[HN Gopher] Ratchet effects determine engineer reputation at lar...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ratchet effects determine engineer reputation at large companies -
       sean goedecke
        
       Author : rbanffy
       Score  : 36 points
       Date   : 2025-01-06 12:30 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.seangoedecke.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.seangoedecke.com)
        
       | somekyle2 wrote:
       | This seems generally true in my experience. Another aspect of
       | this, from personal experience: while it may be easy to move
       | around in a large organization, you risk losing reputational
       | capital. I had a habit of building reputation in some
       | team/platform, then after I no longer found it engaging or there
       | was enough turnover/focus shift, I'd ask to transition to a
       | wildly different team for a new challenge. It _is_ fun, but if
       | you opt to start as an IC and work your way up, you're sorta
       | letting the ratchet slip, and if you do it every couple years you
       | may have broad experience, but your reputation (and likely level)
       | will be well below where it could be.
       | 
       | Thus, unless you can ramp to expertise really quickly to leverage
       | your skills developed elsewhere, I'd recommend (perhaps
       | obviously) to try to move to peripheral teams where your skills
       | and relationships transfer as much as possible.
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | There is a time honored tradition of blaming the last person
         | for all of your problems, or at least any they had proximity
         | to.
         | 
         | Somewhat awkward if you later see them in a meeting.
        
           | somekyle2 wrote:
           | Quite true! Having been fairly instrumental in a few areas
           | that I'd eventually moved on from, it was always interesting
           | to see some of my trademark accomplishments become The Old
           | Thing We're Trying To Replace (or even just The Big Thing We
           | Have To Maintain); gave me a lot of empathy for prior
           | contributors of code I ended up inheriting. I tend to assume
           | that the old thing seems dumb because of the constraints when
           | it was written and changing requirements over time; if a tool
           | made by one person in a few weeks seems hopelessly naive to
           | the medium sized team investing a few quarters in replacing
           | it a few years later, that seems to be a rousing success for
           | the original author.
        
       | polishdude20 wrote:
       | Problem for new hires is the onboarding process is very critical
       | to determine if you'll be doing good work or not. Fighting
       | against a code base all the time as you're left to your own
       | devices is an uphill battle.
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | A lot of places end up selecting for their own brand of crazy
         | because of that.
         | 
         | The people who think, "this is fine" tend to fit in better.
         | From a team stability perspective that's fine? But echo
         | chambers eventually eat themselves and new perspective can lead
         | to new features or bug fixes.
        
           | polishdude20 wrote:
           | Last place I worked was like that. "Just embrace the chaos"
           | but also "your new ideas aren't welcome here"
        
             | malfist wrote:
             | There's a very delicate balance to walk between chaos that
             | works and a new idea that might be better or it might be
             | worse or bring it's own type of chaos.
        
       | danielovichdk wrote:
       | Sidenote. Terrible reading experience due to the background color
       | and shiny white font. Too bad for such fine content.
        
         | r00fus wrote:
         | Jeebus just use reader mode and move on.
        
       | drfloob wrote:
       | I work at a "large company", and I don't agree with most of this.
       | Your write-up is highly subjective, and fairly pessimistic.
       | 
       | Some people hit the ground running, and
       | teams/organizations/companies can thrive if they find ways to
       | embrace that. Sometimes people get hired at the wrong level, and
       | everyone benefits if some sort of work demonstrates that quickly.
       | I have seen promotions happen based on prudent choices around
       | one's individual strengths, simply by choosing to do a bit of the
       | right work and getting eyes on your capabilities. There is no
       | "one size fits all" prescription for what someone should work on.
       | 
       | Having a "shadow lead" can be one of the best situations for your
       | growth, too. Not only do you get the experience leading a thing
       | (for most of what that means, anyway), you may end up with a very
       | strong ally when you knock it out of the park. I had a version of
       | this experience, and I've watched others have it as well.
       | 
       | I'm guessing most of the negatives here are based on your
       | personal experience, and for that I'm sorry. Hopefully you can
       | encourage positive changes in your company's engineering culture.
        
         | janalsncm wrote:
         | > you may end up with a very strong ally when you knock it out
         | of the park
         | 
         | I imagine this will be determined by the culture and the system
         | of rewards which are out of your control. A shadow lead _could_
         | be an ally, or they could pin any deficiencies on you. The
         | author's comment is sound in my opinion: depending on
         | altruistic behavior is a bad position to be in.
        
       | QuiCasseRien wrote:
       | ohoh, nice article. ohoh, there are others and they seems to be
       | high quality. fucking ohoh, a rss feed, no add.
       | 
       | In my feed and bookmarked.
       | 
       | very good writer, experienced dev.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-01-08 23:00 UTC)