
Career Monogamy: The Awkward Tech Sin of Longevity - gukov
https://nemhouse.com/career-monogamy-the-awkward-tech-sin-of-longevity-59ac7fe8de47
======
nunez
There is a difference being doing the same job for 20 years and being at the
same place for 20 years.

If you're doing different things within the same company every few years, and
taking increasingly more challenging and essential roles, then employers will
likely look very favourably upon that because having that progression shows
that you will likely produce a lot of value for them.

Why? With the exception of a few niche domains (scientific research, pharma,
etc), it doesn't take very many years to master a domain. The problem set can
only get so varied and complex. In fact, it's quite the opposite; problems
tend to get less complicated over time as they get more automated/well known.
Easier to solve == cheaper to hire for.

Most people that have been with a "young" company for 20 years that hasn't
turned itself over and are high value will likely have large networks and will
be somewhat well known by dint of having closer ties with the founding/senior
leadership.

So if you're doing the same rote job for n years, and the costs of hiring
someone to replace you and train them are greater than the costs of keeping
you, then you are vulnerable to "redundancy." While there is NOTHING WRONG
with wanting to do the same thing forever and prioritize other things, this is
the risk that comes with that. (I personally have no idea how people achieve
that; there is so much opportunity in the world to make money, and being
restricted by money sucks).

This was true of cotton millers, milkmen, switchboard operators, and is still
true for developers and operators.

~~~
js8
> taking increasingly more challenging and essential roles

What is a "more essential" role? Higher in the company hierarchy? I would bet
that a guy who knows how to fix 20 year old system, behind the scenes and
without fanfares, is probably more essential for your business, than just
another suit talking bullshit like he did in his last gig.

The problem is right here - there is no "essential". There is only work that
needs to be done. It's always better to have somebody who has deep knowledge
of the problem to do the job. And it takes time to get that knowledge.

There are no shortcuts, like, doing "high-level" things. No, you actually suck
at your job, because you have superficial understanding, you just reframed so
it wouldn't be obvious.

I am not against people doing high-level things. What I am saying is that
being tricked into thinking that this is somewhat more important, though, is
at the core of this stupidity. It isn't more important, it's a trade-off.

~~~
watwut
In a company I work for the more essential role would be someone responsible
for either larger chunk of work or more important chunk of work.

Think analyst solely responsible for communication with customer and giving
tasks to multiple programmers. Think programmer being told "we need this new
module" along with phone call to contact person in customer company being
trusted that new module happen and questions will be asked and no customer
will be offended in the process. It might mean being assigned to tasks that
are really important as opposed to tasks that are less important.

There is more critical and less critical (essential) work. Who gets which one
depends on trust a lot. It is not so much about deep knowledge of some tech,
although that one play the role. Tech is easily learnable. Whether you are
able to makes sense of vague customer, whether you can work without having
hand holded is more of factor.

~~~
js8
That's not a very realistic example. In the real world, the communication with
analyst goes both ways - the programmers also have to tell him what is
feasible and what is not.

The problem with your argument is that you see a person "making" the
decisions, and somehow you decided that he is the important guy. But if he is
not a complete idiot, he is not making the decisions alone in the dark, but
always goes to the more experienced (with the technology) people to get their
opinion.

Of course there is important and less important work. But this has nothing to
do with an importance of a job or profession, which is an ill-posed question
to begin with.

And regarding responsibility.. I believe it's mostly status game again. If you
don't have anything to lose, you don't have "more responsibility". A doctor or
nurse, who can kill a patient and go to prison for that, has responsibility. A
manager who will at worst lose the extra money and social status he gained for
"having more responsibility" doesn't actually have any more responsibility -
because he has in fact nothing to lose compared to what he had before.

~~~
watwut
It was real world example and had nothing to do with making decisions.

> That's not a very realistic example. In the real world, the communication
> with analyst goes both ways - the programmers also have to tell him what is
> feasible and what is not.

