It's just basic game theory, and you see it everywhere. However, it's so annoying in the workplace when your two options seem to come down to try to dominate or be dominated. Especially if you care about quality code and don't care for meetings.
As far as I'm concerned, I think I have to make peace with the fact that if I don't play the game, I am going to be managed by people who don't know what they're doing. But neither option seems particularly good. Should I try to bury my ego and influence from below? Should I work harder and try to climb the corporate ladder? I'm still not sure.
I kind of get it as you have expressed that promotion is not your goal. However, organizational influence comes through promotion as your org & only those with influence at your org can change that.
What do you think would be a better system, that decoupled promotions from influence & enabled you to provide your experienced opinion without getting into management?
I just hate it because I find meetings draining.
On the internet you can learn from and sometimes interact with the best of the best, so the barrier of entry for what constitutes an "expert" is rised much higher.
I still vividly remember reading a z80 instruction set manual on a rainy day during summer vacation by a lake as a kid (maybe 14?)--writing my own assembly by hand in the margins for fun. TBH I probably still have that exact manual in storage somewhere. Had a green stripe down the front edge/binding iirc.
Back then I easily met folks like myself out there on the net, including many kids younger and smarter than me. It was awesome.
I do hope that some form of that 'net lives on in spirit somehow, given that the Internet I knew has largely fallen to corporate interests.
Now that I have my own kids, it's been painful to watch them have such an utterly different experience than I did.
Their Internet is based entirely on consumption and dark patterns designed to capture their attention, while providing nothing (to them) in return besides a dopamine addiction and body dismorphia.
It is a problem as old as human civilization that the old overlook that society itself changes and instead lament the willfulness of the young in abandoning the old ways.
It isn't like young people grew up surrounded by examples of mentorship and arrogantly chose otherwise. In the internet age 1-on-1 face-to-face instruction is rare. I feel really fortunate that I caught the tail end of it.
I think younger people have maybe thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and you need some discernment on whose advice you can value and trust. But ive just been in many situations in my life where ive asked for advice and its just been total shit.
"Wisdom of the elders" is overrated when society changes so rapidly, and not all the adults you know are the insightful village shaman.
I recall asking my grandfather what is was like to live through the JFK assassination and just recieving something to the effect of "oh yeah that was crazy and bad, i remember seeing it on the news." follow up questions produced no further insight. So you come to the conclusion, why bother with that when you can just read a book about the topic.
To me, young people just don't seem to know, or want to know, that information and knowledge can be gained from a person. It's the arrogance of youth x100
They have a supercomputer in their pocket/on their desk, and an AI that knows 'everything'. I can't imagine what it's like being a teacher right now.
How's your AI going to explain the office politics? The CTO's opinion on things? Talk about recent outages and learnings (details of which are not often on blogs)?
They think all they need is knowledge and facts and none of history, politics, communication etc
I think a lot of is that an AI or Google search won't challenge them, push them, disagree with them - and that's comforting to them, and more desirable than the learning that could happen