3 ms·
I've worked for two megacorps. One non-tech and one tech (hardware and software). Both fit the description on that page well. I came to these two companies f
by apohn 8y ago
I've worked for two megacorps. One non-tech and one tech (hardware and software). Both fit the description on that page well. I came to these two companies from a smaller tech company and each megacorp definitely seemed insane.
IME The difference is that at the non-tech company all the decision makers saw individual contributors the same way - didn't matter if you were a PhD scientist or a Business Analyst. Individual contributors were cogs in a business process.
At the tech company some of the decision makers seem to understand that technical people are "advanced cogs" and not just regular cogs. To me, that's the difference between feeling totally useless at the non-tech company and occasionally useful at the tech company.
- maxxxxx 8y agoI have seen that too. I tend to tell young devs that it's better to work for a company where the CEO has at least some basic grasp or appreciation for your work and doesn't just see you as a cost.
- alttab 8y agoThe difference between tech and non tech companies is the value factor of the employee. If you're a software guy at a large global hotel, it's meh. You are a tier 3 or 4 employee. They make money booking rooms - anything else is a cost component. Software companies see developers as an asset because they build the product. The dynamic is different and the pay and respect reflect that. One time I almost quit a start up to take a little more money at a hedge fund to do their internal software. The start up CEO talked me out of it and I learned an important lesson about my trade.