[HN Gopher] Keep work fresh by teaching your successors and inve... ___________________________________________________________________ Keep work fresh by teaching your successors and investing a bit in long-shots Author : KentBeck Score : 125 points Date : 2023-07-13 17:25 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (tidyfirst.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (tidyfirst.substack.com) | Yebo_en_mesh wrote: | This is interesting! | angarg12 wrote: | > If you're doing what you're told to do, they are paying you too | much. | | I'm glad Kent Beck got that one out. I work for a Big Tech that | pays (comparatively) well, and sometimes there is lot of | ambiguity. Some new hires have a hard time adapting, and complain | that they lack direction or have nothing to do. When these kind | of companies pay you big bucks, part of the job is to be | proactive at finding and solving the problems in your | organization. | [deleted] | jstarfish wrote: | > When these kind of companies pay you big bucks, part of the | job is to be proactive at finding and solving the problems in | your organization. | | No, that is explicitly a _manager 's_ job. Expecting ICs to | "find something and kill it" signals desperation-- like some | aging OnlyFans thot trying to remain relevant by polling their | audience for content ideas. It's a glaring red flag that top | management is directionless themselves, and are externalizing | their own failure by crowdsourcing the direction of the | company. | | If this is the industry expectation, it's no wonder Google | products have become such a fragmented mess. They "find" a | great many experimental products...and later kill them. There | is no top-down vision; they seem to throw literally everything | at the wall that every "directionless" new hire comes up with. | titanomachy wrote: | I'm not sure I agree. If I'm paying you nearly half a million | a year as a US FAANGish senior engineer, I'm not going to | have much patience for the excuse that "my manager didn't | find enough high-value work for me to do". Compensation like | that, to me, implies a higher degree of ownership and | responsibility. | | If you're a junior engineer, or sitting somewhere on the | left-hand peak of the bimodal software engineer compensation | curve [0], then sure, I'd expect your manager/PM/TL to slice | up some reasonably high-impact work for you to take care of. | Otherwise, bug PMs for ideas. Learn the basic shape of the | organization you work in. Draft some one-page proposals and | pitch them. | | Don't expect to get paid like a heart surgeon just for | crushing well-scoped React feature requests. | | [0] https://danluu.com/bimodal-compensation/ | ghaff wrote: | Yeah. I've never had that sort of comp but for long | stretches of my career I've largely charted my own path. | While my first manager in my current job and I always got | along very well, he traveled a lot, I traveled a lot, and I | never expected much in the way of specific direction. If I | had a question I asked him.But we largely did our own | things under a general umbrella. Probably atypical but I | was hired pretty atypically as well. (Basically a position | was created for me.) | singleshot_ wrote: | I developed and managed a team of professional services | consultants and I have the opposite view. Teammates who | needed me to explicitly tell them what to do are ok if | they're interested in growing beyond that but not otherwise. | Ideal team members would see problems coming down the track, | identify a solution, implement it, and brief me before I | heard about it from someone else. If I thought their solution | was not workable, I have a window to redirect them. If not, | they solved a problem and I make a note so I can help them | get promoted later. | | Granted my PS practice ain't no Google, but subordinates who | require direct instruction for any longer than it takes to | get comfortable are for the birds. | extragood wrote: | I'm currently in a similar situation by the sound of it. | | There's an ebb and flow of inbound projects, and one of the | engineers has taken advantage of his down time by building | out infrastructure and reusable platforms. He pauses that | and resumes paid work for clients as they come. I love it - | he gets a lot of satisfaction out of building what he | thinks we'll need without explicit deadlines, and consults | me and his direct manager as necessary. His work is | inspiring the more junior engineer on the team to learn and | work more creatively and productively. That frees me up to | establish better relationships with our Sales and Success | teams to bring us new and better clients, which in turn | increases their close rates. With the right people and | environment, you can create a positive feedback loop that | is fairly self-sustaining. | ethanbond wrote: | No decent manager on the planet thinks that they know | everything that needs to be done. | zeroxfe wrote: | > Expecting ICs to "find something and kill it" signals | desperation | | Ugh. Way to misrepresent GP. Table stakes for strong | engineers is to be able to proactively find and solve | problems in products (among other things.) Of course, they'll | need the support of the larger organization, managers, PMs, | etc., but they're are not just a bunch of drones that take | orders. | scarface_74 wrote: | Our guidelines (BigTech consulting department) on a high level | are | | L4 - problem and solution is well defined | | L5 - problem is well defined, your responsibility to come up | with a solution or at least be able to reach out to the right | people for help. | | L6 - neither problem nor solution is well defined | singleshot_ wrote: | 1) I don't know what the problem is. 2) I can see the problem | but I need to be told both the solution and how to implement | it. 3) I see the problem and if you tell me the solution I | can execute it. 4) I see the problem and I know the solution. | Should I execute the solution? 