How I influence tech company politics as a staff software engineer

Thus my interpretation is that those points are examples of the extreme, often false stereotypes people believe. They are the mistaken position against which the author is arguing.

> cost 200 dev hours, and save 400 dev hours

And I argue that this is rarely the right perspective. It's 200 hours NOW - and that the company doesn't have budget for. In order to save 400 hours maybe perhaps, if the stars align, two years from now. It's not the same budget. It's not the same time frame. It's not your dept's responsibility. In theory yes maybe but in most businesses, no. These 200 hours now are an investment. This 400 hours maybe perhaps are savings, not profit. They may allow an equivalent 400 hours spent on some profitable new product - but then just ask for budget for the profitable new product, don't worry about where that money comes from. That's sooo far above your pay grade, it's not even funny. If the idea for where to spend the 400 hours is worthwhile, the chairman will raise money to do it. Bring THAT idea to management. THAT would be well received.

In summary: the savings and the new product don't come from the same bits of the balance sheets. They don't affect the future company the same. The wasted 400 hours are already considered in the estimates for the next few years, they are essentially already amortized. They already don't matter. It's not fun for an individual engineer to consider that their work for the next 3 years is financially already long forgotten, lol (?), but basically yes.

It MAY be the right perspective for several levels of management higher up, if people are REALLY working on a 40 year perspective for, I don't know, a mainstream database package, a compiler. But nobody does (in first approximation).

It's also is a good viewpoint where crazy thin differences do make an impact (a refinery).

Still: Most companies that don't plan to be gone in two years do have a methods department or working group. People who do try and make the processes better. They have budget to do that. Bring the idea to them. Hell, even start working part or full time on their budget. But with the understanding that this is yet another group, mission, budget. It's not 200 hours here in exchange for 400 there. And this is a highly technical group - not CXO track except perhaps for a brief stint there.

The main divide I've seen between what makes people happy in one or the other style tech company is whether they really enjoy solving problems or doing their job. If you want to check in, do only what is technically required of you and get out, then big tech corp is for you. If you are mainly interested in finding solutions to problems and you are happy to employ whatever is necessary to do so, you'll have more enjoy small companies much more.

> New VP can make promises of future, theoretical riches that you can’t compete with

Why is theoretical work advantageous to the VP when he does it but disadvantageous to you when you do it?

There’s no part of expecting people to hand you money that doesn’t obviously lead to your sole purpose being to please those people. Even if you’re a solo contractor you’re going to spend your time pleasing clients - sure, you can shed bad ones more easily than you can a bad manager, but you’re still beholden to someone who controls the purse. If you found a start up you’re pleasing your investors. If you’re a CEO of a large company you’re pleasing your board.

Work is just the act of pleasing other people in specific ways based on your skillset.