Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#181

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #5

United857 wrote: post #4

Thankfully, many if not most top tech companies in the valley realize this and have parallel management and IC tracks (at least for software engineers), with compensation the same. That said, even as an IC, at higher levels the scope of impact you're expected to deliver at some point exceeds what one person working alone can have, so there's still lots of people leadership skills needed to advance: working cross-func…

Many in theory have parallel tracks but in practice it seems either the vast majority choose to go into management or that it takes a more exceptional individual to progress in the IC track (my money is on #2). IMO you don’t really need to be an above average person to reach the second layer of management, just put in your time and not fuck up, but everyone I know who hit the same level as IC was exceptionally bright…

[deleted]

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#182

Post by closeparen » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

wjossey wrote: post #22

I’ve been reviewing a lot of career path documents recently for different engineering orgs, and every one is fairly uniform in that you either progress into management, team leadership, or architecture (or some blend of the three). If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. I’ve been noodling on this for a while, and I think maybe a fourth track at a lot of organizations should be spe…

The other cool beyond-Senior role I’ve seen is “roaming fixer.” Take your pick form the engineering org’s hardest problems, conscript your pick of regular engineers into your service for a few months, go solve it. When you’re done, pick another one.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#183

Post by ScottFree » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:00 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #180

ipad23 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really tired of seeing this posted whenever someone talks about their success. It breeds a loser mentality where people just assume they won't be successful, so they won't even try.

So we should never talk about the possibility of failure? I think breeding a naive mentality is as bad if not worse than breeding a loser mentality.

Bringing up "survivorship bias" every single time this topic comes up goes far, far beyond just talking about the possibility of failure. It's a self defeating mantra people use to justify their inaction.

And even if it is "survivorship bias" and for every 1 example of someone that succeeds there are 1 million examples of people who have failed, the cost of failure is so low that you should try anyway. It costs you nothing and you have potentially everything to gain.

Ever hear about the story of the two wolves? You're feeding the wrong wolf.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#184

Post by wjossey » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #177

wjossey wrote: post #22

I’ve been reviewing a lot of career path documents recently for different engineering orgs, and every one is fairly uniform in that you either progress into management, team leadership, or architecture (or some blend of the three). If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. I’ve been noodling on this for a while, and I think maybe a fourth track at a lot of organizations should be spe…

" I think maybe a fourth track at a lot of organizations should be special projects. Small teams (3 people max) given autonomy and clear objectives (revenue goals, user growth goals, etc). " I have been thinking about that too. I am pretty experienced and the best use for me would be to get something off the ground quickly to working through a hard problem . I have seen a lot so usually my instincts are pretty good a…

I’d highly recommend you start laying the ground work for this to become your reality. It may take six to twelve months, but some simple repetition around proposing this as an option may turn out well for you!

When I work with managers who need to create change, I remind them that it took years for institutional baggage to grow. It’s reasonable to assume that it will take at minimum months to unravel.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#185

Post by fooddood » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #178

ptero wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. It may be semantics, but I think "stagnating at a pretty high level" may be a pretty good endgame for a smart engineer who does not want to go to either people or technology management. If this means significant autonomy, mentoring role and decent compensation what is wrong with stagnating at this level? This is not for everyone, bit may be…

There is nothing wrong with stagnating but in a lot of companies the stagnation level for engineers is pretty low compared to management. You also have to deal with the fact management has decision power so you often get overridden by less qualified people who happen to be in management.

This is the biggest counterpoint to the article. I think a bad developer promoted to a position of management wreaks much more havoc than an unhappy good one.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#186

Post by mutt2016 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #178

ptero wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less. It may be semantics, but I think "stagnating at a pretty high level" may be a pretty good endgame for a smart engineer who does not want to go to either people or technology management. If this means significant autonomy, mentoring role and decent compensation what is wrong with stagnating at this level? This is not for everyone, bit may be…

There is nothing wrong with stagnating but in a lot of companies the stagnation level for engineers is pretty low compared to management. You also have to deal with the fact management has decision power so you often get overridden by less qualified people who happen to be in management.

