4 ms·
Maybe attaching all the value to technical contributions was incorrect behaviour in first place? I used to do that a lot until I got my first real not fully te
by mrtksn 4y ago
Maybe attaching all the value to technical contributions was incorrect behaviour in first place?
I used to do that a lot until I got my first real not fully technical job and realised that all the technical stuff is actually much more learnable by many, much less impactful on the work than the dark art of working with humans. Maybe its the zeal of the convert but I think the technical contributions are not that important unless there is no margin for errors or its groundbreaking work and most of the time its not.
- ilyt 4y agoThat's because people working with humans tend to be TERRIBLE at keeping proper documentation about their job. If "people person" kept full psychological profile of each client and manager they work with it would be way easier to replace them so in a way it is a job-security-guaranteeing move to be obtuse. Joking aside the way I see it is that you have to have some vision on the product, enough organization skill (which can be another person specialized in translating "visioner" ramblings into actionable stuff) to organize making it, enough marketing skill to actually sell it, and then enough tech/engineering oriented people to not fuck the product up. Bad engineering - product that kinda works shit but depending on niche it can still be good enough to be profitable Bad marketing/client acquisition - most cases bankruptcy, very small amount of things "sell itself", unless you get luck. Bad vision - well, if rest is fine you either pivot to something else and deliver or bankrupt Bad communication/managing - inefficiencies at every way that can and will hamper everyone else.