[karllager]

I believe the tech sector is extremely prone to this: If you cannot climb out of a technical role, over time, you realize just how clueless most people are, especially those who imagine themselves of being "in control". Not just a bit uninformed, no: absolutely positively clueless[1].

If you go the management route, you often give up, what got you started with all this is the first place: curiosity and exploration, creation and progress. It becomes: handling paperwork, keeping the clients' bad ideas in check, motivating those on the payroll, who wait for your instructions to act. It must be nightmare.

Where is the exit?

[1] Update: I believe this is what is called the nerd/nerd-exploiter dilemma.

[zingar]

Your comment made me think of a book that I read recently, Developer Hegemony[1]. It explores how the modern corporate forces us into three roles: pragmatists who opt out of the game and find their identity elsewhere ("I'd rather be fishing"), idealist middle management who sacrifice perspective and work twice as long for 10% more plus the illusion that one day they'll be recognised for their hard work (they won't), and opportunists who realise that the game is about perception management and are willing to sacrifice ethics for their place in the upper echelons.

I found myself pretty depressed after the first few chapters. The author even takes shots at the software development as a craft narrative, which is fascinating because my bubble is filled with people who devote their lives to this idea. Ultimately he outlines a vision where software people take advantage of the huge gains that a business can make through automation to carve out a comfortable niche outside of the corporate rat race. But it requires understanding business and marketing and not "being paid to practice your hobby" (which he reckons is the reality of most software jobs).

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Developer-Hegemony-Erik-Dietrich/dp/0...

[scrumper]

Losers, Clueless, and Sociopaths: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

[zingar]

He cites the Gervais principle a lot :)

[scrumper]

Ah! Yes the description seemed to match it very well. Maybe in the winter when I am particularly miserable on my 6am train I will read the book :)

[ironic_ali]

This is the first time I've heard of the 'Gervais principle', that was an awesome read!

[jondubois]

When I was younger, I was learning non-stop. I kept changing companies/industries every year because I was relentless and very curious.

This actually kept me going for maybe 12 years - It's fun so long as you keep learning new stuff... But eventually there comes a point when the day-job doesn't teach you anything new anymore (at least anything non-tedious) - At that point, your only remaining avenues for learning are open source work or going back to university.

But even if you start doing challenging open source work (in order to keep satisfying your craving for learning), you still have to go back to your tedious job every day. Unfortunately, there aren't enough challenging jobs for engineers these days - It's like a lottery; if you don't happen to have the right social connections, you will be limited to tedious jobs regardless of how skilled you are.

If you're the kind of person who has an insatiable passion for solving difficult problems but you are forced to solve tedious problems every day; it's mental torture.

[Winterflow3r]

Glad to hear jumping ship every year did not impede your progress. Someone at a BigCorp once told me that it's good to stay in one place for 5 years - otherwise you'll be seen as a 'leaver'.

[amorphid]

One person's job hopper is another person's seasoned veteran of many battles. Who I want to hire depends on what job I need filled. The job hopper might be the perfect hire for someone who has learned from job hopping.

[jondubois]

It's true, some companies (particularly big ones) will label you as a leaver if you behave like I did (so they know that they can't really exploit you) but those are not the kind of companies I would want to work for anyway.

[_ncxu]

I'm only 31 and found out the hard way that 90% of the way successful people got to where they are is through charisma, lying, and cheating others.

[apeacox]

I'm 40 and I've found out the hard way that 90% people under 35 adopt absolute statements for everything, as if they think they already know how the life, the world and the universe work. Good luck.

[_ncxu]

You're right. I actually only had one or two people in mind when I wrote that comment, and I didn't even realize it until you pointed it out. Thanks.

[SubuSS]

If you meant 90% of successful people's way is paved by those things, I don't agree: It is very easy to discount hard work and forgive our own laziness by zeroing in on 'bad' stuff.

If you meant 90% of the successful people got there by those things - then I would want to understand your definition of success. The folks I consider successful have always used their opportunities well, not just rode out the luck.

We all have low points in life where everything feels unfair. I am not going to tell you to shake it off because you have to find your way out yourself. I can indeed tell you that doesn't last long - It's a cycle. If you find a way to cherish the happier moments and remind yourself of them often enough, the bad ones don't feel long either. Keep that chin up!

[beezelbo]

I think it depends a lot on the field and where you work, and how you define "success".

I used to think the way you're describing until I got where I am and saw just how dysfunctional the system is in my field--the corruption and sheer luck. It gets worse the higher up you go.

