4 ms·
> If an engineer isn't producing something worthwhile, he's not a good engineer, certainly not "one of my best engineers". Not my experience. I've seen amazi
by slededit 8y ago
> If an engineer isn't producing something worthwhile, he's not a good engineer, certainly not "one of my best engineers".
Not my experience. I've seen amazing engineers happily convince themselves whatever they are working on is important regardless of what it is. In fact its pretty common for really good engineers to simply fall in love with the code - or be convinced if they only finished this refactor it would be beautiful. I almost never hear them talk of business value.
The ones that do have this insight end up going on to be great managers - as they can bridge the divide.
- dunpeal 8y agoFor a functional employer, the definition of "a good engineer" is "someone who produces valuable engineering solutions for me". An engineer who isn't doing that is either mismanaged, misplaced, or is no good. In the first two cases, I can possibly make use of them. But if the engineer is a diva who would only work on some made-up fancy project, then he is not a good engineer for me. Maybe he will be able to do good work elsewhere, but that's not really relevant for me, my business, or my shareholders. Not anymore than the fact he may be a great painter or musician. Good for him, but sadly irrelevant for my business.
- slededit 8y agoGenerally its the managers responsibility to ensure they are working on what is important. That's literally their entire job. An employee capable of convincing themselves whatever they work on is important is a net benefit to the manager - they are more malleable and can be convinced to work on the important but "boring" parts. An employee refusing to work on something because in their opinion its not worthwhile is a tough place for both the employee and the manager.