Yes and many people have problem to handle that. Also, programmers sometimes
lie. But mostly, you go visit customer and three people there tell you
completely contradictory requirements. And they hate each other and
occasionally lie. Or more likely, give you requirements that make no sense,
you have to ask right questions and push them right directions. The technology
is not the issue there, making sense of vague requirements and creating
consistent goal is. It is harder to replace such person then css guy. Of
course it is immensely important how software looks like, but that skill is
easier to measure during interview.

But as I told, the real difference is how much supervision you need, how
likely you are to create organizational mess and so on.

A single programmer can not do all that much damage and there are processes to
mitigate that risk. The point of contact can make a lot of damage. That is why
it is more essential - your failure has bigger consequences for the whole
project/company.

> And regarding responsibility.. I believe it's mostly status game again.

It is not. Responsibility is not about being punished nor height of that
punishment. It is about being reliable without there being the need for threat
of punishment over your head. If you don't work unless there is daily standup
to report progress at, then you can not be trusted with larger more important
tasks - no matter how genius you are.

If I am manager and tell you "this is half written requirements and the phone
number" can she or he just go back to the office expecting you to
communicate/do the rest? Or does he/she needs to visit you every week and ask
you right questions and remind you to send important mails? That is the
responsibility and that is what many people fail at.

~~~
js8
All your arguments are also true in the reverse. It's not like analysts give
programmers a proof that the work they should do is without contradictions.
There are also many decisions that programmers make which actually do have big
impact, although nobody really notices because there is no one to understand.

> But as I told, the real difference is how much supervision you need, how
> likely you are to create organizational mess and so on.

Yeah, but this is true for any skill. Anybody who has skill doesn't need
supervision. It does not by itself prove that some role has "bigger impact".

> Responsibility is not about being punished nor height of that punishment.

I am talking about "having responsibility", you're talking about "being
responsible". Those are two different things.

------
watwut
> "These were the folks who were experts at knowing how to run the business
> exactly as it was, and fought change like antibodies repelling a toxic
> substance. They would use their longevity to shout down new ideas because
> they had already been attempted and failed, even if the attempts had come
> years earlier with different people and circumstances."

If staying long in your company makes this to people, the issue is not
longevity vs job hopping. It is that company management that rewards the above
behavior. The people who stayed longer are the ones acculturated - if they are
stagnating then it means you reward stagnation. If your people needs to leave
in two years or they become passive, then maybe you should stop punishing
active people.

> "He identified a prevalent mindset with employees who were working more to
> secure their jobs than to take the risks necessary to forge a bright
> future."

I do not know what he means by risk. Learning new things is not risky.
Employee does not need to be personally in risk if he/she works on project
with low chance of success. People lately use the word risk a.) as it would be
something inherently good which it is not b.) in relation to behavior that
puts you in no danger.

> "These were the folks who would listen intently at employee meetings for the
> names of the projects or products that executives mentioned, and then
> eagerly try to find safe passage aboard what they now perceived to be safe
> areas of the company."

What exactly are "unsafe" areas of the company, what will happen to me if I
work there? And wouldn't it a good idea to make working there less risky if
that is what you want from your employees?

~~~
dagw
_What exactly are "unsafe" areas of the company_

Areas that don't have the general support of the higher ups in the company.
Areas that are seen as unimportant or a burden. Areas which have a reputation
for not delivering

 _what will happen to me if I work there?_

You'll get passed up for promotions, raises and bonuses. You might also find
yourself 'marked' and have a hard time moving to other parts of the company.

------
nsxwolf
I'm prone to long stints. My problem is that I'm never able to find jobs that
pay more, and I am not able to identify real opportunities for advancement at
other firms. Every dev job sounds exactly the same, and everyone spews the
same old we're so awesome come work for us bullshit.

So jumping ship seems worse than taking a risk - it's more like a total
gamble.

~~~
slackingoff2017
I've found the same, it is a total gamble. Most companies are equally good at
selling you bullshit. I'm at a good place now but below the salary I want.

I'm just going to jump every year or two until I'm in top 10% of engineer
salary in my area. Then I'll sit back and become a lifer.

It's too bad nobody gives decent raises, it's most of the reason young devs
jump from job to job. People have told me it doesn't work but every time I've
jumped I've gotten at least 10% more. One time I got offered 20% on the spot
to not leave and I said no because I had a job lined up for 50% more.

