6 ms·

I don't disagree with this, but sadly, a prerequisite for that is a position of privilege where you're able to push back against non-valuable work. I've seen ma

by bedobi 6y ago

I don't disagree with this, but sadly, a prerequisite for that is a position of privilege where you're able to push back against non-valuable work. I've seen many, many very good software developers that have this quality, but get overruled, and their true value goes unrealized as a result.

banner2018 6y ago
Precisely my observation of last couple decades.
stonecharioteer 6y ago
This happens to me at my organization fairly often. I build solutions I'm asked to build and then an abusive architect coopts that work and rewrites it in a shitty, unusable way. Users cry at me, but when I tell them what happened, they are silent. No one cares enough to cry to leadership. And the leadership have clearly said they have no intention of overruling what said architect talks about.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  Sounds like trauma bonding. I'd leave yesterday unless there is a bad market.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- davewritescode 6y ago
  Leadership puts an architect in place because they don't have the time to care about code level details. I would personally mention it to leadership but frame it in a way that your work is being rejected but nobody is explaining to you why so that you can learn and do better next time. Unfortunately in a large software engineering organization tact and political savvy is more important than raw engineering skill. Once you've been in the industry long enough, you'll understand it. One of the problems that's common in organizations is that most of the work at the junior level is highly focused on individual contribution and that completely flips at some point in your career.
kostarelo 6y ago
Totally agree and I wish to those people to leave the place they are currently in and find a better where their skills are truly recognised.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  That's a tough one. Often the sensibility about what needs to be done comes from hours/weeks/month/years hacking away at their codebase in their specific setting. Much of that has to be rebuilt from scratch in a new place. If you don't find that same connection with your work at the new place - or are unable to develop the relationships with your peers or your manager, you may not end up able to make that impact at the new place either. I tend to encourage folks who come to me about quitting to explore opportunities within the team/organization/company before leaving so they can leverage all the social capital they've built up.
  - plutonorm 6y ago
    If you are not being heard where you are it's very likely the culture is toxic or you are not respected. In either case it's time to leave.
  - kostarelo 6y ago
    Absolutely, especially in bigger organisations where one part may be completely different in terms of how is organized and how is operating from another one.
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  There's another facet to this which I think is far more important that OP question of "What [exactly] does mastery 'look like'?". The more important question is "how do you cultivate mastery?" How does your organization get to a place where people can develop mastery instead of the organization trying to create it instantly by hiring "the right people"? Regardless of what people may claim, hiring is not a solved problem. It's _really_ hard to identify candidates that are true masters at what they do (let alone getting them to quit their job and join your team). By the same token, it's also _really_ hard for true masters to find a place that understands their value and, more importantly, will allow them to do their thing and provide career satisfaction. A lot of talented people are locked out of jobs because someone thought their career trajectory wasn't quite right/impressive. Training and mentorship, however, are better understood and have lower stakes. It makes me think of Bell Labs. I know a couple folks who worked there who had very "unimpressive" backgrounds, they started as techs but rubbed elbows with stellar talent in a place that cultivated discovery and collaboration. Over time while there and in other places they were able to rise to principal design engineers, beyond what many who went to elite universities achieve. They credit their formative years in Bell labs with getting them started on their career path. The thing is, Bell Labs didn't have an epically selective hiring process, nor was the compensation insanely high. They provided an environment that _attracted_ people with mastery and those who were passionate about what they do, they developed talent within their walls rather than trying to merely buy it or find it. This was for electrical engineers, but the same ideas can apply to software engineers.
