13 ms·

A company exists to make money. If you can’t describe how your work either makes the company money or saves the company money? Why should they care?

epolanski 2y ago
Bu but...but..look at how elegant my rewrite of this part of the code that nobody uses for a product that has a handful of users is../s There's really way too many developers that care way more about the code than the product, let alone the business. It ends up like fine dining, where 99% of the times a big Mac would've been tastier and made the customer happier, but wouldn't justify the effort and price.
proc0 2y ago
Why are they hiring the candidate to begin with? This entire "justify your existence every quarter" is one of the bigger downsides of how the economy works, because it allows people to be exploited. it's the metaphorical writing of the blank check. There are no real boundaries of when work starts and stops or when your responsibilities end because the task is to increase business value and that is technically endless. The company keeps piling more and more work, keeps growing and growing, meanwhile they reward you with a small fraction of the total profit that you contributed. I keep hearing how 10x engineers make their companies millions upon millions but they only get paid a fraction of that. How does that even make sense as a fair exchange? Not to mention is completely unfeasible for most people to have this kind of impact... it is only possible for those in key positions, yet every engineer is tasked with this same objective to increase company value as much as possible. There's just something very wrong with that.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Why are they hiring the candidate to begin with? Because they feel they can extract more value from them then they are paying them. There are no real boundaries of when work starts and stops or when your responsibilities end because the task is to increase business value and that is technically endless I work 40 hours a week and they pay me the agreed upon amount. There was nowhere in our agreement the expectation of my working more than that. I also knew that they could put me on a plane anytime during the week. The company keeps piling more and more work, keeps growing and growing, That’s completely on the employee to communicate trade offs between time, cost and requirements. My time is fixed at 40 hours a week. They can choose to use my 40 hours a week to work with sales and the customer to close a deal, be a project manager, lead an implementation, be a hands on keyboard developer, or be a “cloud engineer”. It’s on them how to best use my talents for the amount of money they are paying me. But seeing that they pay my level of employee the highest of all of the ICs, they really should choose to have me working with sales and clients to close deals. That’s not bragging. I make now what I made as a mid level employee at BigTech in 2021. I keep hearing how 10x engineers make their companies millions upon millions but they only get paid a fraction of that. How does that even make sense as a fair exchange? The concept of a 10x engineer except in very rare cases is a myth if you think of them as just being on a keyboard everyday. All of the things I listed I could do - project management, backend developer or a cloud engineer - I would say I’m only slightly better than average if that. My multiplier comes because i can work with all of those people and the “business” and they can put me on a plane or zoom call and I can be trusted to have the soft skills necessary and my breadth is wide enough to know what needs to be done as part of a complex implementation and how to derive business value. If you are making a company millions of dollars and you are only getting a fraction of that - and I doubt someone is doing that on their own without the supporting organizational infrastructure - it’s on you to leverage that to meet your priority stack. Not to mention is completely unfeasible for most people to have this kind of impact... it is only possible for those in key positions, yet every engineer is tasked with this same objective to increase company value as much as possible. There's just something very wrong with that. If you are a junior developer, there isn’t much expected of you, you are told what to do and how to do it. You aren’t expected to know the business value. If you are a mid level developer, you are generally told the business objective and expected to know best practices of how to get there and understand trade offs on the epic/work stream level. If you are a “senior” developer, now you are expected to understand business value, work with the stakeholders or their proxy, understand risks, navigate XYProblems on the project implementation level and deal with ambiguity. As you move up the more “scope”, “impact” and “dealing with ambiguity” you have to be comfortable with. “Codez real gud” only comes into play in getting from junior to mid.
  - proc0 2y ago
