The article itself isn't about this but one could theorize that the headline taken literally is also likely true.
And that’s true even more if they are bald and with a beard.
The balding greybeards are among the most respected engineers of my peers
Short fat engineers are undervalued
121–130 of 269 posts
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#122my theory: depth == salary, width == mobility. depth is risky - when time is right, you make a ton of money; opposite also true. width is a hedge - you don't get paid as much, but you can land a job quickly, because you can plug into any team
> width is hedge - you don't get paid as much, but you can land a job quickly, because you can plug into any team I generally like your model, but mobility is upstream of salary too. If you're very intentional about your career, mobility is the ace up your sleeve, letting you slot into the places you need to to maximize your current and future salary. I've always been a pretty width-first engineer; it just fits my pe…
You're absolutely correct. Great insight that mobility also increases salary!
Can I rubber duck you with another question? As someone who is also trying to maximize mobility and width, how do you feel about the idea of "it's not who you know vs what you know, it's who knows what you know"? In other words, when you move teams/jobs, how to you gain credibility? Do you do anything to promote/show your 'track record'?
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#123Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#124Do "height on demand". Constant abstract and compress the knowledge so you can ramp up in any area as needed. Really, this is why programming languages are my "home base" of expertise. It's the study of formal ideas and their communication.
This is also the strategy I tend to take. Strong, broad fundamentals so I can quickly pick up specifics on the job.
IMHO, I just don't buy this. Every piece of technology has its own set of quirks, pitfalls, and shortcuts. You can jump around from Rails to Spring to iOS to whatever and be a decent individual contributor. But to be a real Senior/Lead engineer that can be responsible for a project you've gotta have the in depth knowledge.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#125[deleted]
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#126The argument of specialist vs generalist is futile. They simple fit in distinct parts of the journey and evolution of a software product. Generalists are highly valuable for many types of orgs and projects especially nascent projects. But sometimes you need the precise output of a specialist to achieve something. If my business has a product that is highly dependent of let's say OpenGL, then an OpenGL specialist will…
Diversity. I've had a conversation with a few bosses where at some point I stopped to say words to the effect of, "It's like you think I expect everyone a the project to be like me. I don't." A project with just me would have problems too. But every project needs at least a couple of people who think like me, which we aren't accomplishing. This whole expert thing isn't tenable on a long term project. The expert will…
The ideal is an expert who sets up the project, builds the guard rails, creates the patterns and basically sets up a framework for everyone to use. Then they teach everyone how to use it and why
And from then it’s a mentoring role. The expert spends more time PR-ing and adding to the framework than building end product features. They build stuff that touches every feature.
Force multiplier is the game.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#127The valve employee handbook talks about the T shaped engineer (page 32) https://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_Handbook_Low...
Valve's manual talks about expertise, not physical traits:
"We value “T-shaped” people.That is, people who are both generalists (highly skilled at a broad set of valuable things—the top of the T) and also experts (among the best in their field within a narrow disci-pline—the vertical leg of the T). This recipe is important for success at Valve. We often have to pass on people who are very strong generalists with-out expertise, or vice versa. An expert who is too narrow has difficulty collaborating. A generalist who doesn’t go deep enough in a single area ends up on the margins, not really contributing as an individual."
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#128Interesting choice of words. I might consider invest in named engineers, is there EFT for them?
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#129Practical question: I have a short, fat resume (e.g. MechE degree, work experience in AI, UX, manufacturing, academic research, and writing). What industries/companies/roles will value this skill set the most? Where can short, fat people find opportunities?
Wouldn't that be startups? Maybe a hardware startup since you are a MechE.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#130Bad article. Noone is just an expert in one thing and can't do anything else. What actually happens is by becoming an expert at something you also learn things that will help you elsewhere, which means you can pick up other things more quickly. So the choice is either between someone who is an expert in a one thing and knows a bunch of other things, or someone who just knows of bunch of things.