https://www.thelayoff.com/qualcomm/post/4776208401170432
12 replies (most recent on top)
@8167. Agreed. Directors are responsible for fighting fires... So, how many of them do we need for fighting the same fire. At least in the Linux Android platform world, there seems to be one (or maybe even more... hard to tell.. as all are yelling for an issue on the same branch). Anytime an engr does checks in something that may break or cause some sort of regression, all directors of respinsible for all other branches start to literally scream and insult/berate the poor engr and penalize him Do we need so many of these fire fighters to handle this issue being looked at by one single engr? The issue is same and expected to pop up on other branches (since the change would get propagated to all).. Can't these so brilliant directors realize they are wasting time and company resources by all chasing the same issue and stop emailing or joining the thread just to get some visibility that they are doing something when they are actually causing more tension in an already tensed up env for the engr.
Directors don't do any engineering work. They are responsible for fighting fires using their technical background.
Not like some other Dirs who started Q as an engineering level, T. S started Q as a director level because his buddy was a VP at the time. As a matter of fact, Q does not need this department at all, they're producing nothing. All they do is acting like they are important.
When it comes to Q, The words "useless directors" is an oxymoron. I think most of it has to do with the cultural background of the folks working here. The cultures puts value on title more than the actual significance behind it. Which is quiet weird. Most folks want to be a manger simply because one it looks cool (in their culture) to state that they are a manager and (2) I believe a 3% raise in salary... Guess having the skillet to be a manager is irrelevant as long as they can move up... Sad how this works in. Q. Messed up completely....
When it comes to Q, The words "useless directors" is an oxymoron. I think most of it has to do with the cultural background of the folks working here. The cultures puts value on title more than the actual significance behind it. Which is quiet weird. Most folks want to be a manger simply because one it looks cool (in their culture) to state that they are a manager and (2) I believe a 3% raise in salary... Guess having the skillet to be a manager is irrelevant as long as they can move up... Sad how this works in. Q. Messed up completely....
When it comes to Q, The words "useless directors" is an oxymoron. I think most of it has to do with the cultural background of the folks working here. The cultures puts value on title more than the actual significance behind it. Which is quiet weird. Most folks want to be a manger simply because one it looks cool (in their culture) to state that they are a manager and (2) I believe a 3% raise in salary... Guess having the skillet to be a manager is irrelevant as long as they can move up... Sad how this works in. Q. Messed up completely....
When it comes to Q, The words "useless directors" is an oxymoron. I think most of it has to do with the cultural background of the folks working here. The cultures puts value on title more than the actual significance behind it. Which is quiet weird. Most folks want to be a manger simply because one it looks cool (in their culture) to state that they are a manager and (2) I believe a 3% raise in salary... Guess having the skillet to be a manager is irrelevant as long as they can move up... Sad how this works in. Q. Messed up completely....
When it comes to Q, The words "useless directors" is an oxymoron. I think most of it has to do with the cultural background of the folks working here. The cultures puts value on title more than the actual significance behind it. Which is quiet weird. Most folks want to be a manger simply because one it looks cool (in their culture) to state that they are a manager and (2) I believe a 3% raise in salary... Guess having the skillet to be a manager is irrelevant as long as they can move up... Sad how this works in. Q. Messed up completely....
When it comes to Q, The words "useless directors" is an oxymoron. I think most of it has to do with the cultural background of the folks working here. The cultures puts value on title more than the actual significance behind it. Which is quiet weird. Most folks want to be a manger simply because one it looks cool (in their culture) to state that they are a manager and (2) I believe a 3% raise in salary... Guess having the skillet to be a manager is irrelevant as long as they can move up... Sad how this works in. Q. Messed up completely....
There is no formal training for managers. Engineers are given an opportunity to be a manager with direct reports, but the company ill-prepares those candidates who are given that opportunity. That's how you end up with a management culture that sees meeting direct reports every 6 months (just for the review cycle) as being "normal" and par for the course. And of course sees no value in mentoring and coaching.
The role of Director is really odd here. It does not require management skill and its a glorified title for engineers that want more money and benefits that come with higher titles. Directors at other similar companies are really good at managing people and projects which is the totally the opposite in Q.
50% suck all other I am not sure...no contributions