I don't disagree with this. (author here) I think it could help overall to lower starting salaries, but it'll never happen. It's all a math problem at the end of the day.
> If it was simply pairing with juniors from time to time to hack on things and show them cool stuff, it would be wonderful.
I think that's a lot of it! (Author here, btw) I think that doing more of that actually makes performance discussions easier and takes the place of 1:1s a lot of times. The whole point of performance management is to nurture the relationship with the junior so that they grow into the type of senior that they need to be to be a contributing member of the team. And if you can achieve that better through hacking and pairing, then by all means.
As far as all the other BS meetings, I think that a lot of people in leadership positions aren't intentional/strategic enough about which meetings they allow themselves to get "hauled into", so they end up totally jaded and burnt out. They think they can't say no to these things, and so they lose the reins on their actual goals. If you step back and ask yourself what stakeholders actually need from you to feel heard, seen, validated, informed, etc, then it may look different from a calendar full of meetings.
You're right that it's sobering to see how it's changed so much in the last 5 years. And yeah, it's not just the juniors that have to think about this but those in their cushy jobs that get hit with layoffs out of the blue, too. I don't say that to illicit fear; I say that to illicit action. We don't live in the same world anymore where you can rest on your laurels, unfortunately.
You've always been so good at all this, though! You help others, get curious about where you can add value to their situations, people know what you're about, and you exude authenticity. Poster child for what I'm trying to tell people to do to take action. :D
Author here - yeah, what you're describing is absolutely what I would love to see more of. And of course my thinking was biased by my own observations at companies I've worked at as well as anecdotal confirmation from others, but nothing research based. I've seen a lot of lead/principal/staff engineers go off in their own world and dictate direction to the team instead of leading through influence and connection, which I've found very frustrating. Not all, though. And so the ones that did take a leadership role really stood out to me. I always tried to do that myself, as well, and remember what it felt like to be a junior.
Full disclosure, I'm the author (although I didn't put the post up here on HN). Thanks for pointing out that I wasn't very clear in my CTA and maybe made it sound shady. That's not what I wanted to do, obviously.
It's just an app, not a service, that my husband and I built (and quit our jobs for) that has a generous free trial. (Technically, right now it's completely free because it's in early access, so if you never upgrade, you could use it for free forever.)
The CTA at the end was just in an effort to talk to more people (for free) and see how we can help and make our software better. I come from the DevOps world, and they always say you have to first know how to do something really well manually before you can automate it, and that's what we're trying to do by talking to people (for free).
I think I know what you may have in mind when you describe the "interpersonal dynamics" of a "would-be middle manager", and I probably agree with you (original author here).
But some of the best "people" people that I've seen in my career have been the most technical, also. They were really good at being able to communicate the value of their solution, the problems it solves, and risks and rewards. They could get buy-in from stakeholders and other teams. They could listen empathetically when faced with issues and blockers. And they did so with authenticity and genuine care because they were passionate about software engineering.
I believe those are skills that can be learned and practiced and that you don't have to be necessarily "social" to grow in that area.
I appreciate you adding nuance to the conversation. The problem is much more complicated than just AI, but I (original author) was using those two research studies that I cited as the basis for the conversation. While 13% hiring drop doesn't mean a catastrophic difference, it's a trend worth noting.
You're not wrong! I'm the original author of the post, and yes, I've seen this trend for years now, too, but I was using those two research studies that I cited as the basis of the article, so I started looking at it from that lens. I think the problems go deeper than AI, too, which is why I touched on corporate incentives. Ultimately, my goal was just for teams to think about how it could benefit them to invest in juniors and for college students to know that they need to prepare for a challenging ride if they're majoring in an AI-adopting field.
We may have some things in common. I'm not a mom, but I am a woman. And I don't want to assume the same is true for you, but breaking into this industry was difficult for me, so even without children, I'm really invested in the ability for juniors to succeed too. I wish I had responded more directly to your article rather than my general ennui. I really admire your willingness to write this. I hope it gets broad engagement, because I think these problems seem obvious to us but based on private conversations I've had with some industry peers in very senior director roles the drying of junior opportunities for growth is not readily obvious to them. I'm going to have to think more about the corporate incentives you mentioned, because reading that in the article, it feels deeper to me, and I think that's what I was trying to get at by sharing my past company details.
I think you succeeded overall at your goal! Thanks for replying. You encouraged me to go back and read your article more closely.
I appreciate the positive feedback. :) And yes, I was a career changer, so it was difficult for me to break into tech, too, so it feels a bit personal for that reason, as well.