5) advisory: I found a problem | and I solved it. | | Once you have a critical mass of threes and fives in the team | you can go do something else and they can take over. | heisenbit wrote: | A few observations | | - I find 5% for any investments very low. It is hard to get | deeper into a new topic with that level. Our work has very high | context switching costs. | | - at the moment I work one day on another project requiring a | fair amount of learning. While I learn a lot this way I found the | two project setup exhausts my ability to push yet another set of | things forward. There are limits to my ability to manage | initiatives. | | - the whole agile treadmill can be leveraged by management | against self management. I found slowing down things and pushing | myself to explore alternatives in my 80% block helps a bit to | stem the tide. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | Aside: has anyone ever subscribed to a substack blog from this | banner or do we all just press continue reading? | photon_lines wrote: | I rarely do. I recently started using sub-stack for blogging | myself, and I added in a paid version as well just to annoy | people haha :) Just kidding though - the paid version is for | everyone who appreciates my work and who wants to help me | continue writing. It takes quite a while to come up with | content and posts and time isn't 'free'. The free version is | for anyone who wants to continually get new posts in their | inbox which attempt to explain concept topics in an intuitive | and visual manner. Yes - the pop ups I agree are relatively | annoying, but I appreciate what sub-stack is attempting to do | regardless. If it were up to me, I'd simply include a subscribe | button at the end of each post which asks the user whether | they'd like a free or paid subscription should they click on | it. That's me though. I'm not sure what type of UI testing | they've done nor what effect that would have. | frakt0x90 wrote: | I agree in principle and practiced this for many years. But I | moved into a role where there is simply no time. I work too much | just to keep up with the normal workstream and while I maintain | the list, there is no chance I get to it which is even more | depressing. | | Gotta have a job that allows you that extra time to explore. | theK wrote: | Very good and simple pattern. Not only for yourself but also for | organizational design. | [deleted] | NoboruWataya wrote: | Only somewhat related, but in my line of work (corporate law), | where we work on a lot of different kinds of transactions, I find | that my experience of working on a particular type of transaction | can be roughly divided into five stages: | | - Stage 1: The first few times you work on a particular type of | transaction, you are completely lost. You've never seen these | documents before, it all feels alien and scary (bearing in mind | you are probably at an early stage in your career at this point). | You need someone more senior to hold your hand through it all, | and you feel like you're asking a million questions. | | - Stage 2: You've gotten your head around the basic structure and | don't feel so useless. You're learning a lot with every deal, | which is exciting. You're still asking a lot of questions but | they are more intelligent questions, and you are able to | contribute meaningfully. | | - Stage 3: You are by now quite experienced at this type of | transaction. You can pretty much run things yourself. You love | doing this work because you are good at it, you can speak | confidently about it and people trust you with it. Hopefully by | this stage, you have someone more junior who is just feeling | their way through Stage 1, and you can support them. | | - Stage 4: You've done so many of these deals that they all start | to feel the same and it gets a bit boring. Hopefully by this | stage the junior has moved on to Stage 2. They can at least | handle the most tedious stuff, and with your support they are | also getting familiar with the more complicated stuff. | | - Stage 5: Your junior (not really a "junior" anymore) has moved | on to Stage 3 and can take the day-to-day running of the deals | out of your hands. You remain involved mainly in a supervisory | role, making sure quality of service remains high and dealing | with the occasional novel issue that crops up. But in general you | have a lot more time now, to work on other types of transaction, | and of course to go out and build out new client relationships so | that the work keeps flowing. And hopefully you have a second | junior moving into Stage 1 to repeat the cycle. | singleshot_ wrote: | Outsider perspective: you have nailed the training pathway, at | least conceptually. Many level five practitioners are so far | out of touch with level one that they have a tough time getting | anyone else to level three. Keep up your good work! | realitythreek wrote: | I wholeheartedly agree with this but want to add that the 80/15/5 | split aren't set in stone. It's more like risk tolerance. The | more you spend on the riskier activities (not exactly what you're | asked to do), the higher the chance of failure but the greater | the reward. You can drive your team or organization in a | completely different direction. | skrebbel wrote: | I like this a lot but I think the number can be different | depending on the company. | | In my company we have "let yourself be nerd sniped" as an core | cultural value, I think we'd be closer to 60/30/10 or something | like that. But it's hard to tell for sure because sometimes the | 10 blows up into a mad 5 week rabbit hole quest with, often but | not always, spectacular results. Would suck if we'd not have | those because some boss said 10% fun stuff is the max. I guess it | balances out over the year but attaching a number makes it a | rule. So on second thought, maybe less explicit can be better? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-14 23:00 UTC)