Do Good Programmers Need Agents? 215
braindrainbahrain writes: A rock star needs an agent, so maybe a rock star programmer needs one, too. As described in The New Yorker, a talent agency called 10x, which got started in the music business, is not your typical head hunter/recruiter agency. "The company's name comes from the idea, well established in the tech world, that the very best programmers are superstars, capable of achieving ten times the productivity of their merely competent colleagues." The writer talks with a number of programmers using agents to find work, who generally seem pleased with it, though the article has viewpoints from skeptics as well.
Here's the deal (Score:5, Interesting)
The value of an agent to me is the difference between what I can get and what the agent can get, minus the amount the agent skims off the top. The worse I am at negotiating, the larger the difference is... but the greater the amount the agent skims off the top. Most likely outcome: the agent, whose entire compensation is based on separating me from as much cash as possible, manages to take more than that difference and I get screwed while thinking I got a good deal.
Re:Here's the deal (Score:4, Interesting)
Generally right.
There's a bit of benefit on the "I don't want to have to do that crap" or "I don't know the right person to talk to but they do" side but when it comes down to it in our field there's a pretty fine line between an Agent and a Recruiter. The big difference being that technically the Recruiter is working for the employer (they get paid from that side not from you) whereas an agent is technically working for you (ergo the skim) but the benefits they provide should balance out to the same in a perfect world.
Honestly I think this is just another company trying to get $ out of the other side of the equation. Not a bad business model since plenty of people will buy into it BUT I honestly don't believe they will do any better at the job so negligible benefit to the person taking 85% of their paycheck.
Re:Here's the deal (Score:5, Informative)
Time to get flamed out of existence.... I am an agent. Though I would argue there is no difference between an agent and a recruiter or a headhunter. They are different skillsets of the same job.
To a "candidate" the primary service I provide is I spend all day every day talking to companies and hiring managers about their projects, their workloads and what they see as the main challenge to delivering their projects from a manpower perspective. I also learn what their capabilities are vs their competitors. This means when I speak to you and you tell me your skills, your motivations and what you want in a future employer I, hopefully, will be able to say company A, C, and X are actively looking for someone of your background and companies B, V & Q want to know about your type of skillsets when they come on to the market. Because I do this all day everyday I will know this information, where as you, doing what ever it is you do, will not.
From a Company perspective, the service I provide is that I spend all day every day speaking with candidates, about what their ideal job would be in the future and where they want to go with their career. So when the company asks me for a particular skillset I will know 20,30,100+ people with that skillset that would be tempted by what they as a potential employer would offer. Again something that they can't do themselves because they need to be doing what ever their real job is.
Now as for fees and charges. If I find you a permanent job the company pays me a fee based on your salary. If I find you a contract job the company pays me a fee based on your salary on an hourly rate. The IT industry in particular sees that as me taking a cut of your wages, but I don't negotiate with you about my rate. I negotiate with the company about what they are going to pay me for my finders service. What I don't see is two people working in the same job in the same company with the agency guy getting less take home then the direct guy, as a general rule. In my market sectors the lower paid person will just leave.
So if you want to look at it another way, given I am paid a % markup, I want you to get paid the most I can negotiate for you.
Just as an aside I don't recruit in the IT space. I recruit for civil engineers. I did have a brief stint in the early 2000s in IT recruitment but I left that sector as fast as I could as it is extremely difficult to determine if someone can do what they say they can and the general attitude from "candidates" is extremely hostile to recruiters.
Finally, I would like to add that recruitment is a very difficult job that most people can't do. Not because it is technically difficult (it's really quite simple) it is however very difficult emotionally. There is a reason most recruiters only have a couple of years of experience, it is because most people just can't keep doing the job. Most of us try to do the right thing, we are in the end normal people. But for most of us this job is thankless with companies telling us to go jump and candidates thinking we are ripping them off. You will however find that if someone has done this for a long time it is because they have found their niche and they are respected by both their clients and the candidates.
Re:Here's the deal (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been contracting since 1992. It is true we both want to get paid max($$). It is not true these are separate money pots. Most companies will look at your commission and my hourly rate as my total burn rate.
I will agree that recruiting is difficult because I don't know anyone who sticks w/the job even though it can be a license to print money. I will also agree that a competent recruiter is a joy. I switch jobs perhaps every year which means I am always looking for my next contract. Most recruiters are on to some other sales position in a matter of months, so there is constant churn.
