4 ms·

I don't think it is a cargo cult. My guess is that the focus is to make these engineers replaceable. And "quiet, introverted, methodical folks" are difficult

I don't think it is a cargo cult. My guess is that the focus is to make these engineers replaceable. And "quiet, introverted, methodical folks" are difficult to replace. Dumbed down open office workers and brogrammers are easily replaceable with another recent graduate some place cheaper.

justforFranz 9y ago
Get yer cargo cult out of my bandwagon.
- MrTortoise 9y ago
  Get her bandwagon out of my bikeshed
bsg75 9y ago
Its both.
ashark 9y ago
Definitely part of it. Businesses are afraid developers will come to regard themselves, and to be regarded, as real professionals, like doctors, lawyers, some categories of engineer (god forbid they stop cowering around the MBAs or start questioning the ethics of... well, anything, really!) Systemically keeping their tastes and station "lower" than that is probably part of what's going on, especially with the bigger companies. Developer pay may (sometimes) approach or match upper-middle, professional-class level, but (self-)respect for developers can't be permitted to reach those heights. Better their conditions are kept closer to, say, mid-20th-century secretary pools.
- j2bax 9y ago
  Cry me a river. I know a lot of nurses and teachers that feel really bad for the poor software engineer class.
  - acdha 9y ago
    Who does that attitude benefit? (Hint: not anyone who has to work for a living)
  - ashark 9y ago
    What's your point? Obviously developer pay is enviable. That's the problem (for management). High-status pay risks translating into actual high-status, with the influence and autonomy that implies. Hence the very low-status worker bee seating arrangements. I mean, thank god so many of these developers lean Objectivist or otherwise ultra-individualist or simply haven't given the politics of labor much thought, or they might organize and then businesses would have to do something to fight that, too. How inconvenient that would be for them. I'm not crying, just observing. There's a risk of a new honest-to-god high-status profession emerging, and desire to avoid that is probably behind some of the "culture" filtering down from the big tech companies. It's barely-upper-middle-class-culturally-if-you-squint-a-little management not wanting to have subordinates who match or outrank them, socially. The smaller companies aren't in on it—they're just cargo-culting, of course. Investors and potential larger, acquiring companies sure do seem to expect those conditions when they get their tours, though, so there's that.
    - j2bax 9y ago
      All I'm saying is I think you are making it a little more personal/deep than it might be. The seating arrangement in many/most instances may in fact just be a logistics issue of fitting a large number of people into a economical amount of space. Standard corporate structure/org charts determine who gets the offices. If one person serves as the buffer between management above them and the 10-20 developers below them, why shouldn't they? It would seem they would need a private space more often for meetings and such. Hopefully a lot of them sat out on the floor and did their time as well. As I see it, with great risk comes great reward. Managers are held responsible for the the great successes or great failures of their team(s). I wouldn't work for a manager that I don't respect and feel deserves a position of management above me. If you do, thats your bad. If you are concerned (or care) that your perceived status isn't living up to your expectations for the work you do and the value you provide, you could always try doing something else that people perceive as more respectable and worthy of awe and special treatment.
pandaman 9y ago
I agree. It seems that Bloomberg "invented" it (there used to be open space offices before, of course, but I don't think they were this style of "all departments and even executives are in the same room without any divisions") and it appears to be content with high turnover.

justforFranz 9y ago

Get yer cargo cult out of my bandwagon.

MrTortoise 9y ago
Get her bandwagon out of my bikeshed

bsg75 9y ago

Its both.

ashark 9y ago

Definitely part of it. Businesses are afraid developers will come to regard themselves, and to be regarded, as real professionals, like doctors, lawyers, some categories of engineer (god forbid they stop cowering around the MBAs or start questioning the ethics of... well, anything, really!) Systemically keeping their tastes and station "lower" than that is probably part of what's going on, especially with the bigger companies. Developer pay may (sometimes) approach or match upper-middle, professional-class level, but (self-)respect for developers can't be permitted to reach those heights. Better their conditions are kept closer to, say, mid-20th-century secretary pools.

j2bax 9y ago
Cry me a river. I know a lot of nurses and teachers that feel really bad for the poor software engineer class.
- acdha 9y ago
  Who does that attitude benefit? (Hint: not anyone who has to work for a living)
- ashark 9y ago
  What's your point? Obviously developer pay is enviable. That's the problem (for management). High-status pay risks translating into actual high-status, with the influence and autonomy that implies. Hence the very low-status worker bee seating arrangements. I mean, thank god so many of these developers lean Objectivist or otherwise ultra-individualist or simply haven't given the politics of labor much thought, or they might organize and then businesses would have to do something to fight that, too. How inconvenient that would be for them. I'm not crying, just observing. There's a risk of a new honest-to-god high-status profession emerging, and desire to avoid that is probably behind some of the "culture" filtering down from the big tech companies. It's barely-upper-middle-class-culturally-if-you-squint-a-little management not wanting to have subordinates who match or outrank them, socially. The smaller companies aren't in on it—they're just cargo-culting, of course. Investors and potential larger, acquiring companies sure do seem to expect those conditions when they get their tours, though, so there's that.
  - j2bax 9y ago
    All I'm saying is I think you are making it a little more personal/deep than it might be. The seating arrangement in many/most instances may in fact just be a logistics issue of fitting a large number of people into a economical amount of space. Standard corporate structure/org charts determine who gets the offices. If one person serves as the buffer between management above them and the 10-20 developers below them, why shouldn't they? It would seem they would need a private space more often for meetings and such. Hopefully a lot of them sat out on the floor and did their time as well. As I see it, with great risk comes great reward. Managers are held responsible for the the great successes or great failures of their team(s). I wouldn't work for a manager that I don't respect and feel deserves a position of management above me. If you do, thats your bad. If you are concerned (or care) that your perceived status isn't living up to your expectations for the work you do and the value you provide, you could always try doing something else that people perceive as more respectable and worthy of awe and special treatment.

pandaman 9y ago

I agree. It seems that Bloomberg "invented" it (there used to be open space offices before, of course, but I don't think they were this style of "all departments and even executives are in the same room without any divisions") and it appears to be content with high turnover.