~~~
otterley
In my experience, you don't get meaningful raises from an employer without
asking for one, and making a good case for it.

For example, one year I went and interviewed at a number of different
companies, got some offers that were significantly higher than what I was
currently making, then went to my manager and made the case based on the
highest offer I received. At the same time, I made it clear that I liked my
current job and didn't want to leave.

What have you done already in this area?

~~~
slackingoff2017
If you have to go out and get offers why not just take another job? It's
basically doing the same amount of work but at least with a new job you might
get a title change.

~~~
dagw
_why not just take another job?_

Having done the same thing, I didn't automatically take the other job because
I liked the job I had. I liked the people, I liked the challenges and I liked
the domain, all I didn't like was the salary. In my case they ended up meeting
me about halfway between my current salary and the best offer I'd received,
and I was happy to take it since that job with the better offer didn't sound
as interesting.

------
pfarnsworth
One of my friends is caught in a similar trap. He has been at the same company
for 20 years, and his skills have degraded completely. He is a middle manager
and he's been interviewing for the past year with zero success. The technology
he has been working with is so out of date, no one is willing to give him a
chance, and frankly, if I came across his resume, neither would I.

He is the product of getting far too comfortable early on, and being afraid of
change. Once you let that sink in, then you get stuck and it becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy. I don't see him getting another job soon, and if he gets
laid off, I think he's seriously fucked.

Meanwhile in 27 years, I've had over 10 jobs. I have no problems learning new
technology, or jumping into a codebase and making code fixes the first day. I
have a long trail of friends from all of my previous companies that I could
call up and go for lunch with that day, and I still feel energetic about
coding and learning the newest and latest. But I haven't been there long
enough to effect change the way other long-timers have, and hence why I'm
still a programmer as opposed to a tech lead or architect, etc.

~~~
jeremyjh
I think there is a difference between longevity and stagnation. You are
describing stagnation, but I don't think that is what the SA is about. When
people see the former, they may assume the latter. This is understandable -
people make all kinds of simplistic generalizations to reduce cognitive load
but like any bias it is one you should be mindful of.

In hindsight I see longevity as a mistake - because this bias exists and it
limits opportunity even when misapplied. Also I find it does take more work -
or at least more attention - to stay current when you aren't being pressured
by your job.

~~~
goldleader71
I am 20+ years in and am just realizing the truth of this perception. I knew
that it was more and more acceptable to move around, but missed the memo that
staying put is more and more unacceptable. If no change is 1 and constant
change is 10, I am probably a 6. This is a wake up call to pick up more and
more newer things. The trick is to balance staying relevant with chasing the
shiny object and changing just for the sake of change. Change is only good if
it is better.

~~~
sbov
It can be difficult to quantify "better". It is easier to quantify
"different". If the goal is to truly learn, try the things most different from
what you already know first. Even if it's not strictly better, it will be
different, and it will open your mind to different ways to view problems.

------
js8
Capitalist, so called "meritocratic", system doesn't actually value education
or knowledge, it values ability to convince other people about being educated
or having knowledge.

There is of course nothing wrong with doing one thing for years. Japanese
built a successful, innovative economy just around that.

It's just another form of self-deception. You have 1 year in 20 different
skills, therefore _sure_ you must be more productive than the human that has
20 years in one skill.

Guess what - likely not.

~~~
golergka
> Capitalist, so called "meritocratic"

And again, HN continues to connect all the ills of the society to that
mythical 'capitalsim'.

Do you have any knowledge, for example, of how were promotions and salary
raises distributed on a typical soviet factory?

Edit: since HN' genius anti-spam system prevents me from posting new comments
after a couple of downvotes, I will use this comment to reply instead. (If
you're annoyed at this, welcome to the club).

> You shouldn't prop an utterly corrupt system built by perverting an
> impossible fantasy as proof that we can't do better.

Let's put aside the argument that "USSR wasn't communist/socialist" (which is
bullshit, but for different reasons). Let's imagine that USSR was, actually,
something else - because it sure as hell wasn't capitalism.