Yes, there is a hostile attitude to recruiters. Some of it is silly, some of it is well earned. The fake jobs on DICE just to collect resumes are one bad example. The meat market, commodity skill attitude is another. I have a dedicated phone line that I keep just for recruiters to leave voice mail, and I have an amazing collection of WAV files containing broken english about skills I never had for jobs I would never consider.
My favorite ploy is the agencies who stalk me on LinkedIn. When I move to a new contract, they call my old employer to ask if they need any additional help. And they call my new employer to ask if they need any additional help. The kicker is they drop my name as if I endorse this action, which frequently gets me a email about "which side are you playing?" Needless to say, I do not return the phone calls of these agencies.
To wrap up, I would starve without recruiters and I am happy to do business w/them when it works out. You just have to be picky about who represents you.
Re:Here's the deal (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with most of what you have said. The total cost factor can come in to it when looking at who is the most expensive contractor but I have agreement with my clients that sees the transfer fee reduce over time. So after a while my contractors shift across to direct contracts. This tends to be the norm here in Australia but was not the process in the UK. I don't know about the US.
The other comments you have put tends to be the actions of less experienced agents. I don't advertise at all. I lose more time to calls from people applying for jobs then it generates for me as an income. Also the name dropping like that is very very dangerous. LinkedIn is quite often out of date and calling up and saying I see Hax4Bux has just left when you moved 6 months ago is a fast track to being blown out.
Most of my contractors have been long term with me. I've even been to a few of their weddings. But I am an old dog in this industry at nearly 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
"The other comments you have put tends to be the actions of less experienced agents."
It's not simply less experienced agents, it's the type of people they are and the type of company they work for. You mention the UK so presumably have some knowledge of UK recruitment agencies, so take Computer Futures for example, they literally just harvest CVs, and throw as many vaguely close CVs as they can at employers and throw as many employers as they can find at candidates. They make no effort to compare suitabilit
I can see your value, but.. (Score:2)
While surely there is value in someone marketing your skills, the problem with IT is that it's damn near impossible to tell if someone is bullshitting or not without talking to them. Even then, it's possible for someone to bullshit quite a bit, basing their interview on lots of scripts and not lots of knowledge. (Unfortunately there are companies out there that teach people to bullshit through interviews).
An "agent" for IT people is often seen as the enemy to other IT people (headhunters and recruiters).
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of the reasons I didn't stay in IT recruitment. It is almost impossible to judge the skills of a candidate.
At least in engineering, if you were a Structural Engineer on the Gateway upgrade I know that you have at least some skills. And what's more I know the manager on that job so I can ask them what they thought of you.
Re: (Score:2)
> So if you want to look at it another way, given I am paid a % markup, I want you to get paid the most I can negotiate for you.
No, you don't. You want to give your "candidate" a job as soon as possible, any job. Two people with crappy wages will net you more than one high-salaried person for whom you have to spend twice the effort.
Re: (Score:3)
This is like a real estate agent getting a % of the sale. Sure they do better it the house sells for another $10k, but if the house is already $300k and they are getting 3%, that turns their $9000 commission into $9300. It isn't likely in their best interest to risk a sale for an extra $300 when they could move the property and start working on getting the next one sold.
Re: (Score:2)
There's good reason for that. In my experience 99% of all recruiters that work in the IT space are useless idiot C students who don't know, for example, the differen
You are not an agent for the employee (Score:4, Interesting)
I am an agent. Though I would argue there is no difference between an agent and a recruiter or a headhunter.
There is a huge difference depending on who you represent and who pays your commissions. An agent works on behalf of someone typically for a talented individual. A recruiter or headhunter typically works for a company though they are an agent of a sort but not in the usual use of the word. An agent for Lebron James represent's Lebron, is hired by Lebron, and their sole goal is to get as good a deal for Lebron (and thereby themselves) as possible. The needs of the company only matter so far as they affect the negotiation. Recruiters (usually) are hired by the company and are a middle man who is hired to find talent the company might otherwise be unable to locate. Their financial interest is to get as high a salary as possible for whoever the company hires but they have no obligation to represent the interests of any particular individual seeking employment.
The IT industry in particular sees that as me taking a cut of your wages, but I don't negotiate with you about my rate. I negotiate with the company about what they are going to pay me for my finders service.
That means you are NOT an agent (for the employee) because you do not represent interests of the person seeking employment. If you represented the talent the company would have no involvement whatsoever in the negotiations regarding your pay rate. That would be entirely between you and the individuals you represent. Yes it is in your interest to negotiate as high a percentage for the employee as possible but they aren't who you work for. If Person A doesn't fit with BigCorp then you can move to Person B. That means you aren't an agent for Person A or Person B.
