What annoys me is being thrown on to projects without asking what I am interested in doing. I don't intend to do a shit job, but you're not going to get my best work if I'm not creatively invested in my work.
"What annoys me is being thrown on to projects without asking what I am interested in doing. I don't intend to do a shit job, but you're not going to get my best work if I'm not creatively invested in my work."
You can find creative interest in anything. I always end up learning and enjoying some part of a project thrown in my lap.
Interruptions - absolutely the worst thing ever (Im surprised it was only #9)
I have the somewhat mixed fortune to be currently living with my parents (hmmmm) - which has it's advantages but, man, the interruptions. I have to go to a coffee shop or my girlfriends at weekends just to be able to do an hours coding in peace :D
What annoys me is being thrown on to projects without asking what I am interested in doing. I don't intend to do a shit job, but you're not going to get my best work if I'm not creatively invested in my work.
You could learn to love the mundane aspects of your job. Seriously though, no one expects you to be creatively invested in that fix to the contact form, but that's the work people need done.
This is thinking like a user, not thinking like a programmer. As a programmer, you don't want to fix the contact form, you need to fix the need to fix the contact form. This is how you avoid deathmarch projects; you program away the tedious parts so that you have a functioning system instead of a bunch of code that does stuff.
It's a concept of "entitlement in time," implicitly embedded in many cultures. You are first subordinate to your parents, then to your teachers, then to your boss; then you become one of those things and "get to" treat others as subordinates. It's very hard to get away from, even in start-ups (which you'd think would be a breeding ground for creative company organization schemes.)
"It's very hard to get away from, even in start-ups (which you'd think would be a breeding ground for creative company organization schemes.)" That's because you can't get away from human nature. Most people can't lead. They need someone telling them what to do and keeping them on-track. The ones that do become managers, presidents, ceos, or run their own company.
Most people can't lead. They need someone telling them what to do and keeping them on-track.
These are two separate skills - the ability to lead others, and the ability to work productively without being led.
I'm not convinced either claim is true to be honest - it's probably more true to say that most people have never had the opportunity to even try to develop these skills.
Being thought of as a "subordinate" (I mention this, because he talks about programmers as being subordinates). Am I the only person on earth that rails against this? I trade my time for money, but I am no-one's "subordinate". To me, a manager is someone who makes sure I can get my work done and checks on the overall progress. I guess I'm asking for a mighty downvoting but I really want to know if others think its ok…
That's funny, because "subordinate" has replaced the previous generation's "inferior" as the commonly-used term for an employee down a step in the org chart. However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate.
Subordinate has been around for a while.
Inferior denotes one's class in society, subordinate denotes one's position in an organization.
Huh? My worst managers have programmers trying to break into management while keeping their hand in programming by telling me how I should structure my programs. My best managers were non-programmers who had deep understanding of the development process and thus would get out of the way while did my thing.
Being thought of as a "subordinate" (I mention this, because he talks about programmers as being subordinates). Am I the only person on earth that rails against this? I trade my time for money, but I am no-one's "subordinate". To me, a manager is someone who makes sure I can get my work done and checks on the overall progress. I guess I'm asking for a mighty downvoting but I really want to know if others think its ok…
It's a concept of "entitlement in time," implicitly embedded in many cultures. You are first subordinate to your parents, then to your teachers, then to your boss; then you become one of those things and "get to" treat others as subordinates. It's very hard to get away from, even in start-ups (which you'd think would be a breeding ground for creative company organization schemes.)
Dominance hierarchies are a prominent feature of many primate societies, including those of our closing living relatives, chimpanzees. Maybe the human brain is naturally, and not entirely logically biased towards these types of relationships.
Being thought of as a "subordinate" (I mention this, because he talks about programmers as being subordinates). Am I the only person on earth that rails against this? I trade my time for money, but I am no-one's "subordinate". To me, a manager is someone who makes sure I can get my work done and checks on the overall progress. I guess I'm asking for a mighty downvoting but I really want to know if others think its ok…
That's funny, because "subordinate" has replaced the previous generation's "inferior" as the commonly-used term for an employee down a step in the org chart. However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate.
Ok, I don't like that word, but it's hard to replace without being just as insulting. Granted I tend to use minion. As in he is he is my minion, or I will have my minions deal with that. However, IMO it's connotation does not remove the idea that they have a fair level of autonomy just that I give them direction.