Every time I read richg’s blog post like this one (there’s at least a few more), I’m glad that I mostly do tech outside the tech industry (in boring enterprise - telco, banking etc.). Things there seem so sane in comparison.
I've worked for two megacorps. One non-tech and one tech (hardware and software). Both fit the description on that page well. I came to these two companies from a smaller tech company and each megacorp definitely seemed insane.
IME The difference is that at the non-tech company all the decision makers saw individual contributors the same way - didn't matter if you were a PhD scientist or a Business Analyst. Individual contributors were cogs in a business process.
At the tech company some of the decision makers seem to understand that technical people are "advanced cogs" and not just regular cogs. To me, that's the difference between feeling totally useless at the non-tech company and occasionally useful at the tech company.
I have seen that too. I tend to tell young devs that it's better to work for a company where the CEO has at least some basic grasp or appreciation for your work and doesn't just see you as a cost.
The difference between tech and non tech companies is the value factor of the employee.
If you're a software guy at a large global hotel, it's meh. You are a tier 3 or 4 employee. They make money booking rooms - anything else is a cost component.
Software companies see developers as an asset because they build the product. The dynamic is different and the pay and respect reflect that.
One time I almost quit a start up to take a little more money at a hedge fund to do their internal software. The start up CEO talked me out of it and I learned an important lesson about my trade.
A lot of these seem pretty heavily focused on gaming companies specifically, though. The second half especially I had a hard time picturing what he meant until I realized he was a game dev.
A big part of non-tech company sanity comes from predictability - it's actually reasonable to project what's going to be happening in a year, much less a few months. The sorts of organizations that are lumped under "technology" (mostly software-driven) are by their nature nearly completely unpredictable - and they're all led by people who absolutely, positively, cannot wrap their heads around this fact, try to implement what works under more predictable business models, and are shocked when it fails.
