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

Getting things “done” in large tech companies

seangoedecke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 228 posts

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#31

Post by underdeserver »

lazide wrote: post #7
underdeserver wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it completely differently. If the execs don't see the value, customers don't see the value, and you can't prove money is being made (or saved), where is the value of your work, really? You're not paid to make art.

Well, that is also why large segments of the big corp work environment check out and do the absolute minimum - or even create chaos to make it less obvious who is doing what for whom. Because the paycheck is indeed useful for them, eh?

These people are comfortable collecting a paycheck despite providing little value. I'm not.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#32

Post by virgilp »

wpietri wrote: post #24

I fundamentally object to any notion of done-ness that is solely focused on pleasing the few people who happen to be in positions of power. Are we all embedded in absurd structures of primate dominance? Sure. Primates gonna prime. But that is no more the root of what's going on than being able to mark something done in Jira, or getting a compiler to stop complaining. Proximate hurdles are not ultimate goals. Nobody g…

I don't know. I'm 30 years into those 40 and, while I can list plenty of "achievements" ... that's not what got me promoted. There _is_ value in making bosses & grandbosses happy.

I don't think it's good for you to be a cynic(because there's more to life than "promotion!"), but I think it's good to know/be well aware of the cynical viewpoint, because there's often a lot of truth in it.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#33

Post by lolinder »

This piece appears to be a quick summary of a much better and more thorough piece by the same author that was discussed extensively a few months back:

How I ship projects at big tech companies (1425 points, 381 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42111031

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#34

Post by karmakaze »

The post is apt in getting things 'done'. I prefer to get things done. Of course I can't always just do what I consider important, so I balance them, I meet the requirements of 'done' without much more, and I spend more time than most getting important stuff done, sometimes things that take a longer time--I'll do the gardening so that it eventually gets done.

People won't notice this extra effort for a long time, but from time to time, some problem/issue will arise and one of those things in my garden will be instrumental in solving or mitigating it. Over time, you get recognized as someone who gets things done well.

Basically get stuff 'done' in 80% of your time and make your own 20% time. What's funny is that I've often been given explicit 20% time, but I've found that I can't schedule/manage that time explicitly like that, so I went back to taking approximately 20% time if/when I thought it's appropriate.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#35

Post by davidmurdoch »

> they start delivering a stream of marginal improvements to a particular subsystem1. From their perspective, it feels like they’re crushing it. After all, they’re putting out work at their top speed: no downtime, no waiting on other teams. But they’re not doing their actual job, which is to deliver the most value they can to their company.

These people are often force multipliers, or "developer velocity engineers". They do work that doesn't deliver direct customer value, like updating old dependencies, swapping out deprecated APIs for new ones, always fixing warnings in CI pipelines and lint tools, etc. They free up others to deliver the "value" at higher speeds.

But yes, they are the first to go when layoffs happen. But I think these types are absolutely necessary for an efficient org, and no matter how many times this type is fired for it, someone will end up falling into the same work again eventually - because this "no-value" work needs to get done.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#36

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

_fat_santa wrote: post #28
pydry wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds great if you can ride that into retirement but if you get laid off and you start having to justify your existence again in the job market I dont think "I took home $300k for doing nothing and then got laid off" is a great sell.

But that's kinda the beauty of it. If you get laid off from one of these places the next place doesn't know that you took 300k home to do jack, all they know is you worked for a super prestigious company for 10 years and you can plausibly make up the rest about what you actually did there.

If you're going to lie about experience anyways, you don't have to work for the FAANG company in the first place.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#37

Post by devrandoom »

whstl wrote: post #3

I don't disagree with the article, but after working in big tech, two HN startups, a couple unicorns and others, in two continents, I don't really find this too actionable. In the last ten years (and even in the 20-people HN startups), the day to day work of engineers has become so incredibly specialised and divorced from the needs of decision-makers and the customers that there is almost nothing I can do to influenc…

Also bear in mind that you're slowly strolling on the road to burnout.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#38

Post by whstl »

theK wrote: post #21
whstl wrote: post #3

I don't disagree with the article, but after working in big tech, two HN startups, a couple unicorns and others, in two continents, I don't really find this too actionable. In the last ten years (and even in the 20-people HN startups), the day to day work of engineers has become so incredibly specialised and divorced from the needs of decision-makers and the customers that there is almost nothing I can do to influenc…

So, fire the Product Managers?

Or at least hold them accountable for failing to get things done and communicating badly with developers. Which is something that I'm yet to see.

In previous companies, as an engineering manager, I had to burn a huge amount of political capital to steer my team in the right direction, several times.

My people (engineers) want to achieve their goals and create value, and the higher-ups want working software making money. I don't see why this has become so hard to achieve.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#39

Post by [deleted] »

whstl wrote: post #3

I don't disagree with the article, but after working in big tech, two HN startups, a couple unicorns and others, in two continents, I don't really find this too actionable. In the last ten years (and even in the 20-people HN startups), the day to day work of engineers has become so incredibly specialised and divorced from the needs of decision-makers and the customers that there is almost nothing I can do to influenc…

[deleted]

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#40

Post by wpietri »

virgilp wrote: post #32
wpietri wrote: post #24

I fundamentally object to any notion of done-ness that is solely focused on pleasing the few people who happen to be in positions of power. Are we all embedded in absurd structures of primate dominance? Sure. Primates gonna prime. But that is no more the root of what's going on than being able to mark something done in Jira, or getting a compiler to stop complaining. Proximate hurdles are not ultimate goals. Nobody g…

I don't know. I'm 30 years into those 40 and, while I can list plenty of "achievements" ... that's not what got me promoted. There _is_ value in making bosses & grandbosses happy. I don't think it's good for you to be a cynic(because there's more to life than "promotion!"), but I think it's good to know/be well aware of the cynical viewpoint, because there's often a lot of truth in it.

We agree: There is value in making the compiler happy. There's value in getting tasks done. There's value in pleasing bosses. They are necessary means to an end.

However, my point is that one's analysis of the purpose can't stop with any of those. That focusing only on any one of those is ultimately shallow.

And in particular, my critique of this article is that he's just shifting focus from one proximate goal to another. Is pleasing the bosses necessary? Under our current dominant theories of work, yes. Is it the point? No. Always and forever: no.

Post reply on HN