|
|
|
|
|
by malvosenior
4061 days ago
|
|
I don't think it's the developers being myopic. For the most part, it's management that views development as a young person's game and encourages people to move out of the technical track and into the management track. If companies viewed programming as a long term career, they would put the pay scales in place to treat it as such. It's only a "trap" in the respect that in many (not all) places your pay maxes out as a programmer faster than it does as a manager. I don't think it's most developer's choice for it to be that way. |
|
Tu quoque: the "my boss doesn't understand" problem in companies basically comes from people working for people with lower IQ than them. It's not a skillset gap, it's a pattern-recognition gap.
In the military, the best soldiers become officers, and the best officers become generals—even though these are all different skill-sets—because it's more important to have a good general than to have a good soldier, and so if you could, theoretically, do both tasks well, then the military's comparative advantage in allocating your brainpower is to make you a general.
In tech, we see a "career track" of engineers that attempts to be a meritocracy, with the engineering leads and fellows being the guys who have been there the longest—but that's more like the NCO track of the military, valuing experience for the job they're doing, but not the raw brainpower and tenacity to do jobs well generally. Management, meanwhile, is not-at-all a meritocracy; managers hire from outside based on credentialism, and engineers are "pushed into" management based on credence from fellow devs (the same thing you get from being a battle-tested NCO), rather than being "pulled in" by an actual need.