Ask HN: Is software engineering a meritocracy? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is software engineering a meritocracy?

10 pointsunionemployee6 comments

I work in a unionized profession. Promotion within a company is based on seniority and, as commoditized skilled labor, advancement to better paying employers is largely based on luck, connections and "soft" stuff such volunteer work or degrees that have nothing to do with the job.

It's discouraging to know that no matter how hard one works, or how much more skilled one might be than another worker has nothing to do with career success. Frowned upon are things like working extra, going above and beyond, and trying to do a "good job". For example: A colleague was recently baffled by my attempt to save resources by working efficiently, and "I don't get paid enough to..." is often overheard. It's a generally negative environment with a persistent adversarial relationship between labor and management. The message from labor leaders is often irrational and borderline propaganda.

From the outside looking in, software engineering seems like a pure meritocracy, where one's skill is constantly on display, and something that's rewarded. I often think that I'd rather be a crappy software engineer who's earned my place than excel without reward in my current job. Unfortunately, my earning potential is probably higher if I stay the course. Money isn't everything, though, and I'm nearing an ability level that would allow me to find an entry-level software job. Just wondering what others' thoughts are on the meritocracy idea.

I can't promise you that, if you make the jump, you'll land someplace where your skills and efforts will be fully appreciated. Politics pops up wherever human beings are involved. You will probably still have to exert some effort to make sure people know what good work you're doing. But broadly, I think you are right: software is much better about rewarding actual contributions than the situation you describe (which sounds frankly hellish to me -- I can't imagine working in a place like that).

It can be hellish, but most haven't really worked outside the industry, so don't know anything different.

It is a mixed bag. Some places have the issues you describe from union shops.

The good news is that the industry is young, California has a giant pool of VC money, and also doesn't have non-competes.

It is relatively easy to put companies that reward incompetence out of business: They aren't going to innovate enough to hold market share for long, and they also won't retain the talent competitors need to poach from them. This means that, on average, you'll walk into a pretty good situation (Put another way, companies with bad environments have shorter half lives than in other industries).

Promotions at many companies are mainly based on political maneuvering. Usually, you have to job hop to get a promotion or raise.

It's a meritocracy in the sense that the Software Engineering community values skill and output more than "years of experience." As far as what's valued by idiot middle management, it's largely the same as everywhere else (though maybe not as bad).

I think every organization is different but most companies that don't sell software don't even view their software departments as first class areas.

Have heard that before. Outside of software shops the experience seems to be much different than the picture painted by lurking HN posts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com