2 ms·

I don't think you read the article, or understand engineering if you discard the author's opinions with "taking yourself too seriously". For example, reread th

I don't think you read the article, or understand engineering if you discard the author's opinions with "taking yourself too seriously". For example, reread the following paragraph: > Few things are more disruptive to engineering than constant priority shifts. They make it impossible for engineers to plan or finish meaningful work. Again, reread it and try to understand why the author stated that, instead of accusing them of taking themselves too seriously. The problem is, if a leader asks for 3 weeks of work, and then every week asks for a different 3 weeks of work, nothing will ever get done. It belittles the engineer because that engineer isn't able to make positive contribution. I suspect that you believe that engineers are merely pawns in a political game. Ultimately, companies that operate this way fail.

haburka 2y ago
Definitely I did read the article but I’ll address your point about priority shifts. I think handling priority shifts is a part of the job. If you can’t get people to talk to each other about priorities and help illuminate that they have to compromise on what is important in order to get the best outcome, then you’re failing as an engineer. However I do work at a company where I have an active hand in planning the roadmap as a senior engineer. I often tell the senior leadership what my thoughts are about priorities and I feel empowered to say “no,” or “let’s do that later” to asks. I understand this isn’t how everywhere works. Maybe the author and I have very different work experiences. To me, if someone says “we are shifting priorities.” I think of it as a chance to improve what work we are doing. I feel that the author would see it as an opportunity to waste their time more. I don’t believe that engineers are pawns in a political game. I think it’s a strange thing to suspect and I have some doubts about your mental well being. Looking through your other comments, it seems to be a common trend of yours to speak of people as pawns. Perhaps you feel like you are a pawn at work? Or maybe you see the world as a political game where you are a pawn? I don’t think that’s a wise perspective - even in chess a single pawn often can win the game. Even with even pawns, the better coordinated pawns can win. Just some food for thought.
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  The problem is continually shifting priorities, not the setting priorities like you described. (IE, the priority shifts described in the article imply that engineers should not have been involved in the projects yet.) I only use the term "pawn" in this thread to set context: In a workplace where leadership exhibits the behavior described in the article, they have lower respect for their engineers than the workplaces I've been in.

haburka 2y ago

Definitely I did read the article but I’ll address your point about priority shifts. I think handling priority shifts is a part of the job. If you can’t get people to talk to each other about priorities and help illuminate that they have to compromise on what is important in order to get the best outcome, then you’re failing as an engineer. However I do work at a company where I have an active hand in planning the roadmap as a senior engineer. I often tell the senior leadership what my thoughts are about priorities and I feel empowered to say “no,” or “let’s do that later” to asks. I understand this isn’t how everywhere works. Maybe the author and I have very different work experiences. To me, if someone says “we are shifting priorities.” I think of it as a chance to improve what work we are doing. I feel that the author would see it as an opportunity to waste their time more. I don’t believe that engineers are pawns in a political game. I think it’s a strange thing to suspect and I have some doubts about your mental well being. Looking through your other comments, it seems to be a common trend of yours to speak of people as pawns. Perhaps you feel like you are a pawn at work? Or maybe you see the world as a political game where you are a pawn? I don’t think that’s a wise perspective - even in chess a single pawn often can win the game. Even with even pawns, the better coordinated pawns can win. Just some food for thought.

gwbas1c 2y ago
The problem is continually shifting priorities, not the setting priorities like you described. (IE, the priority shifts described in the article imply that engineers should not have been involved in the projects yet.) I only use the term "pawn" in this thread to set context: In a workplace where leadership exhibits the behavior described in the article, they have lower respect for their engineers than the workplaces I've been in.