4 ms·

In good companies there are two career paths: - a management track - an IC (individual contributor) track There are different levels on the different tracks,

In good companies there are two career paths: - a management track - an IC (individual contributor) track There are different levels on the different tracks, and each is paid for that level. A super experienced IC will be paid more than a junior manager, and vice versa. So it doesn't have to be true that a manager earns more than an IC, and for example many ICs at Google are paid millions of $$, much much more than the average manager (or average IC, of course). But when managers are paid more, why is that? Sometimes, the experience needed to be a manager is higher. For example, an engineering manager that wasn't previously an engineer may struggle to manage their team. As such, an engineering manager might have 10 years of engineering behind them before making the leap over to other track, and we don't just start them at the bottom given their relevant experience. Another reason is that managers are multipliers. A good manager can take a team of good ICs and turn them into amazing ICs working together as a team. A bad manager might multiply the team by 0.5, or 0.1, but no-one hires a manager expecting them to suck, so you pay them as if their multiplier is 2x (and hopefully fire them if they suck). Of course, managers and ICs are different roles in the employment market. ICs often don't like management (which is a challenging, and often very different job from ICing). So they different have supply/demand curves. If the above doesn't apply to your workplace, then the obvious thing is true: they pay managers more because they value managers more. Whether that is the right thing to do is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

ransom1538 8y ago
Great post. From my experience, becoming an IC that is "paid millions of $$" is akin to being Kobe Bryant [EG you prototyped google earth or wrote swift]. Most will never become Kobe Bryant - I don't care how many basketballs you toss in the air. But, IMHO becoming a highly paid manager just takes experience, a smile and luck (placed on the right team).
- trhway 8y ago
  >But, IMHO becoming a highly paid manager just takes experience, a smile and luck (placed on the right team). like happening to be the manager of that guy who wrote swift.
  - pbiggar 8y ago
    I was interviewed by the manager of that guy who wrote Swift. In my limited interaction with him, he seemed like an incredibly competent manager. He managed a high-functioning team for around a decade, and somehow also wrote the original Clang static analyzer. Here's what Chris Lattner had to say about him: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/01/13/lattner-kremenek https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/01/13/lattner-kremene...
rishirishi 8y ago
Good perspective, pbiggar. Question for clarification: Do those ICs making "a lot" report to managers that make more, less or equal (generally speaking of course)?
- pbiggar 8y ago
  Everything is highly situational. I couldn't tell you whether it's better to have your most valuable ICs managed by the best managers, or whether the most valuable ICs need only limited management and you should have your best managers focusing on improving more junior engineers. (This assumes that the "managers" are strictly people managers. Often, managers might do some or all of managing teams, products, releases, people, or technical leadership. It certainly wouldn't be unheard of to have a manager's team include an engineer far senior to the manager.)
- sulam 8y ago
  I’ve managed people who were paid an order of magnitude more than I was making. I currently make more than most managers whose compensation I know at my current employer. (I technically make a LOT more than my manager, but special circumstances there.) So it’s not unheard of. It is fairly uncommon however, the average manager is probably making somewhat more than the average engineer they manage at the large tech companies.
- sardonicbryan 8y ago
  At my company, the most senior ICs (Principal Engineer, Chief Architect) report into the CTO, so the "manager" in this scenario they don't make more than their direct "manager," but likely more than every other manager in the org. I think this is a pretty common structure for companies that actually have an IC track that goes being senior engineer.
kamaal 8y ago
>>Another reason is that managers are multipliers. There is no any such reason. Current day managerial jobs descend directly from days of feudalism and aristocracy. Where the master had to be richer than the slaves to enforce his rule over the serfs. All the best having a underpaid manager exercising control over overpaid ICs, it doesn't start, let alone work well. In short this is social sanction. The reality is any set up which require a pyramid to exist, there will be pay grades, people down the pyramids will be paid no matter what miracles they will pull off. And people at the top will maintain political control to further their interests. That is all there is to it. If we evaluated these 'managers' on merit. Then even being called a supervisor would be a lot for these glorified email routers and table fillers.
- dasil003 8y ago
  Your answer is contradictory: managers are not in any way multipliers, but they must be paid more because pyramid? Also, your cynical view completely breaks down for knowledge work; you can't simply stand over a room of programmers cracking a whip and expect anything to improve. Maybe you've experienced that, but that's not what skilled managers in productive tech companies are paid to do.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    Please, human beings are the same regardless where and when they they have been working. It was the same in the court of Julius Caesar its the same in Google.
    - foo101 8y ago
      You are probably not aware but in Google and many other companies it is very normal and in fact common to have a manager earning less than an employee reporting to the manager. I have not experienced any kind of friction due to this. Why should it? It's only fair that someone who brings more value to the company should earn more. Having said that, Google is not your typical company. I know managers in Google who push thousands of lines of code per week and are often more productive and more hand-on than the engineers that report to them. In such cases, it is only fair that they earn more than the engineers. I agree with dasil003 that your cynical view breaks down in productive technology companies. Maybe that's what you have experiened but the places I have worked at had no resemblance with the court of Julius Caesar and the managers were definitely not mere email routers.