I think there's also problem with these types of discussions because of survivorship bias, which is rampant in contemporary society. That is, the experience of individuals who either benefit from, or who are shielded from, these types of problems, aren't aware of them, and therefore have a different view. This isn't to imply that if you don't agree, you're corrupt, but I think some individuals by virtue of certain attributes aren't aware of the problems that ensue--notice that the OP included charisma in the list, which isn't an ethical problem among the charismatic necessarily but is one that creates ethical problems for those who are not.

I guess what I'm saying is that I appreciate your encouragement, but you have to keep in mind that things worked out for you. If they didn't, you might be offering a different explanation.

I think we tell ourselves that meritocracy works because the alternative is much darker and harder for us to wrestle with, because it invokes a feeling of moral obligation to do something to fix it.

In my field as I go up, what I see are people succeeding on the basis of popularity, which is not necessarily the same as contributions. For some, this is because of outright corruption. For others it's because of something many would consider ethically problematic, even if unintentional. In still other cases I think there's just basically luck, in the sense that they applied for jobs at the right time and where they ended up just happened to be exactly the right fit, which was not what happened to others who then languished.

I have very close friends who I would consider as successful as they possibly could be in their field, but not once would I ever say they are really deserving of that success more than many others. My convictions over time have only hardened, because I've seen their reversals switch due to natural experiments of sorts, where they are repositioned for reasons outside their control.

Maybe someday I will end up seeing things as you're suggesting, and I'm just in a dark period of my life, but the way it seems to me, it's like a curtain was lifted and there is a very sinister wizard behind it.

[SubuSS]

Very possible and true in general that successful people attribute success to hard work (who wouldn't). I have had trust fund folks defend their situation similarly as well.

But my point is to take the focus away from them and their life and point it at self. It has always helped me to assume that the world is a place where hard work wins against all odds because then my search is for hard work rather than luck.

I don't have much other than internet encouragement :), So good luck. I really hope you turn it around!

[Stryder]

What do you think about the idea of just actualizing your own potential one step at a time, rather than comparing to other "successful" people and what they do?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just curious.

[sremani]

I think that is cynical, but people have to realize "Intelligence" itself is not enough. You can either work on your soft-skills or you can put together a well rounded team working for you. For a small up-start relying on a friend or family with good soft-skills is a good start.

[nasalgoat]

I was recently tapped for a VP position at a bank and out of curiosity I checked it out. An initial meeting later I could see I wasn't a good fit.

I think there is a fundamental difference between myself and the people who are successful in such environments and I've been trying to figure it out. They all seem very confident, polished, with expensive clothes, but is there something deeper there involving people handling and politics that I just seem incapable of understanding or emulating?

20 years on, working mostly for startups and basically avoiding politics for the most part, I wonder if I've actually neglected a key component of my on the job learning by not exercising the soft skills more.

[Stryder]

Do you feel like this is a problem? Were you able to become financially secure following your path?

[nasalgoat]

I think I've reached a plateau in my career, where the next step up requires more Alpha tendencies that I simply don't have.

[kthejoker2]

Really recommend Peter Drucker's books. It's not about Alpha at all, it's about effectiveness which also doesn't come naturally but can be habitually trained.

[peterb]

... you forgot luck.

[whataretensors]

I don't think it's that bad. Most of the successful people I've meant were actually brilliant and deserved their success. There are exceptions of course.

[zzalpha]

Only bad managers forego creativity and progress. Don't blame the role for the mediocrity of some people who play it.

Strangely, people don't hold the same view of conductors, even if they don't play the instruments. Or directors, even though they don't do the acting. Or football coaches, even if they aren't the playing game.

Hell, there's management simulator games out there that people love.

But software management? Well that must be exactly like Office Space.

Consider the following: maybe some management sucks and gets away with it because pop culture has taught us to expect it to.

[AstralStorm]

Nice no true Scotsman here.

Now define a good manager from a shareholder view.

[zzalpha]

I don't think you know what that fallacy is, or alternatively didn't actually read my comment.

That fallacy would apply if I was claiming bad managers aren't managers.

I'm not claiming that.

I'm saying not all managers are bad and the job does not inherently mean a lack of creativity or skill.

As for you cynical follow up question: Shareholders benefit from low turnover and high productivity in an environment that rewards creativity and risk taking. Building that kind of environment requires substantial management talent. Again, the coach metaphor is very apt, here.

As an aside: cynicism and nihilism might be fashionable but it's shallow and lazy.

[jcslzr]

Are you referring the Gervais principle?: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/

[karllager]

I'm sure I read this long ago but wasn't thinking about it. But it seems very relevant, unfortunately.