This is rather true in practice, but I find it tremendously depressing.
I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day.
The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of money and prestige. I think this is a damn shame, and we should be striving to stop that.
This is a good painting of how bad things are today, but instead of "tricks to game the system" i wish it layed out a path of how to build an industry that doesn't attract all those ambitious selfish (executives) people.
I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of other people just as well. The same just isn't true of product development, sales and marketing. Any one of those three teams, staffed well, will account for well more than the value of the entire engineering organization.
Mostly this is a self-inflicted problem. Especially in the Bay Area, where developers tend to value CS ability signaling rather than the ability to work well with product teams and the ability to engage in practical engineering.
There's too much focus by developers on shallow things, like fad-following the latest frameworks, on pseudo-intellectualism or technology-purism (e.g. "coding is doing math", code "elegance", whether/how FP is just so much better than anything else, etc.), and trivia like programming language choice.
No. We all create value. Businesses, when running smoothly, are like a well oiled machine. Nothing is redundant. Garbage is collected. Businesses is cutthroat industries cannot afford to be redundant.
I always wondered why all cars had 4 wheels. Turns out, the 3 wheeled car is horrible (see Top Gear), a 5 wheeled car is pointless, and a 2 wheeled car is a motorcycle. But when you're a kid, compact jet propulsion or anti-gravity doesn't seem so difficult. But that's also why you're a kid.
I started a business thinking everyone can be their own executive, worker, and entrepreneur. They could handle their own responsibilities, manage their work, and do that work. Unfortunately, we had to go through a lot of them. Utopia wasn't working, but they were also miserable. It wasn't what they wanted, expected, or enjoyed. They all loved the idea though, including myself.
Fast forward five years, and my car has 4 wheels. I am the "founder". I decide where the business should go, lay out the work that needs to be done, and hand it over. The "executive" is then responsible for that work getting done. They hand it over to the "employees" in a way that is efficient and accountable. The third group just needs to accomplish the tasks they promised to do for the money they agreed on.
I'll see your scumbag executive and raise you my wrench throwing employee and delusional founder -- that would be me. I'd like to think 4 years ago, but who the hell knows.
If you wish to manage responsibilities, join the managers. If you wish to drive the ship, join the founders. And this is your correct career path.
An employee who believes they are better than the founder or executive is already holding a wrench.
> The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of money and prestige. I think this is a damn shame, and we should be striving to stop that.
You may like Eric Dietrich's book Developer Hegemony[1]. He talks about both why the third group is less successful and how people within that group can potentially improve their situation within the current system.
> I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day.
I've seen the sliminess as well, but regardless of how ethical you are, in order to be successful in any domain you must be prepared to defend your interests (which people might perceive as "scumbag" behavior) and convince others that you have something of value to offer them (i.e. "selling").
I think it is possible (though difficult) to be both successful and moral, but success isn't everything. I think certainly possible to have a fulfilling life and not be successful. But (and I'm not claiming this applies to you) I would caution people in general against getting stuck in the rut of telling themselves that they value things other than success and at the same time resenting those who are successful.
There's a good book I read recently called Developer Hegemony, and I think you might like it.
It breaks down the archetypes within companies, talks about what it takes to succeed as an employee or an executive, and then discusses an alternative route that we software engineers might be able to take.
Here's a blog about the book [0] and the book itself [1].
The "scumbags" you describe are the ones that exhibit a strong "need for power" as described by McClelland. Engineers tend to have stronger "need for achievement", eschewing the power grab.
But organizations today and perhaps in the past have always rewarded those who attain the power. Perversely, if you want a place where achievement (ie doing the work, building things) is rewarded properly, you need someone with that mindset to suck it up and win the power game.
Yes, yes and yes. Logged in after a long time to up vote on this. I think it takes 2-3 years for people to "get it." As you have mentioned it is indeed depressing. On the flip side, 40% of the employees are slacking off, another 40% is tinkering with their ideas (thereby not giving 100% to their employers), and the remaining 20% are still in that 2-3 years of getting it. It's not surprising that most startups and companies prey on these youngsters of the trade.
p.s. That was rather negative response. May be it's the ecosystem and how things are.
p.p.s. Good post and stuffs like this should be taught in CS schools.
You have to change the way money/funding is acquired, otherwise the pressure structure and hierarchy for will lead to this. This system would fall apart - in a positive way - if we have a good quality of life with Universal Basic Income. People could then work on projects without requiring an external source of funding, and so then the best projects/platforms/systems could evolve over 5, 10, even 20 years - without pressure from VCs wanting any return at all.
VCs have limited attention and those who are best at being loudest are likely to capture that available attention - similarly some people try to win arguments by being louder and making more noise than others.
