[HN Gopher] Build your career on dirty work ___________________________________________________________________ Build your career on dirty work Author : Tomte Score : 178 points Date : 2022-09-11 16:14 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (staysaasy.com) (TXT) w3m dump (staysaasy.com) | Ragingweb wrote: | I built my career as a software engineer exactly like this. | Learned all the pain points in mid corps/ corps and went on | taking work in the "gutter". On call, learning rare languages | (like COBOL), or unusual file formats (like AFP) and db admin | (oracle especially) are parts of my tool belt to open black boxes | and rebuild or refactor. But as mentioned before, this kind of | work pays if you're freelancing, not as an employee, since you | rarely get any kind of advance if you are providing meaningful | groundwork. But you also need a lot of soft skills to be able to | get information to provide the work, unentangle a spaghetti mess | or simply get access to a specific server or codebase. | Tade0 wrote: | I would be careful with such statements. | | Some years ago I figured it would be a good idea to specialize in | converting Angular 1.x applications to Angular 2+ - considering | the former was supposed to be sunset eventually and nobody wanted | to touch this with a ten foot pole this sounded like a good plan. | | Bottom line is: garbage projects attract garbage management | practices. | | Projects I worked on in no particular order: | | I: | | 1. I fix some longstanding bugs. | | 2. Client is happy and wants more. | | 3. Client gets back to us with new stuff and imposes a non- | negotiable deadline because the marketing campaign already went. | | II. | | Contract in Switzerland. Financially very good, but the company | that sent me there didn't manage to figure out our accommodation, | among other things. I lost 5kg due to malnutrition because I had | to figure out my housing situation by myself. | | Also COVID put a wrench in those plans. | | III. | | Random offer that matched my experience. Wasn't too bad until I | found that the client company sees us as first and foremost "a | cost" and won't bother to keep us updated on important decisions. | One key information regarding our deadlines was obtained by our | tech lead _by accident_ because he was called to an unrelated | meeting. | TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: | why are you letting clients impose deadlines? That's your job | to tell them. | Tade0 wrote: | Not my call. This was a client of the company I was | contracted to at the time. | | As to why they did this: refer to the "bottom line" section | of my previous comment. | wnolens wrote: | The right advice for the beginning of your career. But a recipe | for being stuck at SDE2 unless you move towards high visibility | work with a more direct line to new revenue (not just reducing | costs) | jpollock wrote: | This does work. At least it works for me. | | There is a difference between doing a crappy job and solving a | crappy problem. | | This is the difference between "toil" and "eliminating toil". | | https://sre.google/sre-book/eliminating-toil/ | | Toil isn't valued very highly. It feels good to do it, but it is | fundamentally repetitive make-work. Removing the work is where | the value is. The value is in scaling yourself, allowing your | employer to see productivity improvements, and get more out of | the same staff. | | The value is in helping your employer climb "Charette's Risk | Escalator". | rdtwo wrote: | I think this is partially true but it's important to make sure | the garbage is on fire before cleaning it up. | | If you clean it up before it's on fire you just become a lowly | garbage man. | | If the garbage is on fire and you positioned yourself to clean it | up you are a hero and take credit. | | If you are a really corporate pro you wait till the fire is | mostly put out then sweep in for the photo op. | vyrotek wrote: | This advice in comic form. | | https://twitter.com/_workchronicles/status/13144369055015116... | rdtwo wrote: | I'm going to print this out and hang it on my wall | mjr00 wrote: | > I think this is partially true but it's important to make | sure the garbage is on fire before cleaning it up. | | Yeah. Especially true as the article mentions tech debt as an | example. Too many times I've seen overeager developers early in | their careers insist that the most important thing in the world | is rewriting the old service written in C++/ASP/whatever, | without respecting the fact that the old service has been | dutiful performing mostly without issue for years, and the only | time it comes up is the one time per year someone needs to go | in and spend two weeks adding a minor feature or bugfix. | dasil003 wrote: | You summed up my reaction to the article perfectly. | | Anyone working in a large company can easily point a half dozen | problems off the top of their head. This is especially true of | software engineers who are detail oriented by nature. Lots of | these ideas will overlap and find common cause, but some will | be conflicting. | | At the end of the day, focus and alignment is needed to avoid | chaos. Therefore, it's best to go about these things | incrementally, building awareness along the way, and ensure you | have executive sponsorship commensurate with the investment you | are making. The narrative should be designed to resonate with | as many people as possible. If you miss the socialization | process you will mostly get a big shrug at perf review time. | rdtwo wrote: | Even if the narrative is good often times there are other | higher priority issues the org is dealing with. You need to | make sure the problem becomes a priority before you show up | with the fire truck. Typically you can pre position yourself | if you see it coming as long as you can stay disengaged | enough that the initial fire isn't blamed on you. | | This is just how big orgs work. Not startup mentality | RyanShook wrote: | I agree with the premise of dirty work being more valuable. The | trouble I see with the recommendation for taking on-call work is | that it's too easy to get "stuck" in that role without the tools | to improve the process. There will always exist some