But for most of us this job is thankless with companies telling us to go jump and candidates thinking we are ripping them off
Welcome to sales. That's the life of any salesman. And you are right that not everyone can do it well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Here's the deal (Score:5, Interesting)
In reverse order:
3. Not in IT, Not in the states. I have no idea what any of those clauses or things mean other than the bitching I head about H1B visas on here.
2. I don't believe I ever mentioned salary or pay levels. These are important factors but fall far down the list. I believe I said I spend all day talking to candidates finding out what their ideal job looks like and where they want to go in the careers.
1. Completely disagree. Any service is an operating expense, some things though are cheaper to do internally and some are cheaper to do externally. Recruitment costs are a cost of doing business. Same as lawyer, accountancy or other sub-consultancy costs. Believing you are astute and thinking that recruitment costs means you are paid less actually points to you being naive. Companies pay recruitment costs because it is CHEAPER than doing the recruitment themselves. Otherwise why would they use a recruitment company. This means that a recruitment spend frees up capital that could be used somewhere else. Maybe it will be used to pay you more money, maybe it will be used for something else that the company determines is more valuable.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no risk because I have never ever lost a placement through asking for more money during the negotiation phase. This is one of the biggest advantages of using an agent. I have no emotional involvement. I won't get insulted by an offer and say something stupid. Don't forget I don't get to accept the role on your behalf. I advise a company and I advise you. You are the one making the final decision. I can tell you whether I think you are pushing too far. And I can tell the client whether I thi
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly right. Others have noted that this agent thing is similar to realtors and there's good evidence to suggest that realtors don't really have much incentive to find the highest bidder for your home (see e.g. http://curbed.com/archives/201... [curbed.com]) but have more incentive to get rid of your home quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that finding the person the job is by far the biggest part of the work load. To put it into perspective for you I will, on average, place 1 person a week. And, believe it or not, that puts me in the top %s of recruiters for specialised skill sets.
To place 1 person I need to organise 5 interviews between a company and a candidate so I am pretty much organising an interview a day and to do that I am on call 7 days a week and usually work about a 60 hour week. I am often talking to people at 8pm on a
Re:Here's the deal (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it is more of an art than a science.
Couple of generic points (and these are guides rather than set in stone)
* Good people work with good people.
* Good people tend not to boast
* Good people are willing to say they can't do something or that it would be a challenge for them
* Good people are specific in what they want
* Good people tend to have longer stints in each company
On top of that I have been in the civil engineering space for a long time. And while I couldn't design or build a bridge I can hold a conversation about what is involved in doing it. So when someone is talking to me I can get a feel for if I am being spun a line or not.
Finally, after 10 years in the same market I am close friends with a number of the managers in the consultancies and have long working relationships with many more. One of them will know you or of you.
I normally don't post about work on here so try to keep it separate - send an email to harlequin80@mailinator.com and I will email you directly with my contact details.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I could potentially see 10x being useful is for guys who are the acknowledged "best in the world" at some particular thing. Like, "tuning huge postgresql installations". Because you're the primary committer on the project, or something. There ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is good "agents" are rare as pope shit. You get bad ones and they keep at least 50% of the paycheck for themselves doing almost nothing and not representing you properly because they don't care since they have a list they submit and they don't know the difference between a bit and a byte. So, they cannot really sell you. The good one is only as good as the contacts he has, if you are good his sell pitch is trivial. If he really has the good contacts he is running a consultancy business and you a
Re: (Score:2)
The value of an agent to me is the difference between what I can get and what the agent can get, minus the amount the agent skims off the top. The worse I am at negotiating, the larger the difference is... but the greater the amount the agent skims off the top. Most likely outcome: the agent, whose entire compensation is based on separating me from as much cash as possible, manages to take more than that difference and I get screwed while thinking I got a good deal.
However the value of you to an agent is how much they can get out of the company for you.
This is how recruiting and head hunting currently works. The company puts out an ad or contacts a recruitment agency, basically they make their intentions known. Recruiters approach the companies on the behalf of the perspective employee and set terms that if the employee is hired they get money. If the employee lasts longer than X months they get a bonus.
All an "agent" will do is double dip. They'll still get the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, no, sometimes. It depends on the agent being a full time agent or a one off recruiter. It depends if the contract is a commission based payment or a continued percentage of your salary.