From that, we can infer that the same problem with promotion and corruption
happened in vastly different economic and social systems, and, therefore, is
not specific nor especially connected to the idea of capitalism.

> I am not in any way related to HN (I am just a regular user), but it's a
> stab at the claim of some that there is "meritocracy", or that these things
> are somehow valued, when in fact, they are not.

Being a user makes you related to HN in a sense that you make up HN community
- which is exactly what I was referring to.

> In many ways, the societies were less meritocratic, and in some ways more
> equal

They certainly were - that's exactly what I hate about them and why I embrace
capitalism instead.

~~~
js8
> And again, HN continues to connect all the ills of the society to that
> mythical 'capitalsim'.

I am not in any way related to HN (I am just a regular user), but it's a stab
at the claim of some that there is "meritocracy", or that these things are
somehow valued, when in fact, they are not.

Can't speak for Soviet, but I can somewhat speak for communist Czechoslovakia.
In many ways, the societies were less meritocratic, and in some ways more
equal. I like to say that whatever was good about communist regime (you would
find couple things) was mostly copied from the West in the 50s and 60s. For
example, research institutions where there was a big freedom to spend time on
research, without being constrained too much by grants and academic
performance. (Actually the similar thing was true in the industry, because of
the essentially lifetime employment.) Some used it to do good research, some
used it to slack off, sure. But it certainly provided somewhat an option to
spent a lifetime in one field only, if we return to the topic of the article.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
On one side, meritocracy is overstated. Low social mobility being the proof:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-
economic_mobility_in_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-
economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png)

On the the other hand, increased meritocracy is double edged sword, at least
depending on what really "merit" is.

~~~
js8
I eventually concluded that people don't actually want meritocracy. They just
use the word when it happens to suit them.

For example, no one would want to have their salary decreased based on current
performance. Yet it would be meritocratic. A true meritocracy would be
perceived by most people as a cold psychopathic dystopia.

------
harshaw
As someone who has been in many startups over my career so far, your journey
sounds appealing in many ways.

Many of the best people I know have been at Amazon or Google for years.

------
StavrosK
> A slap to the face is always preferable to a knife in the back.

Offtopic, but I'd prefer a slap to the back than a knife to the face. It's
more about slap vs knife than about back to face.

~~~
foobarchu
It's not about either, it's about the motive behind the well known idioms. One
implies being frank and upfront, while the other implies being secretive and
bad surprises. The adjectives and nouns involved aren't really relevant.

~~~
bostonvaulter2
But I could argue that in corporate politics a knife to the back is more
common than a slap to the face. At least it seems that way.

------
jaredsohn
A nit on the title's terminology: I think this article is more about the long-
term aspect than the monogamy. I think monogamy in career terms would be not
taking on a job on the side; many job hoppers are serially monogamous.

------
mavelikara
Off topic, but here is an obituary of Hans Grande -
[https://haas.berkeley.edu/groups/pubs/calbusiness/winter2007...](https://haas.berkeley.edu/groups/pubs/calbusiness/winter2007/alumni06.html).
RIP.

------
Animats
This was written by the guy who turned Adobe from a company that made useful
retail software into a money-grubbing subscription operation where everything
costs forever and is slaved to Master Control. And he's proud of that.

~~~
tudorconstantin
You say it like it's a bad thing to find ways to make your employer more
profitable in the long term.

Adobe is not a non-profit organization. Profits are the sole reason of their
existence.

If you think their products are too expensive, don't buy them. It's not like
there's some human right saying that "everybody must be provided access to
professionally grade design and publishing software".

PS: I'm not affiliated with Afobe in any way. Besides pdf readers I don't know
of using any of their software anymore (not even flash, because I have the
flash plugins disabled in my browsers)

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> Adobe is not a non-profit organization. Profits are the sole reason of their
> existence.

[http://www.adobe.com/corporate-
responsibility.html](http://www.adobe.com/corporate-responsibility.html) says
otherwise. Either the company is not following what they preach or they are
"bending the truth" in that page. Both options are not good.

