Product management's job is not to explain engineering. Engineering does not work for product management. Product's job is to figure out what to build by working with all stakeholders and customer input.
Hi! Author here - that's actually...kinda the point.
The good treatment you mentioned doesn't organically happen. Your leaders have to fight for it and maintain it. And eng leaders...just aren't in the fight right now.
If good eng leaders actually stepped up and brought the ethos of enabling creativity, autonomy, and well-being to the rest of the org, everyone would be in a better place.
That point did not come through AT ALL. Your article reads like the exact opposite - it has nothing about encouraging engineering leaders to spread humane work environments to other departments or even a suggestion that people deserve it. You called engineers "spoiled rotten".
"Other functions would do well to bring the same kind of focus on enabling productivity, happiness, and autonomy to their workers. In fact, CTOs-turned-CEOs I know tend to be some of the most kind, creative, and abundance-minded leaders I’ve ever had the pleasure to work with. They have an inherent understanding on the importance of culture and making people feel valued."
OP gave you valuable feedback on how your point is not getting across. Should you edit, or should you lol and snark is a personal choice for you to make. But OP is just trying to help you.
I read the article and I mentioned the positive part tacked on at the end and out of place with the rest of the article.
As I originally responded to you, if your goal was to convey that everyone should treat their employees well then that didn't come through for me. Frankly, writing about how spoiled and naive people are and how the time for wasteful fun is at an end is a weird structure if your intended point was that this is a good thing we need more of.
> The structured abuse makes the short blips of "I'm trying to help you" feel hollow and tacked on in response to someone's feedback on an early draft.
I think we're talking past eachother. The entire point here is not about the objective reality of how well your engineering team is doing - I couldn't possibly know enough to make that call.
The point is that engineering leaders (not ICs, but leadership responsible for communicating their teams' success) need to be actively shaping this narrative. And to do that, they need to be aware of the negative stereotypes and pre-existing perceptions that are there already. You can't just walk in and demand better treatment, you need to understand how you're perceived, read the room, and structure your strategy accordingly. Other CXOs all do this - they know that they are working against stereotypes and norms so they actively structure their narrative to help reflect what's actually happening (ex: marketing execs tend to de-emphasize the creative parts of their job, because they don't want to be seen as profligate spenders who throw money around for vague concepts like "awareness").
As much as it might hurt to confront the fact that some people have the wrong idea about you, it's your literal job as an executive.
And if you're an IC, you should be demanding this of your tech leaders. THEM neglecting this could cost YOU your job.
Author here! Came when I saw my Substack blowing up.
This isn't to imply that engineers are universally treated well, but that RELATIVE to other workers, they held far more bargaining power and faced better working conditions across the board. Most companies outside of the tech bubble don't even have the concept of unlimited PTO.
There's probably something broader to be said re: this point on bargaining power of workers in general, but this is above my pay grade.
The spirit of what you're saying is correct, and you just need to find better examples.
More than half of anyone working on a tech company is not an engineer. So don't say "engineers get better treatment than other workers", just any employee in tech.
And afaik the data on companies that have unlimited PTO is that their employees actually take LESS time off. So it looks good on paper, but in effect does the opposite.
Still, you're right, tech workers have it easy compared to most other jobs, including a lot of other office workers (mostly due to better pay and benefits)
>> This isn't to imply that engineers are universally treated well, but that RELATIVE to other workers, they held far more bargaining power and faced better working conditions across the board. Most companies outside of the tech bubble don't even have the concept of unlimited PTO.
One might also argue that US residents disagree with you so much that they arent applying to tech jobs in sufficient quanities. The pay and benefits are not worth it when compared to the instability, stress, "benefits", and chaos -- and instead we hire foreigners who are more desperate for the work, and thus willing to work for perks like "Unlimited PTO".
It isnt like there arent smart people in the US who can do these jobs, its more that the smart people go to jobs with real benefits and real perks -- cushy jobs on Wall St or senior management or government jobs where you dont have to do anything.
I'd actually really like to believe that what you've written is true. If hundreds and thousands of tech workers were empowered toliterally quit the workforce if their higher needs weren't met, I'd be DELIGHTED.
But the reality is that the jobs with "real perks" are really hard to get and few and far between. They require powerful networks, timing, and luck. Most of the folks I know who were impacted by the recent layoffs just want a place where they can make a good living and feel appreciated.
Are bargaining power and working conditions better or different? For example, school teachers have lower pay but they also have substantially more time off than I ever will.
There are several nurses in my extended family, and they frequently work 3 crazy days and then are off for the next 4 days. There is no way I could routinely take off 4 days in a week as a software dev. The flip side is the 3 days they work are likely even more stressful than my job, since I don't run the risk of accidentally killing someone.
I think you've written an excellent article, and also that you would be well served by ignoring the comments on it.
Some people here feel you've called them entitled. I think you made a useful nuanced point about how engineering looks to others, but the people who feel insulted don't see it that way and some of them are going to be quite harsh about it.
Those who interpret your article as an attack are not going to be swayed, so I'm just here to say you have my respect if you choose to disengage.
Yeah, you are missing the point. Yes, tech are treated better than garbage workers but the question is about the specific concept of "unlimited" PTO.
The "unlimited" is a anti-benefit. Just like free dry-cleaning at the office. Besides the tax implications others have mentioned, there is the mental loss aversion. People who used to have 4 weeks of vacation that are use it or lose it would always take every single day.
Making it unlimited means that in practice, engineers take less than what they used to get because the portal doesn't list how many days they have left. At my current job, a co-worker was questioned heavily about why he needed to take more than 4 weeks vacation despite the fact we have "unlimited". (2 of the weeks he used were because he moved cross country so not an every year kind of event or abuse).
Buddy...the point is really, really not unlimited PTO.
NO ONE treated workers at scale like Google did in earlier decades. It was literally wild and unprecedented.
Engineers for many decades had unprecedented job mobility and bargaining power. Certainly not a bad thing in and of itself, but it's an outlier experience that's ending.
Unfortunately, companies don't organically and spontaneously decide to treat their workers well. Leaders need to fight for it...and most engineering leaders just aren't positioned to right now.
You seem to be missing a lot of data points. From Microsoft to even Jack Welch's GE, absolutely everyone who was competitive was trying to butter up talent.
And then you affirm things such as "unprecedented job mobility", for which citation is sorely needed, and close it with "it's ending", though there is absolutely no evidence for it.
It seems to me that you are trying to ignite some flames, but your points are very thin on data.
