Stuck in Code

I wrote that blog post immediately after the conversation referred to in the first paragraph. I was very pissed off by my friend's assumption that coding was some kind of menial task (he used to be a dev some time ago) and I did very little editing (and it shows, for which, apologies. I sometimes use writing as catharsis and don't bother with polishing when I've blown off steam).

These days I would just shrug and move on, but I remember I was very irritated with someone assuming that everyone wants to be a manager and that the failure to "move on from coding" was some kind of failure.

PostScript: the person I had the conversation with("Vivek" in the post) is "Director of Innovation" at an "Offshore Development Centre" here in Bangalore these days and he is leading a "strategic initiative" to "increase corporate innovation" (In private conversation he freely admits that he is just "pushing paper and attending meetings" and that his employer is hopelessly non-innovative and bureaucratic) while I am still coding in Haskell/C all day, working mostly from home, learning new things and working with smart people.

What is worse (from his pov) I still make more money than him which drives him a bit crazy but he consoles himself with "you are a unique kind of crazy guy". We have our differences of opinion but we are still friends (I think ;-) )

Something similar happened to me during interview:

The interviewer said something like: "What are your prospects for the future?"

My response was something along the lines of coding until I die, since I love coding.

His response to my answer still baffles me to this day: "Nah, you will end up as a manager sooner or later." He said this with such a conviction, as if it was the ultimate goal of being a code monkey.

Thanks but no thanks, I think I will keep coding.

I really like this:

At ThoughtWorks, when I worked there, we had an inside joke. Every technical person would call himself "Just a Developer" and there weren't any hierarchies among developers except ones of peer acknowledged competence

Maybe management types see code as something you do for someone else, i.e. a task that is delegated to a worker. They might lack the capacity to see any joy in creating something. They don't understand how much fun it can be to code and create. (Pure) managers create only indirectly.

"The programmer, like the poet, works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination. […] Yet the program construct, unlike the poet's words, is real in the sense that it moves and works, producing visible outputs separate from the construct itself. […] The magic of myth and legend has come true in our time. One types the correct incantation on a keyboard, and a display screen comes to life, showing things that never were nor could be." -- Fred Brooks

Definitely not just an Indian problem.

Frighteningly, quite a number of people emerge from CS degrees with the idea that they need to absolutely minimize the time they spend programming and structure their careers to rise into management as quickly as possible.

This is sometimes carried to ridiculous extremes. I have seen a situation where a proto-manager type with specific experience with a given product delegated a critical, time-sensitive bug fix to a 10x less effective person (with very little specific expertise in the area). This was done largely in order so that the proto-manager didn't get accused of being an 'individual contributor'. Needless to say it didn't go well for anyone involved: company, customer or either of the people involved.

This blog post touches on so much!

First off, I think it's very interesting that the blogger characterized the assumption of promotion to be a very Indian/Asian thing, because it's absolutely something that, in America, is considered a very American thing! The whole "Peter Principle" concept of being "promoted to incompetence" is lamentably American, and it certainly shows itself in things like The Office, which began in the UK, too.

The part about being "just a developer" at ThoughtWorks also seems very, very similar to the corporate culture at W. L. Gore and Associates[1], which Malcolm Gladwell discussed in The Tipping Point. At W. L. Gore, everyone is assigned the title of "Associate," and that's it. Same deal!

The developer/manager transition has always fascinated and confused me. I feel like the term "manager" is overloaded. To the extent that a manager's responsibilities are to shield his team from corporate politics, to make sure the code they're working on is solving the right problem, and to keep the dev team happy, I would say that going from developer to manager should not be a vertical move, but a lateral one. Writing code and managing a team of coders have nothing to do with each other.

On the other hand, the managerial position that I would describe as lead developer feels like a more appropriate "next step." A lead developer might not write much code (which is similar to a "manager"), and a lead developer might be called upon to evaluate and discuss business requirements (which is similar to a "manager"), but his concern is the technical repercussions of the decisions made in that space, not the political ones.

I'm sure that many people with far more experience have written much clearer explanations of this pattern, but it's what I have seen so far.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates

I was asked a few years ago if I wanted to climb up the corporate ladder and become a manager. My answer was kind of like this: "Yes, but no. I think it would be more useful to promote myself and X to technical leads (sort of having various people with a pseudo CTO position), keep us doing what we love, while steering a project based on the requirements. I want to lead the projects, I want the bigger paycheck, I want the extra responsibility; however, I want to keep coding and architecting solutions... I do NOT want to push paper around."

This days the "technical managers" are needed less (of course there are exceptions to this rule) and less. You need a technical lead that can influence projects, make decisions based on experience, and act as a link between the developers and businessmen. Nowadays, I don't code all day as I also have some managerial responsibilities, but the bulk (say 80% ~ 90% of the time) I'm stuck in Vim pushing lines of code. I find that 10% ~ 20% of my time can be devoted to actual managing and it's more than enough.

Tip for the businessmen: Don't assume you need a bunch of managers to steer your project into blissful completion, you might very well get your best and most respected senior developer and ask him to act as a link between the task-force and the executives. You keep your best men coding or administering technology, keeping their morale high (don't underestimate having your cake and eating it too), and save money on hiring a paper pusher who is probably going to be a nuisance to the ecosystem.

NOT just an Indian problem.

Just my personal experience, but seems to me like the career growth options for coders, while staying technical are more open in product-oriented companies (or starting your own products), than in consulting/outsourcing companies, where project management is seen more valuable by both the company and their clients.

Either that, or you have to go into technical pre-sales, but that's a different story. In the consulting/outsourcing case, anyway, it's about what the company can get its clients to pay for, and many just don't know any better.

I hate this mindset, especially because good coders are rare. So why would we want them to stop coding?

I hope one day people will dread being called into their manager's office to be told that "I'm sorry, but you just can't code; you'll have to take up an administrative position".

> People who work with their hands (or their keyboards) are often considered "inferior".

I wonder if the perception is true in many cultures.