Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
An opinion piece arguing that junior engineers are hired less to complete tickets and more as long‑term “options” on future talent prompted strong reactions. Commenters split between seeing this A/B/C-player framing as a useful roadmap for early-career developers versus a sign of toxic, output-obsessed culture that offloads mentoring responsibilities onto new hires. The exchange also probes how AI, short tenures, and differing company cultures are reshaping junior roles, performance evaluation, and the value of investing in less-experienced engineers.
Why Companies Hire Juniors
- Some argue most companies hire juniors mainly to execute “junior-level” tasks, not as a long-term investment.
- Others say they’ve only seen juniors hired for long-term potential, with no real backlog of “junior-only” work; seniors could always do the tasks faster.
- Historically, some companies explicitly hired to train juniors with long vesting stock options; several commenters say this is now rarer.
A/B/C Categorization and Its Value
- Many dislike the article’s A/B/C framing as reductionist, ego-driven, or “toxic game-playing” rather than team-building.
- Some see value in the concrete behavioral signals as a career roadmap, especially around communication, initiative, and impact beyond tickets.
- There’s concern that stereotyping people as “C” can become self-fulfilling and hurt morale and retention.
Mentorship, Leadership, and Culture
- Several see the described attitude (“spend as little effort as possible on people who won’t make it”) as a failure of leadership.
- Others note that constrained mentoring time, agile metrics, and story-point pressure push seniors to prioritize “self-starters.”
- Debate on whether seniors have an obligation to deliberately develop juniors versus focusing on output and weeding out weak performers.
Workload, Effort, and “A Player” Myths
- One camp claims “A” performance mostly comes from extra hours and effort; time management rhetoric is seen as cover for overwork.
- Others strongly counter that effectiveness comes from better choices: prioritization, saying no, not over-automating, and knowing when to ask for help.
- Some note that people who work very long hours are often less effective and more error-prone.
Mistakes, Blame, and Process
- Several criticize framing junior mistakes as “causing unreasonable work” rather than shared ownership and better guardrails.
- Some push for no-blame or systems-oriented cultures; others warn that erasing individual accountability can stall growth and create bureaucracy.
- Breaking production once is seen as normal; repeating the same mistake is not.
Impact of AI/LLMs on Junior Roles
- Some argue LLMs make junior-style tasks cheap, weakening the business case for hiring juniors.
- Others report that AI amplifies differences: strong juniors get better; weak ones get lost in hallucinations, sometimes burning more review time.