If engineers desire money and prestige (like executives), then the first question is "how are they different from the so-called scumbags who desire money and prestige?" The more you want money & prestige, the more you share a key characteristic with those people.
But let's leave that aside for the moment. On a practical level, if engineers are to achieve money and prestige, then they'll have to (and here come several different ways of saying the same thing):
- sell themselves
- play a power game
- play politics
- ask for money & prestige, in all the different ways including dressing and speaking in a way that signals to money-and-prestige-bestowing people that you should get money and prestige
And they will have to concentrate on this and get good at it, apply the tactics & techniques, and succeed. That's how executive scumbags do it. This takes a fair amount of time and effort, so you'll have to spend a lot of your time on it. Nobody is giving away money for free without even being asked. And nobody cares about raising engineers' salaries as much as engineers do, so it's unlikely you'll find anyone to do it on your behalf. You either ask for it until it happens (selling something, selling yourself) or you say "well heck I wanted to be an ENGINEER" and spend your time doing engineering, and don't worry what's in the other guy's pocket. Screw him, he probably has an ulcer and his wife's a harpy!
> I wish it layed out a path of how to build an industry that doesn't attract all those ambitious selfish (executives) people
Given that ten thousand years of human history have utterly failed to produce any system at any point in time where the value-makers are rewarded over the salespeople, I don't think any such system can be made. At least executive positions aren't quite at the level of a winner-takes-all competition and you have a plausible chance of making it to that level.
This is a popular perspective among some technical folks but it's a bit insular. You could tar employees with some tag, there must be space to separate good and bad executives.
A lot of technical folks seem to have very little understanding or even interest in what for instance marketing and sales do. There are generalizations and often anecdotal knowledge that passes for understanding.
Developing software is just one small part of the process of creating value. Software does does sell itself. Creating demand and getting customers is incredibly difficult, expensive and unpredictable. If your target is advertisers based on users then acquiring users and advertisers is equally challenging.
As a thought experiment, get the best technical team and develop a product. Now after it is done, then what, how to do make money, how do you sell it or get users?
I actually find "founder" is the route most scumbags take. Most of the ones I encounter take credit for other people's work and contribute little value. They also do a great job spending other people's money.
Next would be Employees. Jeez, those guys are the worst. Always thinking the ship will sink without them. If only the executives would listen to them the company would be on the right path.
Get off your high horse. You look foolish to all of us executives.
I would though not agree fully about where you assume value is created. Usually, developers / middle managers do not create value. Mostly they are implementing ideas of others and in these ideas is most of value concentrated. I would say they deliver value but don't create most of it.
It's worth noting that this is simply in the "Tech Industry" which is much different than a "Good Life", "Adventure Quest", "[religion] walk", or any other form of purpose/success-based ranking.
Plenty of scumbags take the founder route too. :) And I've met many engineers in my career who would fit the jerk description as well.
Having operated in all three roles, all are incredibly valuable. Great leaders enable their teams to be more than the sum of their individual members (employees). But I would opine that the leadership roles come with significantly more risk, which is at least partially responsible for the money / prestige.
I'm relatively new to the workforce so take this with a grain of salt, but I think this is a false dichotomy. People who are less agreeable, more assertive will make more money because they negotiate more on their own behalf. The poster child for these people, especially from the dev's point of view, is that of a brogrammer/scumbag/dick stereotype, and by definition they make more noise than the kind and also competent engineer.
You could also say that humankind is still stuck in an evolutionary stage where in most places, being dominant is the best signal of "value". In a Tim Ferriss podcast, Ray Dalio actually mentions that disagreements at Bridgewater can take on different forms, because some people are less suitable for verbal, thinking-on-their-feet sort of debates, and might be better suited for long form (like Hacker News threads) debates.
Paul Graham literally built YCombinator's legacy off the backs of tearing down "pointy-haired bosses" and offering an alternative path to MBA executive leadership, which is the surest sign your industry has stopped innovating and has been fully converted into a cash cow for financial institutions.
What value is value if it can't be sold? Yes, there's intrinsic value in doing things because they need to be done but most of the work done in offices around the world derives its meaning from its worth to a buyer.
This being so(?), is the employee necessarily worth more, as you seem to imply, just because they are mashing away on tools rather than engaging with buyers or regulators, strategizing, and scheming?
seibel's definition of executives included this tidbit: "politics are usually as important, if not more so", and that seems to be the sticky bit.
the premise underlying your lament is that we should distribute compensation based on direct contribution to the product. but we simply don't distribute value that way. first of all, how would we accurately, objectively and differentially assign contribution for the success of a business to the contributing members? i'd guesstimate that an average US company might distribute value this way: owners 45%, executives 20%, employees 35%. you seem to be alluding to a distribution close to executives & owners 0%, employees 100%. are either of those correct? what would be the fair way to do it? you'd have to answer that before you can figure out how to get there.
and as distasteful as it may be, the way we seem to assign value _is_ political. we assign it based on an ability to take credit and argue for a larger share. we assign it for cultural values, like bravado and charisma. we don't really assign it for economic contribution, like commission for direct sales or compensation for risk, no matter how much that appeals to our rational economic minds. the distribution of value is exactly based on the political skill which you lament.
how do we change that? well, that's like asking how do we upend the currently accepted social hierarchy. and that's a big question.
