4 ms·

Not true, executives don't create shit. If they leave without any prospect of making money, they can't create on their own to earn. Developers are creator, g

Not true, executives don't create shit. If they leave without any prospect of making money, they can't create on their own to earn. Developers are creator, given enough money, most would leave to take a chance at bringing their own creation into the world. This creation could possibly make money. Sometimes it's not even the money, it's the idea of having your project seeing the light of day. Working on a project that might not see the light of day or that might ship in 10yrs can be very frustrating for creators.

hellofunk 10y ago
This comment is a gross misunderstanding of what good executives do, and they are indeed critical players.
- segmondy 10y ago
  I'm not disputing that they are critical players. They are, but they are not creators. Most of them at that point in life are owner of capital. If they leave with nothing in sight, they are leaving because they are bored and have amassed enough capital to take a chance and invest in someone else. But why leave when you are raking in millions for a chance? Developers are creators, if they leave, they tend to leave because their dreams are getting squashed and the opportunity window is getting closed in an area they would love to innovate. If you are at google and don't see google releasing a self driving car, you will miss the window unless you jump ship to Tesla or GM or Audi. If you are into VR, maybe you would wanna jump ship to Oculus, the window to be part of history is very small.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    Can you define what you mean by "create"? Are you saying programmers are creators because they can code? That sounds like a one-dimensional view of what product or value creation is. Furthermore, you're charitably generalizing developers as people who leave because of their dreams and uncharitably generalizing executives as people who just get bored and want to turn the wheels of production at a whim. I think the point that the other commenter and I are trying to make is what while you can defensibly claim you're not saying executives "aren't critical players", you're being dismissive of their overall contributions by painting them in a diminutive and uncharitable way. You're essentially saying, "I'm not saying executives aren't critical players, they're just not the real creators of value...they leave because they get bored and have so much capital while developers leave because of a twinkle in their eye."
    - npunt 10y ago
      Agree. When I see people make statements like "but they are not X" its almost always a value statement with a word substitution, and you can just swap in 'good' for 'creator' (or whatever other word used). GP's opinion that management aren't 'creators' of course neglects a few things: a) the role of management is necessarily one step removed from direct project output, so yes, they'll probably do less direct work on the project b) that 'creators' can (and do) move in to management c) there is no creativity involved in taking uncertain inputs and turning those into the direction & vision of a project d) that shaping a project's output to maximize outcomes is something that can net a lot more value than adding another 'creator' e) that 'creators' sometimes don't care about the project outcomes as much as the process f) that 'creators' may not have experience in the various domains their product or service is ultimately being provided in, and thus may not understand or pick the right constraints to apply during their creative process. ...among many other possible misconceptions. I've seen this in the education world myself, where teachers (who are similarly front-line workers) were skeptical of management and the viewpoints of those outside their domain being able to add value. 'But they're not educators' was the statement I heard a lot.
  - dreamfactory2 10y ago
    Developers aren't the sole creators in software that people use. Everybody active is a builder, whether it's underlying software or the user and economic parts of the ecosystem. The development part is often easier precisely because it is easier to define
  - hellofunk 10y ago
    Your view of creativity is quite narrow.
  - nasalgoat 10y ago
    As an "executive" myself who doesn't actually code on a day-to-day basis, I can assure you I am still very creative, because I advise and direct the developers on my team using my experience, knowledge and "big picture" view of the whole company. Why, just yesterday I made some suggestions that resulted in a 20% improvement in one of our API calls, and I didn't code a single line. You underestimate the value of executives by not valuing their experience and ability to direct.
dsacco 10y ago
This is a very high school perspective to take on the difference between developers and executives. I imagine you'd rather live in a world ruled by programmer-kings who are the only people capable of creating value, while all the other peons toil away in the service of their creation with their inferior, bogus skillsets.
- dang 10y ago
  You've got an important point here, so it would have been much better to make it substantively and without snark. I say it's an important point because it was a big one for my own growth. I think many programmers (and many HN users) tend to feel that way, and not without reason. What's needed is patient explanation, not oppositional dismissiveness. Unfortunately the latter takes a lot less time.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    Fair point, Dan. I'll remember that for next time.
CryoLogic 10y ago
The best execs are responsible for a few things: 1. Creating and Maintaining a vision for the future of the company based on industry experience, research and hypothesis. 2. Keeping all of the teams and players up to sync on that vision. 3. Driving the development of that vision from day to day and pivoting when needed. So while they might not be "creating" code, it is important to note that code alone doesn't make a company and leadership is essential especially the larger a corp becomes.
- mstade 10y ago
  A key aspect missing from your list: Always Be Closing. Good execs are always selling, internally and externally. Your list mostly concerns the internal aspect of being an exec, but a huge part of it is selling externally. Whether they are the ones actually closing the deals or moving things along doesn't really matter, the point is they're always selling. And at the end of the day, what's going to make or break your business is how much product you're moving. Execs are hugely important for this, in addition to all the points you mentioned.
gizmo 10y ago
Executives create the organization itself. A company has many moving parts, each with their own constraints, their own goals, and their own limitations. We talk about building a company because all these parts need to be shaped in such a way that they work together towards a common goal. This is not just difficult and cross-disciplinary, it's also intellectually challenging work, and as real a form of creation as writing software. Companies don't create themselves, and people don't automatically organize themselves. You need people who specialize in this, if you want it done well; you need executives. Sure, we roll our eyes at the nonsense language executives spout, and at the political games they play. And yet good executives create functional companies with a good corporate culture, where good engineering can take place. You might ask yourself: if everything is running smoothly, what do we need the executives for? Much like the IT guy who doesn't get appreciated for preventing disasters, the work executives do is invisible when done well. Besides, the line between creation and facilitation is a blurry one. Without salespeople there is no budget for programmers to create things. Does that mean salespeople as non-creators are deserving of our disdain? Or should we just appreciate them for fullfilling a vital role within the company? Suppose that executives were non-creators (and they're not), why does it matter? They're nonetheless vital for the company's success.

