4 ms·

> taking increasingly more challenging and essential roles What is a "more essential" role? Higher in the company hierarchy? I would bet that a guy who knows h

by js8 9y ago

> taking increasingly more challenging and essential roles What is a "more essential" role? Higher in the company hierarchy? I would bet that a guy who knows how to fix 20 year old system, behind the scenes and without fanfares, is probably more essential for your business, than just another suit talking bullshit like he did in his last gig. The problem is right here - there is no "essential". There is only work that needs to be done. It's always better to have somebody who has deep knowledge of the problem to do the job. And it takes time to get that knowledge. There are no shortcuts, like, doing "high-level" things. No, you actually suck at your job, because you have superficial understanding, you just reframed so it wouldn't be obvious. I am not against people doing high-level things. What I am saying is that being tricked into thinking that this is somewhat more important, though, is at the core of this stupidity. It isn't more important, it's a trade-off.

Twisell 9y ago
I'm at the same company for 10 year and my actual job description had evolved somewhat like this way: Cartographer > Database admin > Data scientist > Develloper > ... Because I felt like moving I talked to my boss and he agreed I start a part-time phd in the company. So chances are high that I'll stick around a few more years to achieve that. If after that a company is dumb enough to reject my CV based on a "to long in same company metric" that will be their problem, not mine... PS: In the long run I think we agree. The problem is that there is no absolute metric or Machine learning trickery to evaluate experience and value of an employee. Company that believe in or sell such metrics are the main problem IMHO.
- js8 9y ago
  > The problem is that there is no absolute metric or Machine learning trickery to evaluate experience and value of an employee. Of course. It's like asking what is more important in a car, the engine or the wheels? But people do want to play this game, for status reasons.
watwut 9y ago
In a company I work for the more essential role would be someone responsible for either larger chunk of work or more important chunk of work. Think analyst solely responsible for communication with customer and giving tasks to multiple programmers. Think programmer being told "we need this new module" along with phone call to contact person in customer company being trusted that new module happen and questions will be asked and no customer will be offended in the process. It might mean being assigned to tasks that are really important as opposed to tasks that are less important. There is more critical and less critical (essential) work. Who gets which one depends on trust a lot. It is not so much about deep knowledge of some tech, although that one play the role. Tech is easily learnable. Whether you are able to makes sense of vague customer, whether you can work without having hand holded is more of factor.
- js8 9y ago
  That's not a very realistic example. In the real world, the communication with analyst goes both ways - the programmers also have to tell him what is feasible and what is not. The problem with your argument is that you see a person "making" the decisions, and somehow you decided that he is the important guy. But if he is not a complete idiot, he is not making the decisions alone in the dark, but always goes to the more experienced (with the technology) people to get their opinion. Of course there is important and less important work. But this has nothing to do with an importance of a job or profession, which is an ill-posed question to begin with. And regarding responsibility.. I believe it's mostly status game again. If you don't have anything to lose, you don't have "more responsibility". A doctor or nurse, who can kill a patient and go to prison for that, has responsibility. A manager who will at worst lose the extra money and social status he gained for "having more responsibility" doesn't actually have any more responsibility - because he has in fact nothing to lose compared to what he had before.
  - watwut 9y ago
    It was real world example and had nothing to do with making decisions. > That's not a very realistic example. In the real world, the communication with analyst goes both ways - the programmers also have to tell him what is feasible and what is not. Yes and many people have problem to handle that. Also, programmers sometimes lie. But mostly, you go visit customer and three people there tell you completely contradictory requirements. And they hate each other and occasionally lie. Or more likely, give you requirements that make no sense, you have to ask right questions and push them right directions. The technology is not the issue there, making sense of vague requirements and creating consistent goal is. It is harder to replace such person then css guy. Of course it is immensely important how software looks like, but that skill is easier to measure during interview. But as I told, the real difference is how much supervision you need, how likely you are to create organizational mess and so on. A single programmer can not do all that much damage and there are processes to mitigate that risk. The point of contact can make a lot of damage. That is why it is more essential - your failure has bigger consequences for the whole project/company. > And regarding responsibility.. I believe it's mostly status game again. It is not. Responsibility is not about being punished nor height of that punishment. It is about being reliable without there being the need for threat of punishment over your head. If you don't work unless there is daily standup to report progress at, then you can not be trusted with larger more important tasks - no matter how genius you are. If I am manager and tell you "this is half written requirements and the phone number" can she or he just go back to the office expecting you to communicate/do the rest? Or does he/she needs to visit you every week and ask you right questions and remind you to send important mails? That is the responsibility and that is what many people fail at.