In the latter case yes, in the former case no. For one-off recruitment companies have little problem with spending $40k or so to end up with the right candidate for the job. The result typically will not affect your final salary either. It is far more costly to end up with the wrong employee, or someone who leaves after
It's not a zero sum game (Score:2)
If you are of the top 1% talent you wouldn't be feeling so butthurt over how much that "agent" skims over what you take
Look, I've been in the industry even before Al Gore started his "information superhighway" stump
I worked as a grunt in research labs, buried deep within the big corporate behemoths, I started my own joints, one after the other (they were not known as "startups" back then), sold some, re-invest the $$ by help funding other startups, and so on ... and along the ways I got acquainted with many
Re: (Score:2)
That seems to imply that if you're merely "good" or "competent" you won't be paid what you're worth (as in, less than the rock stars, but market rates). Not everyone is a rock star, and they need to eat too. They can still bring value to your organization greater than what you pay them.
Agents work for the long term (Score:2)
Most likely outcome: the agent, whose entire compensation is based on separating me from as much cash as possible, manages to take more than that difference and I get screwed while thinking I got a good deal
A good agent will be in it for the long term. Working in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
So there won't be any "screwing" as they will have a reputation to uphold amongst yourself and their other clients. If people feel they are worse off, they will fire their agent and word will spread.
As a freelancer, I've had an agent since the mid 90s. The real problem is that I am only one of many clients, so as long as things are going well, they tend to get complacent and lazy - just rolling over the contracts a
Re: (Score:2)
10x Productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
The "10x productivity" idea is somewhat silly anyhow - sure, some people are quite productive, but mostly if one guy is 10x another, the other guy just sucks.
I'm not valued because I can bang out more code than the next guy - I'm valued because I can lead a team of people and make them more productive: through design review, best practices, experience doing agile right, and so on. Sure, all those things make me more productive to, but it's much more valuable as a force multiplier for a large team.
That's what the job is, as a senior dev. That and doing all the horrible wrangling with project management systems, clarifying user requirements coming from PMs and translating them into sanity, and so on. The more senior I become, the less time I spend coding, because there's only so much value I add working by myself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "10x productivity" idea is somewhat silly anyhow - sure, some people are quite productive, but mostly if one guy is 10x another, the other guy just sucks.
Plenty of studies have shown that it's true. If you can't see it, maybe you're one of the less productive ones?
The more senior I become, the less time I spend coding, because there's only so much value I add working by myself.
Heading into management, eh? Definitely sounds like you're one of the less productive ones.
Re:10x Productivity (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect you're a self-proclaimed "rock star" who's convinced he's God's gift to programming, but hasn't worked on a team of equally-smart people, or who doesn't understand the reality of large projects.
Ability to bang out lots of code is the right way to measure a junior developer, but is not the essence of productivity. Two guys drive from NYC to LA - one at 10 MPH, one at 100 MPH. Who get there first? Well, it's important to know which one is headed in the right direction, and which one drives into the ocean, and is either of them so careless they're unlikely to make it there alive in the first place.
If your job skill is "given a clear design with unambiguous requirements and success criteria, I can bang out that code very fast," well, that's great for a junior dev. If you write well-tested, debugable, supportable, maintainable, secure, scalable code given ambiguous requirements, great, that's a successful mid-career dev. If you can fix everything wrong process-wise with your 100-dev organization so that everyone can work twice as fast, well, you're 10x as productive as the guy who sits in a corner and bangs out 10x the code, aren't you? If you can invent a product that solves a problem that everyone has, but no one else thought there was a solution to, well, the guy banging out code isn't even on the same scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Those don't come even close to being described as "programmer" jobs. We're talking about "rock star programmers",
Re:10x Productivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever worked for a big software company? That's not the job of management at all. It's the essence of engineering: improving the performance of a complex system (a system of made of programmers), or alternatively, to invent the stuff that really matters. That's why the tech track exists, and that's how you get paid the same as those senior managers.
The whole point is: your productivity as a coder is just nice, but there are more important skills for senior developers to focus on: skills that scale with team size.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you're a self-proclaimed "rock star" who's convinced he's God's gift to programming, but hasn't worked on a team of equally-smart people, or who doesn't understand the reality of large projects.
And what, you think you're good because you're a manager?
Ability to bang out lots of code is the right way to measure a junior developer
I don't think you even believe that. It's better than not being able to bang out lots of code, but as you know, it's know good if it's a bug ridden mess.
If you can fix everything wrong process-wise with your 100-dev organization so that everyone can work twice as fast, well, you're 10x as productive as the guy who sits in a corner and bangs out 10x the code, aren't you?
Cool, good job! You did great! I'm glad you could improve the processes at your company that much.
Also, you just admitted that some programmers code 10x as fast as others.
