Having taken a day to think about it, I still think it's a nice list and I still think many of these points are relevant to other careers.
However, I disagree with the idea in the articles that someone should need to be a mentor as a requirement for seniority. Objectively, some people are just going to be really good at what they do.
I'm basing this opinion on my experience in the visual arts and performing arts. Some people are just really good. They got that way as a combination of talent and practice. And maybe they also had a teachers that encouraged them to continue. But not everyone is cut out to be a mentor and no one would deny that these people are less "senior" for that reason. This is true, IMO, for any profession.
Maybe I'm overthinking this bit, but why can't senior devs be mentors just by being there? Just with day to day demonstrating good practices can help new developers (and artists) can learn what it takes to improve?
The big problem with this criteria is that I see "mentorship" in job descriptions — meaning employers intend to use it as an objective performance metric. I just don't think its accurate or appropriate for everyone.
I think there's two different things people mean when they talk about 'seniority'. There's this concept of an individual contributor, someone who is able to do whatever they do extremely well in isolation and isn't expected to do anything related to management.
Then there's this other concept of the 'management track', where these high performers become managers of other people. This is not for everyone.
… but why can't senior devs be mentors just by being there?
I think this is totally fair! There is so much value in being an amazing individual contributor, this one included.
The reason I wanted to highlight mentorship is because I believe that most people can do a good job of mentoring, if they just put a little time into thinking about it and being intentional. It’s not for some people, but I think there are a lot of people who could be great mentors but haven’t tried to, because they don’t see how it would benefit themselves or their organization.
I know this is only one aspect being highlighted. My concern is only when it comes to employment decisions and performance evaluations. My thought is there can be different expressions of mentorship that don't necessarily have to be as explicit and traditional, and those can be valuable too. Perhaps thinking in this way can help more people consider themselves as mentors.
Fascinating conversation -- I'd never considered the limitations with how organisations perceive mentors.
As you say, there are many forms of mentorship, some of which go unnoticed. Some of my best mentors have been excellent -- yet quiet -- developers who led very much by example. Despite saying little, every now and then they would offer a nugget of advice that completely changed how I worked. I wonder now if this was recognised.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Having taken a day to think about it, I still think it's a nice list and I still think many of these points are relevant to other careers.
However, I disagree with the idea in the articles that someone should need to be a mentor as a requirement for seniority. Objectively, some people are just going to be really good at what they do.
I'm basing this opinion on my experience in the visual arts and performing arts. Some people are just really good. They got that way as a combination of talent and practice. And maybe they also had a teachers that encouraged them to continue. But not everyone is cut out to be a mentor and no one would deny that these people are less "senior" for that reason. This is true, IMO, for any profession.
Maybe I'm overthinking this bit, but why can't senior devs be mentors just by being there? Just with day to day demonstrating good practices can help new developers (and artists) can learn what it takes to improve?
The big problem with this criteria is that I see "mentorship" in job descriptions — meaning employers intend to use it as an objective performance metric. I just don't think its accurate or appropriate for everyone.
Thanks for the response Allison!
I think there's two different things people mean when they talk about 'seniority'. There's this concept of an individual contributor, someone who is able to do whatever they do extremely well in isolation and isn't expected to do anything related to management.
Then there's this other concept of the 'management track', where these high performers become managers of other people. This is not for everyone.
I think this is totally fair! There is so much value in being an amazing individual contributor, this one included.
The reason I wanted to highlight mentorship is because I believe that most people can do a good job of mentoring, if they just put a little time into thinking about it and being intentional. It’s not for some people, but I think there are a lot of people who could be great mentors but haven’t tried to, because they don’t see how it would benefit themselves or their organization.
I don't think we disagree at all, Sam.
I know this is only one aspect being highlighted. My concern is only when it comes to employment decisions and performance evaluations. My thought is there can be different expressions of mentorship that don't necessarily have to be as explicit and traditional, and those can be valuable too. Perhaps thinking in this way can help more people consider themselves as mentors.
Fascinating conversation -- I'd never considered the limitations with how organisations perceive mentors.
As you say, there are many forms of mentorship, some of which go unnoticed. Some of my best mentors have been excellent -- yet quiet -- developers who led very much by example. Despite saying little, every now and then they would offer a nugget of advice that completely changed how I worked. I wonder now if this was recognised.