire you fresh out of college and you're not a manager" (i.e. nearly everyone) and I've worked at places where SSE meant "you're nearly a manager in terms of seniority"

I was going to make the VP at a bank point but you already did for me :)

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#58

Post by CPLX »

jghn wrote: post #49
genericuser wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just me or isn't Data Science used in an even more vague manner than Software Engineer is used. I mean on a daily basis I encounter people that call themselves Data Scientists who would never be able to use the title Software Engineer or even programmer as they wouldn't be able to write a single line of code if asked.

Exactly. I have a lot of acquaintances who self-describe as data scientists. They really run the range all the way from "they poke around with Excel" (ie not only could I do that in my sleep, but you couldn't pay me enough to do soemthing that dull) all the way to "novel algorithm design at the frontier of the field" (ie I could take classes, train, be mentored, etc and never be able to do what they do).

> Exactly. I have a lot of acquaintances who self-describe as data scientists.

My understanding is that "data scientist" is a term meaning "statistics person who lives in San Francisco"

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#60

Post by namdnay »

ukigumo wrote: post #40

So, first things first: Love the software and the concept of visualizing your activity spread in a radar plot. Well done! Now for the rant: I am an IT architect. There are many architects working in IT but few of them do anything that is related to what I do. I see job postings for Enterprise Sharepoint Architect and I cry a little, others for CTO/Architect/senior developer and I question if they are maybe hiring for…

If you think "architect" is too vague, think of the poor "vice-president" :) As you say yourself, "I often have VPs working under my direction"
Post reply on HN