3 ms·

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.

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.