amount of | dirty/on-call work and reducing it is usually a business logic | issue not a code issue. Maybe if you're at a high-growth company | you have the tools at your disposal to fix the process. | namenotrequired wrote: | In that case, just working to get the on call team the | resources it needs to fix the underlying issues sustainably | would be a very valuable contribution | cratermoon wrote: | At the top of my resume, I have "Polishes old code", and in the | key skills says "Working with legacy/heritage code". I've never | had a problem finding work. | ourmandave wrote: | That's why I always start green field projects with already | obsolete tech stacks. | | You're welcome. | cratermoon wrote: | There are many aspects of code that make it "legacy", but | "obsolete tech stack" is only one, and certainly not the most | important one. | collsni wrote: | This works, I can say so from self experience. | | Found that my company had a wealth of tech debt and powered | through it for years. Super challenging to fix what others can or | won't , tons of experience gained in the process. | fanuelworku wrote: | wwarner wrote: | Sry there is no way at all to have high impact working on GDPR. | The only way to have high impact is to make a lot more money than | you're paid, which is totally possible if you focus on solving | real problems for customers. In other words, don't be a cost | center, be a source of revenue. | cnorthwood wrote: | There are more ways to quantify impact than money. | derfabianpeter wrote: | Interesting perspective that I'd like to challenge. Many | European companies now face a future in which they're banned | from using US cloud services due to GDPR. Fixing that problem | seems like having high impact. | fanuelworku wrote: | scrotiemcboogs wrote: | > We've been to the fucking moon y'all, we can figure out a way | to halve our Series-A-sized support queue. | | Favorite quote from the article. | | ____ | | I think the concept of dirty work is important but isn't always | as fruitful of a pursuit as the author makes it seem. There are | plenty of cases of dirty work success stories, but there are just | as many stories of automated runbooks that never end up being | used or documentation never read. | | What's important is to understand high signal dirty work. Listen | for what is truly causing pain within a team or across teams and | begin to pull on that thread. Talk to the stakeholders. | Understand the ins and outs of the problem. Then go down the | rabbit hole of getting hands dirty. | nnadams wrote: | > Understand the ins and outs of the problem. Then go down the | rabbit hole of getting hands dirty. | | Yes, I think this nuance is somewhat lacking from the article. | Do not sign up for every on-call shift or only do QA work all | day. That's how you can become "that person," and you'll just | watch your team expect that from you. | | If you're early in your career, my suggestion is do different | kinds of dirty work, switch it up as much as possible. Get a | feel for as many as different things as possible. Then you'll | be better prepared to leverage that knowledge, and you'll know | when it's worth going down that rabbit hole. | scrotiemcboogs wrote: | > If you're early in your career, my suggestion is do | different kinds of dirty work, switch it up as much as | possible. | | Spot on. This is massively important. Not only will you build | a better picture of systems as a whole, but you'll also | discover what is interesting and not interesting to you. | Finding that out early on is invaluable. | ForHackernews wrote: | > We've been to the fucking moon y'all, we can figure out a way | to halve our Series-A-sized support queue. | | Who's 'we', kemosabe? I guarantee none of the overpaid yaml | jockeys at my adtech firm have ever been involved in anything | that flew to the moon. | scrotiemcboogs wrote: | Speaking of human ingenuinty. I do concede that not everyone | is a rocket scientist, though.. | humanrebar wrote: | Counterargument by Jerry Seinfeld about thirty years ago: | | """ We never should have landed a man on the moon. It's a | mistake. Now everything is compared to that one accomplishment. | Now we go, "I can't believe they can land a man on the moon, | and taste my coffee!" I think we all would've been a lot | happier if we hadn't landed a man on the moon. We'd go: "They | can't make a prescription bottle top open easily? I'm not | surprised they couldn't land man on the moon. Things make | perfect sense to me now." Neil Armstrong should've said, | "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for every | whining, complaining S.O.B. on the face of the Earth." """ | | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0697684/characters/nm0000632 | dehrmann wrote: | If we can land a man on the moon but can't do X, maybe X is | the harder problem. | rzzzt wrote: | Sounds like an X-Y problem to me. | WalterBright wrote: | That's true. Many problems seem simple, but are | fundamentally insoluble. For example, crime rates will | never be zero. | shepherdjerred wrote: | You're not being creative enough. Crime rate on the moon | is currently 0%. | babyshake wrote: | On the other hand, we refer to really difficult problems | requiring widespread coordination as being "moonshots". | colechristensen wrote: | The thing is landing a man on the moon took dedicating a | few percent GDP of the most advanced nation in the world | for a decade and scientists poached from the next _n_ | countries after the war: perhaps your X isn't actually the | harder problem. | ttpphd wrote: | This runs exactly counter to the site reliability engineering | guide that the Google folks put together. Grungy toil work is bad | for the worker and bad for the organization. | praptak wrote: | This advice is about _recurring_ grungy toil work, aka "don't | run your systems on human blood". So I'd say that's kind of a | different advice. | chrchang523 wrote: | This works, but I'd add the following: always keep your eyes open | for "dirty work" that you seem to enjoy more than most other | people. That represents an opportunity to make disproportionate | contributions. | | Relatedly, you should prioritize building good working | relationships with