How about freelancing? I've been doing that since 1995 -- and my income and happiness have never been higher.
Pros:
- Work on what you like, with the people you like
- Potentially very high salary, definitely more than you would get as an employee
- Want to work on side projects (e.g., software, books, and courses)? Go for it, and benefit from multiple income streams.
Cons:
- You're running a business. That requires time, as well as skills/knowledge (often learned the hard way) that are completely separate from programming.
- You have to market yourself (until you're good enough that people contact you). No marketing, no work. No work, no salary.
- It's harder to do when you're married and have children. (I started when I was single.)
In many ways, freelancing is like the "founder" described in the article. However, the article also talks about teammates and a financial plan (including funding). Plenty of successful freelancers make good money just by themselves (or maybe 1-2 junior people). And I definitely never intend to take investment money.
Not everyone is cut out to be a freelancer. But it's a very viable option, beyond being a founder, executive, or employee. And I can tell you that many of the founders, executives, and employees I meet as I travel the world teaching Python are quite jealous of my satisfaction.
Plenty of successful freelancers make good money just by themselves (or maybe 1-2 junior people).
Great point. The underappreciated thing is how much stress bringing a few other people to your freelancing brings. Suddenly, you realize that all these things that are obvious to you (when you "flow" working alone) need explanations and coordination and planning and checking and ...
You may find yourself at a substantially reduced income (because you have to pay these extra people), but without the increased productivity / revenue to show for it. There's like this uncanny valley between freelancing and having a stable team / process structure (aka company).
For me, building a proper consulting company around machine learning / Python services took the better part of 4 years. Along with considerable stress & hair pulling. Sometimes I long for the solo freelancing days...
I actually look at the "employee" strategy as very similar to freelancing. As an employee, I see myself as a single-person business, and the companies that I work for are my customers. Just like a freelancer, I choose what companies I want to work for (though I only work for one company at a time).
One of the perceived downsides of being an employee is that you can't "be your own boss", but I don't think it's very different for an employee to be accountable to his/her employer than for a founder to be accountable to his/her customers or a freelancer to be accountable to his/her clients.
The only way to truly "be your own boss" is to become wealthy enough that you don't need to be accountable to anyone (for financial well-being).
Not to put a damper on your post, as it sounds like you have had good success. But this is a very real thing for many people. When I graduated and went out into the world, I needed insurance, and this was before the ACA, which meant that my pre-existing condition was not something that would be insurable, at least at any decent rate. The ACA fixed that, but now you have the GOP attempting to return things to how they were before, especially for pre-existing conditions. They failed now, but they're not going to stop. So, for many people, currently the climate is not one where they could go without a group plan that they'd get at their employer.
This seems like a better option to me than the "founder" role in the article.
How did you find your first clients? You mention you're traveling the world teaching Python (which sounds awesome!) -- do you consider that "freelancing" or are you taking client work in addition to the teaching?
I've done freelancing and have worked remotely as an employee. Though the former brought in more money (which is heavily dampened by the increased tax and loss of various benefits), I so loathe the administrative hassles that I'd gladly take half the overall pay in order to avoid it.
The advice I always give to a new college grad is try and get a job at one of the big tech companies.
The work and the mission may not be exciting, but there is huge room for growth and often the large companies have programs especially designed for career growth for new college grads.
But don’t get stuck. The job will comfortable. After a few years it’s time to move on. Maybe you’ve found a few folks to cofound with, or maybe you just have a good lead on a much bigger role. But the only way to really advance is to leave — most big companies have artificial limits on salary growth and promotions. You can always go back later.
Regardless of which path you'd like to go down, learn some basic financial planning, frugality, and learn to live like a miser. It'll pay dividends, both figuratively and literally.
Regarding the executive path, or more generally any management role, learn early on if it's for you. If you're the type that gets caught up in human interest stories, considers it inhumane to fire low performers, or generally believes in a sense of fairness to the world then forget about it and stick with being an employee. It's better for your own sanity.
I founded a company that helped many other 90-00's founders along with some legacy industries in crisis. I am a reader so I read many business books. But I missed two specific dynamics I wish I had known earlier.
