3 ms·

I wanted to make the same point. Many large software companies have very similar structure. Since I had personal experience working in these companies here wh

by tlogan 10y ago

I wanted to make the same point. Many large software companies have very similar structure. Since I had personal experience working in these companies here what I found as problem: - Management has decision making power. - Management has ability to control $$ (bonus allocation, etc.) - Management has access to more information than employees on "individual contributor" track It is important to note that system work up to mid-level managers. I.e., it is works well when there is "team lead" and "manager". Manager ensures that the team is not bothered by politics and get all necessary resources while team lead ensures that things are done. But when you come to mid-level and up even if the pay is comparable, the life is much better for managers. For example, if you are in 40s it is important to have job security. Senior managers and VPs will know when are layoffs are coming or certain groups will be sacked (since they have access to more informations). They can prepare for it. If you are "software architect", you are in the blind until the day of layoffs.

alttab 10y ago
I feel good managers often delegate the decision making power to the group or team leads. This creates scale for the manager, and allows room for the development teams to develop leaders and judgement. Companies that are set up well also give minimal control over bonus allocation or salaries. These things should be controlled by HR and recruiting, along with salary and compensation policies based on role and level. Managers supposedly have the best view on IC performance, so within some band they should be able to influence rate increases and promotions. Anything outside of that would need to be a conversation between the manager/IC and HR. My advise here is if you feel there is a deviation in your pay, get your manager to bat for you, do not go to HR yourself. And by design, management will have access to more information than individual contributors, but that's the purpose of the role. This person brings in information, priorities, and resources to the team to execute. This is where the "power" idea comes in, but anyone in this position long enough would tell you its more of a "responsibility." It's not always clear what is right and what isn't, nor even a way to really prove it ex post facto. Could it give someone enough perspective to make self-interested decisions that ICs could not? Probably. I suppose the question is, is that bad and how is it bad, and how would you eliminate it? Edit: My wishful novelist inside me says its the software program that automates resource allocation, charter, and IC development. You could essentially build an autonomously managed organization with IC roles being the only true human employees.
- tlogan 10y ago
  Two comments. Relaying on HR for anything related to company development and future (i.e., bonuses) is very very dangerous. I was there and you have to see shenanigans and company politics in that case. So the problem is: 1. you can give power to HRs to allocate bonuses 2. you can give power to EVPs and VPs to allocate bonuses It is much better to give this power to EVPs and VPs. > And by design, management will have access to more information than > individual contributors, but that's the purpose of the role. And that cause of the problem :( ICs will have less information and thus when things come to making decisions, people on management track will make better decisions (since they are have more information) and thus subsequent promotion. I was also there...
  - alttab 10y ago
    I wasn't considering performance based bonuses. Either way, the company hopefully has a bonus policy that is at least enforced by HR when it comes to cutting checks. Either way - I think you may have misinterpreted my remarks about HR.

by tlogan 10y ago

alttab 10y ago

I feel good managers often delegate the decision making power to the group or team leads. This creates scale for the manager, and allows room for the development teams to develop leaders and judgement. Companies that are set up well also give minimal control over bonus allocation or salaries. These things should be controlled by HR and recruiting, along with salary and compensation policies based on role and level. Managers supposedly have the best view on IC performance, so within some band they should be able to influence rate increases and promotions. Anything outside of that would need to be a conversation between the manager/IC and HR. My advise here is if you feel there is a deviation in your pay, get your manager to bat for you, do not go to HR yourself. And by design, management will have access to more information than individual contributors, but that's the purpose of the role. This person brings in information, priorities, and resources to the team to execute. This is where the "power" idea comes in, but anyone in this position long enough would tell you its more of a "responsibility." It's not always clear what is right and what isn't, nor even a way to really prove it ex post facto. Could it give someone enough perspective to make self-interested decisions that ICs could not? Probably. I suppose the question is, is that bad and how is it bad, and how would you eliminate it? Edit: My wishful novelist inside me says its the software program that automates resource allocation, charter, and IC development. You could essentially build an autonomously managed organization with IC roles being the only true human employees.

tlogan 10y ago
Two comments. Relaying on HR for anything related to company development and future (i.e., bonuses) is very very dangerous. I was there and you have to see shenanigans and company politics in that case. So the problem is: 1. you can give power to HRs to allocate bonuses 2. you can give power to EVPs and VPs to allocate bonuses It is much better to give this power to EVPs and VPs. > And by design, management will have access to more information than > individual contributors, but that's the purpose of the role. And that cause of the problem :( ICs will have less information and thus when things come to making decisions, people on management track will make better decisions (since they are have more information) and thus subsequent promotion. I was also there...
- alttab 10y ago
  I wasn't considering performance based bonuses. Either way, the company hopefully has a bonus policy that is at least enforced by HR when it comes to cutting checks. Either way - I think you may have misinterpreted my remarks about HR.