arcticbull 6y ago
Part of what it means to be a senior engineer is that you have a mastery over the soft skills/people skills commensurate with your engineering abilities. Someone who knows how a bridge should be architected but cannot navigate the politics of city council necessary to get it built isn't much of a bridge builder. The importance of good politics cannot be understated. Politics in this case is roughly defined as getting people onboard with your plans.
- conductr 6y ago
  While your bridge analogy is true, I feel it's even more valuable to have an informed view for what's on the other end of that bridge. If you work the politics and use all the right materials to build an efficient bridge that's great. But a wonderful bridge to nowhere is still a bridge to nowhere. I say this because as a finance guy, I've been on lots of projects that look great on a spreadsheet and marketing, sales, or somebody else is really pushing for the investment. That's the point where a technical person takes over and builds what's asked, or a really great technical person may ask a few questions and raise a few points nobody else considered and the whole bubble bursts as we realize it's not feasible/or we can test it in a certain way before investing big time/money into it. Probably not mastery of SE as OP asked. But mastery as a business partner within an organization.
  - healsjnr1 6y ago
    That sounds amazing, sadly in a lot of organisations that isn't how it pans out. Either the engagement with technology doesn't happen early enough, or when it does, the technology point of view isn't given the weight it deserves. The ideas have already caught and too many people are invested and have 'faith' it will all work out. The crux of this is that many of those people who carry the weight in decision making don't actually carry any risk or responsibility for delivery. Given the scale of engineering and time to deliver, by the time it comes to fruition they've moved on, so they never experience accountability for ignoring the advice.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
intricatedetail 6y ago
If you think something does not produce value and you have knowledge to back it up (you could think something is of no value if you don't know the big picture), and you are "forced" to do it anyway, then it all depends on pay. If you get a lot of money for this, you can exchange these later to fill any gaps that this will create or simply leave the co, unless you want to be known for doing fool's errands and stroking managers egos.
- guytv 6y ago
  Almost agree. I would say that if this is the case, Pay is local optimisation. On the long run, if you stay in such a company your market value will by reduced as it is (a) psychological very difficult to resist such culture to influence your mind, unlimitedly transforming you. (b) will eventually turn your life into a saga of bitterness and resentment, lower self esteem. (c) arguably, such a company will ultimately fail in their business. so you're probably better off take a possible temporary pay reduction for a better happiness and higher pay on the long run.
  - intricatedetail 6y ago
    All valid points!
PaulHoule 6y ago
I worked at one place that was a basket case and finally started to push back. The HR person seemed shocked that I was concerned with the business value of a project, but i had people telling me i wasnt worth what i was being paid -- I could show the next assignment had $0 in business value so if i spent more than 0 hours on it I'd just be digging myself a hole.
jkingsbery 6y ago
Most engineers I know in this situation move on to a new project before too long.

