5 ms·

This article could be a parody with how shockingly naive it is. The purpose of work is to solve business problems, not personal amusement and self-actualizatio

by astura 4y ago

This article could be a parody with how shockingly naive it is. The purpose of work is to solve business problems, not personal amusement and self-actualization. Business problems exist in the real world and have significant constraints. Many people will be much happier if they understood this.

legulere 4y ago
Especially managers should know that this is not true. Business is a lot about politics and egos, and especially managers are the ones engaging in it.
WJW 4y ago
That is just an opinion and not a statement of fact. There are many different types of people and not all people have the same motivation. A lot of people care quite a lot about amusement and self-actualization at work. What a business owner might want does not change that. (and let's face it, there are many many business owners who care way less about business problems being solved than they care about "being the boss")
- krapp 4y ago
  > What a business owner might want does not change that A business owner decides what the purpose of the business is, and what constitutes useful "work" within that context. If I'm hired to do x,y and z and I decide my motivation is rather to surf the web all day or spend all my time on personal projects, that doesn't change the purpose of work, it just means I'm not working.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LadyCailin 4y ago
    Yeah, but if a business owner decides “x” is the purpose of work, and literally no one wants to do that because of the conditions that the business owner has created (especially if the conditions are tangential to x), then that is the business owner’s problem, not the employees problem.
the_gipsy 4y ago
There are so many actors and groups and dynamics and forces in effect in the relations that we commonly call "work", that trying to reduce it to a single purpose is laughably naïve.
mruniverse 4y ago
I think people would be much happier if they find amusement and self-actualization in the work they do.
EnKopVand 4y ago
I think the point here may be that when you’re dealing with an occupation in which the best engineers can pick and chose. Then you’re likely to lose your best engineers unless you’re exceptionally good at managing them. Especially if you introduce boundaries and restraints. I’m not sure it’s naive to view the world like the author does. I’ve worked both sides of the fence, and while I’m now back in software development I do see the appreciation for my experience with creating the most business value out of your resources that managers come with. The thing is, though, if I don’t have to work in a place with too much bureaucracy or too many constraints then I’m not going to do so. I obviously try not to be an asshole about it. I don’t follow the company dress code in the basement troll factory where they placed IT, but I do have a suit at work that I can change into whenever I leave the “cave”. Those sort of things, so naturally I’ll play a long way in regards to what management want, but I’m never going to do estimates by the hour until the job market actively forces me to do so. Which likely won’t be in our lifetime. So when/if management go down the route of treating Software Development like they treat any other department (which like you state also are under significant constraint) then the company is just very likely to lose their most talented developers very quickly. I suspect that it would be (and probably is) exactly like that in any department, it’s just easier to get away with in engineering because we’re privileged enough to be able to leave our jobs today and have another good job by tomorrow.
- 23B1 4y ago
  > the best engineers can pick and chose Sorta. I would take a less-qualified but more personable engineer over their more capable peer any day of the week, for the aforementioned reasons: engineering isn't the only skill required – those who don't insist on managerial perfection don't actually need a lot of managing as a result. It's a positive feedback loop. Also if engineers think we don't check references and backgrounds anymore – including reputation – those days are long past. It's too much of a liability to have the 'talented asshole' as part of a team anymore. > Especially if you introduce boundaries and restraints. Boundaries and restraints are a professional reality. > So when/if management go down the route of treating Software Development like they treat any other department. It's this exceptionalism that earns engineers the reputation of being jerks, and creates a negative feedback loop. Want to be free and clear to operate without too much bureaucracy? Play the cooperation game. This is as true with engineering as it is literally any other thing that requires more than one human.
woevdbz 4y ago
?? Where is there any reference to amusement or self-actualization in TFA?
- proxyon 4y ago
  If you read between the lines what he's saying is that it doesn't matter if engineers enjoy the job.
proxyon 4y ago
Are you a people manager? If so, what is the turnover like on your team? I ask because the author is dead on and I've been in this industry for 10 years.
- astura 4y ago
  If you wanna make this a competition I've been in the industry for 16 years. I'm a technical lead which does have a little bit of people management responsibilities. Turnover on my team is probably well below average, we had two developers leave for other jobs in the last year out of 15 developers and one fired for poor performance. I can't remember anyone leaving the year before. To be clear, I don't think this article is wrong per se, just obnoxiously naive and doesn't have any empathy for the real world constraints that people have to work with. It's just... uhhh... rubs me the wrong way.
  - proxyon 4y ago
    Tech leads don't have people management responsibilities. An engineering manager with your perspective would quickly find themselves without any talented developers. I did not write the OP but you're coming in with the hot take that it doesn't matter how people feel about their jobs and that is by the far least controversial part of the article and one that you're out of sync with 90% of the community on.

by astura 4y ago

legulere 4y ago

Especially managers should know that this is not true. Business is a lot about politics and egos, and especially managers are the ones engaging in it.

