As someone in the enterprise IT space I would like to re-emphasize the writer's point about technical skills being less important than communication and being a valuable team member to management.
I have yet to encounter a manager (in the enterprise) who actually cared to take a closer look at the things mentioned in your above list. Managers promote those who make their lives easy and make them look good. They care alot more about whether your status report is up to date, if your time sheet is on time and if you are meeting deadlines than what your program structure is.
In fact, as long as it works and conforms to requirements, most managers don't care at all what your program actually looks like and it won't factor one bit into your yearly evaluation.
Granted, a poor program structure and organization may make you fail at any of the above mentioned points, which will lead to poor reviews, but the structure itself doesn't matter from my experience.
To me, as a technical architect and someone priding myself on my work...it does...but not necessarily to management.
I have yet to encounter a manager (in the enterprise) who actually cared to take a closer look at the worked performed in your above list.
I have. Many times. But indirectly. Let me explain...
IT Managers get feedback from our customers. You write better software, you will generally get better feedback. Obviously, lots of shit falls through the cracks that managers/users/customers would never be able to tell the difference.
But here's the rub...
If you don't learn the stuff on my list, sooner or later you will be outed. Someone will need great software and you'll deliver your usual shit. And someone will find out. (Of course, in order to survive, all you have to do is stay one step ahead of the managers and users, and be ready to jump to the next job before you have to.)
Why bother to live like that when the easiest and best way is to just learn how to do things right and get really good at what you do. I think that was OP's original point.
Yes, this is why so many developers hate the enterprise. But it's hard to imagine any way it could be different (at least outside of the Googles and Facebooks of the world).
One powerful remedy to this is contributing to open source. Granted that may be easier said than done depending on where you work, but open source is where you can build a powerful reputation based primarily on technical excellence. In some ways this can be a parallel career ladder where reaching the top means you get the best of both worlds: a high corporate salary plus the freedom to work on whatever you want. That's pretty rare, but in my experience even very modest open source contributions opened doors for me in shockingly short amount of time.
> Yes, this is why so many developers hate the enterprise. But it's hard to imagine any way it could be different (at least outside of the Googles and Facebooks of the world).
Huh? This is a false dilemma. There are plenty of places that aren't Google or Facebook that are software technology companies: where managers are technical, where engineers are judged on their technical skills and application thereof. Of course, non-technical skills matter everywhere and generally the larger the company is, the more important self-promotion and politics become. Yet if you're good (not just great), you should be able to find a place where management is technical and your technical skills are an asset: if you haven't, keep studying the fundamentals (interviews heavily focus on Computer Science) and take an active role in your industry (open source, etc...): connections you make, that can vouch for quality of your code will be able to make references that actually get you in the door.
Sure, but it also connotes brand name and mainstream recognition. It also suggests that such companies are few and in between. Finally Google and Facebook aren't just technically impressive, they're stand out financially. If it's just a technical organization you're looking for, your choices are much wider.
Comments
As someone in the enterprise IT space I would like to re-emphasize the writer's point about technical skills being less important than communication and being a valuable team member to management.
I have yet to encounter a manager (in the enterprise) who actually cared to take a closer look at the things mentioned in your above list. Managers promote those who make their lives easy and make them look good. They care alot more about whether your status report is up to date, if your time sheet is on time and if you are meeting deadlines than what your program structure is.
In fact, as long as it works and conforms to requirements, most managers don't care at all what your program actually looks like and it won't factor one bit into your yearly evaluation.
Granted, a poor program structure and organization may make you fail at any of the above mentioned points, which will lead to poor reviews, but the structure itself doesn't matter from my experience.
To me, as a technical architect and someone priding myself on my work...it does...but not necessarily to management.
I have yet to encounter a manager (in the enterprise) who actually cared to take a closer look at the worked performed in your above list.
I have. Many times. But indirectly. Let me explain...
IT Managers get feedback from our customers. You write better software, you will generally get better feedback. Obviously, lots of shit falls through the cracks that managers/users/customers would never be able to tell the difference.
But here's the rub...
If you don't learn the stuff on my list, sooner or later you will be outed. Someone will need great software and you'll deliver your usual shit. And someone will find out. (Of course, in order to survive, all you have to do is stay one step ahead of the managers and users, and be ready to jump to the next job before you have to.)
Why bother to live like that when the easiest and best way is to just learn how to do things right and get really good at what you do. I think that was OP's original point.
Yes, this is why so many developers hate the enterprise. But it's hard to imagine any way it could be different (at least outside of the Googles and Facebooks of the world).
One powerful remedy to this is contributing to open source. Granted that may be easier said than done depending on where you work, but open source is where you can build a powerful reputation based primarily on technical excellence. In some ways this can be a parallel career ladder where reaching the top means you get the best of both worlds: a high corporate salary plus the freedom to work on whatever you want. That's pretty rare, but in my experience even very modest open source contributions opened doors for me in shockingly short amount of time.
> Yes, this is why so many developers hate the enterprise. But it's hard to imagine any way it could be different (at least outside of the Googles and Facebooks of the world).
Huh? This is a false dilemma. There are plenty of places that aren't Google or Facebook that are software technology companies: where managers are technical, where engineers are judged on their technical skills and application thereof. Of course, non-technical skills matter everywhere and generally the larger the company is, the more important self-promotion and politics become. Yet if you're good (not just great), you should be able to find a place where management is technical and your technical skills are an asset: if you haven't, keep studying the fundamentals (interviews heavily focus on Computer Science) and take an active role in your industry (open source, etc...): connections you make, that can vouch for quality of your code will be able to make references that actually get you in the door.
> There are plenty of places that aren't Google or Facebook that are software technology companies
Hint: "Googles and Facebooks of the world" could in fact refer to a company that is not Google or Facebook.
Sure, but it also connotes brand name and mainstream recognition. It also suggests that such companies are few and in between. Finally Google and Facebook aren't just technically impressive, they're stand out financially. If it's just a technical organization you're looking for, your choices are much wider.