First, executives will routinely attempt to take the founders' roles. Industries vary widely, but they are roughly "showy spenders" and not savers. Many have no experience in new ventures. They have ridden high and will panic against adversity. If they cannot flee in an overall industry downturn, they will feed on the founders. Be very careful to make "executive" expectations brutally clear and consequences for any and all hubris terminal.
Second, many founders want to be 1-hit wonders. Unlike our industry ecosystem building heroes, they are neither in the ecosystem nor interested in developing the ecosystem. They want in to get out ASAP. Their short termism sadly translates into teaching bad examples to employees.
Nevertheless, the information rich life of the "small rooms" where plans are crafted and industry roads remapped on whiteboards are truly the most wonderful teachers anyone can expect to access.
Don't get me wrong. The gold miners needed jeans and supplies. But Levi Strauss lived off them and not the reverse. So the fourth path is service providers: lawyers, accelerators, accountants, contractors, ..., even VCs to a degree. I think Silicon Valley has a competitive advantage in having the best but it is a different path. And as much experience as they have when I talk to them, they haven't done it themselves.
Well, most haven't. Ben Horowitz knows. Some know but most don't. That doesn't keep them from doing an awesome job. It's just a different path.
Can a failed, or mildy successful, founder jump to the exec track and get some level of success faster than if they had just set out on that path to begin with? I’m thinking of those people who have run a business for 3+ years before it tanks or who are looking for a new thing and just decide to leave
When considering these different paths, it's also worth considering the kind of temperament one needs to have to be successful in each role.
Founders, from what I understand[1], tend to be high on the Big 5 Personality trait "openness", which has to do with creativity. Executives (and employees to an extent as well) who are successful tend to be high in trait "conscientiousness" which has to do with being hard working and orderly.
My experience has been that jumping from employee to any level of executive is the absolute hardest step, at least for me.
I think once you are a team lead and have some number of direct reports, you can then start jumping your way up that ladder. But going from 0 to 5 direct reports has often seemed impossible. I'd be open to tips on how to do it.
My dad refused promotion at CERN several times. He continued to work as a testing engineer, and would not climb the corporate ladder into management roles. That reduced his paycheck.
When the company had financial trouble though, they fired all the middle managers and kept the engineers. He learned an important lesson - working at a low level with only machines below you is a safe and stable job.
I want to do the same. I'm now 28, so I have plenty of flexibility. But I'm worried that as I get older, there will be more pressure to go into management instead of staying in engineering. Companies want fun, young engineers who know all the latest tech - they don't want experience at the technical level.
> The last thing I’ll say is it takes time to be good at each role. When you’re in college there is this idea that you should take your 20s to discover yourself and the find the work that is most enjoyable to you. The problem is that if it takes 5-10 years to truly get good at something and you spend 10 years discovering what you want to get good at…it’s going to take a long time for you to feel like a highly skilled productive person (and to recieve the rewards that come with this). It’s not that you shouldn’t explore, it’s that you need to understand the costs of that exploration and plan accordingly.
---
This is an understatement that I see many new or junior developers completely missing. You don't magically become a rockstar. Working with rockstars is helpful, but it won't make you a rockstar. Company name/brand is irrelevant to becoming a rockstar. It is all about practice solving hard problems, which takes lots of time and concentration. This is the only factor that separates the amazing developers from everybody else, and honestly most people don't have the discipline or personality to get there.
Actually, now that I think about, becoming an awesome developer is similar to the advice for becoming a successful founder. You, counter-intuitively, have to spend a lot of time doing things that don't scale. A good example is ignoring all those frameworks and abstractions so that you can really learn how the code actually works. If you expect tools to do your job for you or grow reliance upon some temporary artifact you aren't as strong or self-reliant developer.
In order to be a great executive you have to be a great employee. The military flavor of this is that you have to learn to follow before you can learn to lead. You have to know what your people are going through and be willing to step in and assist your people if the situation calls for it.
At some point a founder has to transition from founder to executive if their company is to grow or they are to keep their job. Promoting, building, and marketing a new production or solution is great, but at some point other people will do that for you. You must be able to lead these people, build confidence in the team, and provide proper direction. You have to be a leader.
> • Often don’t get a voice in major decisions – even when you “know the right answer”
I'm not sure if the use of quotes here is intended to imply one doesn't actually know the right answer, but only feels that way. It's a particularly important point, I feel in my career I've met so many managers insecure in themselves that they would never consider listening to an idea from a report, not unless you can convince them it was their own idea.
I think that the tech industry is unreasonably obsessed with A-list 'brand name' corporations.
I haven't worked for any A-list brand name companies (no Googles or Facebooks) but I've worked for quite a few B-list and C-list corporations and also some B-list startups as a software developer/engineer (including a YC startup) - The startups which I worked for the longest have grown very fast and are profitable.
