I think I have 1, 2, 3 no problems after 35+ years of programming -- I still love it, I still learn stuff, and I'm shockingly experienced in a rather large amount of subfields.

The problems is #4. 1,2,3 are 'easy' given time and someone who's dedicated and actually LOVES that job.

#4 requites two (at least). In my 35y career I can count on the fingers of one hands the time where I really, REALLY "clicked" with someone and we both ran away with it. Needless to say, in all the cases, we still are on each other xmas card list, regardless of time/space.

But that's the scary bit, to really, REALLY "collaborate" you need someone who's already pretty much 'there' on the 1,2,3 listed there, and the chance of meeting someone like that is low. I don't say it's 'rare', I say it's 'low' and if you factor other things like personality, lifestyle and so on, it makes it actually 'rare'...

I treasure the people I can collaborate with, because it's magic. It's like, as a musician, when you jam and the band just 'gels' and stuff starts happening, it gives you a little shiver in the spine area that is unique.

But hell, it's rare.

100% agree, #4 is where the magic happens. It isn’t something that “just happens” you need to be deliberate and intentional in making it happen.

In my experience, the right leadership, converging on the right vision makes it happen. But you absolutely need the shared vision.

I have been incredibly fortunate in my career to have either been a part of, or leading groups that truly jelled. In every case, it doesn’t last forever, But while it lasts it is incredible.

For those that never experienced it, there are two parts to achieve it: 1. Find people who put the “mission” first. The only way true collaboration happens is when the people collaborating stop thinking about “what is in it for them” 2. Find something “worthy” of you to work on. It can be as grandiose as the company mission, or it can be as pedestrian as improving your tiny bit of the world. But whatever it is, it has to resonate with you at a deep emotional level.

What I have found is that #4 of the article is almost a natural outcome of you can manage my two items (Assuming the team has 1-3).

But yes, it is not something that “just happens”.

#4 is definitely rare. I've had it three times in my 20 or so years working. Both times I still talk to those people weekly, even 10+ years later.

It was funny at the time, because other people in the office thought we hated each other in both cases. The arguments that came out from the whiteboard were known around the company, yet we hung out every weekend and knew almost everything about each other. The 'arguments' were really just us hashing out ideas and trying to find the best solution. Last I heard, some of the software we developed then is still in use today. For me at least, that feels like a success that we made some decent architectural decisions given the constraints at the time.

Luckily, one of the times for me the other person was 10 years older. He was able to give me perspective that the team dynamics we had were very rare and to cherish them. I knew he was right, but didn't expect them to be as rare as it turned out.

I'm about a decade behind you experience-wise, but I can tell you that I've seen #4 a few times.

What's interesting is that in each case I can say it didn't feel like #4 was happening until I looked at the experience in retrospect. It's almost like had we of been mindful or trying to achieve that, we would have been too self-conscious of ourselves to have actually succeeded. It was also a more broad cultural trait, it was a team that collaborated together well (sometimes kinda large teams, too). And most of the time there was a key leader or two that seemed to be key in bringing out that quality in the team.

I can also say that many of those teams still keep in touch, even if loosely, in some cases (now) decades later.

#4 starts happening almost magically when you reach a level of “maturity” where you are okay to cede control. You can visualize it as a Venn diagram where you have your bubble of what you think is the perfect system/product. Now every other person will have their own bubble and it will never overlap perfectly. #4 involves getting the best execution in the overlapping space and some bits of all the non-overlapping spaces. Suddenly you have an inclusive and almost always, better product which is more than your initial bubble. Everyone is vested in it. Everyone is fulfilled and magnified.

Ceding control is fine if you like the way your collaborator does things, but what if you can't trust them ? What if they have consistently done things the wrong way ?

I'd say two is more key. Most people seem to hold on to control as a way to avoid failure. Let people fail. Just make sure you have a safety net to keep things moving.

Having kids helps underscore this. Let your kids fall. Just don't take them to the Grand canyon right away.

what if your team can't afford those failures and you're responsible ?

Then you are on a death march, most likely. Failure happens. Any plan that requires avoiding failure is merely doomed.

Then hire better people

Then you or they don't have #1 covered.

Just my 2 cents after no more than 10y of career. The idea of letting other grow has nothing to do with resonating with them and form a bigger wave — you need to really want them to succeed and really fight for that to happen.