Re: (Score:2)
That and doing all the horrible wrangling with project management systems, clarifying user requirements coming from PMs and translating them into sanity, and so on. The more senior I become, the less time I spend coding, because there's only so much value I add working by myself.
1) Why are you wrangling with project management systems? The amount of time you spend with that should be minimal, otherwise it's hurting you. Are you trying to update all the features to the next sprint or something? That's a waste of time, don't do it.
2) If you need to 'translate user requirements from PMs' on a regular basis, it sounds like you are micro-managing a part of the process. If that's the case, then you can gain efficiencies by teaching your dev
Re: (Score:2)
A rockstar programmer doesn't bang out a lot of code.
They pick the right algorithm which scales well (doesn't need to be rewritten), considers and handles most error cases cleanly (few bug reports), and often leaves easily maintainable code (another person can take over, doesn't require a support team).
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of studies have shown that it's [ 10x productivity ] true. If you can't see it, maybe you're one of the less productive ones?
Being able to bang out 10 times as much code in a day is not "productivity" - although, sadly, far too many people use this as a measure.
True productivity is to complete a project: from initial requirements specification through to testing, documentation, integration and acceptance in a shorter time. This is not the job of a single, lone, "superstar" programmer but of a fluent, experienced, team of professionals who know how to work together. Just parachuting in someone who can crap out code at ten times
Re: (Score:2)
Just parachuting in someone who can crap out code at ten times the rate of another programmer won't speed up a project (ref: The Mythical Man Month adding manpower slows a project down)
Have you read MMM? It gives suggestions about how to add new people to a project without slowing it down (and actually speeding it up).
Re: (Score:2)
This is not the job of a single, lone, "superstar" programmer but of a fluent, experienced, team of professionals who know how to work together.
Having been the "lone superstar" on a couple of global projects, I can assure you there is a time and a place for everyone. While I don't agree with the stupid "10x productivity", a "rockstar engineer" will save you money and trouble, and make sure the project meets or exceeds the criteria. If the only guys you've worked with are unsufferable code monkeys (and usually existing codebases tend to get *smaller* with me, not bigger), its your problem.
And, in my case, having both business experience on the secto
Re: (Score:2)
Good management is a myth, unless your management stack is comprised of individuals smarter than you on the specific field. It can help a lot (and I've worked with wonderful management), but that's it. Its not a silver-bullet.
Awww. I'm glad you found time during all your rockstar full stack development to work out that good management is a myth.
I recommend your next step should be to start a company where you don't bother hiring those non-existent good managers - I'm sure you'll be a millionaire in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine someone being more productive because he has experience with the business, ie. because he knows a lot he doesn't have to have everything specified or call for meetings. But when it comes down to just coding, I can't imagine someone being 10x more productive than the next guy (unless, as someone else mentioned, the next guy just sucked). Coding isn't that hard. It's a trick you can
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see those studies.
Start in Mythical Man Month.
Also "If you can't see it, maybe you're one of the less productive ones" is uncalled for.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Re: 10x Productivity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the difference between "the best" and "the average" is probably not 10x. At least not if productivity is measured in
Re: (Score:3)
The "10x productivity" idea is somewhat silly anyhow - sure, some people are quite productive, but mostly if one guy is 10x another, the other guy just sucks.
I'm not valued because I can bang out more code than the next guy - I'm valued because I can lead a team of people and make them more productive: through design review, best practices, experience doing agile right, and so on. Sure, all those things make me more productive to, but it's much more valuable as a force multiplier for a large team.
That's what the job is, as a senior dev. That and doing all the horrible wrangling with project management systems, clarifying user requirements coming from PMs and translating them into sanity, and so on. The more senior I become, the less time I spend coding, because there's only so much value I add working by myself.
This, 1000x this.
I hate managing with "rockstar" developers because they're always too arrogant and full of themselves. They detract from the team, argue and refuse to listen to others. As soon as I see anything remotely "rockstar-ish" in an interview they immediately go to the bottom of the pile.
Senior devs are the antithesis. They help the junior devs and often their time is better spent doing this than banging out code even though their code is a lot better than the juniors. Someone who can manage
Re:10x Productivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Those aren't rock-star developers. As another poster said, you likely have never worked with a rock-star developer. They are great at what they do, *and* they make the team better. They are rare, but it's awesome when you see somebody that inspires others around them by what they can do.
You sound like you work in a big company, on big teams. This is certainly true there, and in order to have a large team productive, you need a lot of good people keeping those juniors productive.
