4 ms·

There's a lot of truth in this, but there's one thing I'll disagree with: When you have a family to support, becoming great at what you do is excellent job sec

There's a lot of truth in this, but there's one thing I'll disagree with: When you have a family to support, becoming great at what you do is excellent job security. Thus, doing web development has gone from being a fun thing that I do for a job, to a very important fun thing I do as my career. Now, my own personal hustle factor is at an all-time high. This assumes that being good at your job and job security are positively correlated. Possibly above the 75th percentile and certainly above the 90th, it swings the other way, and hard. First, when you're really good, you tend to get into conflict with intermediate players to whom you're a threat rather than an asset. Your company might benefit abstractly from you being good, but "The Company" doesn't write your performance reviews. Maybe your boss gives you shitty work so you don't develop and become a threat. Possibly, mediocre colleagues tear you down. At the 80th percentile, you'll almost never be fired for low performance but there's little overperformance risk. At the 95th, you can be a fucking lighting rod for resentment in a nasty, dysfunctional environment and, let's be honest, most work environments are pretty broken. Second, there are all the risks you have to take to get good. To get past 1.4 or so (scale here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajectory-of-a-software-engineer-and-where-it-all-goes-wrong/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajector... ) you need to start taking creative risks and have room to fail. Beyond 1.8, you either need managerial buy-in or extreme autonomy-- and sometimes, you gotta take it through means that aren't the most accepted. We still live in a "hacker" reality: you get good by breaking rules. It's great that the OP seems to live in a world where things actually work and there's a positive correlation between security and technical excellence. For most people in our industry, however, the need for a regular income induces conformist mediocrity rather than moon-shot excellence.

jakejake 14y ago
That sounds like a terrible work environment you're in!
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I've seen several, and most work environments are dysfunctional. I live in New York. Finance goes from C+ to C-; VC-istan is much worse (F). I've never worked in California so I can't evaluate Silicon Valley VC-istan but what I've heard is that it's not much better. Including the companies where I've been brought in to consult (where I can be less specific) I've probably seen 20 corporate cultures. About a quarter are neutral or healthy; three-quarters are deeply broken. The best work environments I've seen were in government research think-tanks. Basic research (outside of academia) has the only really good cultures that I've seen. Academia's culture is less mean-spirited than Corporate America but failure is more final (getting fired in business is no big deal in the long run; in academia, missing tenure is deadly). I've learned some uncomfortable truths along the way. One of those is that, in a subordinate role, overperformance is dangerous-- far more perilous to your job security than the alternative. That doesn't mean people should slack off and give up. No fucking way. It's better to excel and accept the volatility. It's more virtuous, you enjoy it more, and eventually when you find your tribe or are expected to lead, it pays off to be excellent. However, in most subordinate roles, overperformance is short-term dangerous. I don't think anyone who's been around for long enough doubts that.
  - rdouble 14y ago
    You seem to have had a negative experience which has caused you to invent a venture capital funded employment dystopia in your mind. This isn't entirely surprising if you are located in New York as there is always a subset in Silicon Alley that seems more inspired by "Boiler Room" than "The Social Network." However, working at a VC funded startup in California is almost nothing like the fun house mirror distortion you continually elaborate upon in your Hacker News posts. There are negatives, but they usually are at the boring and goofy end of the why-work-sucks spectrum.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      The VC darlings are terrible. Unethical management, and investors do nothing. (In a couple cases, I've informed.) Really awful people. This isn't just my negative experience (I've had some bad ones, for sure) but comes from what a lot of my friends have seen. Just to give you a flavor for it... in April 2012, I posted this, from "An ethical crisis in technology" ( http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/an-ethical-crisis-in-technology/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/an-ethical-cr... ) Here’s some shit I’ve either seen, or been credibly informed of, in the past 24 months, most of which was never in the news: no-poach agreements, attempted blacklisting of whistleblowers, a rescinded job offer based on a rumor that suggested PTSD, abuse of process within large companies, extortion of ex-employees, gross breaches of contract, frivolous lawsuits, threats of frivolous lawsuits, price fixing among venture capitalists, bait-and-switch hiring tactics, retaliatory termination, and fraudulent, no-product startups designed to embezzle angel investors. That took me about 60 seconds; two minutes more and the list would be three times as long. So, yeah, there are some horrible people out there. There are also good people out there. I think VC-istan gives the bad ones an advantage, however. There are good startups. Some take VC. Some don't. There don't seem to be many of them. However, the mainstream of VC-istan is really ugly. I don't think it's limited to NYC. But are there humane, interesting, and all-around excellent VC-funded companies? Absolutely. They are rare, and "the cool kids" (a bunch of wankers) won't be interested in them, but they exist.
      - rdouble 14y ago
lbrandy 14y ago
This is a dangerous line of thinking, useful as a counterpoint to consider, but a terrible basis for thinking about your life and career. The problem is that the worst kind of engineer is the one who thinks he is a top 5% engineer, who proclaims his, and all other, organizations dysfunctional, who is convinced his managers and peers are out to get him because of their jealousy, who sees enemies everywhere, and who ends up getting along with no one, self-fulfilling the prophecy, and being a net negative. Being really good at your job is a great way to succeed in life almost everywhere. If you frequently find yourself in political death struggles in organization after organization, it might be time for some self reflection.
- jakejake 14y ago
  I was just thinking that it's interesting how at least 80% of developers are in the top 5%. It's one of the truly amazing things about our industry, we defy the laws of mathematics.
  - hayksaakian 14y ago
    I think its just another byproduct of America's confidence culture, where any sign of uncertainty next the a confident idiot paints you as inferior.
    - jakejake 14y ago
      I have to plead ignorance about other countries. But in the US, I haven't really encountered too many developers who I sensed projecting superiority for the sake of job security. What I mean is that my impression is that they truly do believe they are a top developer. I have run into a few of those "job security" guys who are difficult to work with, but not that often. I think part of it is that it's easy to look at another developer's code which you inherit and judge it to be inferior to your own work. I have found this to be very common - the developer who is constantly griping about the terrible code they inherited. (I myself have been guilty of this). But, it can be more difficult to actually create the code - especially under time or budget constraints or requirements that change over the years. So, in that case it can be tempting to judge yourself as a better developer - when in reality you may have created the same crappy code or worse.

