3 ms·
I wish my Googling skills were stronger, but alas, they are not. I remember one of the other key takeaways was that the manager role was treated more favorably
by moduspol 8y ago
I wish my Googling skills were stronger, but alas, they are not.
I remember one of the other key takeaways was that the manager role was treated more favorably--specifically that they apologized they could only offer some (reasonable) amount of relocation assistance while none was even offered in the developer role. It was theorized that managers were seen as an "in group" among other managers, but that was obviously just speculation.
I wasn't on HN at the time, so I can't confirm it was here. It was one of those blog posts / write-ups that made the rounds.
- rwallace 8y agoI think it was a blog post by Michael O Church, though I don't have the reference to hand.
- S4M 8y agoI managed to dig it from archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20160113210613/https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160113210613/https://michaeloc...
- moduspol 8y agoThat's the one! Thank you so much.
- bryanrasmussen 8y agoI would think it isn't that managers are an in-group but are peers, even if a manager helps hire another manager that hire can be a potential problem for them if they feel slighted, but if the developer feels slighted - well the developer is subservient, not a peer.