you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 93 points 9 months ago (30 children)

The fact they had to do this to earn a promotion is an institutional problem. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    the player can always choose not to play, though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    It's a big company. Someone's going to play.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    No. That putting the onus of change on individuals is a losing proposition. The incentives have to change or no number of good people will fix it. I hear the French have had very effective solutions in the past.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    You seem to believe that I think it a justification for evil. I do not, people should not do such things and they are shitty people for doing them.

    I'm saying that the idea of some good people doing the right thing fixing the problem is naive and doomed to failure and a real solution to the problem has to be bigger than the lazy "just no one be evil" proposition you seem into to champion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    My mistake. I believed you to be proposing a solution to the evil proposed. Not idly judging people with no meaningful contribution toward making things better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I'm curious how you'd characterize yourself then

    It's not a meaningful contribution. Judging someone in person, sure. Judging someone when you have a platform people pay attention to, yeah. Random comment on Lemmy? No one gives a shit. I fully recognize my own pointlessness in all this, especially this far down in the comments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    hate the game.

    Game rules: You want a promotion? Make something cool, improve something while using approaches that will show that you deserve a higher position and, therefore, a bigger salary.

    Player: (Lies and creates shit that is even worse than the initial situation.)

    Lemmy: Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    You are contradicting yourself. If writing bullshit and making things worse gets you a better career position

    You want a promotion? Make something cool, improve something while using approaches that will show that you deserve a higher position and, therefore, a bigger salary

    Is not the rule of the game. Sell your story to your superiors is the rule of the game, that's the real metric, the the thing that really matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    You are contradicting yourself.

    Do you want me to present you with a definition of "lie"? I believe you don't understand the phrase "Lies and creates shit".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    They built something worse and we're still promoted for it despite it being demonstrably worse. Where's the lie? They described something complex and techy sounding, did it, and got the promotion anyway regardless of the actual results, proving the results didn't matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    So you want the manager to be cleverer than the engineer in engineering, so the manager would be able to detect a deliberate lie from the engineer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Yes, but more competent, not cleverer. Some managers aren't fit to be in IT.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    You expect a manager to be more competent in engineering than an engineer? You expect the manager to always expect a lie from an engineer and recheck any data received from the engineer?

    Well, we have very different ideas about how engineers and managers work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Technical managers exist. Yes, it's a manager's responsibility to understand the field he's working in. He doesn't need to be a more skilled engineer, but he needs to understand what his/her people are saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    but he needs to understand what his/her people are saying.

    It isn't enough to detect deliberate lies from an engineer like in this case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    There are ways to know. Did the manager ask for proof of concept? Asked for performance tests of the update and compared it to existing/baseline?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Did the manager ask

    How can I know? Plus engineer could easily lie as he did it right from the start.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Of course don't just ask the engineer. Any piece of code written by the engineer should ultimately be tested by a separate testing team before getting pushed to production. Ideally you have a performance and regression testing team that would help evaluate the changes being introduced and how it compares with the existing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    I'd expect a manager to be able to determine that testing data for the new process is showing it is worse than the previous system it replaced, and NOT promote that person, at the very least ...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    But that isn't the game rule, now is it?

    The rule is more: convince the c-suite that you deserve a promotion by any means necessary. Even if you have to make things up.

    This is the difference between RAW and RAI.

  • source
  • parent