4 ms·

> The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of money and prestige. I think this is a da

> The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of money and prestige. I think this is a damn shame, and we should be striving to stop that. You may like Eric Dietrich's book Developer Hegemony[1]. He talks about both why the third group is less successful and how people within that group can potentially improve their situation within the current system. > I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day. I've seen the sliminess as well, but regardless of how ethical you are, in order to be successful in any domain you must be prepared to defend your interests (which people might perceive as "scumbag" behavior) and convince others that you have something of value to offer them (i.e. "selling"). I think it is possible (though difficult) to be both successful and moral, but success isn't everything. I think certainly possible to have a fulfilling life and not be successful. But (and I'm not claiming this applies to you) I would caution people in general against getting stuck in the rut of telling themselves that they value things other than success and at the same time resenting those who are successful. [1] https://www.daedtech.com/developer-hegemony-the-crazy-idea-that-software-developers-should-run-software-development/ https://www.daedtech.com/developer-hegemony-the-crazy-idea-t...

i_cant_speel 9y ago
> He talks about both why the third group is less successful and how people within that group can potentially improve their situation within the current system. Are you able to provide a cliff note or two about why they are less successful and how to improve their situations?
- lliamander 9y ago
  Why are line level engineers less successful? In short, the Gervais Principle[1]: "Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves." What to do about it? These things: * recognize that as software professionals we own the means of production * learn the business side of software * form partnerships with other developers such that the distinctions between worker and owner, suit and techie, no longer exists * shift focus away from developing software according to a spec, and towards being a provider of overall business efficiency (often achieved through software). Note that this is focused primarily towards developers working in the IT cost-centers of (generally non-technology) businesses. [1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    Note that engineers who do this become Sociopaths (in the MacLeod sense) - suddenly they are running a business, hiring employees, and taking every advantage they can, because if they don't, they're Clueless. The rest of the Ribbonfarm essay series expounded on this a bit more thoroughly - many of those Sociopaths are actually Losers until the right opportunity presents itself. There isn't actually a way out, on a systemic level. On a personal level, though, you should be very honest with yourself about which of the three categories you want to be, and go after it. People who refuse to accept the trade-offs or deny that there is one are by definition Clueless.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      > Note that engineers who do this become Sociopaths (in the MacLeod sense) Which is actually what Dietrich is advocating, with a careful caveat: these developer partnerships only hire other Sociopaths (or Opportunists, as Dietrich calls them) insofar as it is possible, and generally avoid growing large enough to need a gooey Clueless middle. The MacLeod system describes organizations of all sizes, but only reaches its full flowering in large enterprises.
pjungwir 9y ago
I haven't read Developer Hegemony, but the book Managing the Professional Services Firm by David Maister is all about the structures present in other professional services work, e.g. law, accounting, engineering, etc., even car mechanics! :-) A ton of it is shared with software, so if you are a freelancer or trying to start a dev shop, it is great reading.

i_cant_speel 9y ago

> He talks about both why the third group is less successful and how people within that group can potentially improve their situation within the current system. Are you able to provide a cliff note or two about why they are less successful and how to improve their situations?

lliamander 9y ago
Why are line level engineers less successful? In short, the Gervais Principle[1]: "Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves." What to do about it? These things: * recognize that as software professionals we own the means of production * learn the business side of software * form partnerships with other developers such that the distinctions between worker and owner, suit and techie, no longer exists * shift focus away from developing software according to a spec, and towards being a provider of overall business efficiency (often achieved through software). Note that this is focused primarily towards developers working in the IT cost-centers of (generally non-technology) businesses. [1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nostrademons 9y ago
  Note that engineers who do this become Sociopaths (in the MacLeod sense) - suddenly they are running a business, hiring employees, and taking every advantage they can, because if they don't, they're Clueless. The rest of the Ribbonfarm essay series expounded on this a bit more thoroughly - many of those Sociopaths are actually Losers until the right opportunity presents itself. There isn't actually a way out, on a systemic level. On a personal level, though, you should be very honest with yourself about which of the three categories you want to be, and go after it. People who refuse to accept the trade-offs or deny that there is one are by definition Clueless.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    > Note that engineers who do this become Sociopaths (in the MacLeod sense) Which is actually what Dietrich is advocating, with a careful caveat: these developer partnerships only hire other Sociopaths (or Opportunists, as Dietrich calls them) insofar as it is possible, and generally avoid growing large enough to need a gooey Clueless middle. The MacLeod system describes organizations of all sizes, but only reaches its full flowering in large enterprises.

pjungwir 9y ago

I haven't read Developer Hegemony, but the book Managing the Professional Services Firm by David Maister is all about the structures present in other professional services work, e.g. law, accounting, engineering, etc., even car mechanics! :-) A ton of it is shared with software, so if you are a freelancer or trying to start a dev shop, it is great reading.