ransom1538 8y ago

Great post. From my experience, becoming an IC that is "paid millions of $$" is akin to being Kobe Bryant [EG you prototyped google earth or wrote swift]. Most will never become Kobe Bryant - I don't care how many basketballs you toss in the air. But, IMHO becoming a highly paid manager just takes experience, a smile and luck (placed on the right team).

trhway 8y ago
>But, IMHO becoming a highly paid manager just takes experience, a smile and luck (placed on the right team). like happening to be the manager of that guy who wrote swift.
- pbiggar 8y ago
  I was interviewed by the manager of that guy who wrote Swift. In my limited interaction with him, he seemed like an incredibly competent manager. He managed a high-functioning team for around a decade, and somehow also wrote the original Clang static analyzer. Here's what Chris Lattner had to say about him: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/01/13/lattner-kremenek https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/01/13/lattner-kremene...

rishirishi 8y ago

Good perspective, pbiggar. Question for clarification: Do those ICs making "a lot" report to managers that make more, less or equal (generally speaking of course)?

pbiggar 8y ago
Everything is highly situational. I couldn't tell you whether it's better to have your most valuable ICs managed by the best managers, or whether the most valuable ICs need only limited management and you should have your best managers focusing on improving more junior engineers. (This assumes that the "managers" are strictly people managers. Often, managers might do some or all of managing teams, products, releases, people, or technical leadership. It certainly wouldn't be unheard of to have a manager's team include an engineer far senior to the manager.)
sulam 8y ago
I’ve managed people who were paid an order of magnitude more than I was making. I currently make more than most managers whose compensation I know at my current employer. (I technically make a LOT more than my manager, but special circumstances there.) So it’s not unheard of. It is fairly uncommon however, the average manager is probably making somewhat more than the average engineer they manage at the large tech companies.
sardonicbryan 8y ago
At my company, the most senior ICs (Principal Engineer, Chief Architect) report into the CTO, so the "manager" in this scenario they don't make more than their direct "manager," but likely more than every other manager in the org. I think this is a pretty common structure for companies that actually have an IC track that goes being senior engineer.

kamaal 8y ago

>>Another reason is that managers are multipliers. There is no any such reason. Current day managerial jobs descend directly from days of feudalism and aristocracy. Where the master had to be richer than the slaves to enforce his rule over the serfs. All the best having a underpaid manager exercising control over overpaid ICs, it doesn't start, let alone work well. In short this is social sanction. The reality is any set up which require a pyramid to exist, there will be pay grades, people down the pyramids will be paid no matter what miracles they will pull off. And people at the top will maintain political control to further their interests. That is all there is to it. If we evaluated these 'managers' on merit. Then even being called a supervisor would be a lot for these glorified email routers and table fillers.

dasil003 8y ago
Your answer is contradictory: managers are not in any way multipliers, but they must be paid more because pyramid? Also, your cynical view completely breaks down for knowledge work; you can't simply stand over a room of programmers cracking a whip and expect anything to improve. Maybe you've experienced that, but that's not what skilled managers in productive tech companies are paid to do.
- kamaal 8y ago
  Please, human beings are the same regardless where and when they they have been working. It was the same in the court of Julius Caesar its the same in Google.
  - foo101 8y ago
    You are probably not aware but in Google and many other companies it is very normal and in fact common to have a manager earning less than an employee reporting to the manager. I have not experienced any kind of friction due to this. Why should it? It's only fair that someone who brings more value to the company should earn more. Having said that, Google is not your typical company. I know managers in Google who push thousands of lines of code per week and are often more productive and more hand-on than the engineers that report to them. In such cases, it is only fair that they earn more than the engineers. I agree with dasil003 that your cynical view breaks down in productive technology companies. Maybe that's what you have experiened but the places I have worked at had no resemblance with the court of Julius Caesar and the managers were definitely not mere email routers.