"being indispensable because you solve unsolvable problems is another. It is, by definition, the hacker's way."
Those problems are 'near' insolvable often because clueless people were in charge making decisions they shouldn't have been allowed to make. By rescuing orgs like that, you run the real risk of being relegated to perpetual clean up guy, and you bolster the decisions.
Rough example: System X was built so badly because of bad directives, that it's taking 3 hours for a report, and you need 10 reports per day, but you can only do 8 (8x3=24 hours). Every current employee and 2 outside consultants all say "this can't be fixed", not because it can not under any circumstance be fixed, but the cost/benefit doesn't even come close - it's a crappy bandage at best.
You, being "indispensable super dev" work overtime for 3 weeks to 'fix' things, and reports are now 15 minutes (like they should have been). Great - you just 'solved the unsolvable'. Whoop. You've perpetuated the bad decision making process, and it will be months or years before there can be real change in the org now.
Being 'indispensable' also usually means you're tied to crap projects and will never get moved out of that department/division in an upward capacity - you'll have to quit that company to get any real advancement.
> By rescuing orgs like that, you run the real risk of being relegated to perpetual clean up guy
You're right, it's a serious risk and you have to address it. Again, being a good, "straight A student" who does what he's told when and where he's told will harm you. You have to know to be bad at what you don't want to do, and at doing stuff a way you consider broken. There's a delicate balance to find between being recognized as valuable, remaining manageable, and not being threaded on. You need to be bad enough that people will try to avoid giving you that sort of shlep in the future, but it must not come off as insulting, and it must not be mistaken for incompetence.
The key point to keep in mind that dumb submission might save you a lot of flak, but will get you neither consideration from anyone, nor better work conditions. Know when to break the rules, and how much breaking you can get away with. You can't hack software in a company if you can't hack the company itself.
Comments
"being indispensable because you solve unsolvable problems is another. It is, by definition, the hacker's way."
Those problems are 'near' insolvable often because clueless people were in charge making decisions they shouldn't have been allowed to make. By rescuing orgs like that, you run the real risk of being relegated to perpetual clean up guy, and you bolster the decisions.
Rough example: System X was built so badly because of bad directives, that it's taking 3 hours for a report, and you need 10 reports per day, but you can only do 8 (8x3=24 hours). Every current employee and 2 outside consultants all say "this can't be fixed", not because it can not under any circumstance be fixed, but the cost/benefit doesn't even come close - it's a crappy bandage at best.
You, being "indispensable super dev" work overtime for 3 weeks to 'fix' things, and reports are now 15 minutes (like they should have been). Great - you just 'solved the unsolvable'. Whoop. You've perpetuated the bad decision making process, and it will be months or years before there can be real change in the org now.
Being 'indispensable' also usually means you're tied to crap projects and will never get moved out of that department/division in an upward capacity - you'll have to quit that company to get any real advancement.
> By rescuing orgs like that, you run the real risk of being relegated to perpetual clean up guy
You're right, it's a serious risk and you have to address it. Again, being a good, "straight A student" who does what he's told when and where he's told will harm you. You have to know to be bad at what you don't want to do, and at doing stuff a way you consider broken. There's a delicate balance to find between being recognized as valuable, remaining manageable, and not being threaded on. You need to be bad enough that people will try to avoid giving you that sort of shlep in the future, but it must not come off as insulting, and it must not be mistaken for incompetence.
The key point to keep in mind that dumb submission might save you a lot of flak, but will get you neither consideration from anyone, nor better work conditions. Know when to break the rules, and how much breaking you can get away with. You can't hack software in a company if you can't hack the company itself.