by bedobi 6y ago

banner2018 6y ago

Precisely my observation of last couple decades.

stonecharioteer 6y ago

This happens to me at my organization fairly often. I build solutions I'm asked to build and then an abusive architect coopts that work and rewrites it in a shitty, unusable way. Users cry at me, but when I tell them what happened, they are silent. No one cares enough to cry to leadership. And the leadership have clearly said they have no intention of overruling what said architect talks about.

intricatedetail 6y ago
Sounds like trauma bonding. I'd leave yesterday unless there is a bad market.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
davewritescode 6y ago
Leadership puts an architect in place because they don't have the time to care about code level details. I would personally mention it to leadership but frame it in a way that your work is being rejected but nobody is explaining to you why so that you can learn and do better next time. Unfortunately in a large software engineering organization tact and political savvy is more important than raw engineering skill. Once you've been in the industry long enough, you'll understand it. One of the problems that's common in organizations is that most of the work at the junior level is highly focused on individual contribution and that completely flips at some point in your career.

kostarelo 6y ago

Totally agree and I wish to those people to leave the place they are currently in and find a better where their skills are truly recognised.

arcticbull 6y ago
That's a tough one. Often the sensibility about what needs to be done comes from hours/weeks/month/years hacking away at their codebase in their specific setting. Much of that has to be rebuilt from scratch in a new place. If you don't find that same connection with your work at the new place - or are unable to develop the relationships with your peers or your manager, you may not end up able to make that impact at the new place either. I tend to encourage folks who come to me about quitting to explore opportunities within the team/organization/company before leaving so they can leverage all the social capital they've built up.
- plutonorm 6y ago
  If you are not being heard where you are it's very likely the culture is toxic or you are not respected. In either case it's time to leave.
- kostarelo 6y ago
  Absolutely, especially in bigger organisations where one part may be completely different in terms of how is organized and how is operating from another one.
crispyambulance 6y ago
There's another facet to this which I think is far more important that OP question of "What [exactly] does mastery 'look like'?". The more important question is "how do you cultivate mastery?" How does your organization get to a place where people can develop mastery instead of the organization trying to create it instantly by hiring "the right people"? Regardless of what people may claim, hiring is not a solved problem. It's _really_ hard to identify candidates that are true masters at what they do (let alone getting them to quit their job and join your team). By the same token, it's also _really_ hard for true masters to find a place that understands their value and, more importantly, will allow them to do their thing and provide career satisfaction. A lot of talented people are locked out of jobs because someone thought their career trajectory wasn't quite right/impressive. Training and mentorship, however, are better understood and have lower stakes. It makes me think of Bell Labs. I know a couple folks who worked there who had very "unimpressive" backgrounds, they started as techs but rubbed elbows with stellar talent in a place that cultivated discovery and collaboration. Over time while there and in other places they were able to rise to principal design engineers, beyond what many who went to elite universities achieve. They credit their formative years in Bell labs with getting them started on their career path. The thing is, Bell Labs didn't have an epically selective hiring process, nor was the compensation insanely high. They provided an environment that _attracted_ people with mastery and those who were passionate about what they do, they developed talent within their walls rather than trying to merely buy it or find it. This was for electrical engineers, but the same ideas can apply to software engineers.

arcticbull 6y ago

Part of what it means to be a senior engineer is that you have a mastery over the soft skills/people skills commensurate with your engineering abilities. Someone who knows how a bridge should be architected but cannot navigate the politics of city council necessary to get it built isn't much of a bridge builder. The importance of good politics cannot be understated. Politics in this case is roughly defined as getting people onboard with your plans.

conductr 6y ago
While your bridge analogy is true, I feel it's even more valuable to have an informed view for what's on the other end of that bridge. If you work the politics and use all the right materials to build an efficient bridge that's great. But a wonderful bridge to nowhere is still a bridge to nowhere. I say this because as a finance guy, I've been on lots of projects that look great on a spreadsheet and marketing, sales, or somebody else is really pushing for the investment. That's the point where a technical person takes over and builds what's asked, or a really great technical person may ask a few questions and raise a few points nobody else considered and the whole bubble bursts as we realize it's not feasible/or we can test it in a certain way before investing big time/money into it. Probably not mastery of SE as OP asked. But mastery as a business partner within an organization.
- healsjnr1 6y ago
  That sounds amazing, sadly in a lot of organisations that isn't how it pans out. Either the engagement with technology doesn't happen early enough, or when it does, the technology point of view isn't given the weight it deserves. The ideas have already caught and too many people are invested and have 'faith' it will all work out. The crux of this is that many of those people who carry the weight in decision making don't actually carry any risk or responsibility for delivery. Given the scale of engineering and time to deliver, by the time it comes to fruition they've moved on, so they never experience accountability for ignoring the advice.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago

intricatedetail 6y ago

If you think something does not produce value and you have knowledge to back it up (you could think something is of no value if you don't know the big picture), and you are "forced" to do it anyway, then it all depends on pay. If you get a lot of money for this, you can exchange these later to fill any gaps that this will create or simply leave the co, unless you want to be known for doing fool's errands and stroking managers egos.

guytv 6y ago
Almost agree. I would say that if this is the case, Pay is local optimisation. On the long run, if you stay in such a company your market value will by reduced as it is (a) psychological very difficult to resist such culture to influence your mind, unlimitedly transforming you. (b) will eventually turn your life into a saga of bitterness and resentment, lower self esteem. (c) arguably, such a company will ultimately fail in their business. so you're probably better off take a possible temporary pay reduction for a better happiness and higher pay on the long run.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  All valid points!

PaulHoule 6y ago

I worked at one place that was a basket case and finally started to push back. The HR person seemed shocked that I was concerned with the business value of a project, but i had people telling me i wasnt worth what i was being paid -- I could show the next assignment had $0 in business value so if i spent more than 0 hours on it I'd just be digging myself a hole.

jkingsbery 6y ago

Most engineers I know in this situation move on to a new project before too long.