In my personal growth path I think I'm this close to reach that — but my ego is practically sabotaging it from the inside. I still can't let myself go in background-mode. And I'll pay for this sooner or later.

</personal-emotional-burst>

In JavaScript the problem is #2. People who develope in this technology want it easy right the fuck now. Failure avoidance is absolutely the name of the game. It is so prevalent there is even a name for it: invented here.

I can say this in all fairness as somebody who writes in that language fulltime for more than a decade.

that's the downside of javascript being the only game in town. to get away from it use typescript or coffeescript or some other alternative language that translates to javascript.

since choosing such a language requires extra learning, that pretty much leaves all "want it easy right now" people behind.

> that's the downside of javascript being the only game in town.

Why? I don't see the correlation between the technology and the rampant immaturity or unrealistic expectations of people developing in it. I have also experienced this immature temperance from people with a long history of developing in other languages coming into JavaScript and deliberately sacrificing common sense for insecurity resolution, which suggests the immaturity isn't simply due to a low barrier of entry.

Maybe the true measure of having #4 is being someone who can magnify others who don't already possess all these traits.

I'm no master, but IME #4 involves a kind of "playing dumb" until the people involved sync up. Kind of like tutoring, but for your working style, and in the practice of bedside manner (which is already rare in general). #4 also necessarily involves a sublimation of ego, the likelihood of which among masters of #1,2,3 is left as an exercise for the reader.

I think 1-4 are ordered the way they are by priority.

That makes me extremely uncomfortable because I feel like in my career I've been a master in the reverse order, 4-1.

This could explain the unusual paths that I've taken, but I still feel like I'm a long way from reaching my full potential while still in my mid-30s.

I can't see how #4 is possible without #1

Would the chances of #4 happening comes with age, or I mean the chances of 1,2,3 happening, which is more like the prerequisite of #4?

I just wanted to mention #4 is exactly what makes Apple Apple. Or the old Apple. Steve made it so a group of people working together could have the results more than hundreds working in other company combined. Apple did it in a era when they had much lower resources compared to all of its competitor. The collaboration was real, or as Steve would put it, hey balanced each other, and the total was greater than the sum of the parts.

Today Apple seems more like cooperation under Tim Cook. They have 100x more resources, but bend gate on iPad Pro, XS Modem reception, MacBook Staingate, lots of horrid logic board design choices. Keyboard. The list goes on and on.

Ability to magnify and becomming deep lifelong friends should be two different things. The other person can teach you or offset your weaker points or bring out the best work put of you without being perfect himself and without relationship between the two people becoming marriage like.

the ability to magnify is one factor that enables friendships, so it makes sense that they are often seen together.

I don't see how is that. Friends and making me better at work are different. People who magnify me at work often have completely different hobbies, livestyles and incompatible woldview about personal lives. Sometimes the thing that makes them.less friends (assuming they are respectful etc) is what makes them magnifiers.

I suspect they are seen together when people make work their complete social circle so their emotional needs are not met unless collegues fill them too.

well, maybe we use different criteria for finding friends. for me friends are people that i can trust, and that support me.

it doesn't take more than one thing of common interest to become friends (and that trust and support)

sometimes that common thing is a hobby, a lifestyle or a worldview. but sometimes it is work.

having friends at work doesn't mean that i hang out with those friends in my free time.

we have multiple social circles. at work, family, different groups of friends (eg different hobbies, each is another social circle), and in each of those circles we may have friends. some closer than others.

It takes a true #2 to recognize a #2.

Otherwise, it's just crazy risky to put failures on your resume kind of thing.

Corporations are full of people competing on a political level, failure is just a stain, so risk taking is minimal. In a regular corporation you could get looked at very oddly for suggesting anything outside of normative.

I once interviewed a very impressive candidate for a product manager/owner role. This guy stood out from all the other candidates, he had a slick binder full of all his accomplishments and could talk about then at great length. I would have loved ro work with this guy. But, it became clear to me he’d never experienced failure, and so I asked about some of his professional set backs, and it was even clearer that he’d only ever worked on projects that were able to get a lot of support from management at companies with the resources to all but guarantee success. I ended up having to tell management he’d be a poor fit as a result. The position was one that was almost guaranteed failure at a company shrinking over 10% a year, that was unable to stop the old habits that were no longer working. We needed someone who could fail on an almost daily basis, yet still manage to salvage something from the position. I think we got lucky and found someone who did this, she was able to consistently interact with upper management, and understood that 1% improvements compounded to make a great product. Sadly, she eventually got beat down enough arguing with management to leave, but her presense was invaluable in creating the culture my team currently enjoys.