In spite of this, the last time I was looking to switch companies, the only thing that prospective employers were interested in was my open source work. Nobody was interested in hearing more about the small startups I worked for which ended up becoming successful because they're not A-listers.
I know engineers who work for A-list companies (I've worked alongside some of them in the past), they're very good; but not different from engineers who work for B-list companies; maybe they're better at taking technical tests.
What about the world of contracting? You can also be someone who has flexibility on where/ when they work and for who, and it's probably a more viable 'path' in tech than in any other industry.
Since the vast majority of founders fail, having significant financial cushions from your family or years working prior is probably the top pre-requisite if 'founder' is your path.
> Often times there are hard barriers preventing people from starting a company. In these cases my best advice is to move to a tech hub (preferably the Bay Area) and work for a tech company until you can save the money
I had to laugh there. Moving to the Bay Area will reduce your ability to save money, not increase it. I was probably saving 40-50% of my salary when I worked in Nowhereville, Florida. With the housing costs out here in the Bay Area, the long commute (wear and tear on vehicles) and the massive local and state taxes, it's almost impossible to save.
[+] [-] nichochar|8 years ago|reply
I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day.
The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of money and prestige. I think this is a damn shame, and we should be striving to stop that. This is a good painting of how bad things are today, but instead of "tricks to game the system" i wish it layed out a path of how to build an industry that doesn't attract all those ambitious selfish (executives) people.
[+] [-] mwseibel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidlls|8 years ago|reply
Mostly this is a self-inflicted problem. Especially in the Bay Area, where developers tend to value CS ability signaling rather than the ability to work well with product teams and the ability to engage in practical engineering.
There's too much focus by developers on shallow things, like fad-following the latest frameworks, on pseudo-intellectualism or technology-purism (e.g. "coding is doing math", code "elegance", whether/how FP is just so much better than anything else, etc.), and trivia like programming language choice.
[+] [-] unabst|8 years ago|reply
No. We all create value. Businesses, when running smoothly, are like a well oiled machine. Nothing is redundant. Garbage is collected. Businesses is cutthroat industries cannot afford to be redundant.
I always wondered why all cars had 4 wheels. Turns out, the 3 wheeled car is horrible (see Top Gear), a 5 wheeled car is pointless, and a 2 wheeled car is a motorcycle. But when you're a kid, compact jet propulsion or anti-gravity doesn't seem so difficult. But that's also why you're a kid.
I started a business thinking everyone can be their own executive, worker, and entrepreneur. They could handle their own responsibilities, manage their work, and do that work. Unfortunately, we had to go through a lot of them. Utopia wasn't working, but they were also miserable. It wasn't what they wanted, expected, or enjoyed. They all loved the idea though, including myself.
Fast forward five years, and my car has 4 wheels. I am the "founder". I decide where the business should go, lay out the work that needs to be done, and hand it over. The "executive" is then responsible for that work getting done. They hand it over to the "employees" in a way that is efficient and accountable. The third group just needs to accomplish the tasks they promised to do for the money they agreed on.
I'll see your scumbag executive and raise you my wrench throwing employee and delusional founder -- that would be me. I'd like to think 4 years ago, but who the hell knows.
If you wish to manage responsibilities, join the managers. If you wish to drive the ship, join the founders. And this is your correct career path.
An employee who believes they are better than the founder or executive is already holding a wrench.
[+] [-] lliamander|8 years ago|reply
You may like Eric Dietrich's book Developer Hegemony[1]. He talks about both why the third group is less successful and how people within that group can potentially improve their situation within the current system.
> I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day.
I've seen the sliminess as well, but regardless of how ethical you are, in order to be successful in any domain you must be prepared to defend your interests (which people might perceive as "scumbag" behavior) and convince others that you have something of value to offer them (i.e. "selling").
I think it is possible (though difficult) to be both successful and moral, but success isn't everything. I think certainly possible to have a fulfilling life and not be successful. But (and I'm not claiming this applies to you) I would caution people in general against getting stuck in the rut of telling themselves that they value things other than success and at the same time resenting those who are successful.
[1] https://www.daedtech.com/developer-hegemony-the-crazy-idea-t...
[+] [-] dceddia|8 years ago|reply
It breaks down the archetypes within companies, talks about what it takes to succeed as an employee or an executive, and then discusses an alternative route that we software engineers might be able to take.
Here's a blog about the book [0] and the book itself [1].
[0]: https://www.daedtech.com/developer-hegemony-the-crazy-idea-t...
