3 ms·

We are treated like low tier because in most software companies we are low tier. In command and control structures value is given by position not by contributio

We are treated like low tier because in most software companies we are low tier. In command and control structures value is given by position not by contribution. We might be expensive but still low tier. The rockstar programmer, etc. are just silly lies they told us.

ravenstine 5y ago
You've a priori concluded that we are low tier, but that's only because companies have a pattern of deciding that we are. This ignores an actual diagnosis and a prescription. Let's put aside for a second that there are many lackluster programmers who happen to also be expensive. The idea that there's "tech companies" and then there's the rest of the economy doesn't make sense, and probably has always been a false dichotomy. Small companies to BigCo fundamentally run on technology. Small hiccups in that technology cause gigantic interruptions. Until we are automated out of existence, they can't get away from us engineers. One might say that software engineers are glorified digital plumbers. While there's a lick of truth to that statement, this is ignoring the fact that you wouldn't necessarily hire a plumber rather than a structural engineer when designing and constructing a building. Just as a structural or civic engineer must do research and calculations for every single job they are tasked with, software engineers necessarily must research and solve unique problems 99.9% of the time. You can't train a software engineer to do one thing repetitiously as what could have been done with a Ford assembly line worker. In software, there is simply no equivalent to being trained to turn the same bolt hundreds of times a day and that becoming your only job. This isn't to say that there aren't repetitious aspects of the software developer's job. Many projects share certain qualities (ex. CRUD apps), and some repetition results from the role of a developer being overloaded. I believe you are mistaken in suggesting there are no "rockstar" programmers. While I would shy away from such a cringe term, though rare they are, I've encountered a few "rockstars" in my time. They tend to do at least 80% of the work, perhaps 90%, by virtue of their cognitive capacity and ability to adapt. Do they make proportionally more than most other developers? Of course not. At best they are viewed as liaisons for their respective teams. I am by no means saying that developers should be the backbone of a company. Although that can and does happen, and my have benefits, developers aren't necessarily qualified to manage or make high-level decisions that will take the business in different directions. Arguably, the hierarchs of companies are of a higher tier than developers because, while the developers are navigating, ultimately those hierarchs are the ones at the steering wheel, to use a somewhat flawed metaphor. On the other hand, developers aren't of equal value to the janitorial staff. They aren't equal value to sales or customer service. They aren't even equal to design teams, since design teams usually can't ship a product themselves, and a product with poor design that does its job well is far better than a Figma document, which on its own is essentially nothing. And yet many companies privilege these other departments over engineering, sometimes even when their core product is software. To put it bluntly, while there certainly are some excellent companies out there that treat engineers properly, too many companies mistakenly view software engineering as a necessary evil and as something that can and should do anything that is thrown at it because they themselves often aren't of the engineering mindset themselves. Most people get educated, "finish" those educations, and thus fail to understand that engineering can't possibly work the way they've treated their own specialties. There is simply no reason why mid to senior level software developers can't be more closely involved with in pre-development and actually be listened to. My hypothesis is that having engineers sectioned off while a project manager or team lead acts as the sole interface with the rest of the company simply doesn't cut it, and it results in the demoralization of engineers because their voice is rarely heard or respected. Engineers think they don't want to be involved with the rest of the business, and while there's a benefit to avoiding possible distractions from coding, this non-involvement comes at an unseen cost. > In command and control structures value is given by position not by contribution. While that is true, and to a large respect is inevitable, that doesn't mean that its logical extreme should play out. No matter what, power politics always emerges. It even emerges among engineers themselves. I'd go as far as to say it's a law of the universe. Yet what happens when that law is amplified to such an extent that one party loses too often? They become alienated and demoralized. Not across the board, mind you. I am not suggesting that all or even most software developers experience these mental health issues because of where they fall in typical corporate structures. But when the problem exaggerates itself, even reaching its logical conclusion (which I have experienced myself), enough people can lose their sense of self worth that no amount of money can compensate for it. In the worst case, the personnel that companies lose are the rockstars, so to speak. To expand on that last point, I myself have experienced being taken to the far end of the spectrum. I once worked for a team that went from having their own offices to a room with their own desks, to a bigger room with shared desks, and finally to a supply closet in the center of a building with no windows. All the while, sales and HR all got their own desks and cubes and were given frequent recognition even though this company's business was selling software. We went from being treated like experts to being sectioned off from the rest of the company and not being consulted for anything. This all happened within a year, and the first people to go were the ones with the most talent (fortunately one of them ended up at Apple and has been there for years now). Yes, that's an extreme example, but this plays out to a lesser degree at many companies. Those whom are solving fundamental problems are often viewed as less than they actually are. By no means am I trying to glorify software development, because there's a banality to it at the same time. But it's not nothing. In fact it's the closest thing to reality that exists in companies that sell digital products. Without solving problems with logic and mathematics, everything else is just fantasy. Businesses will have a better chance at achieving excellence and adapting to problems if they cut out the monkeys in the middle and allow engineers to be involved earlier in processes. Though sadly the vast majority of businesses are actually disinterested in excellence of any kind since excellence conflicts with the traversal of power structures through politics. If businesses fail to hold on to software developers and struggle to hire new ones, it shouldn't be a mystery to them why they are facing that struggle. Maybe developers are more important than some of the traditional roles that they venerate. So no, I don't agree that we deserve to be treated as low tier as we often are.

