"engineers are invariably happier when they’re working for a big company"
I stopped reading right there* . I've worked for a few big companies, a small lifestyle company, and a few startups, and I'm invariably happiest at a small company.
Financially, the book may be right: I'm not going to get rich as a startup employee, and I'll probably fail if I start my own. However, the thing I do for more than half my waking hours for the duration of my working life is something I enjoy. I get up reasonably interested in going to work, and go home feeling like I'm building something.
You can phrase it cynically if you want. You can say I'm deluded; that I'm building someone else's dream; that I could be making more money doing something else.
But I enjoy what I do, and I make enough money to support myself, so don't tell me I'd invariably be happier at a big company. I've been down that road, and it's the only time since middle school I ever considered not being a programmer.
* Ok, so I actually continued reading, but you get the point.
The whole article was filled with absurd assumptions and claims:
"...engineers tend to do quite well in structured environments, where there are clear problems to solve, and relatively badly in the chaos of a startup, where the most important skills are non-engineering ones, like being able to attract talent and investors."
What does that have to do with engineers? People tend to do well in structured environments with clear problems to solve, regardless of their background or profession. It's a small subset of people who can survive in unstructured envs, and an even smaller one that is willing to submit themselves to that masochism. If anything I would surmise that engineers have a higher percentage of that subset, but I don't have any more data than the article's writer to prove that.
"A few big-name angels and VCs can do OK for themselves, but in aggregate the industry of investing in startups does not make money."
No data presented to back that up, either.
I know it's an editorial, but if the writer wants to make such broad sweeping generalizations, he should have at least a little evidence or data to back those claims up or it's just wasted text.
I mean, yes and no. A book review might better state "Lewis-Kraus argues that 'Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum'," instead of saying:
The Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum.
On it's face, that statement is inaccurate. The rest of the paragraph looks to argue that returns are estimated value zero, not that the system itself is "zero-sum." So now I don't know if it's the review that's bad or the book.
Size of the company is irrelevant to me. I have found that I am happiest when I have but a single boss, and that person not only knows how to adapt people to the business and vice versa, but is also capable at least of accurately evaluating my work, even if he or she is unable to do what I do.
The worst places I have worked invariably involve a muddied chain of command, where the people with the authority to direct or redirect my work have no understanding of how or when they should do so. Often, those people are simultaneously in competition with you while you are expected to cooperate with them.
Small company size is not a guarantee of sane and rational management. Large size is not a guarantee that your bosses will be idiots. But a subunit of a larger company can fail for a much longer period of time before becoming unable to continue, so that may be what causes the perceived differential.
A dysfunctional small company fails fast. A dysfunctional unit of a large company could limp along for decades without changing. On the other side, a great small company could just never take off, and a great unit of a large company could be axed from the executive suite without any apparent reason.
I agree, that's definitely not a reasonable generalization, and "invariably" is ridiculous. Some engineers enjoy a big company more, some prefer a startup or small company, some are happy anywhere, and some are never happy.
Yep, the whole point is that it's different for different people. I've also worked for big and small companies. Personally, I'm happier at bigger companies--and not because of money. Small companies have few people and therefore more responsibilities. Some people like that kind of breadth, but I'd rather never have to write a line of deployment code. Being at a bigger company means that I can focus on my niche and the exact type of code that I enjoy.
- Assuming that engineers aren't creative, and want to work on well defined problems with well defined inputs.
- Confused our parents generation of engineers with ours.
The skills of building a good technology can also be applied to building a good company. This is one reason (intellectual signalling is another) that MBA programs like to admit engineers.
I actually don't really see any evidence in the article that the author believes any engineers would ever be happier in a smaller company. I'm not sure where you're seeing that softer view in the text. It's basically calling anyone who doesn't want to work for Google deluded.
It's not as if everyone in tech works for a startup, though I'm sure it often seems that way from the valley. Most likely the vast majority of engineers do in fact work for large companies, so the hysterical tone of the article only makes sense if you think even that small fraction of the industry that works at startups is fooling themselves about what makes them happy.
Of course, the article also seems to believe that most startup founders are engineers, and I'm not sure that's at all true either.
Then it's bad, misleading, imprecise writing to say invariably. A single counterexample does disprove it, by the definition of the word. If the writer didn't want the argument blown up like that, he should have looked among the other hundreds of thousands of words in English to find one that actually does say what he meant.
It is not a technical proof that lends itself to be proven or disproven.
it is a piece of prose that took some license with it's language. Also, the total number of words in the English language != the amount of synonyms for invariably.
By your own standard you are just as incorrect as the author the article. You have posted a bad, misleading or imprecise sentence to suggest the author has hundreds of thousands of words to choose from. He does not.
Comments
"engineers are invariably happier when they’re working for a big company"
I stopped reading right there* . I've worked for a few big companies, a small lifestyle company, and a few startups, and I'm invariably happiest at a small company.