[1]: https://leanpub.com/developerhegemony
[+] [-] hkmurakami|8 years ago|reply
But organizations today and perhaps in the past have always rewarded those who attain the power. Perversely, if you want a place where achievement (ie doing the work, building things) is rewarded properly, you need someone with that mindset to suck it up and win the power game.
[+] [-] comments_db|8 years ago|reply
p.s. That was rather negative response. May be it's the ecosystem and how things are.
p.p.s. Good post and stuffs like this should be taught in CS schools.
[+] [-] loceng|8 years ago|reply
VCs have limited attention and those who are best at being loudest are likely to capture that available attention - similarly some people try to win arguments by being louder and making more noise than others.
[+] [-] rdiddly|8 years ago|reply
But let's leave that aside for the moment. On a practical level, if engineers are to achieve money and prestige, then they'll have to (and here come several different ways of saying the same thing):
- sell themselves
- play a power game
- play politics
- ask for money & prestige, in all the different ways including dressing and speaking in a way that signals to money-and-prestige-bestowing people that you should get money and prestige
And they will have to concentrate on this and get good at it, apply the tactics & techniques, and succeed. That's how executive scumbags do it. This takes a fair amount of time and effort, so you'll have to spend a lot of your time on it. Nobody is giving away money for free without even being asked. And nobody cares about raising engineers' salaries as much as engineers do, so it's unlikely you'll find anyone to do it on your behalf. You either ask for it until it happens (selling something, selling yourself) or you say "well heck I wanted to be an ENGINEER" and spend your time doing engineering, and don't worry what's in the other guy's pocket. Screw him, he probably has an ulcer and his wife's a harpy!
[+] [-] Asooka|8 years ago|reply
Given that ten thousand years of human history have utterly failed to produce any system at any point in time where the value-makers are rewarded over the salespeople, I don't think any such system can be made. At least executive positions aren't quite at the level of a winner-takes-all competition and you have a plausible chance of making it to that level.
[+] [-] throw2016|8 years ago|reply
A lot of technical folks seem to have very little understanding or even interest in what for instance marketing and sales do. There are generalizations and often anecdotal knowledge that passes for understanding.
Developing software is just one small part of the process of creating value. Software does does sell itself. Creating demand and getting customers is incredibly difficult, expensive and unpredictable. If your target is advertisers based on users then acquiring users and advertisers is equally challenging.
As a thought experiment, get the best technical team and develop a product. Now after it is done, then what, how to do make money, how do you sell it or get users?
[+] [-] goatherders|8 years ago|reply
Next would be Employees. Jeez, those guys are the worst. Always thinking the ship will sink without them. If only the executives would listen to them the company would be on the right path.
Get off your high horse. You look foolish to all of us executives.
[+] [-] ivanjovanovic|8 years ago|reply
I would though not agree fully about where you assume value is created. Usually, developers / middle managers do not create value. Mostly they are implementing ideas of others and in these ideas is most of value concentrated. I would say they deliver value but don't create most of it.
[+] [-] Xeoncross|8 years ago|reply
It's worth noting that this is simply in the "Tech Industry" which is much different than a "Good Life", "Adventure Quest", "[religion] walk", or any other form of purpose/success-based ranking.
[+] [-] sshumaker|8 years ago|reply
Having operated in all three roles, all are incredibly valuable. Great leaders enable their teams to be more than the sum of their individual members (employees). But I would opine that the leadership roles come with significantly more risk, which is at least partially responsible for the money / prestige.
[+] [-] nexus2045|8 years ago|reply
You could also say that humankind is still stuck in an evolutionary stage where in most places, being dominant is the best signal of "value". In a Tim Ferriss podcast, Ray Dalio actually mentions that disagreements at Bridgewater can take on different forms, because some people are less suitable for verbal, thinking-on-their-feet sort of debates, and might be better suited for long form (like Hacker News threads) debates.
[+] [-] natural219|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saimiam|8 years ago|reply
What value is value if it can't be sold? Yes, there's intrinsic value in doing things because they need to be done but most of the work done in offices around the world derives its meaning from its worth to a buyer.
This being so(?), is the employee necessarily worth more, as you seem to imply, just because they are mashing away on tools rather than engaging with buyers or regulators, strategizing, and scheming?
[+] [-] CalChris|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clairity|8 years ago|reply
the premise underlying your lament is that we should distribute compensation based on direct contribution to the product. but we simply don't distribute value that way. first of all, how would we accurately, objectively and differentially assign contribution for the success of a business to the contributing members? i'd guesstimate that an average US company might distribute value this way: owners 45%, executives 20%, employees 35%. you seem to be alluding to a distribution close to executives & owners 0%, employees 100%. are either of those correct? what would be the fair way to do it? you'd have to answer that before you can figure out how to get there.
and as distasteful as it may be, the way we seem to assign value _is_ political. we assign it based on an ability to take credit and argue for a larger share. we assign it for cultural values, like bravado and charisma. we don't really assign it for economic contribution, like commission for direct sales or compensation for risk, no matter how much that appeals to our rational economic minds. the distribution of value is exactly based on the political skill which you lament.
how do we change that? well, that's like asking how do we upend the currently accepted social hierarchy. and that's a big question.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jv22222|8 years ago|reply
Hmm.