Several times, though, I've seen those similar good people bang out their much superior code and finish the project in the same amount of time, while have a team that's 6 or 7 times smaller, with no juniors.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, worked with them, dismissed several of them because their behaviour was detrimental to the team (one got sacked because he went and told the book keepers that he was more important than they were and should do what he said).
The ones who actually make the team better dont consider themselves to be rockstars. There is a correlation between humility and talent (otherwise known as the D
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, I don't think you've worked with them before. What you describe is most definitel
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, worked with them, dismissed several of them because their behaviour was detrimental to the team (one got sacked because he went and told the book keepers that he was more important than they were and should do what he said).
That basically demonstrates you've worked with assholes, not rockstar devs. Its not the same thing.
The ones who actually make the team better dont consider themselves to be rockstars.
So, you never worked with a guy that is somewhat difficult to manage, but has above-average productivity AND is a problem-solver for your team? I'd say you have pretty limited experience. Or bad luck.
This is how they like to imagine they are, but not what they're like in reality. In reality they are childish and petulant. If their authority and awesomeness is not recognised they will make everyone else's life hell until it is.
You seem to have a pretty strong opinion about people you never met - from your own experience. I'd suggest that is the issue: you do have a comfort zone regarding managing devs, and answering defiance (or what yo
Re: (Score:3)
Rock Star == Prima Donna == show off glory hound. You need a new word for what you're talking about. Legendary maybe isn't it either, unless there's a Prose Edda of coder adventures I haven't read yet. What you describe is what, without title inflation, gets called a Principal Engineer or Fellow. Most big companies treasure them, and they certainly don't need agents.
Re: (Score:2)
he "10x productivity" idea is somewhat silly anyhow
That doesn't make much sense to me either. I've found that if you want productivity, you don't hire "rock stars" you hire average programmers that are comfortable working on teams. The best hire you can make is a guy who just does his job -- follows guidelines without complaining, completes one task and just moves on to the next.
Programming is easy. As a consequence, it gets really boring. When you're building LOB apps, it's even worse. The last thing you want on your hands is a bored "rock star" invent
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to quote the parts of your post I consider to be wrong, but realised it's everything you've said.
Average people are not as productive as above average people. Great software engineers work well on teams too; why inhibit your people by giving them mediocre colleagues?
Anybody that "just does his job" is a drain on the system. I want to work with and employ people that are constantly asking and answering, "Is there a better way of doing this?"
Sometimes they get it wrong, sure. But a bored software
Re: (Score:3)
To be perfectly blunt, I think you have never worked with a rockstar programmer.
I'm not trying to say 'anyone not hiring a rockstar is wasting money'. Instead, I'm saying that programming is very difficult, and those the right mix of communication skills, technical experience, and plain intelligence are extremely rare and valuable. They have been there, written that, and groked the algorithm. They don't just know the library, they recognize the functions they are traversing from the debugger output. There i
Re: (Score:2)
I've work with multiple people like that throughout my career. I've done fun tricks myself like fixing a bug in a production system that couldn't be rebooted by just editing the contents of memory, quickly debugged software we didn't have the source code for by stepping through the object, debugged complex systems from hex dumps of memory (just a print-out and a mark-1 eyeball for tools). None of that really holds a candle to not having the bugs in production in the first place, which in turn is far less
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be somewhat of a misnomer, if you're a rockstar programmer and can churn out elegant effective code faster than everyone else then that by itself is a key factor in being an effective senior programmer because it means that your staff will respect you and will want to learn how you do it allowing them too to become increasingly more efficient.
I don't see how you can scale well if you're not efficient in the first place. How can you teach and enforce efficiency if you don't know how to be effic
Re: (Score:2)
And you seriously expect agents to be able to thoroughly understand all this enough to be able to use it?
>They don't just know the library, they recognize the functions they are traversing from the debugger output
do you think there is even a way to evaluate programmers on this level? I agree this matters, but there is no way to know until you have actually worked with that person, which takes us back to square one. And even if you do obtain this evaluation somehow, not only it's going to be hard to compr
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tricky one, and I don't have an easy answer. I do when interviewing look for people with curiousity and understanding, try and evaluate whether they do more than turn up and tap on a keyboard, but I haven't recruited enough developers to be able to easily assess relative productivity, communication skills (above a basic level) or team working.
I do know that I don't trust an agent working for the potential developer. They aren't acting in my interest, they know less about the candidate than the candid
Re: (Score:2)
Most programmers suck.
Re: (Score:2)
... the other guy just sucks.