WJW 4y ago

That is just an opinion and not a statement of fact. There are many different types of people and not all people have the same motivation. A lot of people care quite a lot about amusement and self-actualization at work. What a business owner might want does not change that. (and let's face it, there are many many business owners who care way less about business problems being solved than they care about "being the boss")

krapp 4y ago
> What a business owner might want does not change that A business owner decides what the purpose of the business is, and what constitutes useful "work" within that context. If I'm hired to do x,y and z and I decide my motivation is rather to surf the web all day or spend all my time on personal projects, that doesn't change the purpose of work, it just means I'm not working.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  Yeah, but if a business owner decides “x” is the purpose of work, and literally no one wants to do that because of the conditions that the business owner has created (especially if the conditions are tangential to x), then that is the business owner’s problem, not the employees problem.

the_gipsy 4y ago

There are so many actors and groups and dynamics and forces in effect in the relations that we commonly call "work", that trying to reduce it to a single purpose is laughably naïve.

mruniverse 4y ago

I think people would be much happier if they find amusement and self-actualization in the work they do.

EnKopVand 4y ago

I think the point here may be that when you’re dealing with an occupation in which the best engineers can pick and chose. Then you’re likely to lose your best engineers unless you’re exceptionally good at managing them. Especially if you introduce boundaries and restraints. I’m not sure it’s naive to view the world like the author does. I’ve worked both sides of the fence, and while I’m now back in software development I do see the appreciation for my experience with creating the most business value out of your resources that managers come with. The thing is, though, if I don’t have to work in a place with too much bureaucracy or too many constraints then I’m not going to do so. I obviously try not to be an asshole about it. I don’t follow the company dress code in the basement troll factory where they placed IT, but I do have a suit at work that I can change into whenever I leave the “cave”. Those sort of things, so naturally I’ll play a long way in regards to what management want, but I’m never going to do estimates by the hour until the job market actively forces me to do so. Which likely won’t be in our lifetime. So when/if management go down the route of treating Software Development like they treat any other department (which like you state also are under significant constraint) then the company is just very likely to lose their most talented developers very quickly. I suspect that it would be (and probably is) exactly like that in any department, it’s just easier to get away with in engineering because we’re privileged enough to be able to leave our jobs today and have another good job by tomorrow.

23B1 4y ago
> the best engineers can pick and chose Sorta. I would take a less-qualified but more personable engineer over their more capable peer any day of the week, for the aforementioned reasons: engineering isn't the only skill required – those who don't insist on managerial perfection don't actually need a lot of managing as a result. It's a positive feedback loop. Also if engineers think we don't check references and backgrounds anymore – including reputation – those days are long past. It's too much of a liability to have the 'talented asshole' as part of a team anymore. > Especially if you introduce boundaries and restraints. Boundaries and restraints are a professional reality. > So when/if management go down the route of treating Software Development like they treat any other department. It's this exceptionalism that earns engineers the reputation of being jerks, and creates a negative feedback loop. Want to be free and clear to operate without too much bureaucracy? Play the cooperation game. This is as true with engineering as it is literally any other thing that requires more than one human.

woevdbz 4y ago

?? Where is there any reference to amusement or self-actualization in TFA?

proxyon 4y ago
If you read between the lines what he's saying is that it doesn't matter if engineers enjoy the job.

proxyon 4y ago

Are you a people manager? If so, what is the turnover like on your team? I ask because the author is dead on and I've been in this industry for 10 years.

astura 4y ago
If you wanna make this a competition I've been in the industry for 16 years. I'm a technical lead which does have a little bit of people management responsibilities. Turnover on my team is probably well below average, we had two developers leave for other jobs in the last year out of 15 developers and one fired for poor performance. I can't remember anyone leaving the year before. To be clear, I don't think this article is wrong per se, just obnoxiously naive and doesn't have any empathy for the real world constraints that people have to work with. It's just... uhhh... rubs me the wrong way.
- proxyon 4y ago
  Tech leads don't have people management responsibilities. An engineering manager with your perspective would quickly find themselves without any talented developers. I did not write the OP but you're coming in with the hot take that it doesn't matter how people feel about their jobs and that is by the far least controversial part of the article and one that you're out of sync with 90% of the community on.