    Right, being senior and above basically means doing less engineering. I hope that's something we can agree on because otherwise we would need to discuss the semantics. > All of the things I listed I could do - project management, backend developer or a cloud engineer - I would say I’m only slightly better than average if that I completely acknowledge this is a valid way to run a business, but the context here is how this sort of career progression is preventing the specialization of engineers in their domain and contributing to the widespread of software problems. Instead of investing in good engineers that specialize in their domain, companies move them away from engineering into more of an entrepreneur mindset by tasking them with adding value to the business directly, which is not something that you do as an engineer (it's nowhere in a CS degree, aside from say some electives). A good metaphor here is a football/soccer team. What companies are doing is telling the goal keeper that he needs to score goals because more goals means winning. The team wants to win so everyone on the field has to score a goal. That obviously doesn't make sense even though the premise is true. You want a team composed of specialists and the more they specialize in their domain and work together the more you win. Even though there are only two or three offensive players that are scoring the goals, everyone is contributing to the success of the team if they specialize in their domain. Similarly, just because talking to clients and selling the product is directly contributing to the revenue of a business it doesn't mean that engineering at a higher level has no value. And once again to stress the context here, companies can do whatever they want, but having engineers progress through their careers by moving AWAY from engineering is precisely why there is so much bad software out there. Letting engineers create better software should result in more profit in the long term, just probably not in the short term, and it's also hard for non-technical people to manage. So it is what it is.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      Right, being senior and above basically means doing less engineering. I hope that's something we can agree on because otherwise we would need to discuss the semantics Engineering is not only the physical labor. Aircraft engineers and building engineers don’t spend most of their time doing hands on work. https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/engineer/ https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/engineer/ Designing and Planning: Engineers are responsible for designing and planning systems, structures, processes, or technologies. They analyze requirements, gather data, and create detailed plans and specifications to meet project objectives. This involves considering factors such as functionality, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. When doing construction work, who adds more value? The general contractor? (Staff software engineer), The owners of the plumbing, electrical, and HVAC companies assuming they have the actual skills (senior level developers). The owners of the plumbing companies could very well be making more than the general contractors. This is where you can specialize and the sky is the limit. The actual certified workers (mid level developers). This is the level that the completely head down people are. No matter how good they become at being a hands on plumber , there is a hard ceiling they are going to hit at this level. The apprentices (juniors)? I work in consulting. I am currently a staff architect (true - IC5) over a hypothetical project (not a real project). I know the project is going to need a cloud architect, a data architect , and a software architect. They are all specialists at their jobs and are all going to lead their “work streams”. They are all IC4s I expect each architect to take the high level business objectives and work with the relevant technical people on both sides and lead their work along with some hands on keyboard work. They will each have people under them that are not customer facing at all. While I know all of the domains at some level, I’m going to defer to their technical judgement as long as it meets the business objectives. I did my high level designs before they came on to the project. Was my design work, figuring out priorities, risks, making sure it met the clients needs, discussing trade offs, etc not “engineering”? Each level down from myself IC5 to junior engineers (IC1) is dealing with less scope, impact and ambiguity. There is no reason that the architects shouldn’t get paid as much as I do. They bring to the table technical expertise and depth. I bring to the table delivery experience, being able to disambiguate, and breadth.
SR2Z 2y ago
> Why should they care? Look, I get that HN is startup-focused, but many companies DO drown themselves in tech debt of the sake of the business case. Then a few years pass and they are unable to deliver features quickly enough - they can't keep Sr. engineers because their stack is a soul-sucking, career-killing tarpit. The Jr. engineers don't know how to fix the code and don't even see anything wrong with it because it's all they've known. It's totally fine if you're a megacorp - Salesforce and so on can hire JUST ENOUGH high-level folks to keep the system manageable. It's also fine if you're so small that all your work is greenfield. The type of company that I'm describing is generally Series D/E and probably worth a few 100M dollars.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  I’m not saying don’t care about tech debt and well architected systems. I’m saying you have to tie that to business goals. If you can’t explain to a manager the business purpose of why you are doing something then does it really need to be done? Your reasoning for tackling tech debt is sound. “We are moving like molasses. Our foundation is wobbly and we can’t build new features until we start tackling $X tech debt. These are the reasons that it will help us in the future.” But on the other hand, if I achieve x, y, and z or someone else achieve it and we are told it didn’t achieve enough “impact”, yeah I am going to do like Google employees do and decide to work on the 5th messaging app.