Financially, the book may be right: I'm not going to get rich as a startup employee, and I'll probably fail if I start my own. However, the thing I do for more than half my waking hours for the duration of my working life is something I enjoy. I get up reasonably interested in going to work, and go home feeling like I'm building something.
You can phrase it cynically if you want. You can say I'm deluded; that I'm building someone else's dream; that I could be making more money doing something else.
But I enjoy what I do, and I make enough money to support myself, so don't tell me I'd invariably be happier at a big company. I've been down that road, and it's the only time since middle school I ever considered not being a programmer.
* Ok, so I actually continued reading, but you get the point.
The whole article was filled with absurd assumptions and claims:
"...engineers tend to do quite well in structured environments, where there are clear problems to solve, and relatively badly in the chaos of a startup, where the most important skills are non-engineering ones, like being able to attract talent and investors."
What does that have to do with engineers? People tend to do well in structured environments with clear problems to solve, regardless of their background or profession. It's a small subset of people who can survive in unstructured envs, and an even smaller one that is willing to submit themselves to that masochism. If anything I would surmise that engineers have a higher percentage of that subset, but I don't have any more data than the article's writer to prove that.
"A few big-name angels and VCs can do OK for themselves, but in aggregate the industry of investing in startups does not make money."
No data presented to back that up, either.
I know it's an editorial, but if the writer wants to make such broad sweeping generalizations, he should have at least a little evidence or data to back those claims up or it's just wasted text.
It's a book review, not wikipedia. If you want to see the argument made in full, buy the book.
I mean, yes and no. A book review might better state "Lewis-Kraus argues that 'Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum'," instead of saying:
On it's face, that statement is inaccurate. The rest of the paragraph looks to argue that returns are estimated value zero, not that the system itself is "zero-sum." So now I don't know if it's the review that's bad or the book.
Size of the company is irrelevant to me. I have found that I am happiest when I have but a single boss, and that person not only knows how to adapt people to the business and vice versa, but is also capable at least of accurately evaluating my work, even if he or she is unable to do what I do.
The worst places I have worked invariably involve a muddied chain of command, where the people with the authority to direct or redirect my work have no understanding of how or when they should do so. Often, those people are simultaneously in competition with you while you are expected to cooperate with them.
Small company size is not a guarantee of sane and rational management. Large size is not a guarantee that your bosses will be idiots. But a subunit of a larger company can fail for a much longer period of time before becoming unable to continue, so that may be what causes the perceived differential.
A dysfunctional small company fails fast. A dysfunctional unit of a large company could limp along for decades without changing. On the other side, a great small company could just never take off, and a great unit of a large company could be axed from the executive suite without any apparent reason.
I agree, that's definitely not a reasonable generalization, and "invariably" is ridiculous. Some engineers enjoy a big company more, some prefer a startup or small company, some are happy anywhere, and some are never happy.
Would it be different if you were a founder rather than an employee? I believe the article was talking about your boss, not you.
Yep, the whole point is that it's different for different people. I've also worked for big and small companies. Personally, I'm happier at bigger companies--and not because of money. Small companies have few people and therefore more responsibilities. Some people like that kind of breadth, but I'd rather never have to write a line of deployment code. Being at a bigger company means that I can focus on my niche and the exact type of code that I enjoy.
I think the author made two mistakes:
- Assuming that engineers aren't creative, and want to work on well defined problems with well defined inputs.
- Confused our parents generation of engineers with ours.
The skills of building a good technology can also be applied to building a good company. This is one reason (intellectual signalling is another) that MBA programs like to admit engineers.
You < *Engineers (plural)
Fishtoaster was reacting to the ludicrous use of "invariably", so his or her counterexample was quite sufficient, and beautifully written to boot.
Is beautifully written now a byword for credible? I must remember that for future dissertations.
The author posited that engineers in general are happier. Fishtoaster attempted to refute the claim by citing anecdotal personal evidence.
Admittedly invariably was a little strong but it was just figurative, not literal.
I actually don't really see any evidence in the article that the author believes any engineers would ever be happier in a smaller company. I'm not sure where you're seeing that softer view in the text. It's basically calling anyone who doesn't want to work for Google deluded.
It's not as if everyone in tech works for a startup, though I'm sure it often seems that way from the valley. Most likely the vast majority of engineers do in fact work for large companies, so the hysterical tone of the article only makes sense if you think even that small fraction of the industry that works at startups is fooling themselves about what makes them happy.
Of course, the article also seems to believe that most startup founders are engineers, and I'm not sure that's at all true either.
Then it's bad, misleading, imprecise writing to say invariably. A single counterexample does disprove it, by the definition of the word. If the writer didn't want the argument blown up like that, he should have looked among the other hundreds of thousands of words in English to find one that actually does say what he meant.
It is not a technical proof that lends itself to be proven or disproven.
it is a piece of prose that took some license with it's language. Also, the total number of words in the English language != the amount of synonyms for invariably.
By your own standard you are just as incorrect as the author the article. You have posted a bad, misleading or imprecise sentence to suggest the author has hundreds of thousands of words to choose from. He does not.