[mrphoebs]

I don't know why you feel the need to give people your background/ability/level to bolster your argument. I'm sure you can string together a coherent argument without the need for an appeal to authority. I'm not calling you a junior engineer, merely observing that the quality of the argument you are making being worthy of a junior engineer's rant.

>The bigger companies get, the worse quality of talent that comes in. Most late stage+ employees are there to rest, vest, and cruise. Don't be naive.

Straw-manning much? I don't see any part of my original argument making a point to the contrary or even addressing the notion of org size.

But I'll bite -> An alternative way of looking at this dynamic in large tech orgs is, that the org sets up a game where people who play the game well can succeed (interview well, do what looks good on impact resumes and against perf rubrics ) without contributing much to the success of the org.

Blame the game not the player, the rest and vesters are resting and vesting because they are achieving optimal utility within the interview/perf/promo game the org has setup, hence dysfunctional orgs.

It's not that flat organisations/startup aren't dysfunctional or that large orgs always end up being dysfunctional but I agree with you that larger engineering orgs often tend to be dysfunctional in many similar ways.

[foldr]

>I don't know why you feel the need to give people your background/ability/level to bolster your argument.

I think it's because you said the following:

> ... what reads like a junior engineer's half baked rant on the uselessness of engineering managers.

I agree the person you're replying to is ranting a bit, but that comes across as saying "you're wrong because you don't have enough experience".

[khamba]

> I don't know why you feel the need to give people your background/ability/level to bolster

I felt it was justified after you called their opinion a "junior's" rant.

[John23832]

> I don't know why you feel the need to give people your background/ability/level to bolster your argument. I'm sure you can string together a coherent argument without the need for an appeal to authority. I'm not calling you a junior engineer, merely observing that the quality of the argument you are making being worthy of a junior engineer's rant.

You dispelled them as giving a rant that denotes inexperience. They gave their experience as a counter.

[moomoo11]

Because I can? Also I don’t have power right now so I go to HN at such times to kill time.

As for the game, I’m all in. I love the game and it’s fun. I’m super competitive and have no problem going back to lobby after a bad game to find a new lobby. I’m playing ranked/hardcore/we it’s called, not single player or un ranked. I’m not a gamer so idk the terms.

As for the late stagers it’s just my observation. It’s what I have observed and they definitely spend more time doing the same things. Usually because they’re doing anything but the work. They have nothing to lose nor any tangible stake.

At small scale there’s no ego. Software engineers answer support queries and help with sales. The goal is to turn your shares from a penny or less to $100.

At late stage is when all the middle management bloat comes in.

You add more and more levels where the level above just wants high level updates. Then managers have associate, manager, sr manager levels. Then you have director, associate director, etc. each level is a sad reminder of what could have been possible. People are more concerned with becoming managers instead of contributing. It’s why many companies become stagnant imo.

Personally I’m done working at companies bigger than 5k people. I was already feeling the pain at like 2-3k people. I can’t imagine working somewhere with 50k plus people. Sounds like hell.