I think the issue is that, in a typical workplace that employs some programmers, they are in fact the only ones who will be doing deep work that requires sustained focus. The typical office does not contain, in addition to programmers, poets, painters, and mathematicians. If it did, those people would understand. Instead, aside from the programmers, you have mostly salesdroids and managers, who have absolutely no concept, because they have never done any real work.
>Instead, aside from the programmers, you have mostly salesdroids and managers, who have absolutely no concept, because they have never done any real work.
Wow. This is exactly what the top comment was talking about with the opening sentence. These people may not need deep concentration to be successful, but that doesn't mean they don't do real work.
> These people may not need deep concentration to be successful, but that doesn't mean they don't do real work.
They didn't claim that. They claimed that the fact that these people don't do real work means that they don't need deep concentration to be successful. A implies B, not B implies A. (For example, off the top of my head, plumbers (unlike salesdroids and managers) clearly do real work, but very little if any of it involves a deep mental model that would take significant time to rebuild if interrupted.)
FWIW, I don't actually agree with that implication as such - it would imply that, eg, playing Factorio is "real work" - but the problem is less stupid than "doesn't need deep concentration => doesn't do real work".
Which, interestingly shines a light on just now reductive the original comment was.
Parent comment’s take was actually more charitable to the GP by at least leaving room for the possibility that managers do real work (they do, and hopefully this isn’t controversial).
And I’d go a step further and argue that even within the managerial role, there are tasks that demand focus and deep work.
> the possibility that managers do real work (they do, and hopefully this isn't controversial).
I mean, I'd hope it's uncontroversial that any general statement about people has exceptions, but I assumed it was clear that we were talking about typical managers and salesdroids, not making blanket universalisms. If it wasn't I apologize for the confusion.
I don’t think it’s even possible to define - and it’s certainly not fair to summarily dismiss - typical managers.
If you’re just talking about managers that are bad at their jobs, call that out. If you’re advocating for a change in the actual management structure itself, call that out.
Maybe “typical” narrows the net ever so slightly, but the definition of typical is “having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing”.
Either “typical” is applied to managers broadly and then the negative characteristics you find fault with are inherent to the management role itself (and not necessarily the manager)…
Or “typical” is used to describe a specific type of manager, either characterized by certain common negative traits, job duties assigned to the manager, etc.
In either case, there’s something critically missing from a dismissal of “typical” managers without proper classification of “typical”.
> and then the negative characteristics you find fault with are inherent to the management role itself (and not necessarily the manager)
In the same sense that "typical" could be applied to, say, pickpockets broadly, and the associated negative characteristics are inherent to the pickpocketing role itself (and not necessarily the pickpocket)... sure? I don't really see why that would be a useful distinction, but I agree that it seems like a distinction you could make.
> Instead, aside from the programmers, you have mostly salesdroids and managers, who have absolutely no concept, because they have never done any real work.
Honest question - how many years of professional experience do you have?
Have you ever been on a team that didn’t have enough devs and needed to grow? Have you been on a team that addressed that by hiring more devs? What about funding for software and other tools to do your job?
This obviously varies from company to company, but often, especially at companies that promote from within, the managers around you very likely started doing exactly what you’re doing.
Managers also have their own kinds of deep work, like careful and detailed proposals to increase funding so your team can grow, just to name one.
If you expect the people you work with / who manage you to understand you and the challenges posed by distractions, taking some time yourself to truly understand them is just as important.
I should add a disclaimer: I’m not a people manager.
I agreed with you until your last sentence. I think the goal we want to achieve here is to be more understanding of what each other’s work involves; I absolutely don’t envy the manager who is constantly being interrupted, or the sales person who is doing some next level persuasion and working months to get this customer to sign that contract.
If you’re dismissive of their work, how can you ever expect them to be understanding of yours?
A good sales person can make the business money (you know, the thing that keeps them from disappearing) without _any_ product yet existing at all. Programmers who build something rarely bring in money by its mere existence.
Be careful who you insult because its unlikely you could do what they do, and it's not guaranteed that you'd keep your job ahead of them if it comes to it.
A good 419 scammer can make the business money without any product ever existing at any point in time - that doesn't mean they're doing anything useful.
Not just unlikely—practically impossible. I don’t have the skills of a good salesperson or manager¹. But that’s orthogonal to what I was talking about, and to the subject of the fine article.
[1] And neither do most people employed in these positions.
> Instead, aside from the programmers, you have mostly salesdroids and managers, who have absolutely no concept, because they have never done any real work.
And this helps the argument not one bit. I'm sure it's very comforting to condescendingly look down on other professions, but you're doing nothing but further proving the point in the comment above.