Personally, I have tried to take all three paths. I find it creates the largest amount of potential.
Employee Hat: Develop stuff for the day job.
Founder Hat: Bootstrap by night and learn what it's like to be an owner.
Executive Hat: Work up the ladder by wearing the employee hat and bring what you learn as an owner/bootstrapper back to the day job.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] reuven|8 years ago|reply
Pros: - Work on what you like, with the people you like - Potentially very high salary, definitely more than you would get as an employee - Want to work on side projects (e.g., software, books, and courses)? Go for it, and benefit from multiple income streams.
Cons: - You're running a business. That requires time, as well as skills/knowledge (often learned the hard way) that are completely separate from programming. - You have to market yourself (until you're good enough that people contact you). No marketing, no work. No work, no salary. - It's harder to do when you're married and have children. (I started when I was single.)
In many ways, freelancing is like the "founder" described in the article. However, the article also talks about teammates and a financial plan (including funding). Plenty of successful freelancers make good money just by themselves (or maybe 1-2 junior people). And I definitely never intend to take investment money.
Not everyone is cut out to be a freelancer. But it's a very viable option, beyond being a founder, executive, or employee. And I can tell you that many of the founders, executives, and employees I meet as I travel the world teaching Python are quite jealous of my satisfaction.
[+] [-] Radim|8 years ago|reply
You may find yourself at a substantially reduced income (because you have to pay these extra people), but without the increased productivity / revenue to show for it. There's like this uncanny valley between freelancing and having a stable team / process structure (aka company).
For me, building a proper consulting company around machine learning / Python services took the better part of 4 years. Along with considerable stress & hair pulling. Sometimes I long for the solo freelancing days...
[+] [-] calebm|8 years ago|reply
One of the perceived downsides of being an employee is that you can't "be your own boss", but I don't think it's very different for an employee to be accountable to his/her employer than for a founder to be accountable to his/her customers or a freelancer to be accountable to his/her clients.
The only way to truly "be your own boss" is to become wealthy enough that you don't need to be accountable to anyone (for financial well-being).
[+] [-] s73ver_|8 years ago|reply
Not to put a damper on your post, as it sounds like you have had good success. But this is a very real thing for many people. When I graduated and went out into the world, I needed insurance, and this was before the ACA, which meant that my pre-existing condition was not something that would be insurable, at least at any decent rate. The ACA fixed that, but now you have the GOP attempting to return things to how they were before, especially for pre-existing conditions. They failed now, but they're not going to stop. So, for many people, currently the climate is not one where they could go without a group plan that they'd get at their employer.
[+] [-] dceddia|8 years ago|reply
How did you find your first clients? You mention you're traveling the world teaching Python (which sounds awesome!) -- do you consider that "freelancing" or are you taking client work in addition to the teaching?
[+] [-] emerged|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jedberg|8 years ago|reply
The work and the mission may not be exciting, but there is huge room for growth and often the large companies have programs especially designed for career growth for new college grads.
But don’t get stuck. The job will comfortable. After a few years it’s time to move on. Maybe you’ve found a few folks to cofound with, or maybe you just have a good lead on a much bigger role. But the only way to really advance is to leave — most big companies have artificial limits on salary growth and promotions. You can always go back later.
[+] [-] koolba|8 years ago|reply
Regarding the executive path, or more generally any management role, learn early on if it's for you. If you're the type that gets caught up in human interest stories, considers it inhumane to fire low performers, or generally believes in a sense of fairness to the world then forget about it and stick with being an employee. It's better for your own sanity.
[+] [-] harryh|8 years ago|reply
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
[+] [-] Chiba-City|8 years ago|reply
First, executives will routinely attempt to take the founders' roles. Industries vary widely, but they are roughly "showy spenders" and not savers. Many have no experience in new ventures. They have ridden high and will panic against adversity. If they cannot flee in an overall industry downturn, they will feed on the founders. Be very careful to make "executive" expectations brutally clear and consequences for any and all hubris terminal.
Second, many founders want to be 1-hit wonders. Unlike our industry ecosystem building heroes, they are neither in the ecosystem nor interested in developing the ecosystem. They want in to get out ASAP. Their short termism sadly translates into teaching bad examples to employees.