others who specialize in different, | complementary types of "dirty work". | danwee wrote: | I don't avoid on-call for the reasons the article states. I avoid | on-call because I don't want more money in exchange of my free | time. | cgh wrote: | One of my first jobs out of school was implementing | internationalisation libraries for an application that ran on | Windows and a variety of Unixes (AIX, HP-UX and Solaris, if | memory serves). It was predictably horrible and understandably no | one with actual work experience wanted to do this tedious labour. | In the course of my work, I found and reported/fixed various bugs | in other parts of the application and built a certain amount of | credibility in the eyes of my coworkers despite being so fresh- | faced, mainly because I was in this particular trench alone. It | showed me the value of tackling the ugly stuff as a chance to | control one's micro-destiny, so to speak. | | That said, if faced with that particular task now, I'd delegate | it to a new grad in a flash. | honkdaddy wrote: | I spent the first part of my career following this kind of | advice, working as hard as I could, and chasing some mythical | prestige I thought would make me happy. | | Now I make $320k, work remotely about 20h/wk, and have never been | happier than I am right now, checking boxes and fixing bugs as a | senior engineer on a minor product team at FAANG. | | I don't care if I ever get promoted, maybe I will, I probably I | won't. I get great feedback from my managers and I have a | friendly relationship with my coworkers, most of whom are happily | chomping at the bit to get promoted next cycle. | | I realized during the pandemic how much better the world outside | the internet is, and now I spend my spare time hiking mountains, | painting murals, playing in a crappy cover band with my high | school buddies, and eventually finding a wife to settle down | with. I refuse to believe I'll spend my time on my deathbed | wishing I'd written more code and spent less time outside; life | is just too damn short. | | I'd like to give the exact opposite advice of this author - find | an easy, comfortable, well paying job and fill the rest of your | life with things that actually matter. I truly believe you'll be | happier for it. | dicriseg wrote: | It's good work if you can get it! [0] But most people out | there, even software engineers, aren't going to make 320k with | minimal effort. I do agree with the overall idea that you | should define "enough" for yourself, and slow down to enjoy | life once you get there. | | [0]: https://www.theonion.com/if-i-had-one-piece-of-advice-for- | to... | dangus wrote: | > find an easy, comfortable, well paying job and fill the rest | of your life with things that actually matter. | | I think that's kind of what the article was about: raising your | career status high enough so that you _can get_ one of those | nice jobs. You can 't just pick a $320k job off of the job | tree, that's almost 5 times the median household income. | | Without having marketability, the task of finding an easy, | comfortable, and well paying job is advice akin to "just win | the lottery, that'll cover your expenses." | hilariouswhip wrote: | > Trotsky later claimed that Stalin amassed power as a | bureaucratic mediocrity, but it was actually Yakov Sverdlov, | assisted by Elena Stasova, who ran the Party machine. Stalin was | not a born bureaucrat at all. He was a hard worker utterly | dedicated to politics; indeed everything with Stalin was | political, but he worked in an eccentric, structureless, | unbureaucratic, almost bohemian, style that would not have | succeeded in any other government, then or now. Lenin's trust was | won in the bank robberies and intrigues of the early years and, | later, on the battlefields of the Civil War: Stalin was hardly in | his office before 1920. | | _Young Stalin_ | weatherlite wrote: | Build Your Burnout on Dirty Work | swivelmaster wrote: | I did something like this back when I worked at a fast-growing | startup that was eventually acquired. I built shiny new features, | sure, but I also reviewed every line of code from before I | joined, found major problems, refactored them and documented best | practices so they could be avoided in the future, and made sure | that the founder/CEO was aware of my work every step of the way. | I was promoted to lead the team a few months later. | | To be honest, I found refactoring and cleaning up tech debt to be | just as fun, if not moreso, than building new features. And the | user-facing results spoke for themselves: Less bugs and faster | response times. Everybody wins. | ur-whale wrote: | I strongly disagree with the advice given in this article. | | Two main reasons: 1. This is essentially advice | someone who puts his career ahead of everything else that matters | in life, i.e. I'm happy to eat shit as long as it advances my | career. If that's what you really want from your life, more power | to you, but that's probably not for everyone. 2. Not | everyone will have the skill level to fit that profile but if you | happen to have been gifted with the luck to work on stuff for | which you are truly passionate, you will both tremendously enjoy | going to work every day *and* advance your career effortlessly. | | This article sounds like a recipe for early onset depression. | Everyone _will_ have to regularly perform shitty, unpleasant work | in their career, but unless you balance it with some amount of | creative, fun and rewarding work, you 're going to be miserable, | and by way of that, not be very performant. | SamPatt wrote: | Good piece overall, but "only boring people are bored" isn't true | when talking about their jobs. | | Especially when you're doing work beneath your ability, it can be | boring and there's no reason to pretend otherwise. | | Your spare time is a different story. | whatarethembits wrote: | I actually like this kind of work sometimes, I can get it done | quickly and work on my own projects or learn something new with | extra time | bigcat12345678 wrote: | The problem is that Dirty Work requires an order of magnitude | more time and dedication to get the deserved recognition. | | It's not that you fixed one