[bluGill]

What is more amazing is their managers who have figured out how to work the system are not telling people that. Your job should be helping your people get where they want to go so if they can't get there tell them why.

I've wasted years working hard and trying to gain influence only to realize that the areas I was getting influence in didn't matter to anyone so I was condemned to get good jobs but no promotion. It has been hard to let go and find a path with real influence. Where I was going is one of those areas that only seen if not done. Lesson learned though : the guy who created the bad design requiring them to come in right before release and work a weekend is rewarded above the guy who wrote good code that works...

[nogabebop23]

I tell my developers this repeatedly, in the form of "making yourself 10% better is not as good as making everyone you work with 1% better".

A few get it and shift towards a "rising tide floats all boats" mentality, the rest do nothing and are perfectly adequate, or agree with me then turn back to solely focusing on self-improvement.

The kicker? That 1% universal imporvement is soooo much easier than 10% or even 5% personal improvement. You can help your team become more effective just by (1) commiting to the act of (2) giving a sh!t.

[dchyrdvh]

The 1% contribution to others is good for the manager, because he gets to take credit for the entire team. The 10% self improvement is good for that individual, because he can leverage that into a better paying role.

[ebiester]

It depends on where you are in your career. If you are a below average developer, do like they say in the airplane and "put on your own mask before assisting others." If you are an above average developer, you will be noticed by being the person who helps others more than solving every problem.

At some point in your career, your influence by your own two hands reaches a plateau. You are a senior engineer. How are they choosing the tech lead?

I can speak by experience that the tech lead is often not the most technically proficient on the team. They are the one who helps others the most. They are the one who talks with the most people beyond their team. If I am looking for a lead, I am looking for the person who people look to for help.

[deckard1]

> I can speak by experience that the tech lead is often not the most technically proficient on the team.

In my experience, this is mostly true. I've worked with some tech leads that had really average skills, at best.

> They are the one who talks with the most people beyond their team.

You're almost there.

Here is what I've noticed, about those who do get promoted (to tech lead and beyond): they get noticed by being the loudest in the room. They do presentations, they organize meetings (that they lead), and they are in the spotlight. Never giving it up to anyone. Me, me, me.

None of that means they are worth a damn, though. Some of these same people have led the company down technical dead ends or strapped the company with expensive tech debt and maintenance. Managers won't care though because that's their guy (or gal). Managers are really poor at recognizing bullshit and really good at justifying decisions they have made. Beyond covering their ass, it's really hard, psychologically, to admit you've really screwed up. And even harder to undo that mistake. This is how companies go under. All the time.

Very few of the tech leads I've witnessed actually help their coworkers. Especially once they've made the promotion. They tend to just vanish at that point, and camp out on projects they want to do and screw everyone else. Out of 10 tech leads, I'd say the ratio is maybe 2-3 good ones.

[dchyrdvh]

I've been there and only learnt that this "wait to be chosen" attitude never pays off. It's rewarded, but the reward is a pittance compared to what that energy could buy.

My advise to myself 20yo would be: learn how to deal with people, learn how organizations work, build capital and get onto the money side of things; but don't let your ego get tricked into the shiny tech lead and manager titles as those are only mirages of wealth.

[majormajor]

> I've been there and only learnt that this "wait to be chosen" attitude never pays off. It's rewarded, but the reward is a pittance compared to what that energy could buy.

Wait to be chosen is the opposite of what I think most people are saying here.

You have to actively find out what is important to your organization and how to make both yourself and other people better in those areas.

[_jal]

If what you care about is money, why do tech at all? Sure, it pays well, but not ibanker-well. The replacement-level investment banker is doing to make a multiple of all but the best-compensated engineers.

[dchyrdvh]

It was an easy way to make some initial capital. I would've done that in the banking sphere if I could.

[ssss11]

Unfortunately the flipside of this is very common as well - you are a senior team member, improving those around you and should be promoted and/or given a raise. That allows the manager to let you keep doing it for free, and either (a) sit back and not do their job or (b) influence up and take credit for it. Its a two way street and many places/people in power are happy to take advantage of you trying to do good work.

[bojo]

I really like this perspective, going to keep it in mind.

[lokar]

I spent many years deciding promotions at a big tech company, including for Sr managers. One thing we always looked into was were they growing the talent on their teams, mentoring, growing skills, and getting people promoted. People understood this was one of the criteria for manager promotions, so they spent time on it (and documented it).

Like any other job, people tend to respond to what they are told will be the evaluation criteria.

[aceperry]

What kind of documentation do you look at, and how do you document that sort of thing?

[mandelbrotwurst]

> Your job should be helping your people get where they want to go

This sounds nice, and from the perspective of the direct report, sure, this is the mindset that you want your managers to have. That said, your manager isn't necessarily incentivized by the company to optimize for this. What's best for the employee isn't necessarily what's best for the company.

[alexandercrohde]

Which is why employees are disincentivized from trusting those managers.

[Traster]

You can tell employees this stuff over and over, some are just not ready to hear it.

[dchyrdvh]

People with this "help others" mindset lose competition against their more ruthless peers. If you had a business, would you help others to compete with you?

[_jal]

I've worked with someone who couldn't tell the difference between a coworker and a competitor, and I hope I never do again.

[emddudley]

How do you tell the difference? I am not aware of having ever worked with "competitors". My coworkers are my team mates, so naturally I help them when they get stuck.

[emddudley]

I would fire anyone in my organization who saw themselves as a ruthless competitor against their peers.

[dchyrdvh]

Then you should start with Senior Management and especially the C levels. What was that quote from the office? "There's only one person in charge in every office and his name is Charles Darwin"