by js8 9y ago

Twisell 9y ago

I'm at the same company for 10 year and my actual job description had evolved somewhat like this way: Cartographer > Database admin > Data scientist > Develloper > ... Because I felt like moving I talked to my boss and he agreed I start a part-time phd in the company. So chances are high that I'll stick around a few more years to achieve that. If after that a company is dumb enough to reject my CV based on a "to long in same company metric" that will be their problem, not mine... PS: In the long run I think we agree. The problem is that there is no absolute metric or Machine learning trickery to evaluate experience and value of an employee. Company that believe in or sell such metrics are the main problem IMHO.

js8 9y ago
> The problem is that there is no absolute metric or Machine learning trickery to evaluate experience and value of an employee. Of course. It's like asking what is more important in a car, the engine or the wheels? But people do want to play this game, for status reasons.

watwut 9y ago

In a company I work for the more essential role would be someone responsible for either larger chunk of work or more important chunk of work. Think analyst solely responsible for communication with customer and giving tasks to multiple programmers. Think programmer being told "we need this new module" along with phone call to contact person in customer company being trusted that new module happen and questions will be asked and no customer will be offended in the process. It might mean being assigned to tasks that are really important as opposed to tasks that are less important. There is more critical and less critical (essential) work. Who gets which one depends on trust a lot. It is not so much about deep knowledge of some tech, although that one play the role. Tech is easily learnable. Whether you are able to makes sense of vague customer, whether you can work without having hand holded is more of factor.

js8 9y ago
That's not a very realistic example. In the real world, the communication with analyst goes both ways - the programmers also have to tell him what is feasible and what is not. The problem with your argument is that you see a person "making" the decisions, and somehow you decided that he is the important guy. But if he is not a complete idiot, he is not making the decisions alone in the dark, but always goes to the more experienced (with the technology) people to get their opinion. Of course there is important and less important work. But this has nothing to do with an importance of a job or profession, which is an ill-posed question to begin with. And regarding responsibility.. I believe it's mostly status game again. If you don't have anything to lose, you don't have "more responsibility". A doctor or nurse, who can kill a patient and go to prison for that, has responsibility. A manager who will at worst lose the extra money and social status he gained for "having more responsibility" doesn't actually have any more responsibility - because he has in fact nothing to lose compared to what he had before.
- watwut 9y ago
  It was real world example and had nothing to do with making decisions. > That's not a very realistic example. In the real world, the communication with analyst goes both ways - the programmers also have to tell him what is feasible and what is not. Yes and many people have problem to handle that. Also, programmers sometimes lie. But mostly, you go visit customer and three people there tell you completely contradictory requirements. And they hate each other and occasionally lie. Or more likely, give you requirements that make no sense, you have to ask right questions and push them right directions. The technology is not the issue there, making sense of vague requirements and creating consistent goal is. It is harder to replace such person then css guy. Of course it is immensely important how software looks like, but that skill is easier to measure during interview. But as I told, the real difference is how much supervision you need, how likely you are to create organizational mess and so on. A single programmer can not do all that much damage and there are processes to mitigate that risk. The point of contact can make a lot of damage. That is why it is more essential - your failure has bigger consequences for the whole project/company. > And regarding responsibility.. I believe it's mostly status game again. It is not. Responsibility is not about being punished nor height of that punishment. It is about being reliable without there being the need for threat of punishment over your head. If you don't work unless there is daily standup to report progress at, then you can not be trusted with larger more important tasks - no matter how genius you are. If I am manager and tell you "this is half written requirements and the phone number" can she or he just go back to the office expecting you to communicate/do the rest? Or does he/she needs to visit you every week and ask you right questions and remind you to send important mails? That is the responsibility and that is what many people fail at.