jakejake 14y ago

That sounds like a terrible work environment you're in!

michaelochurch 14y ago
I've seen several, and most work environments are dysfunctional. I live in New York. Finance goes from C+ to C-; VC-istan is much worse (F). I've never worked in California so I can't evaluate Silicon Valley VC-istan but what I've heard is that it's not much better. Including the companies where I've been brought in to consult (where I can be less specific) I've probably seen 20 corporate cultures. About a quarter are neutral or healthy; three-quarters are deeply broken. The best work environments I've seen were in government research think-tanks. Basic research (outside of academia) has the only really good cultures that I've seen. Academia's culture is less mean-spirited than Corporate America but failure is more final (getting fired in business is no big deal in the long run; in academia, missing tenure is deadly). I've learned some uncomfortable truths along the way. One of those is that, in a subordinate role, overperformance is dangerous-- far more perilous to your job security than the alternative. That doesn't mean people should slack off and give up. No fucking way. It's better to excel and accept the volatility. It's more virtuous, you enjoy it more, and eventually when you find your tribe or are expected to lead, it pays off to be excellent. However, in most subordinate roles, overperformance is short-term dangerous. I don't think anyone who's been around for long enough doubts that.
- rdouble 14y ago
  You seem to have had a negative experience which has caused you to invent a venture capital funded employment dystopia in your mind. This isn't entirely surprising if you are located in New York as there is always a subset in Silicon Alley that seems more inspired by "Boiler Room" than "The Social Network." However, working at a VC funded startup in California is almost nothing like the fun house mirror distortion you continually elaborate upon in your Hacker News posts. There are negatives, but they usually are at the boring and goofy end of the why-work-sucks spectrum.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    The VC darlings are terrible. Unethical management, and investors do nothing. (In a couple cases, I've informed.) Really awful people. This isn't just my negative experience (I've had some bad ones, for sure) but comes from what a lot of my friends have seen. Just to give you a flavor for it... in April 2012, I posted this, from "An ethical crisis in technology" ( http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/an-ethical-crisis-in-technology/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/an-ethical-cr... ) Here’s some shit I’ve either seen, or been credibly informed of, in the past 24 months, most of which was never in the news: no-poach agreements, attempted blacklisting of whistleblowers, a rescinded job offer based on a rumor that suggested PTSD, abuse of process within large companies, extortion of ex-employees, gross breaches of contract, frivolous lawsuits, threats of frivolous lawsuits, price fixing among venture capitalists, bait-and-switch hiring tactics, retaliatory termination, and fraudulent, no-product startups designed to embezzle angel investors. That took me about 60 seconds; two minutes more and the list would be three times as long. So, yeah, there are some horrible people out there. There are also good people out there. I think VC-istan gives the bad ones an advantage, however. There are good startups. Some take VC. Some don't. There don't seem to be many of them. However, the mainstream of VC-istan is really ugly. I don't think it's limited to NYC. But are there humane, interesting, and all-around excellent VC-funded companies? Absolutely. They are rare, and "the cool kids" (a bunch of wankers) won't be interested in them, but they exist.
    - rdouble 14y ago

lbrandy 14y ago

This is a dangerous line of thinking, useful as a counterpoint to consider, but a terrible basis for thinking about your life and career. The problem is that the worst kind of engineer is the one who thinks he is a top 5% engineer, who proclaims his, and all other, organizations dysfunctional, who is convinced his managers and peers are out to get him because of their jealousy, who sees enemies everywhere, and who ends up getting along with no one, self-fulfilling the prophecy, and being a net negative. Being really good at your job is a great way to succeed in life almost everywhere. If you frequently find yourself in political death struggles in organization after organization, it might be time for some self reflection.

jakejake 14y ago
I was just thinking that it's interesting how at least 80% of developers are in the top 5%. It's one of the truly amazing things about our industry, we defy the laws of mathematics.
- hayksaakian 14y ago
  I think its just another byproduct of America's confidence culture, where any sign of uncertainty next the a confident idiot paints you as inferior.
  - jakejake 14y ago
    I have to plead ignorance about other countries. But in the US, I haven't really encountered too many developers who I sensed projecting superiority for the sake of job security. What I mean is that my impression is that they truly do believe they are a top developer. I have run into a few of those "job security" guys who are difficult to work with, but not that often. I think part of it is that it's easy to look at another developer's code which you inherit and judge it to be inferior to your own work. I have found this to be very common - the developer who is constantly griping about the terrible code they inherited. (I myself have been guilty of this). But, it can be more difficult to actually create the code - especially under time or budget constraints or requirements that change over the years. So, in that case it can be tempting to judge yourself as a better developer - when in reality you may have created the same crappy code or worse.