person's mess, and you'll get a | praise in the next perf cycle. You almost always need to show the | majority of the team at least 3 times that you saved their asses. | Then finally you can demand your work to be recognized. And | right, even if everyone recognize your achievement, you still | need to ask. | ilaksh wrote: | Right now I am solo (and barely getting by) so I am currently | following the "Build Your Business By Doing Every Single ____ing | Thing Yourself" model. | orwin wrote: | I don't think i have the same career goals as the author, so not | everything apply to me. | | But he On call/support advice is golden, even if your aim isn't | to become the best/most irremplaceable engineer in the company. | Doing support and being on call for emergency (as long as the | days you're on call are well defined and you're paid OT for it) | is the best way to understand what the company/team is selling, | how to debug the worst code the comapny wrote and why it was | written like this. I probably don't have as much experience as | other engineers here, but i've been at 4 different companies, and | i became usefull way faster when i was put on support first. | jmyeet wrote: | The truth is that what you actually do at work doesn't really | matter. The important thing is how your work is _perceived_ and | that is a function of how well you are _liked_ which itself | correlated with common background, cultural similarity and | essentially innate quality of trustworthiness (there's research | on this). | | Let me give you an example of how this can play out. Say you do | the dirty work no one wants to do. These are are all possible | outcomes: | | - you get stuck with that and it becomes expected of you | | - people feel that area still sucks so you didn't have a lot of | impact | | - people really value your impact | | - you're viewed as having initiative and tackling hard problems | | - you're viewed as not tracking org priorities and instead doing | work nobody cares about | | - you get more opportunity to work in high profile projects | because of your efforts | | - you get less opportunities because you're too essential in your | dirty work | | - you get less opportunities because you're viewed as not working | in what's high impact | | - you will get no credit for avoiding a catastrophic failure that | didn't happen. Worse, people may wonder what you've been doing | (y2k anyone?) | | All of these narratives can be constructed from the same set of | facts. Part of this relies on your ability to communicate. A | bigger part is networking. But the biggest factor of all is | whether or not they like you. | | EDIT: fixes as per comments below. Thanks! | Noumenon72 wrote: | Based on your last sentence, I think your first paragraph's "is | not a function of how well you are liked" should not have the | "not". | Noumenon72 wrote: | Also, I think "not tracking org properties" should be "not | tracking org priorities". | cgh wrote: | > - you will get no credit for avoiding a catastrophic failure | that didn't happen. Worse, people may wonder what you've been | doing (y2k anyone?) | | This is so true it hurts. I worked for years at a certain | Silicon Valley BigCorp on a low-level networking library with | one other guy. We of course had bugs but we managed them and | delivered on time. It was therefore assumed that our library | was "easy" (it wasn't) and the buggy deliverables that made up | other parts of the application were "hard" (they often | weren't). So the folks who eventually delivered the buggy | libraries got the recognition while we toiled more or less in | obscurity. It was a bitter lesson in the importance of self- | promotion. | qwertygerty wrote: | I feel you. In one of my jobs, despite the output being | different, I eventually realised that management perceived | the guys who bitch the most, as the most hard working. In | reality, their bitching was a fascade to allow them slack. | Quietly working through tough situations made it seem like | all was well, even easy. The loud guys got all the attention, | and praise; "wow, after all of that pain, you perservered, | here is a nice bonus for you" :facepalm | friedman23 wrote: | If you do this, you get pigeon holed into this kind of work. | davewritescode wrote: | This is 100% absolutely not true | rzzzt wrote: | Perhaps parent is talking about their own experience. What | does that mean for the percentage of true-ness? | Animats wrote: | The first seven years of my career were spent mostly fixing | crashes in a mainframe OS. When I first came to California, there | were two piles of crash dump printouts six feet high waiting for | me. Gradually I worked down the pile, and time between crashes | went from hours to months. | | Then I got into high-security operating system development for | DoD, which led to proof of correctness, networking, and other | theory. The aerospace company was happy to hire someone who'd | been deep inside a major operating system and had fixed that many | crash-type bugs. I was happy to pivot to the problems of | designing reliable and secure systems. | MisterKent wrote: | The title is a bit misleading. | | The author is advocating getting rid of dirty work by solving the | problem. This can mean starting by doing the dirty work, i.e on | call to identify the problems. Fixing them is what he is advising | people build their careers on. | | This is definitely something I have advocated for, and | recommended to other people. | | I'll add that a lot of the work that is referenced here is good | at 80% done and only marginally better until it takes a giant | jump at 100%. | | Code coverage is a good example of this, getting from 0 to 80% | code coverage is good. Getting to 95% code coverage is slightly | more useful. Getting to 100% gives you leverage to find dead | code, have actual confidence is things, prevent new features and | code from not being tested (previous person go to 95% coverage, | so a new feature might not dip the gate), and removes a lot of | arguments around "I'll add tests later". | | I've seen similar patterns with things like on call incident | queues for hitting 0 incidents. And automated alerts becoming so | reliable that engineers don't dismiss