True, but the world of programming is full of these people. If your entire team is full of them, you won't even realise it.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to see those people to believe, but they do exist. It is not like they "bang out" more code. They take it smarter and make life better for everyone.
Instead of writing 10x as many random publish/subscribe plugs, they will create a unified processing architecture where the data is routed automatically. Instead of writing 10x as many boilerplate model classes, they will build a code generator.
You've got to have a certain level of proficiency and the right attitude to see such possibilities, to suggest
Re:10x Productivity (Score:5, Interesting)
You will be the first one let go when the hammer falls.
No, I really won't. Cheapskate organizations don't hire senior devs in the first place: only managers are paid well. Mature software shops, on the other hand, value devs on the technical track highly - they're harder to hire than managers. Especially once you get past the equivalent of first-level managers: Principle Engineers (or whatever you call the equivalent to a second-level manager) are golden. Middle management comes and goes with every re-org, but those few guys who work as engineers at that level certainly don't need agents - I know my company has an entire team of recruiters that do nothing but look for those guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Majority of the companies are your "cheaskate" organizations.... Unfortunately, management will fight till the bitter end to keep the status quo and as a result the good software developers will remain a specie on the brink of extinction.
Sounds like you're working in the wrong industry. Go work for a Software company.. they appreciate a good engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Amazingly, there is more than one job out there.
Don't most uniquely successful people have agents? (Score:2)
Even if they call them "advisors" or "lawyers" or "business managers" or something else?
I would mostly assume many uniquely successful people have somebody that advises or negotiates for them and may help steer business to them or filter out offers.
Even many high level corporate types will sometimes rely on somebody to help them negotiate a salary package even if the position is a "normal" full time job.
I don't think it makes you a "rock star" though.
They already have an agent... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have called it a lawyer.
Based strictly on the premise that a "rock star" isn't looking for a job. They have their own company/app/startup. They want to protect their IP, or get bought out, or frankly run their business the old fashioned way and (presumably) make money. A headhunter won't help you with this, but a lawyer would be critical.
Re: (Score:2)
They have their own company/app/startup.
Not everybody wants that. While emotionally the idea of being my own boss, having my own company, building a startup into a valuable organisation is appealling to me, I also know that I'd either go bankrupt or kill myself if I tried.
I can help you deliver your vision. I can influence and set direction for your company. I can add value several multiples beyond my own salary (and do, each year). I can't do that for myself, for a number of reasons.
Old story (Score:4, Interesting)
I tried signing up with this company last time this story came around, and they weren't very helpful. Said they were working on getting more clients, and had enough programmers already. If they did get me $200 an hour, it would be worth it, but it seems they were having trouble at that time. Maybe things have changed now.
The article itself is a nice portrait of an area of the programming industry. Increased my respect for the writers of the New Yorker.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you could have gotten the job on your own without the agent. Otherwise 30% of zero is, well...
Re: (Score:2)
I got my current job by applying directly with the company.
I didn't negotiate a signing on bonus, I was glad for the chance to work here. It had several non-financial benefits for me, and they were prepared to wait while I worked notice with my previous employer.
Would they have paid a recruiter a fee for me? I'd hope so :) Did the lack of fee influence them taking me over another candidate? I don't think so, but I haven't ever asked. Did me applying directly to them help demonstrate that I did actually know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About as little as... (Score:3)
Re:About as little as... (Score:4)
Systems architectects are a real profession and are not software developers. Also, there is a kind of software development that IS engineering, such as the type Linux kernel or BSD or Apache server project team does. That includes design, source control, testing, and QA processes. It is much more than just development.
Best part of the article (Score:3)
somewhat diffrent (Score:2)
Rockstars are their own corporate "brand" per se. They sell things via their image more than their music. Taylor Swift is a good example. As a musician she is mediocre at best, but right now, she's the top seller.
Scoff at my cyncism? Then explain when she accidently released 28 seconds of noise in head of her hit platnium album, on iTunes, that it hit the top of th
Re: (Score:2)
Now imagine if programmers were overpaid undertalented, super inflated egos, where glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?
You had me at 'overpaid'.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the mayhem, and things that would break, if we had talentless coders working on the most sensative programming tasks based on name, not quality recognition? Imagine if no how bad they fucked up, they could cover it up with public relations?
Here, let me fix that for you ...
Imagine the mayhem, and things that would break, if we had talentless managers working on the most sensative programming tasks based on name, not quality recognition? Imagine if no how bad they fucked up, they could cover it up with public relations?
Worked for Microsoft for decades. Patch Tuesday, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-orders? Orders without listening first? Maybe Apple's charts aren't 100% based on apple's own sales data?
