[eeks]

Can’t agree more. OP argument only holds if “value” is an absolute and objective concept and if everyone in the company is measured by it.

It just does not work like that. It’s a simple maximization problem. If your ideal is science and engineering and good code then your value will only be recognized by people who share the same ideal and these people are usually not the one distributing money.

If your ideal is making money then you will do everything in the book to make sure that the ones that distribute it mostly distribute it to you. That means taking credit, over promising, transferring blame, sabotaging careers, networking, shmoozing, etc...

Sounds familiar? That’s the ABC of the corporate world. That’s why most large companies end up being steered by incompetent people (Peters principle, IOW the last level you can reach before your incompetence really shows and shmoozing is not enough anymore).

If money is what you are after, either stay in a big Corp and forget about technical excellence or start your business and pray. Or, realize that there can be other form of rewards than money for your excellence.

[discoursism]

> Can’t agree more. OP argument only holds if “value” is an absolute and objective concept and if everyone in the company is measured by it.

OP's argument is not a "true or false" proposition. It's a model, and as such it has some degree of correspondence with reality. That correspondence may be low or it may be high.

I think it is a useful model. It has a high degree of correspondence to what I see at one of the big internet tech companies where I work. People similarly situated would be well advised to consider this model when deciding how to spend their time, at least if their goals involve getting paid more.

If this doesn't match your experience, consider that this may simply be that your firm does not work the same way as the author's. It doesn't make you or the author wrong; you're just looking at different things.

[JSDave]

This is why I think it's crucial to find a good engineering manager. He or she takes care of the politics for you and makes sure you're properly rewarded for your work. It lets you keep your head down and focus on tech.

They're usually a main contributor and value good code as much as you. They're surrounded by a set of engineers who have worked together for 5+ years. And most of these engineers have followed the manager from one company to the next.

If a company starts treating the group unfairly, they move on to the next company as a group.

[lulmerchant]

The problem with this argument, and most of the other disparaging (and borderline nihilistic) comments in this thread, is that it ignores the fact that competition is a two way street.

Delivering value to stakeholders is undoubtably an indicator for success in business. If your work environment isn't rewarding you for that in a way that satisfies you, then find one that will. If you are delivering value, then your company has to compete to keep you, just as much as you have to compete with your colleagues (and also the rest of the workforce in general) for what ever position it is that you want.

If you're not prepared to seek better opportunities, not only are you disadvantaging yourself, but by just putting up with whatever you're unhappy about, you're also disadvantaging every other person out there like you, by stifling competition, and setting the tone that you'll just put up with whatever bullshit comes down to you from management.