True.. But engineers often have more knowledge than judgement. Engineers are often too cautious to run businesses successfully. This isn't a blanket statement, but engineering school does not make an entrepreneur or even create much business savvy.

Engineers are the most cautious lot I've ever worked with. Among the most intelligent, but I can't imagine them making ballsy market moves.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#187

Post by cambaceres » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

cryptica wrote: post #114

I cannot relate to this article at all. It's the polar opposite of my experience. I've been desperately trying to get into a management position for years. I started programming at age 14 and am now approaching 30. I created projects using basically every major programming language, created and maintained a complex open source project which now has over 5K GitHub stars and several tens of thousands of weekly download…

It sounds like you need to work on your people skills

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#188

Post by maxxxxx » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

mutt2016 wrote: post #186

maxxxxx wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with stagnating but in a lot of companies the stagnation level for engineers is pretty low compared to management. You also have to deal with the fact management has decision power so you often get overridden by less qualified people who happen to be in management.

True.. But engineers often have more knowledge than judgement. Engineers are often too cautious to run businesses successfully. This isn't a blanket statement, but engineering school does not make an entrepreneur or even create much business savvy. Engineers are the most cautious lot I've ever worked with. Among the most intelligent, but I can't imagine them making ballsy market moves.

I am not talking about ballsy moves. I am talking about middle managers blocking things because they don’t understand them or they want to keep their own pet project relevant.

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#189

Post by ownagefool » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

jon-wood wrote: post #154

ownagefool wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the company. Big orgs with lots of outsourcing, architects are supposed to police the result to make sure it's semi decent. But since they've long since gave up doing any real work, they tend to be people who buy really expensive crap to cover their arse. In smaller orgs, it can almost be just a lead dev with a fancy title. Rarely does the title seem appopriate, but some of the folks with the title are goo…

I’d like to think I’m one of the people who manage to do good despite the title. I see the job more as technical review (like code review, but at a higher level taking into account how systems interact, and existing solutions used in other places). Sometimes I’ll also try to drive the adoption of technology which has the potential to improve systems - in those cases I’ll typically be the one doing exploratory work to…

You probably fit the "principle engineer" or "technical lead" titles better. But it's hard, because no doubt in many companies these titles have been corrupted* to mean something else.

End of the day, if you're happy and delivering value your title doesn't really matter. But it might when you want to move role in the future, so you might want to keep one eye on what the market is branding you as.

Fow what it's worth, I'm glad you're happy with your role. :)

*or maybe just changed, who am I to decide what words mean

Re: Why Good Developers Are Promoted into Unhappiness (2007)

#190

Post by scarface74 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

ScottFree wrote: post #183

cortesoft wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should never talk about the possibility of failure? I think breeding a naive mentality is as bad if not worse than breeding a loser mentality.

Bringing up "survivorship bias" every single time this topic comes up goes far, far beyond just talking about the possibility of failure. It's a self defeating mantra people use to justify their inaction. And even if it is "survivorship bias" and for every 1 example of someone that succeeds there are 1 million examples of people who have failed, the cost of failure is so low that you should try anyway. It costs you n…

How is the cost of failure low? If you decide to go in business for yourself and it doesn’t make any money for 3 years, and you are just making non west coast salaries, you’re still potentially out of half a million dollars or more in total comp.

And any money that you invested in your company.

If you are talking about starting a business on the side and working full time, that means you are sacrificing some combination of time with your family, exercise, and time that you could be putting in getting ahead at your current job or acquiring skills that would help you get a better paying job.

It doesn’t make sense statistically to take on “one million times the risk” unless the upside is much higher. These days, a CS Major can spend a year learning “leetCode” and study “Cracking the Code” and easily get a job at a FAANG making a quarter million - not that I would personally want to.