(I realize this was written 8 months ago and the addendum tries to take away the bite, but I'll comment nonetheless)
I hate articles that make it seem like there is some magical cult of amazing engineers that have an untouchable and unattainable aura. I remember how intimidated I was after I graduated college and was coming into the workforce due to it.
Well, I used to work with the men and women who "who keep Google’s servers running" and at one point in time I was one of them. I can tell you that none of the stereotypes listed apply to any sizeable percentage of them, and their variety and skills were incredibly diverse. Some had years of experience and were grizzled veterans, some of them were right out of college. Some of them lived in the south bay, some lived in the city. Some dressed more fashionably than others. Some were men, some were women.
They, like many, liked working on interesting problems. They, like many, cared about engineering and improving their skills everyday. But, there was no magical guild which encompassed them. It is just a bunch of engineers with different skills, different interests, different personalities, who all just enjoyed engineering. Just like you and me. Your company doesn't need people from this magical guild to succeed, because this magical guild doesn't exist.
I certainly agree that any engineer would like working at a place where their work will have a huge impact and will be appreciated, but who wouldn't? If your company is marginalizing some percentage of your employees, whatever their job title is, then you certainly aren't going to be able to attract quality candidates for that position. That really has nothing to do with engineers or some magical guild though.
I agree the stereotypes can be a little offputting, but I think the OA is motivated by a similar annoyance at stereotypes that you are experiencing.
It's a response to the effect the consumer web has had on silicon valley, namely the tabloidism, the hollywoodization, and the explosion of self-promotion. The bloggers, the pundits, "brogrammers", "ninjas", etc.
When you read articles about using Github as a way to screen prospective employees, or not hiring people who don't have a blog, you realize that the core practice of software engineering that underlies all the most innovative aspects of what's happening in tech today has the potential to get lost in a sea of signaling.
The delivery of this message may not be the most tasteful, but I think it's a point worth making.
> I hate articles that make it seem like there is some magical cult of amazing engineers that have an untouchable and unattainable aura. I remember how intimidated I was after I graduated college and was coming into the workforce due to it.
I think that the point is that typically in startups, people revere the company founders, the MBAs, the VCs, etc. and not the quiet experienced engineers that just make things happen. You're right that it isn't a secret guild, however there is a range of experience and talent, and some are on the higher end of that. Not everyone can easily attain the level of experience and talent that some of these people have; it is a mix of education, natural ability, hard work, and luck. But, you are right that getting a lot closer to the level these people are at is not impossible.
I think that the point is that typically in startups, people revere the company founders, the MBAs, the VCs, etc. and not the quiet experienced engineers that just make things happen
I disagree. I think that engineers get a huge amount of attention, far more than they would in any other industry. But at a base level you need to be outgoing and sociable- it seems that proportionally fewer engineers are, when compared to MBAs, VCs and the like.
I'm surprised that anybody took the 'secret guild' thing so literally. To me it reads as a metaphor for the iceberg of interconnected talent hidden below the surface.
Comments
(I realize this was written 8 months ago and the addendum tries to take away the bite, but I'll comment nonetheless)
I hate articles that make it seem like there is some magical cult of amazing engineers that have an untouchable and unattainable aura. I remember how intimidated I was after I graduated college and was coming into the workforce due to it.
Well, I used to work with the men and women who "who keep Google’s servers running" and at one point in time I was one of them. I can tell you that none of the stereotypes listed apply to any sizeable percentage of them, and their variety and skills were incredibly diverse. Some had years of experience and were grizzled veterans, some of them were right out of college. Some of them lived in the south bay, some lived in the city. Some dressed more fashionably than others. Some were men, some were women.
They, like many, liked working on interesting problems. They, like many, cared about engineering and improving their skills everyday. But, there was no magical guild which encompassed them. It is just a bunch of engineers with different skills, different interests, different personalities, who all just enjoyed engineering. Just like you and me. Your company doesn't need people from this magical guild to succeed, because this magical guild doesn't exist.
I certainly agree that any engineer would like working at a place where their work will have a huge impact and will be appreciated, but who wouldn't? If your company is marginalizing some percentage of your employees, whatever their job title is, then you certainly aren't going to be able to attract quality candidates for that position. That really has nothing to do with engineers or some magical guild though.
I agree the stereotypes can be a little offputting, but I think the OA is motivated by a similar annoyance at stereotypes that you are experiencing.
It's a response to the effect the consumer web has had on silicon valley, namely the tabloidism, the hollywoodization, and the explosion of self-promotion. The bloggers, the pundits, "brogrammers", "ninjas", etc.
When you read articles about using Github as a way to screen prospective employees, or not hiring people who don't have a blog, you realize that the core practice of software engineering that underlies all the most innovative aspects of what's happening in tech today has the potential to get lost in a sea of signaling.
The delivery of this message may not be the most tasteful, but I think it's a point worth making.
> I hate articles that make it seem like there is some magical cult of amazing engineers that have an untouchable and unattainable aura. I remember how intimidated I was after I graduated college and was coming into the workforce due to it.
I think that the point is that typically in startups, people revere the company founders, the MBAs, the VCs, etc. and not the quiet experienced engineers that just make things happen. You're right that it isn't a secret guild, however there is a range of experience and talent, and some are on the higher end of that. Not everyone can easily attain the level of experience and talent that some of these people have; it is a mix of education, natural ability, hard work, and luck. But, you are right that getting a lot closer to the level these people are at is not impossible.
I think that the point is that typically in startups, people revere the company founders, the MBAs, the VCs, etc. and not the quiet experienced engineers that just make things happen
I disagree. I think that engineers get a huge amount of attention, far more than they would in any other industry. But at a base level you need to be outgoing and sociable- it seems that proportionally fewer engineers are, when compared to MBAs, VCs and the like.
Well said, there is enough FUD around how to translate programming into engineering that adding some unknowable mystique to it will not help.
I'm surprised that anybody took the 'secret guild' thing so literally. To me it reads as a metaphor for the iceberg of interconnected talent hidden below the surface.