Re:somewhat diffrent (Score:4, Insightful)
Now imagine if programmers were overpaid, undertalented, super inflated egos, where glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?
Imagine?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice rant, but,
"Furthermore, I think its dangerous to let this mentality seep into the programming world. What consists of musical talent is entirely subjective, and at the end, affects nothing. Bad music everywhere is a mere annoyance.
"Now imagine if programmers were overpaid, undertalented, super inflated egos, where [b]glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?[/b]"
I don't have to imagine it. I see it. Only the names are brands like Microsoft, Apple, Linux, Snapchat.
They're a high end contract agency (Score:3)
I've looked into 10x. This isn't the first / post about them. They were swamped for a year from the last one. Likely to happen again.
They manage to stay in the press. Free advertizing can't hurt.
Not a bad business model to have more business than you can handle, and do as much as you can.
Bill (Score:2)
If Bill Murray doesn't need an agent, why do I?
On a serious note, this makes little sense for full-time employment, which usually comes with golden handcuffs. It's not like FTEs are hopping from gig to gig, and with the number of transitions low (as in substantially fewer than one per year), I think rockstar programmers can handle their own agency.
For contractors, it seems like an agent could feed qualified leads to some of them, especially if they're just starting out. But is that really agency? There are
Salesperson again (Score:2)
Not a bad idea (Score:2)
Not necessarily even for gurus. At my last job my manager literally told me, unprompted, that when he saw how little I was making he was embarrassed. Why should my compensation have been so undercut by my crappy negotiating skills?
And then when I look for jobs, am I looking at all the right sites? Am aiming for the right opportunities? How long do I wait before giving an answer? There's a lot of tricks to job hunting and negotiating that don't have much to do with my actual job skills.
Why shouldn't someone
Everybody's special. (Score:2)
Seriously, every programmer that believes there are 10X programmers also believes he's one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, every programmer that believes there are 10X programmers also believes he's one of them.
//ProgrammingSkill *= 10 / 0;
A good programmer will know iam having some fun. A bad one will tell me i've done something wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I think even the terrible ones will notice the line comment at the start.
Yes, we are in a tech bubble (Score:2)
maybe a rock star programmer (Score:2)
I have 5 years experience in programming rock stars.
Rock star? (Score:2)
Rock star programmers? Seriously? When I was a teenager, some 40 years ago, computer programming was considered incredibly awesome, something on par with Einstein, but nowadays programmers are seen more like accountants, and rightly so: You have to know the sometimes very intricate rules, and you have to be the sort of person who likes to keep prodding at a problem until you get it right - and accountant, IOW. How many Rock Star Accountants do we know of?
Having an "agent" -- job jumper (Score:2)
Do Not Hire.
Does a pig need leaches? (Score:2)
Agents work in the entertainment industry because the talent is switching between gigs frequently so they need someone keeping work lined up for them.
As an employer: In the programming industry a programmer with an agent would be a big "DO NOT HIRE" flag to me because it tells me this programmer is not stable.
As a programmer: I would see an agent as a leach that is siphoning off a percent of my income with no benefit to me. Call it the stupid tax.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked with a rockstar once. Well, he played in a moderately successful cover band anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Was about to post the same: worked with a programmer once who was in a reasonably successful second-tier rock band (they were big enough in Japan to tour there each year with their vacation time).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Programmers are asked to be consistently reliable. If they EVER, and I mean EVER, pulled any of the shit that rockstars do, they would be fired in seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't get it, Layne Cobain [urbandictionary.com].
'cuz there's no rockstar like a dead rockstar.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
So someone calls you to find out if you would be interested in something that could benefit you, at no cost to you and you decide to yell at them. Couldn't you just be polite and say thanks, but no thanks?
Re: (Score:2)
I work in film sound, really my only gig for last 15 years. I have never been a professional software developer, I have no such work on my resume, I have a BA in film, I didn't even take an engineering course in school.
However, every 6 months or so, I get called by some recruiter somewhere to ask if I'd like to "make a move" and start doing iOS development at some shop he's working with. The only reason I get these calls, that I can figure, is because I have a Github account and a few public repos with Obj
Re: (Score:2)
Recruiters don't just work in IT. No idea why you would be getting calls like that if you aren't in the IT industry. That seems really really odd to me.
But I am also sure that there will be recruiters that work in film and some of them will specialise in sound. I was working on the premise that you were getting a call to talk about your line, not something totally random. Hence not understanding why you would yell at them.
I would hope that if you got a call along the lines of "Hello iluvcapra, My name