them as noise etc. | karaterobot wrote: | In my experience, people who lean into doing dirty work just end | up doing more dirty work. It's a recipe for being invaluable to | the team, but not a recipe for career growth: they want to keep | you around, but they want you to continue doing the dirty work. | | The best of career growth advice I've seen work _consistently_ | is: be working on a profit center rather than a cost center. | | You can be the best employee in the world, but if you're on an | unsexy, money-losing area of business, you will likely watch | people get promoted around you, because they worked on the thing | that gets all the attention. Doesn't matter if their contribution | to the success was insignificant, or that the one project was | necessary for the other to succeed. It's just the halo effect of | being on a winning team that does it. Yes, it makes no sense, and | it's not rational nor fair, but that's how business often works. | givemeethekeys wrote: | Unless your dirty work can be communicated in terms of cost | savings or value generated, stay the heck away. Otherwise | you'll be stuck making the same shitty salary and your boss | will keep making excuses on why you can't get a raise or | promotion. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I would say doing the dirty work in a profit center is the best | way to become invaluable and begin working in areas you wanted | to but found inaccessible earlier in your career. Then just | repeat that over and over again until you're where you want to | be and enjoy it. | | I'd say the hardest part of that advice is the identifying | where you want to go and when you're there, then allowing | yourself to simply enjoy it rather than seeking the next thing. | It's easy to overshoot if you're ambitious. I'm at the point of | having overshot personally and trying to figure out how to walk | my career backwards to where I was happiest. | spaetzleesser wrote: | "be working on a profit center rather than a cost center." | | Ideally work on something the CEO or another bigwig has passion | for and understands to some degree. | strikelaserclaw wrote: | I wish i could upvote you a thousand times. The path to a good | career is focusing on the right stuff and digging deep. Think | about where you work and what the most important products are | at your company and what skills you need to become a valuable | contributor there and move in that direction even if you are | very far away from there currently. If you have 0 interest in | the most valuable products at your company and you still want a | good career, then move to a different company. | WalterBright wrote: | > that's how business often works | | It's how everything works. | | > it's not rational nor fair | | Life gets a lot better once one accepts and deals with reality | and stops getting wrapped around the axle about fairness. | tmpz22 wrote: | I don't like how your comment advocates for conformity to | "reality". Sometimes going against the grain is absolutely | the right thing, especially when dealing with individual | situations versus generic advice. | avgcorrection wrote: | Walter put all of his non-conformity points into language | design. | WalterBright wrote: | I'm bald and wear glasses. That's quite unfair. What do you | suggest I do to redress this unfairness? | groffee wrote: | > What do you suggest I do to redress this unfairness? | | Stop being a spectator in your own life, take charge and | start living it. | | > I'm bald | | Start taking wheatgrass supplements. | | > wear glasses | | Start palming exercises, it will give you 20/20 vision if | you consistently practice. | [deleted] | sarchertech wrote: | Evidence isn't great for either of those. Definitely not | good enough for you to be so flippantly dismissive of the | OP. | whatarethembits wrote: | With strong enough motivation, one could dedicate their | life to research in these areas. Much of mankind's thrust | forward can be attributed to such individuals. But this | is easier said than done. | blowski wrote: | Point well made. Clearly, though, some things _are_ | unfair and worth fighting against. | holografix wrote: | Funny, I always thought reality what up to us to define and | create. | bitL wrote: | Basically, "don't get pigeonholed". It's similar to data | engineers thinking they will do real ML some day and their data | job is just temporary... | mjr00 wrote: | > It's similar to data engineers thinking they will do real | ML some day and their data job is just temporary... | | Hah yeah but this is just the reality of ML. "Engineer who | only codes up awesome new ML algorithms" isn't a real job. | For every 1 person coming up with exciting new algorithms, | there's 500 people dealing with data pipelines, cleaning, | maintenance, and operations. A while ago I got hired by a | large SF tech company as a "machine learning engineer" and my | team spent nearly all of their time writing Javascript web | wrappers on top of scikitlearn. Thrilling stuff. | maxFlow wrote: | > It's similar to data engineers thinking they will do real | ML some day and their data job is just temporary... | | This is unfair to DEs, not to mention inaccurate as of 2022. | The statement assumes DEs are yearning to do "real ML" while | suffering in their "data job" and waiting for a chance to | move "upwards". Data engineering is a terminal career path by | itself which may or may not support a dedicated ML function. | In fact many of my DE colleagues switched from DS/ML/DL | citing "model fatigue". | | Now, "ML engineers" spending 90% of their time producing a | workable dataset to get to the "real ML" is a different | discussion. | crispyambulance wrote: | > "don't get pigeonholed" | | I've done this with mixed results as far as career | satisfaction goes. | | To be honest, getting pigeon-holed isn't always a conscious | choice and once you realize that's what happened it's really | hard to make a transition out of it. Sometimes the best | approach is to play the cards you've been dealt. | | As long as one does work which is personally meaningful, | intellectually challenging, and which pays "enough" and has | some stability, that all makes the sting of status-envy less | of a