Some Guy (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jesus_jeff) wrote,@ 2008-03-21 12:09:00 |
|
Who is the boss of you?
Since none of you reading this are programmers, I can freely bash programmer idol Paul Graham without getting flamed.
Paul's writings are generally more philosophical than technical, are fairly well thought out, and usually make some good point. However they typically take a somewhat extreme viewpoint which can be summarized as "The way I do things is the only right way, and any other way is a waste of time."
His latest essay, "You weren't meant to have a boss" displays this viewpoint quite well. His argument is that people, and in particular programmers, have evolved to work best semi-independently in small groups, and that large corporate structure by necessity removes the remotest possibility of working independently, and the only way to lead a fulfilling existence is to start your own company and be constantly creating new things.
As usual, much of what he says rings true, although overstated. Hierarchical organizations do have a tendency to displace individual initiative with corporate dronedom in an amount proportional to the size of the entire organization. People are at their most creative individually or in very small groups.
However, his key - unstated - point is that this maximum freedom, maximum creativity mode of operation is necessarily good, necessarily good for everyone (or at least for all programmers), and not living this way is unnatural and stifling and we should just feel sorry for them. Boo fucking hoo for me.
Maybe not everyone is meant to be creative. Maybe there are some quite skilled programmers that are really good at realizing ideas and putting theory into practice but maybe aren't so good at coming up with new ideas or new theories. Or they're just not interested in doing so. Maybe some people are uncomfortable with risk. Or they choose to express their creativity in different ways. In prehistoric hunter-gather tribes I'm sure there was the flamboyant hunter who was the best at jumping from tree to tree and enjoyed the art of the hunt and was really good at it (right up until the day he got gored by a woolly mammoth - really, what was he thinking??) He was creative, living free, expressing himself, realizing his potential. But that doesn't make him any better, any more important, than the guy who stayed back at the camp cooking up the gamey bits the hunter brought back into a nice yummy stew, or the womenfolk who patched up his wounds after his hunt, or anyone else. Point is, different people do different things well, and the reason society works is that we understand that we are better off working together at the things we do best.
Yes, there is something to be learned by trying new things. A well-known piece of managing advice is to delegate the things you're good at, so you can get better at the things you aren't good at. But if that's not what you want to do, that's ok too.
The way I see it, you should be doing what makes you happy. If you want to start your own company and that would make you happy, go for it. (If there's something I can do to help, or if you think I'd make a valuable part of your team, drop me a line.) If you'd be happier working for UltraCorp because you aren't worrying about being able to pay your electric bill next month, that's fine too. And this works both ways - if you're not happy at UltraCo because of the stifling atmosphere and you are longing to do your own thing, then quit and do your own thing (and you're not as trapped as you think you are.) If you founded your own company and are being incredibly creative and productive but are not happy doing it, then get out - realizing your potential as a programmer is not the be-all end-all of existence. (OT: is there a lyrics or tab site anymore that doesn't suck?)
One last thing - Paul says "a programmer working as programmers are meant to is always making new things." This is like a gardener who only plants new things, but never weeds. Who cares that the old stuff is crap, look, here's new stuff! Jamie Zawinski (jwz), another well-known and admired programmer (and who I think is more deserving of the admiration, not least because he is arrogant enough to quote an anonymous slashdot user who called his writings a mass of 'self-righteous bullshit") calls this the Cascade of attention-deficit teenager model of programming. And I think he's got it right. Programming - or whatever we happen to choose to do, be it painting, music, bricklaying, sitting in a bar drinking, or whatever - has its fun parts and its not-so-fun parts. We can't just take the former and forget about the latter and claim to be doing the whole thing. New does not equal better, and it especially doesn't when it goes hand-in-hand with incomplete.
"Yay, I founded my own company, I'm wild and free!" Great, now finish the job, and don't just leave a trail of inspired, half-finished crap in your wake before quitting that and going on to the next "wild and free" thing.
Ok, so my arguments aren't completely well-thought-out, coherent, bla bla bla. When you shoot from the hip, sometimes you end up with a sucking chest wound. (And yes I realize that metaphor makes no sense. See "shooting from the hip.")
