5 ms·

Question - why is it that experience / age / wisdom is an asset in other professional trades [1], but it is seen s as a liability in tech? I have a couple of t

Question - why is it that experience / age / wisdom is an asset in other professional trades [1], but it is seen s as a liability in tech? I have a couple of theoretical answers. One, perception of tech workers being semi-skilled labor (like low level clerical work) lending it to being managed with "cost center" economics. Middle managers from baby boomer and gen x grew up with idea that tech can easily be "off-shored." The perception is that tech work is a necessary cost, not a strategic element of pretty much all businesses. However, the next generation of middle managers that grew up not knowing what life was like with out the internet will recognize how important tech is to the business and will shift the corporate attitude towards tech work.[2] Two (this one will be a lot more upsetting), tech workers were introverted and passive, which makes them easier to take advantage of by middle managers who are not afraid to bully them around.[3] So when tech workers get laid off after age 40, rather than fight and adapt, they blame ageism and go quietly into the night. However, the next generation of tech workers seems to be a lot more assertive in their comp and career expectations. I know I am. Three, a combination of the above. Fourth, none of the above and I am full of $hit. In which case, I am interested in others' thoughts. [1] Law, medicine, finance, accounting, etc [2] A quick story on how corporate culture can change between generations. When IBM was first trying to sell their PCs to businesses, none of them were buying. So they hired a consulting company to figure out why. The consultants came back and said to IBM that the problem with their PCs not selling was an actuarial problem, not with their strategy - the younger people at those companies were excited about new tech, but the decision makers (many of whom were much older) did not see the value of new tech. Consultants told IBM to wait until the decision makers retired. The rest is history. [3] I have seen this play out, where tech workers are too intimidated to push back against poor business decisions, like over-optimistic delivery deadlines.

MangoCoffee 6y ago
>Question - why is it that experience / age / wisdom is an asset in other professional trades [1], but it is seen s as a liability in tech? Silicon Valley (software) Culture. tech (software) company want cheap labors and believed youth can overcome any difficulties. its deep rooted in Silicon Valley culture. From 19 yrs old Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel...etc. While on the hardware side, most of engineers/founders are much older because hardware is more unforgiving than software.
finnthehuman 6y ago
My theory: When I was staring out, the company “gray beards” were highly valuable and well-respected. Then “tech” as a meaningful name for a business vertical became diluted to the point that tech wasn’t necessarily valuable to “tech.” GE created NBC, but NBC isn't branding themselves as an engineering company. GE could realistically be called an engineering company despite operating in many other markets, and NBC was probably instrumental in cutting age broadcast tech for decades and decades, but that's not the business they were in.
corpMaverick 6y ago
I have a slightly different hypothesis on #2. Tech workers are busy. Learning and we are overloaded with actual work. We don't have as much time to play office politics. Also, A lot of the problems we face are hard to communicate and we end up facing them in isolation.
randcraw 6y ago
I think software professionals' problems go deeper than biased perceptions of management that undervalue experience. Unlike other forms of engineering, software hasn't developed the same feedback-driven processes to ensure efficiacy, reproducibility, safety, or reliability -- where standard metrics of practice have been developed through methodical exploration, optimization, and repetition. To wit, we still don't know how to make software 10% better. Ergo, we don't know in what way a more experienced developer can add value over a newbie. So why pay older devs more or retain them, when it's easier and cheaper to boss around neophytes who don't have family distractions or need health care? Professional advancement in any field requires mastery. But instead of building "on the shoulders of giants", as is central to masters of science and of classic forms of engineering, the definition of software mastery remains qualitative and vague. Historically, evolution of software tools, practices and standards has been driven less by the systematic learning of what techniques work or don't, and more by adoption of styles and fashions: "This programming model/tool is better than that alternative. How do I know this? I just do, and I'm a smart guy." Maybe it's not surprising then that even software managers, who came up through these ranks and presumably should respect the evolutionary enrichment and advancement of software pros, don't. In the end, it's cost and trendiness that rules the software dev hiring process, rather than experience-driven insights into S/W practices & principles or battle-hardened expertise in building better apps.

MangoCoffee 6y ago

>Question - why is it that experience / age / wisdom is an asset in other professional trades [1], but it is seen s as a liability in tech? Silicon Valley (software) Culture. tech (software) company want cheap labors and believed youth can overcome any difficulties. its deep rooted in Silicon Valley culture. From 19 yrs old Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel...etc. While on the hardware side, most of engineers/founders are much older because hardware is more unforgiving than software.

finnthehuman 6y ago

My theory: When I was staring out, the company “gray beards” were highly valuable and well-respected. Then “tech” as a meaningful name for a business vertical became diluted to the point that tech wasn’t necessarily valuable to “tech.” GE created NBC, but NBC isn't branding themselves as an engineering company. GE could realistically be called an engineering company despite operating in many other markets, and NBC was probably instrumental in cutting age broadcast tech for decades and decades, but that's not the business they were in.

corpMaverick 6y ago

I have a slightly different hypothesis on #2. Tech workers are busy. Learning and we are overloaded with actual work. We don't have as much time to play office politics. Also, A lot of the problems we face are hard to communicate and we end up facing them in isolation.

randcraw 6y ago

I think software professionals' problems go deeper than biased perceptions of management that undervalue experience. Unlike other forms of engineering, software hasn't developed the same feedback-driven processes to ensure efficiacy, reproducibility, safety, or reliability -- where standard metrics of practice have been developed through methodical exploration, optimization, and repetition. To wit, we still don't know how to make software 10% better. Ergo, we don't know in what way a more experienced developer can add value over a newbie. So why pay older devs more or retain them, when it's easier and cheaper to boss around neophytes who don't have family distractions or need health care? Professional advancement in any field requires mastery. But instead of building "on the shoulders of giants", as is central to masters of science and of classic forms of engineering, the definition of software mastery remains qualitative and vague. Historically, evolution of software tools, practices and standards has been driven less by the systematic learning of what techniques work or don't, and more by adoption of styles and fashions: "This programming model/tool is better than that alternative. How do I know this? I just do, and I'm a smart guy." Maybe it's not surprising then that even software managers, who came up through these ranks and presumably should respect the evolutionary enrichment and advancement of software pros, don't. In the end, it's cost and trendiness that rules the software dev hiring process, rather than experience-driven insights into S/W practices & principles or battle-hardened expertise in building better apps.