bitter pill to swallow. | | On the other hand there's no shortage of obsessively status- | focused people out there. There's a guy on youtube whose | channel is all about getting promoted at FAANG's, | specifically, Amazon. That's it. Just practical deadpan | advice on getting to "L7" | (https://www.youtube.com/c/ALifeEngineered). I guess it's | fine if that's what one _really_ wants out of life, but it | seems like a recipe for profound meaninglessness for almost | everybody. | nostrademons wrote: | Being invaluable to the team gives you negotiating leverage. | | The other half of this strategy that the blog post left | unwritten is: 1.) learn how to sell that dirty work and connect | it back to the successes your high-growth company enjoyed in | the marketplace 2.) apply to other high-growth companies who | want someone willing to do their dirty work 3.) get a competing | offer and 4.) negotiate that into a higher salary or stock | package. | | You can't clear a market without competition. All of the other | career advice, whether it be "work for a profit center rather | than a cost center" or "impress your boss" or "do the dirty | work" or "take credit for other's success" or "don't take | credit for other's success" means nothing if there's never a | reason to give you a raise because you're going to keep working | for your employer regardless of the terms. | jjtheblunt wrote: | > Being invaluable to the team gives you negotiating | leverage. | | What if the team (or its product) gets cancelled? | colordrops wrote: | It's a tradeoff. I've been working on the front lines most of | my career and it has lead to some amazing growth and | achievements, but now that I've got children and want to spend | more time with them I'm perfectly fine being in a cost center | and staying out of the critical path. It does take some savvy | to get visibility for your work but nothing a seasoned engineer | couldn't handle. | bigcat12345678 wrote: | Cost center is the critical path, they are the punching bag | for others' failures. | mkl95 wrote: | > So you're in the on-call rotation, now what? Make pages | approach zero. You can do it. Trust me, you can make pages trend | towards zero. Many have done it on teams at the highest-scale | companies in existence. | | How about people own up to their mistakes instead of relying on | random Joe who happens to be on call to fix it? I have been | burned too many times by write only code written by some coworker | who wants nothing to do with it. This is not just an on-call | issue btw. | | > Apologizing to angry customers | | This is a terrible idea. Just because a customer is angry it | doesn't mean you should apologize. SaaS customers are angry all | the time because some 3rd party integration is returning a 5xx | error. | seanhandley wrote: | I'm from Lancashire in the UK and we have a saying here: | | > Where there's muck, there's brass. | ISL wrote: | I'm generally on-board with the thrust of the article, but deep- | dive volunteering for on-call work should be regarded with | caution. Only do it if it is properly compensated and your time | is valued (vacation days to compensate for your lost utility, for | example). | | If you're on-call and want to do anything outside of cell range | or want to be unconditionally available for family or friends.... | you can't. | bitL wrote: | Typically those companies requiring on-call periods give their | employees pagers to keep during vacations... | NegativeK wrote: | A pager doesn't let you be unconditionally available for | family/friends or far outside of the range of technology. | cgrealy wrote: | If you are on-call, you are not on vacation. | zeroth32 wrote: | Really bad advice! Hard work does not pay, corporations are not | meritocracy. | | About 15 years ago, our corporation had orphaned project. Entire | team of 5 developers quit without notice (found other job). | Horrible code, no documentation, no tests, no spec, not even | build system (was on one of the developers laptop). There was | important deadline 6 months away. | | I stepped up, worked 16 hours a day four couple of months, | eventually got project back on track, and trained new team. As | reward I got put on PIP (performance improvement plan) and | eventually got fired. | | Problem was: | | - I worked for other division, for my manager I was dead weight. | It was sort of emergency reassignment and paper work never got | ironed out. | | - I mostly worked from home, come to office barely. Some | coworkers thought I left. Not keeping appearances was main excuse | for getting me PIPed. | | - My project was 1 month behind the schedule. I missed the | important deadline. | | - Senior manager who initiated my work quit, leaving me behind. | | I am not sure what is the lesson here. But now I work in remote | job, where I can do all my weekly work in about two hours. Way | happier now. | | Edit: this was official assignment from very senior manager | within company. I saved them a lot of money on fines! | intellectronica wrote: | Actually the author was very careful to qualify their advice as | applying to work at high growth companies, rather than | corporations or very early state startups, where this approach | is much less likely to be effective. | | Also, the example you describe, which I'm sure has left a | strong impression on you, doesn't contradict the advice on | offer. Again, the author explains what kind of dirty work they | are referring to - problems that have enough reputation to make | it obvious to everyone that solving them is extremely valuable. | nus07 wrote: | Sounds like -yet another day at Amazon :) | frobozz wrote: | Am I reading this right? You worked double time for months, and | in that time you neglected your own job, without it being | authorised by your line manager? | | All so that a manager in a different department wouldn't look | bad for losing an entire team in one go? | | That's the lesson. Don't do that. Pick up extra work if you | want to, but always do your own job first. | stingraycharles wrote: | I don't read it the same way; I read that he got reassigned, | as he was "dead weight" to his manager. | | Still bad, but probably means that all this was inevitable, | and his manager already made up their mind before the project | even started. | frobozz wrote: | If you are reassigned, you are not dead weight to your | original division, because you aren't working for them, you | are on the books of the other division. | | Also if you are reassigned, you don't have your original | projects to get behind on, they are someone else's problem | now. | | Similarly, if reassigned, and you do the work of the new | assignment there's no grounds for a PIP, and even if there | were, your original manager wouldn't be the one putting you | on it. | [deleted] | [deleted] | bluedino wrote: | Bad management/company, not bad 'hard work' | ClumsyPilot wrote: | thats like 69% of all companies | chitowneats wrote: | 69% is notably far less than 100%. Stop chasing the wrong | things. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "half of my advertising is wasted money. Trhouble is, I | don't know which half" | kortilla wrote: | >Hard work does not pay, corporations are not meritocracy. | | The former is true, but the latter does not follow. The lesson | of your story is that corporations _are a meritocracy_ , but | you need you need to work on stuff that helps your management | directly. | | If you're working on something unofficially, you're basically | moonlighting so you're taking a big gamble that it pays off | into something better because you're not doing your actual job. | zeroth32 wrote: | Are they meritocracy? How does it go with diversity and other | noble goals? The only way for highly productive individual to | get fair salary is to start their own business and do | consulting. Or do shady stuff like over-employment! | | That was official work, very senior manager pulled me out of | project, and temporarily assigned me to different division. | Not my fault paper work and finances between divisions never | got sorted out, I did not even had access to that stuff! | tikhonj wrote: | That is, companies are a meritocracy as long as "merit" means | "making your bosses happy". | Negitivefrags wrote: | You say that like it's bad thing. | ohgodplsno wrote: | It's a horrible thing and makes your job merely about | pleasing the whims of some random C-suite instead of | doing something productive for society. I'd rather work | on an assembly line, at least the machine is consistent | about what it wants and doesn't change its mind because | it just read an article about NFTs. | Negitivefrags wrote: | This is really it right here. I actually find it amazing that | such a significant percentage of people don't actually | understand what their job even is. | | Your job is to work on what your manager wants done. It's | that simple. | | Now if you have a bad mananger they may not be effective at | communicating that to you. If that's the case than it's even | _easier_ to get ahead. You can be one of the few people that | actually asks! | Kamq wrote: | Your job is to be (continuously) profitable. In a way that | upper management can see. | | You can do everything your manager wants, but if you aren't | profitable, you're going to be let go as soon as a | recession rolls around (possibly with your manager as | well). | | It's possible to get fired if you're profitable, but much | harder. And if you're profitable enough, your manager will | get overruled (the exact bounds of what is profitable | enough vary a bit by company). | willio58 wrote: | Appearances are soo important in jobs, much more than quality | of work. This is why fully remote jobs are so great, people are | on a more even playing ground. | agumonkey wrote: | I'm trying to find books about strategics and tactics used in | work groups. | AndrewKemendo wrote: | What you describe above is not what the article is describing. | | To be honest the author doesn't do a great job at explaining | the difference between meaningful dirty work, eg work that | needs to get done in order to actually move the company | forward, but nobody at the current company can do it, and | trying to resurrect abandonware with no coherent vision or | power. | | The latter will almost always lose (I've been in similar | positions) whereas you can indeed build a serious career around | the former. | zeroth32 wrote: | But this was the first case! Very important project for legal | compliance, not some sort of abandonware nobody cared about. | I had enough skills to put it on track, on official | assignment from higher management. | AndrewKemendo wrote: | Fair enough! My apologies for assuming too much. | | Sometimes you just get hosed | frobozz wrote: | > on official assignment from higher management. | | Unless your line manager authorised the secondment (in | which case, why PIP?), it wasn't on official assignment, it | was just a personal request from someone who happened to be | in a higher management position. | zeroth32 wrote: | I dont want to argue about this specific case. | | But if direct manager promises pay increase or promotion, | it is not binding or "official" as well. | lostcolony wrote: | Telling the VP to get stuffed, you're only going to do | what comes through the proper chain of command, is just | going to get you fired immediately rather than PIPed. | | Not saying there wasn't a way through this that could | have led to a positive outcome, but the key takeaway | isn't "do the dirty work", it's "make sure what you're | doing has an impact, and has visibility from the people | in charge of personnel decisions affecting you". Less | work but greater visibility > more work and worse | visibility. Part of your job is ensuring visibility or | you will get shafted. | whiplash451 wrote: | The lesson is : watch your own back. Communicate to people | about what you do and (more importantly) what you are not doing | and last, never take double assignments. Seems like you trusted | your company a lot more than you should have. | nnadams wrote: | > The lamentable work that many people avoid are great places to | look for high impact, low hanging fruit. | | Agree with this. When it comes to succeeding at work, especially | at a big corp, I've always said something similar: after | responsibility is abdicated, opportunity remains. Being annoyed | at the present is often a position of power in the software | world. Suddenly you have motivation to drive change and a bit of | knowledge to get started. Of course you need the time and the | freedom to use that. | | One way I try to spend time doing the dirty work is by over- | estimating. It's taken many years to really learn this, but I now | over estimate tasks by quite a lot. This helps me not feel | rushed, feel good when I deliver early, and gives me time to look | around and improve something. Reflecting on previous tasks and | what was annoying or oft repeated has helped me improve my | process. | andreimackenzie wrote: | How estimation is marketed matters, too. Don't let your | stakeholders think of it as an over-estimate. It's an estimate | that considers the needs of the full software development | lifecycle: automating tests, developing monitoring, refactoring | to clean up old tech debt, etc. | galoisscobi wrote: | Makes sense. It also must be nice to convey the dev lifecycle | factors that go in to estimates. | | Where I work refactoring is a trigger word and we are advised | to never say the word when talking to management and it must | never show up in any planning material/meetings etc. | | Someone made the mistake of including refactoring efforts in | their plans and they were asked to scrub it out. | hoosieree wrote: | This all boils down to how much you trust your management | with the long-term health of the business. Not refactoring | may actually be the right call. Maybe it will become a | necessity later, maybe not. | | If management just wants to flex their authority, you can | inflate your initial estimates. It's only unfair when one | side treats an estimate as a negotiation and the other side | doesn't. | tokinonagare wrote: | >One way I try to spend time doing the dirty work is by over- | estimating. It's taken many years to really learn this, but I | now over estimate tasks by quite a lot. | | I'm only 4 months into the industry and I felt like a slacker | for figuring out this trick. Now I feel better about it thanks | to your comment :) | CSMastermind wrote: | I'm not sure "dirty" work is the right framing here. I'd consider | those problems "hard work". They aren't neglected because they're | perceived as less interesting but often because they require | knowledge or abilities that many engineers don't have and aren't | willing to put in the work to learn. | WastingMyTime89 wrote: | There is no secret recipe to career building. You can do great | doing dirty work. You can end up nowhere working on trendy | things. It's all about rebounding and using what you have learned | to move forward. | | The most impactful thing I have ever done for my own career is | having an idea of what I wanted for an horizon a bit longer than | just my next job and being very open about it. There are plenty | of people around you who have vested interest into helping you | and can't if they don't know what you are looking for. | baobabKoodaa wrote: | The author mentions documentation as an example of dirty work | that you could grind as a way to "build your career". Personally | I enjoy writing documentation and I make an effort to write | documentation in every project I work in, and I'm yet to see a | single project where that work would have been valued. Nobody | cares if you write great documentation. It's not a way to "build | your career". I stopped reading the article at this point. | dharmab wrote: | I have had the opposite experience. At every job I've had other | than the first I've been praised for my documentation and it | has opened up many opportunities for me. | number6 wrote: | Are there some advice you can give for writing good | documentation | dharmab wrote: | The biggest piece of advice I can give is keep it short and | put more important information up front. Every doc should | start with a one-sentence plain language description of the | thing's purpose and context. | | Pascal once wrote in apology "If I had more time, I would | have written a shorter letter". Be exactly as detailed as | necessary and no longer. | turtledragonfly wrote: | I agree that overall, documentation is not a "career building" | activity, but there are certainly some notable exceptions where | the documentation is so good that people rave about it. A few | that come to mind: * The Bash manpage [1] | * FreeBSD docs, in general -- the "base system" implementation | and documentation go hand-in-hand. If there's missing | docs for a built-in tool, that's treated as a bug. | * SQLite's documentation of the SQL language syntax [2] | [1] https://linux.die.net/man/1/bash [2] | https://www.sqlite.org/lang_select.html | bstpierre wrote: | > these are great places to look for high impact opportunities | | I didn't read the article so much as saying to grind through | the dirty work, but to look at the existence of dirty work as a | chance to (a) fix someone's pain, preferably a lot of someones, | (b) level-up your organization's abilities in an area. At a job | in the early 00s we had zero developer-facing documentation, so | everything was an oral history project... this was awful, | especially after we turned over a bunch of eng staff. I set up | a couple of very simple systems for docs, and - this is the | part that _is_ the grind - started writing stuff down every | time I had to answer a question from a coworker. It didn't take | long before I was mostly just pointing people to the doc | system, and then eventually other people started adding to it. | At that point it snowballs and basically the doc problem is | "solved". (There's still work, but there's a system in place | that reduces the overall effort required.) | | I don't really disagree with you that docs are sometimes just a | thankless grind, but I think the point is to find something | that is dirty work but also has a really high and visible | impact. | bitL wrote: | It depends, if it's a documentation read by many (e.g. an | engineering standard), then it might boost your career | ("everybody heard of baobabKoodaa!"). But in general, it's as | you say. | bitL wrote: | Dirty work often leads to burnout, which is a career killer, so | please don't build your career just on dirty work. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-11 23:00 UTC)