ravenstine 5y ago

You've a priori concluded that we are low tier, but that's only because companies have a pattern of deciding that we are. This ignores an actual diagnosis and a prescription. Let's put aside for a second that there are many lackluster programmers who happen to also be expensive. The idea that there's "tech companies" and then there's the rest of the economy doesn't make sense, and probably has always been a false dichotomy. Small companies to BigCo fundamentally run on technology. Small hiccups in that technology cause gigantic interruptions. Until we are automated out of existence, they can't get away from us engineers. One might say that software engineers are glorified digital plumbers. While there's a lick of truth to that statement, this is ignoring the fact that you wouldn't necessarily hire a plumber rather than a structural engineer when designing and constructing a building. Just as a structural or civic engineer must do research and calculations for every single job they are tasked with, software engineers necessarily must research and solve unique problems 99.9% of the time. You can't train a software engineer to do one thing repetitiously as what could have been done with a Ford assembly line worker. In software, there is simply no equivalent to being trained to turn the same bolt hundreds of times a day and that becoming your only job. This isn't to say that there aren't repetitious aspects of the software developer's job. Many projects share certain qualities (ex. CRUD apps), and some repetition results from the role of a developer being overloaded. I believe you are mistaken in suggesting there are no "rockstar" programmers. While I would shy away from such a cringe term, though rare they are, I've encountered a few "rockstars" in my time. They tend to do at least 80% of the work, perhaps 90%, by virtue of their cognitive capacity and ability to adapt. Do they make proportionally more than most other developers? Of course not. At best they are viewed as liaisons for their respective teams. I am by no means saying that developers should be the backbone of a company. Although that can and does happen, and my have benefits, developers aren't necessarily qualified to manage or make high-level decisions that will take the business in different directions. Arguably, the hierarchs of companies are of a higher tier than developers because, while the developers are navigating, ultimately those hierarchs are the ones at the steering wheel, to use a somewhat flawed metaphor. On the other hand, developers aren't of equal value to the janitorial staff. They aren't equal value to sales or customer service. They aren't even equal to design teams, since design teams usually can't ship a product themselves, and a product with poor design that does its job well is far better than a Figma document, which on its own is essentially nothing. And yet many companies privilege these other departments over engineering, sometimes even when their core product is software. To put it bluntly, while there certainly are some excellent companies out there that treat engineers properly, too many companies mistakenly view software engineering as a necessary evil and as something that can and should do anything that is thrown at it because they themselves often aren't of the engineering mindset themselves. Most people get educated, "finish" those educations, and thus fail to understand that engineering can't possibly work the way they've treated their own specialties. There is simply no reason why mid to senior level software developers can't be more closely involved with in pre-development and actually be listened to. My hypothesis is that having engineers sectioned off while a project manager or team lead acts as the sole interface with the rest of the company simply doesn't cut it, and it results in the demoralization of engineers because their voice is rarely heard or respected. Engineers think they don't want to be involved with the rest of the business, and while there's a benefit to avoiding possible distractions from coding, this non-involvement comes at an unseen cost. > In command and control structures value is given by position not by contribution. While that is true, and to a large respect is inevitable, that doesn't mean that its logical extreme should play out. No matter what, power politics always emerges. It even emerges among engineers themselves. I'd go as far as to say it's a law of the universe. Yet what happens when that law is amplified to such an extent that one party loses too often? They become alienated and demoralized. Not across the board, mind you. I am not suggesting that all or even most software developers experience these mental health issues because of where they fall in typical corporate structures. But when the problem exaggerates itself, even reaching its logical conclusion (which I have experienced myself), enough people can lose their sense of self worth that no amount of money can compensate for it. In the worst case, the personnel that companies lose are the rockstars, so to speak. To expand on that last point, I myself have experienced being taken to the far end of the spectrum. I once worked for a team that went from having their own offices to a room with their own desks, to a bigger room with shared desks, and finally to a supply closet in the center of a building with no windows. All the while, sales and HR all got their own desks and cubes and were given frequent recognition even though this company's business was selling software. We went from being treated like experts to being sectioned off from the rest of the company and not being consulted for anything. This all happened within a year, and the first people to go were the ones with the most talent (fortunately one of them ended up at Apple and has been there for years now). Yes, that's an extreme example, but this plays out to a lesser degree at many companies. Those whom are solving fundamental problems are often viewed as less than they actually are. By no means am I trying to glorify software development, because there's a banality to it at the same time. But it's not nothing. In fact it's the closest thing to reality that exists in companies that sell digital products. Without solving problems with logic and mathematics, everything else is just fantasy. Businesses will have a better chance at achieving excellence and adapting to problems if they cut out the monkeys in the middle and allow engineers to be involved earlier in processes. Though sadly the vast majority of businesses are actually disinterested in excellence of any kind since excellence conflicts with the traversal of power structures through politics. If businesses fail to hold on to software developers and struggle to hire new ones, it shouldn't be a mystery to them why they are facing that struggle. Maybe developers are more important than some of the traditional roles that they venerate. So no, I don't agree that we deserve to be treated as low tier as we often are.