5 ms·

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 e

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.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  You're doing a lot of assuming that the engineer seeking greener pastures because they are, I don't know "selfish" or something, is easily detectible. I can confidently tell you that you're operating under self delusion. Also assuming that someone who isn't going to tolerate fuck-fuck games with assholes when they don't have to is themselves an asshole. It's entirely possible to amicably end a relationship with someone (a business) you can't stand, with them none the wiser that it was ever about something other than compensation. > 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. This is pure hopium. Bureaucracy is installed in anticipation of growth/security/safety gains, and existing success of the team can be completely ignored by someone who thinks the good of bureaucracy will outweigh the harm.
  - 23B1 4y ago
    > I can confidently tell you that you're operating under self delusion. Confidently incorrect! It's the iron law of the market; I don't make the rules. Fwiw, bureaucracy used to not be such a pejorative term; it implies coordination at scale, with internal checks and balances. Engineering doesn't happen without talent, talent needs money, money comes from good sales and marketing, etc. To be efficient, these things have to be centrally coordinated by an entity that typically has an eye on the market, which behaves beyond anyone's control.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- p1esk 4y ago
  if engineers think we don't check references and backgrounds anymore – including reputation – those days are long past How do you check reputation?
  - 23B1 4y ago
    Word of mouth, mostly.

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.

DangitBobby 4y ago
You're doing a lot of assuming that the engineer seeking greener pastures because they are, I don't know "selfish" or something, is easily detectible. I can confidently tell you that you're operating under self delusion. Also assuming that someone who isn't going to tolerate fuck-fuck games with assholes when they don't have to is themselves an asshole. It's entirely possible to amicably end a relationship with someone (a business) you can't stand, with them none the wiser that it was ever about something other than compensation. > 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. This is pure hopium. Bureaucracy is installed in anticipation of growth/security/safety gains, and existing success of the team can be completely ignored by someone who thinks the good of bureaucracy will outweigh the harm.
- 23B1 4y ago
  > I can confidently tell you that you're operating under self delusion. Confidently incorrect! It's the iron law of the market; I don't make the rules. Fwiw, bureaucracy used to not be such a pejorative term; it implies coordination at scale, with internal checks and balances. Engineering doesn't happen without talent, talent needs money, money comes from good sales and marketing, etc. To be efficient, these things have to be centrally coordinated by an entity that typically has an eye on the market, which behaves beyond anyone's control.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
p1esk 4y ago
if engineers think we don't check references and backgrounds anymore – including reputation – those days are long past How do you check reputation?
- 23B1 4y ago
  Word of mouth, mostly.