epolanski 2y ago

Bu but...but..look at how elegant my rewrite of this part of the code that nobody uses for a product that has a handful of users is../s There's really way too many developers that care way more about the code than the product, let alone the business. It ends up like fine dining, where 99% of the times a big Mac would've been tastier and made the customer happier, but wouldn't justify the effort and price.

proc0 2y ago

Why are they hiring the candidate to begin with? This entire "justify your existence every quarter" is one of the bigger downsides of how the economy works, because it allows people to be exploited. it's the metaphorical writing of the blank check. There are no real boundaries of when work starts and stops or when your responsibilities end because the task is to increase business value and that is technically endless. The company keeps piling more and more work, keeps growing and growing, meanwhile they reward you with a small fraction of the total profit that you contributed. I keep hearing how 10x engineers make their companies millions upon millions but they only get paid a fraction of that. How does that even make sense as a fair exchange? Not to mention is completely unfeasible for most people to have this kind of impact... it is only possible for those in key positions, yet every engineer is tasked with this same objective to increase company value as much as possible. There's just something very wrong with that.

scarface_74 2y ago
Why are they hiring the candidate to begin with? Because they feel they can extract more value from them then they are paying them. There are no real boundaries of when work starts and stops or when your responsibilities end because the task is to increase business value and that is technically endless I work 40 hours a week and they pay me the agreed upon amount. There was nowhere in our agreement the expectation of my working more than that. I also knew that they could put me on a plane anytime during the week. The company keeps piling more and more work, keeps growing and growing, That’s completely on the employee to communicate trade offs between time, cost and requirements. My time is fixed at 40 hours a week. They can choose to use my 40 hours a week to work with sales and the customer to close a deal, be a project manager, lead an implementation, be a hands on keyboard developer, or be a “cloud engineer”. It’s on them how to best use my talents for the amount of money they are paying me. But seeing that they pay my level of employee the highest of all of the ICs, they really should choose to have me working with sales and clients to close deals. That’s not bragging. I make now what I made as a mid level employee at BigTech in 2021. I keep hearing how 10x engineers make their companies millions upon millions but they only get paid a fraction of that. How does that even make sense as a fair exchange? The concept of a 10x engineer except in very rare cases is a myth if you think of them as just being on a keyboard everyday. All of the things I listed I could do - project management, backend developer or a cloud engineer - I would say I’m only slightly better than average if that. My multiplier comes because i can work with all of those people and the “business” and they can put me on a plane or zoom call and I can be trusted to have the soft skills necessary and my breadth is wide enough to know what needs to be done as part of a complex implementation and how to derive business value. If you are making a company millions of dollars and you are only getting a fraction of that - and I doubt someone is doing that on their own without the supporting organizational infrastructure - it’s on you to leverage that to meet your priority stack. Not to mention is completely unfeasible for most people to have this kind of impact... it is only possible for those in key positions, yet every engineer is tasked with this same objective to increase company value as much as possible. There's just something very wrong with that. If you are a junior developer, there isn’t much expected of you, you are told what to do and how to do it. You aren’t expected to know the business value. If you are a mid level developer, you are generally told the business objective and expected to know best practices of how to get there and understand trade offs on the epic/work stream level. If you are a “senior” developer, now you are expected to understand business value, work with the stakeholders or their proxy, understand risks, navigate XYProblems on the project implementation level and deal with ambiguity. As you move up the more “scope”, “impact” and “dealing with ambiguity” you have to be comfortable with. “Codez real gud” only comes into play in getting from junior to mid.
- proc0 2y ago