And sadly, she will not make the mistake of taking similar project on again. Because it was not rewarded altrough people under her and after her appreciate it, she likely had no benefit from it.

She got more confidence and experience. That makes her a better leader in her next job. She moved on and chances are that she got a better job because she could convince somebody that she can succeed in a difficult environment.

Quoting parent: "Sadly, she eventually got beat down enough arguing with management to leave"

That is not more confidence. And likely, she does not want "difficult environment" job either - could have stayed for that. What you learn in such environment is to spot red flags sooner.

Such positions are not rewarded, she did not enjoyed that, she will likely seek different position next.

I probably would have hired the guy anyhow. If you have a great candidate, I think it would be difficult not to hire them just because they are going to face some challenges they have not in the past because that's all of us. No challenge is the same.

It depends on how you define risk. I find it crazy risky to tailor your resume in a way that results in people who are not "#2s" end up being your boss. In my experience, the only thing worse than a bad employee is a bad boss. I recommend letting hiring managers see the good, bad, and ugly of your experience. Let someone who can see through it all to recognize your value be your boss. And let everyone else walk away.

I wonder what some good examples of people that have gone on to have a strong second or third act after failing.

Probably 40% of fortune 1000 c level executives. You can reach a point where you continually fail upward. Some companies are willing to accept someone who failed at a company twice their size if they think the executive can get them to double their current size before they reach their point of failure.

I respectfully disagree and would say c-level people of major companies are the most risk averse of almost all people. They run from failure like it's a stain. They want to always look good in the eyes of 'the big boss' and often have very little interaction with them and so are keen to always impress.

In business politics, perception is the only thing that matters, so it's really hard to spin failure as success.

Also, their first reaction to failure will be to find someone to take the blame.

Good luck finding people who are 2 of these, and it is not possible to judge people with existing limited interview processes. This list is impossible.

In the right environment a lot more people will have these. A good team lead can nurture them and given the right ingredients and conditions a whole team of these can emerge. On the other hand, just a few small things can completely prevent these people from blooming (overwork, bad morale, badly explained goals, constantly changing scope etc.).

Hire smart people with a spark. Give clear directions without micromanaging. Make sure people are getting enough sleep to think clearly, and enough time to do upfront planning so they don't write those bugs they would get demoralized on in the first place. Be an inspiration to others, then hand them the reins and let them inspire everyone else.

I don't think the list is simply a checklist in the sense that you decline candidates whenever there is a miss. I think it is rather a guideline to what to look for in candidates. You will have to make trade-offs with any candidate.

“True mastery, true depth” is impossible in our field. If anyone disagrees, find me someone with mastery of the 10 latest JavaScript frameworks, or whatever service Amazon put on AWS last week.

What you what is someone with a strong knowledge of fundamentals, everything else follows from that.

It's probably possible to have something approaching true mastery over compilers or physics simulation or distributed databases, or anything that's a field instead of a framework. Asking for mastery over React instead of over UI engineering is a little like asking for deep knowledge of Torx screwdrivers - there are high level concepts from internationalisation, accessibility, QA, automated testing, and UX design that will still apply in a decade or two, even if we write all our UI code in Rust and steam lightweight VDOM diffs to the server or whatever.

I think that's exactly what 'true mastery; true depth' would mean. People with incredibly strong fundamentals can look past the fancy facade of a new framework/tool and deduce its possibilities and limitations quickly enough.

In the video Randy addresses this very point. In his delivery #1 and #2 are actually part of the same point. He explains that true mastery of something, even unrelated, shows the mindset needed to dig in to a hard problem that's never been solved before. That leads into the discussion of failure and the persistence required to overcome failure and reach mastery.

Not too far away from your advice regarding fundamentals.

Balancing 3 and 1 is damn impossible for me. I do a ton of 3 and can't focus on point 1.

Though that literally seems to be the point of the article...

I think it's because point 1 has diminishing returns. You start having to invest more and more time to get deeper and deeper in one narrow thing. It's much more satisfying to develop breadth (imo) because you get about 80% deep and then stop before the diminishing returns kick in

so true, I've experienced this in things like learning the guitar / piano, playing poker, learning excel macros etc.

Number 2 reminds me of something my dad has told me a bunch, "it's not how you mess up, it's how you recover"