Since none of you reading this are programmers, I can freely bash programmer idol Paul Graham without getting flamed.
Paul's writings are generally more philosophical than technical, are fairly well thought out, and usually make some good point. However they typically take a somewhat extreme viewpoint which can be summarized as "The way I do things is the only right way, and any other way is a waste of time."
His latest essay, "You weren't meant to have a boss" displays this viewpoint quite well. His argument is that people, and in particular programmers, have evolved to work best semi-independently in small groups, and that large corporate structure by necessity removes the remotest possibility of working independently, and the only way to lead a fulfilling existence is to start your own company and be constantly creating new things.
As usual, much of what he says rings true, although overstated. Hierarchical organizations do have a tendency to displace individual initiative with corporate dronedom in an amount proportional to the size of the entire organization. People are at their most creative individually or in very small groups.
However, his key - unstated - point is that this maximum freedom, maximum creativity mode of operation is necessarily good, necessarily good for everyone (or at least for all programmers), and not living this way is unnatural and stifling and we should just feel sorry for them. Boo fucking hoo for me.
Maybe not everyone is meant to be creative. Maybe there are some quite skilled programmers that are really good at realizing ideas and putting theory into practice but maybe aren't so good at coming up with new ideas or new theories. Or they're just not interested in doing so. Maybe some people are uncomfortable with risk. Or they choose to express their creativity in different ways. In prehistoric hunter-gather tribes I'm sure there was the flamboyant hunter who was the best at jumping from tree to tree and enjoyed the art of the hunt and was really good at it (right up until the day he got gored by a woolly mammoth - really, what was he thinking??) He was creative, living free, expressing himself, realizing his potential. But that doesn't make him any better, any more important, than the guy who stayed back at the camp cooking up the gamey bits the hunter brought back into a nice yummy stew, or the womenfolk who patched up his wounds after his hunt, or anyone else. Point is, different people do different things well, and the reason society works is that we understand that we are better off working together at the things we do best.
Yes, there is something to be learned by trying new things. A well-known piece of managing advice is to delegate the things you're good at, so you can get better at the things you aren't good at. But if that's not what you want to do, that's ok too.
The way I see it, you should be doing what makes you happy. If you want to start your own company and that would make you happy, go for it. (If there's something I can do to help, or if you think I'd make a valuable part of your team, drop me a line.) If you'd be happier working for UltraCorp because you aren't worrying about being able to pay your electric bill next month, that's fine too. And this works both ways - if you're not happy at UltraCo because of the stifling atmosphere and you are longing to do your own thing, then quit and do your own thing (and you're not as trapped as you think you are.) If you founded your own company and are being incredibly creative and productive but are not happy doing it, then get out - realizing your potential as a programmer is not the be-all end-all of existence. (OT: is there a lyrics or tab site anymore that doesn't suck?)
One last thing - Paul says "a programmer working as programmers are meant to is always making new things." This is like a gardener who only plants new things, but never weeds. Who cares that the old stuff is crap, look, here's new stuff! Jamie Zawinski (
jwz), another well-known and admired programmer (and who I think is more deserving of the admiration, not least because he is arrogant enough to quote an anonymous slashdot user who called his writings a mass of 'self-righteous bullshit") calls this the Cascade of attention-deficit teenager model of programming. And I think he's got it right. Programming - or whatever we happen to choose to do, be it painting, music, bricklaying, sitting in a bar drinking, or whatever - has its fun parts and its not-so-fun parts. We can't just take the former and forget about the latter and claim to be doing the whole thing. New does not equal better, and it especially doesn't when it goes hand-in-hand with incomplete. "Yay, I founded my own company, I'm wild and free!" Great, now finish the job, and don't just leave a trail of inspired, half-finished crap in your wake before quitting that and going on to the next "wild and free" thing.
Ok, so my arguments aren't completely well-thought-out, coherent, bla bla bla. When you shoot from the hip, sometimes you end up with a sucking chest wound. (And yes I realize that metaphor makes no sense. See "shooting from the hip.")