  Right, being senior and above basically means doing less engineering. I hope that's something we can agree on because otherwise we would need to discuss the semantics. > All of the things I listed I could do - project management, backend developer or a cloud engineer - I would say I’m only slightly better than average if that I completely acknowledge this is a valid way to run a business, but the context here is how this sort of career progression is preventing the specialization of engineers in their domain and contributing to the widespread of software problems. Instead of investing in good engineers that specialize in their domain, companies move them away from engineering into more of an entrepreneur mindset by tasking them with adding value to the business directly, which is not something that you do as an engineer (it's nowhere in a CS degree, aside from say some electives). A good metaphor here is a football/soccer team. What companies are doing is telling the goal keeper that he needs to score goals because more goals means winning. The team wants to win so everyone on the field has to score a goal. That obviously doesn't make sense even though the premise is true. You want a team composed of specialists and the more they specialize in their domain and work together the more you win. Even though there are only two or three offensive players that are scoring the goals, everyone is contributing to the success of the team if they specialize in their domain. Similarly, just because talking to clients and selling the product is directly contributing to the revenue of a business it doesn't mean that engineering at a higher level has no value. And once again to stress the context here, companies can do whatever they want, but having engineers progress through their careers by moving AWAY from engineering is precisely why there is so much bad software out there. Letting engineers create better software should result in more profit in the long term, just probably not in the short term, and it's also hard for non-technical people to manage. So it is what it is.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Right, being senior and above basically means doing less engineering. I hope that's something we can agree on because otherwise we would need to discuss the semantics Engineering is not only the physical labor. Aircraft engineers and building engineers don’t spend most of their time doing hands on work. https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/engineer/ https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/engineer/ Designing and Planning: Engineers are responsible for designing and planning systems, structures, processes, or technologies. They analyze requirements, gather data, and create detailed plans and specifications to meet project objectives. This involves considering factors such as functionality, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. When doing construction work, who adds more value? The general contractor? (Staff software engineer), The owners of the plumbing, electrical, and HVAC companies assuming they have the actual skills (senior level developers). The owners of the plumbing companies could very well be making more than the general contractors. This is where you can specialize and the sky is the limit. The actual certified workers (mid level developers). This is the level that the completely head down people are. No matter how good they become at being a hands on plumber , there is a hard ceiling they are going to hit at this level. The apprentices (juniors)? I work in consulting. I am currently a staff architect (true - IC5) over a hypothetical project (not a real project). I know the project is going to need a cloud architect, a data architect , and a software architect. They are all specialists at their jobs and are all going to lead their “work streams”. They are all IC4s I expect each architect to take the high level business objectives and work with the relevant technical people on both sides and lead their work along with some hands on keyboard work. They will each have people under them that are not customer facing at all. While I know all of the domains at some level, I’m going to defer to their technical judgement as long as it meets the business objectives. I did my high level designs before they came on to the project. Was my design work, figuring out priorities, risks, making sure it met the clients needs, discussing trade offs, etc not “engineering”? Each level down from myself IC5 to junior engineers (IC1) is dealing with less scope, impact and ambiguity. There is no reason that the architects shouldn’t get paid as much as I do. They bring to the table technical expertise and depth. I bring to the table delivery experience, being able to disambiguate, and breadth.

SR2Z 2y ago

> Why should they care? Look, I get that HN is startup-focused, but many companies DO drown themselves in tech debt of the sake of the business case. Then a few years pass and they are unable to deliver features quickly enough - they can't keep Sr. engineers because their stack is a soul-sucking, career-killing tarpit. The Jr. engineers don't know how to fix the code and don't even see anything wrong with it because it's all they've known. It's totally fine if you're a megacorp - Salesforce and so on can hire JUST ENOUGH high-level folks to keep the system manageable. It's also fine if you're so small that all your work is greenfield. The type of company that I'm describing is generally Series D/E and probably worth a few 100M dollars.

scarface_74 2y ago
I’m not saying don’t care about tech debt and well architected systems. I’m saying you have to tie that to business goals. If you can’t explain to a manager the business purpose of why you are doing something then does it really need to be done? Your reasoning for tackling tech debt is sound. “We are moving like molasses. Our foundation is wobbly and we can’t build new features until we start tackling $X tech debt. These are the reasons that it will help us in the future.” But on the other hand, if I achieve x, y, and z or someone else achieve it and we are told it didn’t achieve enough “impact”, yeah I am going to do like Google employees do and decide to work on the 5th messaging app.