On Saturday 18 Nov 2006 6:31 am, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote: > > Fair enough, but doesn't "more experience" almost automatically > > translate, in practice, to a higher management position? > > In companies that don't value technical competence, yes. You're > describing a way to institutionalize technical incompetence: ensure > that nobody gets more than five years of technical experience by > moving them into nontechnical jobs at that point.
I am curious to see if this is not happening by default (in India) for a simple reason. When you have a market that is hungry for people and companies are poaching on others, and people are leaving jobs after short stints because they see that as the best option to further (and "self-structure") their careers a person who is "less than the best for the job" may find it convenient to be loyal, and the company may be grateful for his loyalty because they feel that he is their best bet given their choices. This need not "institutionalize technical incompetence". It will only give a management position to a technically incompetent but "loyal" person while junior and technically competent people come under his "leadership" and end up resenting it as described in Kiran's rant. > > On a different note, and putting it bluntly, does "management" > > remote or non remote in the IT industry take the attitude "We're > > paying you shitloads, so you'd better be ready to eat shit." > > What leads you to ask such a question? Well employees of the "IT industry" in India get paid a lot more than the "norm" for most other industry jobs, but the jobs are described by employees as strenuous in various ways. I have heard stories of "bosses" physically obstructing the exit route of an employee well after hours to ensure that something is done. It is normal to hear of people who leave at 8 AM and return at 8 PM on all weekdays and then take part in conference calls that may last hours at a time when "other people" are spending quality time with family. There are situations when a person is faced with the prospect of having his unit shut down - leaving him temporarily without a job. Being temporarily without a job" is not a big deal at all for anyone who does some types of business - including private practice in medicine. But by and large "employment" in India is seen by people (society and the extended family) in the way it is apparently seen in Japan. I have read of Japanese men who were without a job and would still leave home and spend a day in the park and return at the usual time to put up a show of being employed to save his honor. To a lesser extent the feeling (of shame at losing a job) exists in India - so the prospect of losing a job is stressful and ever present in the industry - but is taken as "part of the job description" So IT employees are - to an extent, being paid shitloads and are being asked to eat shit. Why would anyone want to lose quality time only to be reminded that he has to accept it as part of a highly paying job. It is, after all, possible to be both highly paid and enjoy a cushy job. Am I completely wrong here? shiv