hellofunk 10y ago

This comment is a gross misunderstanding of what good executives do, and they are indeed critical players.

segmondy 10y ago
I'm not disputing that they are critical players. They are, but they are not creators. Most of them at that point in life are owner of capital. If they leave with nothing in sight, they are leaving because they are bored and have amassed enough capital to take a chance and invest in someone else. But why leave when you are raking in millions for a chance? Developers are creators, if they leave, they tend to leave because their dreams are getting squashed and the opportunity window is getting closed in an area they would love to innovate. If you are at google and don't see google releasing a self driving car, you will miss the window unless you jump ship to Tesla or GM or Audi. If you are into VR, maybe you would wanna jump ship to Oculus, the window to be part of history is very small.
- dsacco 10y ago
  Can you define what you mean by "create"? Are you saying programmers are creators because they can code? That sounds like a one-dimensional view of what product or value creation is. Furthermore, you're charitably generalizing developers as people who leave because of their dreams and uncharitably generalizing executives as people who just get bored and want to turn the wheels of production at a whim. I think the point that the other commenter and I are trying to make is what while you can defensibly claim you're not saying executives "aren't critical players", you're being dismissive of their overall contributions by painting them in a diminutive and uncharitable way. You're essentially saying, "I'm not saying executives aren't critical players, they're just not the real creators of value...they leave because they get bored and have so much capital while developers leave because of a twinkle in their eye."
  - npunt 10y ago
    Agree. When I see people make statements like "but they are not X" its almost always a value statement with a word substitution, and you can just swap in 'good' for 'creator' (or whatever other word used). GP's opinion that management aren't 'creators' of course neglects a few things: a) the role of management is necessarily one step removed from direct project output, so yes, they'll probably do less direct work on the project b) that 'creators' can (and do) move in to management c) there is no creativity involved in taking uncertain inputs and turning those into the direction & vision of a project d) that shaping a project's output to maximize outcomes is something that can net a lot more value than adding another 'creator' e) that 'creators' sometimes don't care about the project outcomes as much as the process f) that 'creators' may not have experience in the various domains their product or service is ultimately being provided in, and thus may not understand or pick the right constraints to apply during their creative process. ...among many other possible misconceptions. I've seen this in the education world myself, where teachers (who are similarly front-line workers) were skeptical of management and the viewpoints of those outside their domain being able to add value. 'But they're not educators' was the statement I heard a lot.
- dreamfactory2 10y ago
  Developers aren't the sole creators in software that people use. Everybody active is a builder, whether it's underlying software or the user and economic parts of the ecosystem. The development part is often easier precisely because it is easier to define
- hellofunk 10y ago
  Your view of creativity is quite narrow.
- nasalgoat 10y ago
  As an "executive" myself who doesn't actually code on a day-to-day basis, I can assure you I am still very creative, because I advise and direct the developers on my team using my experience, knowledge and "big picture" view of the whole company. Why, just yesterday I made some suggestions that resulted in a 20% improvement in one of our API calls, and I didn't code a single line. You underestimate the value of executives by not valuing their experience and ability to direct.

