[HN Gopher] Managing Up
___________________________________________________________________
Managing Up
Author : dvaun
Score : 23 points
Date : 2024-04-29 17:54 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wheresyoured.at)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wheresyoured.at)
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| > Silicon Valley will continue to suffer as long as we entrust
| the future to management consultants and showmen who don't build
| software.
|
| The management fetish is quite apparent.
|
| If I understand it right, this is codified on IC ladders: E4s/E5s
| are doing the vast majority of actual software development, with
| E6+ contributing here and there but being a mix of
| PM/engineer/quality control. Staff eng's are often reminded if
| they're coding "too much" that they're probably Doing It Wrong
| and not maximizing impact and should have broken the task up into
| smaller chunks and distributed them among the team.
|
| It's just gross: actually doing the work is made to seem a bit
| gauche because hierarchy needs something to distinguish itself
| otherwise.
|
| Maybe I'm missing something here?
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| > Maybe I'm missing something here?
|
| Some nuance. Most people _want_ to be promoted, due to some
| combination of a) they want to earn more money, b) they want
| the respect / power that comes with the higher title, c) they
| actually want to do the job that the higher role is doing.
|
| However, a lot of people aren't necessarily cut out for / want
| to do the work that comes with higher levels.
|
| If these people were happy to be L5 for the rest of their life
| and not want a promotion, companies would be happy to employ
| them at that and have them lead Software projects.
|
| However, they ultimately want ever increasing salaries and more
| scope, and that's only possible by promoting them. Many people
| get promoted and realize most of them is now spent not coding
| and they are less happy, but they have, in a way, Peter
| Principled their way into their terminal level.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _If these people were happy to be L5 for the rest of their
| life and not want a promotion, companies would be happy to
| employ them at that and have them lead Software projects._
|
| I'm not sure if that's true; many companies have explicit "up
| or out" policies, and some don't codify it that way, but
| don't particularly want their employees to find their happy
| place and stay there.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| Not really. Google for example will let you stay at L5 (and
| now even L4) for your whole life. In fact there are tons of
| such people who have been at Google for say 10+ years and
| are L5.
|
| (It's a different matter now that you can be laid off. But
| you won't be dinged for being a well-performing L5).
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Google is an extreme outlier as far as employers go. What
| Google does only has bearing on the employment experience
| of most of the people here, and software engineers in
| general, in terms of companies trying to emulate Google
| by building runways out of bamboo.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| Can you name any major company where an L5 equivalent
| level is not terminal? Many people stay ICT4 at Apple for
| a long time.
|
| Performing well at a level is not directly related to
| promotion. You are expected to perform well as ICT4 or L5
| (i.e. get good ratings), but promotion is an orthogonal
| process.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Apple is another outlier. Is Facebook or Amazon going to
| be the next example?
|
| My previous employer had a pretty explicit "up or out"
| policy, until the CTO - who was the main driver behind it
| - left. Luckily, this was before I reached my current,
| happy level. I'm not sure what the L-equivalent is, but
| I'm a senior software engineer.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| I mean, if you feel 4 of the biggest Tech employers are
| not representative of at least some trends about the
| industry, then I don't think we can have a meaningful
| discussion.
|
| I am willing to accept that many employers might still be
| following the policy you mention. Would you be willing to
| accept that many employers don't?
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Sure. I just think that talking about Google, Apple, etc.
| is like talking about how your family does things, and
| then bringing up that the British royal family does
| things differently.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| Boy this is a long screed by someone who doesn't seem to
| understand that companies' main goal is to make money, not great
| products. Yes, we are in a period of enshittification, and yes
| this names a lot of the people and processes responsible. But if
| you don't understand that the owners and investors are extremely
| happy with how this has gone so far, you're just shouting at
| clouds.
| superb_dev wrote:
| I think they know that company's exist solely to make money and
| that shareholders love it. Why else would they write this
| article about how bad that is?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-29 23:02 UTC)