Recent searches
Search options
This post reminds me that software engineering doesn't have a plus minus.
https://hachyderm.io/@thisismissem/113545665050649333
Basketball players used to be measured by stats like Points, rebounds, blocks, assists, steals, etc. You could see that Jordan was good, because he scored a lot of points and didn't have a lot of turnovers. You could see that Dikembe Mutumbo was good, because he got a lot of blocks. Stockton was good, because he always seemed to be the last pass right before a teammate scored (assists).
1/N
But Draymond Green was a key part of the Warriors' dynasty, but he never scored many points, never got a ton of blocks or steals, and never got a ton of assists. But... the Warriors seemed to be invincible when he played, but very beatable when he didn't play.
Draymond doesn't show up high on most regular stats, but he has the highest single season plus minus in NBA history.
Plus minus is a calculation of how many points your team scores with you on the court vs with you off the court.
2/N
In every tech organization, there are some people that seem to know every system, everybody, and every problem. They're super helpful, and save coworkers months of wasted efforts, by short-circuiting dead end paths, sharing efficient workflows, knowing which services already exist, and generally having great technical judgement.
*None of those skills are quantifiable on performance reviews, other than peers saying thanks (if they're lucky).
*Many underrepresented engineers fill these roles.
these are sometimes called "glue" or "soft" roles but still not given the credit they are due for how vital these roles are.
@paul_ipv6 @mekkaokereke in my terminology, I call them translators or generalists.
They not only know how to talk to people to get things done, but also can push back because they have enough knowledge to know when others have already done it/ know that it is possible.
@rowlandm @paul_ipv6 @mekkaokereke I feel like I'm in this bucket and I've tended to describe myself as the grease that keeps the machine running smoothly
@dotproto @rowlandm @paul_ipv6 @mekkaokereke
I’ve been the grease.
The proof of being the grease is that:
• Senior management doesn’t value you while you work there. You even get asked what you do and the really bad ones ask you to justify your time.
• When you come back from holiday your team is in joyous tears and your manager values you for a quarter.
• Everyone externally comes directly to you.
• Senior management really values you after you have left, as costs have gone up considerably.
I used to have what I called ‘the Sargent’s network’. We all knew who was the grease in each department and we’d constantly talk and keep things from breaking.
@taatm @dotproto @paul_ipv6 @mekkaokereke
"I used to have what I called ‘the Sargent’s network’. We all knew who was the grease in each department and we’d constantly talk and keep things from breaking."
I totally get this!
@taatm can confirm
@taatm @dotproto * When you burn out and quit, you get more supportive emails from people in a dozen other departments than you got from your bosses ever
* People tell you when they don't know something, or fucked up
I had one job in particular that on paper was rubber stamping forms. In practice, I actively built one of those networks. Now when I have to deal with a large org, I keep trying unti l find the one competent person thanklessly carrying most of the others
@sinvega @dotproto
I left one place held together with one of my spreadsheets. My friends had my number, nobody else.
I’ve had people tell me how great my work was and my manager just simply blank it and move on. Me being good at my job was not in line with their narrative.
Any place that went ‘political’ and I mean that like how we used to describe the Soviets, I would leave.
A clue for everyone is when the senior managers start talking about perceptions. At that point how it looks matters more than how it is. There is a Venn diagram for this because you can have 100% looks good or 100% is good, but you can’t have both in these places.
@taatm @dotproto I once explained to my manager how I'd established good relations with the departments that relied on us, and that "they know we have some problems and-"
She interrupted: "But we don't want them to think we have problems! We want them to think we're efficient and on the ball!"
Considering I spent the next year actually making us more efficient while she and her two lackeys undermined me, I think if I ran into that attitude again I'd just go home
@taatm Still hurts my brain to imagine how someone can hear that people are willing to help bail them out, and immediately start telling them the boat's not sinking actually, that's not water around my knees it's champagne to celebrate how great we're doing
@sinvega
I’ve also had one or two people reject my support totally and I couldn’t figure out for while until I finally cracked it.
They were built such a way that they would never help someone else without reason and projected themselves onto everyone else. They simply could not believe I was coming to them with a solution, especially as they hadn’t even fully grasped the problem.
As you know, when you’ve learned all the systems, you don’t just see the problem, you’ve predicted it. Some management really hate that.
@taatm @dotproto @rowlandm @mekkaokereke
my dad was in hospital pharmacy for years and told me that while there is always an official organization (org chart) view of the place, if that official structure isn't functional, an underground org evolves to get things done anyway. he'd totally buy into the "sargeant network" as a way to do that.
if you have neither official or underground org, you have chaos and dysfunction, which is far too common.
