[yanilkr]

This is effective nonsense. Based on my personal experience, effective engineers I know do not follow a formula like this.

This looks like a list of how to be teacher’s pet. A superficial need to be praised by others as effective only takes to “mediocre”.

[brucephillips]

Perhaps rather than spew vacuous insults, you could describe specifically how effective engineers differ from the descriptions in this post.

[yanilkr]

You may want to read the due diligence I did about this topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16037746

One other quality of effective engineers is not fall for bullshit and have a scientific mindset of inquiry.

[dudul]

What do effective engineers do then? Based on your experience, what practices do they implement?

[yanilkr]

Please read more research i did here about this content.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16037746

You decide if there is any merit to the advice given.

[tw1010]

There are good ways and bad ways to interpret the book. Just because good engineers have historically not lived their lives according to these particular buzzwords, does not mean they haven't implicitly incorperated similar, analogous, strategies. I would be surprised if Linus Torvalds and Peter Norvig and the like didn't use concepts like prioritization, investing in tools, and some similar idea (though not necessarily expressed in that way) to the 80/20 rule. Why should it matter from which culture productivity buzzwords originate from?

[eitland]

Also it comes off as a way to build a career at the companys expense.

[ashwinaj]

You're forgetting the fact that the company is also building it's "career" off your's too.

Don't believe me? Any invention that you have created at your workplace (patents etc.) is always held by your company, not you.

[eitland]

That's the deal though isn't it?

They pay me real money - I do real work for them.

[barrkel]

You expend labour; they build capital. The capital you build produces returns long into the future, but you don't own any of that future income stream. Sooner or later, your sharpness and skills will decline, and your labour will be relatively worthless. The capital you helped build will continue to be valuable (presuming you did a good job).

It's a poor deal if you're in a competitive market where there's another schmuck willing to do your job for just as cheap as you do it. But if you have pricing power, you'd be a complete fool not to either charge substantially more, or demand some ownership.

[ashwinaj]

So you're okay with the fact that they are kinda-sorta exploiting you (by not including you as a co-patent holder) but have reservations on employees utilizing company resources to further their career?

That seems like a really raw deal to me. You might argue that you are "paid" to do this; not really, you can just coast on 9-5 and draw the same (or in the same ballpark) paycheck as someone who is busting his behind to invent something. Also when there is downsizing you might think that contributions is the only thing that matters, but it is demonstrably not (I'm speaking about regular companies not a small startup).

[goialoq]

Which parts hurt the company?

[plandis]

What do effective engineers do then?

[yanilkr]

read the background verification i did for the same

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16037746

[yanilkr]

I will try to elaborate without trying to insult anyone. It might be harsh but I am sure the author can handle it.

First of all look at this sales copy of the book. https://www.effectiveengineer.com/book

It looks like a weight loss e-book product designed to trick ambitious people into impulse buying. It tries to build credibility by name dropping "google", "facebook", "insert big company here" every other paragraph. Then there are testimonials about how great the advice is from "LeaderLeaderLeader" enterprise hierarchy pattern i.e people with big titles from popular silicon valley companies.

Everything in that page is designed and optimized to make you buy the package. For a price of 250$ you too can know the secrets of effective Engineers.

To sell this content first create and exploit an insecurity in jr.Engineers or fresh job seekers in technology by saying they are not an effective engineer unless they buy this book/package and read the content and then they too will be part of the club and work at a big name brand company. Some people in our work places are exceptionally good at social engineering and not so much in actual engineering. The sales copy co-opted the "engineering" discipline to sell some curated content. This looks much similar to team/company "politics".

I do not think people in "effective engineering" business do this. This is certainly what people in content business do.

Now compare that to some other book for a contrast. https://basecamp.com/books/getting-real

Engineering is just like any other skill for e.g., like playing chess or piano or swimming etc. You get better by doing it many times and failing often. To be good at engineering involves many factors like genetics, discipline, irrational love and passion for a particular domain, patience, exposure to better ideas and better people. Even you are good at engineering, to be effective at a company/market, you need to know the right people and have right social and financial skills to get name and recognition.

Some how, effective engineering has become synonymous with what happens at big name company teams which I think is very wrong. If you look at the real world, once companies reach a bigger size, they stop doing effective anything. They just buy other small companies which spend more time on making effective products.

This content seems to be analogous to "founders at work" but a better title would have been "engineers at the enterprise".

[edmondlau]

The perspective I'll offer is that good sales copy is also a skill, just like engineering or any of the other skills you mention.

To be good at sales copy also involves many factors, like interviewing your prospective customers, understanding what language they use to describe their problems, listening for what dreams they actually have, addressing their concerns by establishing credibility, and having a strong desire to help them achieve their goals.

Good sales copy doesn't aim to "trick" people; it aims to show that the product being sold will achieve the prospective customer's goals.

