5 ms·

Soft skills really means learning the corporate protocol, which is basically top-down control, akin to military. Leadership means understanding and contributing

by proc0 7y ago

Soft skills really means learning the corporate protocol, which is basically top-down control, akin to military. Leadership means understanding and contributing to the hierarchical nature of companies. There's nothing wrong with this except when it comes to software companies that should be more creative yet they push these soft skills almost like military has code of conduct. In any software company, if everyone could code, they would, and then they would realize soft skills are just an indirect way to influence what people code without knowing how to.

superhuzza 7y ago
Demonstrably untrue, lots of software engineers end up in non-coding roles. Perhaps they want to make larger contributions, have more responsibilities, more money, whatever.
- proc0 7y ago
  To clarify, knowing how to code is the difference, not so much coding itself. Making decisions in a software company without coding experience and knowledge of technical concepts is a huge bottleneck, imho, because there is a back-and-forth between technical workers and non-technical decision makers. If decision makers had the same coding experience this would be much smoother, and in my experience many stakeholders would easily be changing code in their products if they could.
filmgirlcw 7y ago
I completely disagree with this assessment. Soft skills may be synonymous in some areas as “corporate protocol” or politics, but it’s really about effective communication — and that’s beneficial regardless of what you’re doing or what type of place you work in. >In any software company, if everyone could code, they would, and then they would realize soft skills are just an indirect way to influence what people code without knowing how to. This is completely untrue and is frankly, insulting. It’s not an either/or. You can know how to code or know how to architect a system or do design and also have soft skills. Moreover, the idea that non-coders can only have an indirect influence on what people code seems to be a fairy fundamental misunderstanding about how projects work. Plenty of people can code and don’t — and plenty of people who don’t code don’t have any interest in doing it — still have major roles in software development. Look at Steve Jobs. If anything, the soft skills are what allows a programmer or a program manager or PM or designer or architect to help express the case for any something is coded a certain way or why it isn’t. Being able to explain and communicate design decisions — and to be able to talk through problems and blockers is incredibly important, not just to push or influence a decision, but to solve problems or come up with new innovations.
- proc0 7y ago
  > the idea that non-coders can only have an indirect influence on what people code seems to be a fairy fundamental misunderstanding about how projects work. Knowing how to code and actually coding is different. I'm claiming if everyone could (in a software company) have the knowledge of coding, they would, as this would influence virtually every decision being made. Of course most people are happy not knowing how to code, but if they could snap their fingers and simply know everything about developing their own products, they would. Usually this is dealt with "methodologies" like agile. Technical and non-technical people have to close the "gap" so that the stakeholders (who usually don't code in any advanced way) are happy with the direction that is being taken. There's a lot of efforts wasted in meetings to coordinate and prevent non-technical leaders from making the wrong technical decisions.
cwyers 7y ago
Having been in the military, any civilian company is going to have a vastly different experience than the military. In the military, hierarchies are regimented (unsurprisingly, as regiment is a unit in the military). Corporate hierarchies are not as clear or as easy to navigate.
- proc0 7y ago
  Of course it's different but consider all the retired military personnel that get hired to talk at different companies about leadership. There's a reason they find value in the experiences of military leaders. There are many overlapping objectives, experiences, and processes.

by proc0 7y ago

superhuzza 7y ago

Demonstrably untrue, lots of software engineers end up in non-coding roles. Perhaps they want to make larger contributions, have more responsibilities, more money, whatever.

proc0 7y ago
To clarify, knowing how to code is the difference, not so much coding itself. Making decisions in a software company without coding experience and knowledge of technical concepts is a huge bottleneck, imho, because there is a back-and-forth between technical workers and non-technical decision makers. If decision makers had the same coding experience this would be much smoother, and in my experience many stakeholders would easily be changing code in their products if they could.

filmgirlcw 7y ago

I completely disagree with this assessment. Soft skills may be synonymous in some areas as “corporate protocol” or politics, but it’s really about effective communication — and that’s beneficial regardless of what you’re doing or what type of place you work in. >In any software company, if everyone could code, they would, and then they would realize soft skills are just an indirect way to influence what people code without knowing how to. This is completely untrue and is frankly, insulting. It’s not an either/or. You can know how to code or know how to architect a system or do design and also have soft skills. Moreover, the idea that non-coders can only have an indirect influence on what people code seems to be a fairy fundamental misunderstanding about how projects work. Plenty of people can code and don’t — and plenty of people who don’t code don’t have any interest in doing it — still have major roles in software development. Look at Steve Jobs. If anything, the soft skills are what allows a programmer or a program manager or PM or designer or architect to help express the case for any something is coded a certain way or why it isn’t. Being able to explain and communicate design decisions — and to be able to talk through problems and blockers is incredibly important, not just to push or influence a decision, but to solve problems or come up with new innovations.

proc0 7y ago
> the idea that non-coders can only have an indirect influence on what people code seems to be a fairy fundamental misunderstanding about how projects work. Knowing how to code and actually coding is different. I'm claiming if everyone could (in a software company) have the knowledge of coding, they would, as this would influence virtually every decision being made. Of course most people are happy not knowing how to code, but if they could snap their fingers and simply know everything about developing their own products, they would. Usually this is dealt with "methodologies" like agile. Technical and non-technical people have to close the "gap" so that the stakeholders (who usually don't code in any advanced way) are happy with the direction that is being taken. There's a lot of efforts wasted in meetings to coordinate and prevent non-technical leaders from making the wrong technical decisions.

cwyers 7y ago

Having been in the military, any civilian company is going to have a vastly different experience than the military. In the military, hierarchies are regimented (unsurprisingly, as regiment is a unit in the military). Corporate hierarchies are not as clear or as easy to navigate.

proc0 7y ago
Of course it's different but consider all the retired military personnel that get hired to talk at different companies about leadership. There's a reason they find value in the experiences of military leaders. There are many overlapping objectives, experiences, and processes.