Hacker News Reader

> - Thinking Engineers don't care about reasons for doing things

This sticks out to me. I think there's a growing dichotomy in industry among engineering managers.

There are those that don't want their engineers to care about the business reasons and just be cogs, maximizing their productivity. These tend to be prevalent in the FAANGs, in my experience.

Then there are those who prioritize like you do, maximizing engineer impact. I know that I can only function in this type of organization.

I think both sides are convinced that they are right...and maybe they are...but I sure wish it were easier to identify engineering organizations by their type ahead of hire.

"but I sure wish it were easier to identify engineering organizations by their type ahead of hire."

You can make it easier before joining. During the interview process, ask one of the interviewers if they can share an example of how the organization makes decisions in a quantitative and/or qualitative way. If they don't mention a Mode/Amplitude/whatever report with user data and/or talk about some user interviews (and the concomitant report) then it's probably not a data-driven process. Or the data isn't shared beyond Leadership. And if they roll their eyes or say, "We just build what the CEO or Sales wants" then you have even more evidence that this might the kind of place where you'll just take direction and not get a clear reason.

>I think when you hear 2hrs/3hrs/etc per day, often it is the fault of the organization for:

> - Not having good business cases

> - Thinking Engineers don't care about reasons for doing things

> - Not providing distraction free blocks

> - Not sufficiently sharing rewards with the company

In your list, it seems its the company's that's often at fault. Can you explain that a bit more?

As a manager, I expect my direct reports to do the work I assign them. As a good-faith effort I will do my best to assign work that is relevant/interesting/etc. But I accept that in the real world, there is a lot of work that is often boring, repetitive (some of that is going away thanks to automation). Especially in the scientific domain, performing the same experiment over and over isolating for some factor or the other, and there is sometimes very little intellectual stimulation. I think it would be the same in engineering fields as well.

Thats a good point, which is why I was noting 3/4 criteria were met in places where I witnessed great productivity. If it isnt interesting, people should be rewarded and at least understand why they are doing something. The hedge fund, for example, was not terribly interesting for many years. But I understood the importance of the work, the drivers for it, and I got rewarded and so did everyone else.

A company or manager might say -- well continued employment is the reward. Yes or no, depends on the situation. It is common for companies to hire people and then cut benefits (less healthcare benefits, 401k matches cut, etc.) -- well then the rewards are not being shared, especially if the cuts are not universally applied.

It is also common for companies to reward unequally. For example, many companies reward salespersons or executives yet continue to tighten rewards for Engineers/Ops/Support. As a result -- quite possibly not intentionally -- you have engineers like the ones on this comment section: noting they are finding 2 or 3hrs productive time. In an ideal world, rewards should be aligned to input and required effort -- and I've seen incredibly productive Engineers at hedge funds when they realize they have massive skin in the game with huge upsides.

Finally, with regards to respect and needs. I have never seen Engineers more unproductive than once they realize that all deadlines are false deadlines -- especially when these false deadlines are constant. I think people understand real urgency and real deadlines when they are explained, not "do it because I said so."

The problem is -- even if you pay engineers, "do it because I said so" doesnt work since there is such a creative element and so much uncertainty. You end up with 8 "productive hours" full of unnecessary bug fixes and shortsighted design because people are not bought into the vision. The worst situation is when management actually things that is real productivity -- then you know it is over.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but your responses are very specific. I don't think this is the common case. I believe, the common case is that most engineering jobs are dull and boring and are not breaking new ground. Tirelessly testing software, or polishing UI or to take my workplace (vaccine r&d) performing the same set of tests/experiments/assays/etc over and over again. I'd go far as to say that you have to be self-motivated to be successful in most jobs. There is a limit to which management can coddle you.

Which organizations would you recommend?

I have found these qualities to be more about the senior manager one reports to as opposed to company-level. Some senior managers have a great way of trying to set their teams up for success with as little BS as possible. You enjoy work more, and you win. The company gets productive employees focused on real outputs, the company wins.

When interviewing, I always try to have a 30min+ conversation with the group manager and understand their biggest projects and also their most urgent tasks and see what they can provide w/r/t rationale for these items.