Hacker News Reader

In my case my company has a terrible product development process, and it’s a big reason why our app sucks, it doesn’t deliver the key value customers and the company need.

I have said as much to everyone up to the VP level, and provided detailed recommendations (I am a Sr Dev, but in prior jobs I successfully managed dev groups of 40+ people). The response I’ve gotten has been coaching on delivery (stop being so blunt) and crickets on any actual changes.

If a $30K a week consultant came in and made the same recommendations at VP level, they’d be prized for their directness, and people would be having fires lit under them to implement most of the changes. And the actual staff would benefit as much as the company.

Would this be a software consultant or a management consultant?

Doesn't matter. Both are respected by management types, that's why they can command high wages.

Whatever it is, it doesn’t have “developer” in the title.

A huge huge part of it is just persona, profile, reputation and perception.

A fancy consultant with a laundry list of "credentials" will be automatically trusted.

When Joe Schmoe developer says the same thing it will be dismissed.

You can see a variation of this happen with books, particularly self-help books.

A nobody author writes lots of valuable stuff and people flick through it and go mehhh.

A famous self-help personality writes a pretentious 50 page book rehashing cliches (probably actually written by someone else) and give it a title like "the pink monkey that was red" and it will "blow up" because everyone talks about it.

Nothing wrong with that. That's the game, I get it.

The point is if you ignore this or don't understand it you are going to be disappointed.

> "The point is if you ignore this or don't understand it you are going to be disappointed."

You can recognise it exists whilst still being disappointed that it exists.

Someone I work with suggested "Perception is the only reality", which seems to fit here.

> You can recognise it exists whilst still being disappointed that it exists.

Yep.

To me an interesting contrast to what I said is Bitcoin.

It has legs of its own to stand on and therefore does not need to borrow credibility from the author.

Imagine if books and blog posts and movies and art work didn't have the author/creator next to it. Interesting to think how people's reactions would change.

> "Imagine if books and blog posts and movies and art work didn't have the author/creator next to it. Interesting to think how people's reactions would change."

I find this interesting too.

Generally speaking, people are drawn to creating narratives about the world around them. I'd suggest that even if the creators of art become nameless/faceless, the vacuum would get filled by a cult of personality around taste makers. For example, in the world of electronic dance music there's a high volume of music producers without public recognition. However, the DJs that play this music then become the "face" for this music, and it's their reputation which is more prominent than many of the artists making the music.

And the reason for this situation is that frankly, most management really sucks. It's not easy to be a good manager, and I wouldn't claim I would be a good one. (Like most people, I think I would be better than the people I've worked under, but that's irrelevant.)

The best thing is just to quit and move to a hopefully better company. Companies with this mentality seldom change for the better.

I think it runs just a bit too deep in the psyche for one to be able to escape it by moving to a different company.

It happens in many contexts even outside of business.

Perhaps you can escape it by making a product like a mobile app or SaaS.

It gives you a curtain to hide behind which consequently allows the judgement to be directed towards the product/service.

That could explain why everywhere I go, I experience the same thing :).

This is exactly right. This is how many companies operate, and it's why there is so little satisfaction working at most companies.

One can try to become that consultant, or one can try to go off and start their own project/product/company.

> but you've got to wonder what goes through the head of business owners who would rather pay high consultant fees than invest in extra staff and training for their in-house team, which is frequently better for the long term health of a company

For large companies, division managers are more concerned about short term goals, because that's usually what metrics are in place, but also potentially competitive landscape, etc.

Bringing in someone today who can get something done in, say, 4 months, vs going through a hiring process, or fighting to reprioritize existing projects/staff... that's a big headache. Throw a bit more money - often from a different budget than "payroll" - and 'solve' the problem.

I get your point, and am largely sympathetic to it. However, often, the people with the required skills don't want to work 24/7 for one singular employer. You lose a lot of freedom/flexibility, for starters. Often a pay cut vs 'consulting' rates. I've been out of traditional employment for so long, I'd probably not make a good employee anymore, and would have a hard time getting hired.

As an external consultant/expert on some things, you're also being paid for explicitly not being part of the 'problem'. You can ignore some of the politics that may have led to the situation you're trying to fix. The person cutting the check may be able to cut through some of the red tape and get stuff done quickly.

I've been an employee at places where it's taken a couple days just to get myself on a network and credentialed up. That's a pretty significant waste, but... amortized over the total employee cost, it doesn't seem to be seen as that big a deal.

Have you done consulting jobs where you never set foot in the office?

Yes.

> "However, often, the people with the required skills don't want to work 24/7 for one singular employer."

That's why I suggested training (which would be part of a long term solution, I agree with you that consultants have a role to play for meeting short term goals). Companies seem to undervalue training, probably because it's not business critical and there's no guarantee that a employee won't just get trained and then leave. What I think companies overlook is that an environment that gives enough resources (time and otherwise) to foster personal growth is the type of environment that breeds loyalty. Where I'm working right now, I have to fight against the grain to pick up new skills (even skills that have an almost immediate payback). Doesn't sound like a healthy work environment, does it? On the other hand, I've worked at another company where training was encouraged, which was definitely a key part of what made it a better place to work, with an added bonus of getting to work with happier, more productive colleagues. Interestingly, what formed part of the downfall of the latter was some senior management types trying to outsource as much as possible to consultants, and not for sound business reasons... let's just say that, for some people getting gigs, it's not about what they know but who they know.

I feel like you just described my office perfectly.

I wonder how common our shared situation is.

It's got to be pretty common. I run an engineering team, and have to keep the people supporting the old legacy code and product. And while I try to get them to learn new technology, it's hard to keep them distraction-free to focus on the new stuff when bugs keep pouring in on the legacy platforms (that still drive most our revenue). And so that means building either new teams or hiring consultants for new projects. And then you have to manage people feeling like they're stuck and not getting to work on the cool new stuff....