dsacco 10y ago

This is a very high school perspective to take on the difference between developers and executives. I imagine you'd rather live in a world ruled by programmer-kings who are the only people capable of creating value, while all the other peons toil away in the service of their creation with their inferior, bogus skillsets.

dang 10y ago
You've got an important point here, so it would have been much better to make it substantively and without snark. I say it's an important point because it was a big one for my own growth. I think many programmers (and many HN users) tend to feel that way, and not without reason. What's needed is patient explanation, not oppositional dismissiveness. Unfortunately the latter takes a lot less time.
- dsacco 10y ago
  Fair point, Dan. I'll remember that for next time.

CryoLogic 10y ago

The best execs are responsible for a few things: 1. Creating and Maintaining a vision for the future of the company based on industry experience, research and hypothesis. 2. Keeping all of the teams and players up to sync on that vision. 3. Driving the development of that vision from day to day and pivoting when needed. So while they might not be "creating" code, it is important to note that code alone doesn't make a company and leadership is essential especially the larger a corp becomes.

mstade 10y ago
A key aspect missing from your list: Always Be Closing. Good execs are always selling, internally and externally. Your list mostly concerns the internal aspect of being an exec, but a huge part of it is selling externally. Whether they are the ones actually closing the deals or moving things along doesn't really matter, the point is they're always selling. And at the end of the day, what's going to make or break your business is how much product you're moving. Execs are hugely important for this, in addition to all the points you mentioned.

gizmo 10y ago

Executives create the organization itself. A company has many moving parts, each with their own constraints, their own goals, and their own limitations. We talk about building a company because all these parts need to be shaped in such a way that they work together towards a common goal. This is not just difficult and cross-disciplinary, it's also intellectually challenging work, and as real a form of creation as writing software. Companies don't create themselves, and people don't automatically organize themselves. You need people who specialize in this, if you want it done well; you need executives. Sure, we roll our eyes at the nonsense language executives spout, and at the political games they play. And yet good executives create functional companies with a good corporate culture, where good engineering can take place. You might ask yourself: if everything is running smoothly, what do we need the executives for? Much like the IT guy who doesn't get appreciated for preventing disasters, the work executives do is invisible when done well. Besides, the line between creation and facilitation is a blurry one. Without salespeople there is no budget for programmers to create things. Does that mean salespeople as non-creators are deserving of our disdain? Or should we just appreciate them for fullfilling a vital role within the company? Suppose that executives were non-creators (and they're not), why does it matter? They're nonetheless vital for the company's success.