The reason I'm sharing this perspective is that many engineers do look down on marketing and sales copy as something that's automatically "bad." And that automatic association does them a disservice.

They write awesome code or build awesome products and features that could add so much value to the world, but they then just expect anyone to automatically see that value. They don't take the time to understand what their users' problems might be, to share how what they built might solve those problems, and to "market" their solutions. That mismatch of supply and demand ends up being a missed opportunity, and sadly, this happens all the time.

[yanilkr]

Hope what ever you did works for you. I am probably not your prospective customer. I found the whole sales copy very deceptive. You are selling "Tactical Toolkit" to be effective engineer.

I understand your perspective about engineers undervaluing marketing and sales skills, but I think it's an example of short term thinking. Credibility is a currency, internet never forgets and I would never build credibility like this because I do not know how this will limit my future possibilities.

[dudul]

You seem to be criticizing mostly how the book is marketed as opposed to its actual content. And I will agree with you, this page is awful, and it absolutely reads like the typical "get rich in 2 weeks" scam. But the content as described in this gist is interesting.

Do you disagree that effective engineers need to come up with strategies to be continuously learning? Or that it's important to make sure you spend time on tasks/projects that matter as opposed to busy-work? Or that it's important to properly use your daily tools? etc etc

I haven't read the book, and I only went over the main headers of this gist, but this all looks like pretty sensible advice to me to be more effective and productive.

[valuearb]

I'd say you don't seem to understand what makes an effective engineer. You ignore the benefits of introspection and discount the ability to improve yourself. Good habits can be cultivated. A career can be cultivated, any good engineer can target better jobs to move up step by step where they want to be.

The author is just giving you advice for doing those things.

[yanilkr]

You may be right. Only the people who bought that “tactical toolkit” from that sales page are effective engineers. Everyone else may just not be up to it.

We used to call engineers who do tasks that elevate themselves at the expense of rest of the team as bad team players. Now the advice here is to do high leverage tasks.

The whole premise of the content appears to be a “get rich quick” scheme. The most vulnerable people in the industry are the young people looking for guidance and advice from older generations. The sales copy is clearly exploiting their insecurity by suggesting somehow there is a shortcut and by knowing these secrets for a small price, you too can be a 10x engineer.

[valuearb]

Wow. The author really pissed your cornflakes, didn’t he? I’ve been an engineer for 30 years, this is the first i’ve heard of author or his book, but i have to say i agree with much of his advice.

When you have a choice, you should always choose high leverage. You should work to limit distractions and get more focus time. This is all great advice.

[yanilkr]

I see what you are trying to do here. But please go read the sales copy of the book. Everything in that copy is a symptom of "moral decay" in the tech valley.

Which one did you purchase? "The master package" to become effective engineer.

It makes bold claims like it will make you 10X engineer and it some how guides you to figure out which technologies you need to work that will succeed in the future and keep reading, you will find more gems in there. The whole content is preying on the vulnerable.

We have had great advice in the tech industry so far like, "put customer first" or "think lean" or build beautiful products etc but this is the first classic that says to put yourself first and work on things that elevate you at the expense of the team and company and more narcissistic gems bundled with gossip from engineering teams with famous name companies.

I seriously doubt anyone who is looked upon for guidance by others would suggest something like this.

adios while I read the "Tactial Toolkit" to become effective engineer.

[valuearb]

I haven’t paid the author a dime, but did just sign up to get the free chapter of the book, i recommend you read it because it’s his actual advice. My review was it’s pretty good, a bit rushed/compressed, but his advice is very straightforward and all focused on getting more and better work done for your company, how much more team oriented does it get than that?

BTW i didn’t see any marketing claim on his site that he’ll magically turn you into a 10x developer, but googling found this blog. Read it and try to tell me it’s advice isn’t good or that it’s “corrosive” in any way to the team.

http://www.effectiveengineer.com/blog/how-to-become-a-10x-en...

[lazyasciiart]

> We used to call engineers who do tasks that elevate themselves at the expense of rest of the team as bad team players. Now the advice here is to do high leverage tasks.

You haven't even read the notes, if you're conflating these two ideas.

[brucephillips]

> To sell this content first create and exploit an insecurity in jr.Engineers or fresh job seekers in technology by saying they are not an effective engineer unless they buy this book/package

Where are you reading this?

[yanilkr]

Read the sales copy. I just copied the first few lines of the first paragraph.

"The most effective engineers — the ones who have risen to become distinguished engineers and leaders at their companies — can produce 10 times the impact of other engineers, but they're not working 10 times the hours."

Taken from https://www.effectiveengineer.com/book

[brucephillips]

That doesn't imply what you claimed at all.

[sidcool]

Care to suggest better ways?

[yanilkr]

I did a background check and things do not add up for me.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16037746