Nevertheless, the information rich life of the "small rooms" where plans are crafted and industry roads remapped on whiteboards are truly the most wonderful teachers anyone can expect to access.
[+] [-] CalChris|8 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong. The gold miners needed jeans and supplies. But Levi Strauss lived off them and not the reverse. So the fourth path is service providers: lawyers, accelerators, accountants, contractors, ..., even VCs to a degree. I think Silicon Valley has a competitive advantage in having the best but it is a different path. And as much experience as they have when I talk to them, they haven't done it themselves.
Well, most haven't. Ben Horowitz knows. Some know but most don't. That doesn't keep them from doing an awesome job. It's just a different path.
[+] [-] simonbarker87|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lliamander|8 years ago|reply
Founders, from what I understand[1], tend to be high on the Big 5 Personality trait "openness", which has to do with creativity. Executives (and employees to an extent as well) who are successful tend to be high in trait "conscientiousness" which has to do with being hard working and orderly.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P830JMVeKLo
[+] [-] JimboOmega|8 years ago|reply
I think once you are a team lead and have some number of direct reports, you can then start jumping your way up that ladder. But going from 0 to 5 direct reports has often seemed impossible. I'd be open to tips on how to do it.
[+] [-] peterburkimsher|8 years ago|reply
When the company had financial trouble though, they fired all the middle managers and kept the engineers. He learned an important lesson - working at a low level with only machines below you is a safe and stable job.
I want to do the same. I'm now 28, so I have plenty of flexibility. But I'm worried that as I get older, there will be more pressure to go into management instead of staying in engineering. Companies want fun, young engineers who know all the latest tech - they don't want experience at the technical level.
[+] [-] austincheney|8 years ago|reply
---
This is an understatement that I see many new or junior developers completely missing. You don't magically become a rockstar. Working with rockstars is helpful, but it won't make you a rockstar. Company name/brand is irrelevant to becoming a rockstar. It is all about practice solving hard problems, which takes lots of time and concentration. This is the only factor that separates the amazing developers from everybody else, and honestly most people don't have the discipline or personality to get there.
Actually, now that I think about, becoming an awesome developer is similar to the advice for becoming a successful founder. You, counter-intuitively, have to spend a lot of time doing things that don't scale. A good example is ignoring all those frameworks and abstractions so that you can really learn how the code actually works. If you expect tools to do your job for you or grow reliance upon some temporary artifact you aren't as strong or self-reliant developer.
In order to be a great executive you have to be a great employee. The military flavor of this is that you have to learn to follow before you can learn to lead. You have to know what your people are going through and be willing to step in and assist your people if the situation calls for it.
At some point a founder has to transition from founder to executive if their company is to grow or they are to keep their job. Promoting, building, and marketing a new production or solution is great, but at some point other people will do that for you. You must be able to lead these people, build confidence in the team, and provide proper direction. You have to be a leader.
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|8 years ago|reply
I'm not sure if the use of quotes here is intended to imply one doesn't actually know the right answer, but only feels that way. It's a particularly important point, I feel in my career I've met so many managers insecure in themselves that they would never consider listening to an idea from a report, not unless you can convince them it was their own idea.
[+] [-] wolco|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuddle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jondubois|8 years ago|reply
I haven't worked for any A-list brand name companies (no Googles or Facebooks) but I've worked for quite a few B-list and C-list corporations and also some B-list startups as a software developer/engineer (including a YC startup) - The startups which I worked for the longest have grown very fast and are profitable.
In spite of this, the last time I was looking to switch companies, the only thing that prospective employers were interested in was my open source work. Nobody was interested in hearing more about the small startups I worked for which ended up becoming successful because they're not A-listers.
I know engineers who work for A-list companies (I've worked alongside some of them in the past), they're very good; but not different from engineers who work for B-list companies; maybe they're better at taking technical tests.
[+] [-] trevyn|8 years ago|reply
Another pro for founder is that you can remove yourself from echo chambers if you choose. Maybe this falls under "Choose the people you work with".
[+] [-] orthoganol|8 years ago|reply
Since the vast majority of founders fail, having significant financial cushions from your family or years working prior is probably the top pre-requisite if 'founder' is your path.
[+] [-] ryandrake|8 years ago|reply
I had to laugh there. Moving to the Bay Area will reduce your ability to save money, not increase it. I was probably saving 40-50% of my salary when I worked in Nowhereville, Florida. With the housing costs out here in the Bay Area, the long commute (wear and tear on vehicles) and the massive local and state taxes, it's almost impossible to save.
[+] [-] losteverything|8 years ago|reply
Sales/marketing, finance, investor relations, training/ hr, event planning, etc
For me back 25 years ago, the thought of being in my 40s & 50s learning the latest version was tiring.
CEOs back then came from finance or marketing.