7 ms·

>> I also think it's really, really dumb to push developers into management positions if they can't do the job. This has been known forever, yet it still happe

>> I also think it's really, really dumb to push developers into management positions if they can't do the job. This has been known forever, yet it still happens - Why? >> I'd much prefer putting younger managers with great management skills into the mix... One reason is it is impossible to tell if a young manager has great management skills. It's really hard to tell if an experienced manager has strong skills. As a result, technical proficiency is used as a proxy for management potential. It probably has a stronger correlation than picking a random person, but is not great. The new manager is then really unhappy, quits or is fired or eventually learns the new skills and is successful. Repeat.

sp332 8y ago
Some companies only have one kind of career track. If you want more money, you have to be in a manager position. They don't have a way for experienced programmers to keep moving up in their careers as programmers.
- sidlls 8y ago
  Is there any tech company where the technical track doesn't plateau below the people-manager track?
  - lbotos 8y ago
    GitLab (I work there) does allow you to become Staff-Level which is the same multiplier as a manager.
    - sidlls 8y ago
      Yes, that's common: but I have yet to see a case where the tech track goes as high as the management track. For example, "Distinguished/Staff Engineer" might be the equivalent of a "Senior Director" in an org with two or three levels of management above that (VP, SVP/CTO, EVP, etc.).
      - Shebanator 8y ago
        Google's tech track does go all the way to VP equivalents.
  - robterrell 8y ago
    Many companies have separate tracks for independent contributors and managers. You can stay an IC and level up to Distinguished Engineer or Fellow or Staff Engineer or whatever, without needing to go into management.
    - pdimitar 8y ago
      I think we might need a curated list for those. At 17 years of career I've only seen one such company.
      - robterrell 8y ago
        It seems pretty common with bigger companies: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, Box, Zynga, Electronic Arts, Pinterest, Microsoft, etc. The tracks and levels are commonly referred to as the "job family architecture" -- don't be afraid to ask a recruiter for this information. Otherwise you'll never really know if you're being properly leveled. (For instance, I believe a Principal SE at Microsoft is roughly equal to a Staff Engineer at Google.)
  - bradleyjg 8y ago
    The issue isn't the absolute height. The top manager (CEO) is going to make more more than the top IC, that's just obvious. The real issue is that management is a pyramid but IC is ziggurat with, if you're lucky, an obelisk sitting on top of it. People like to point to the principal staff engineer or whatever, but there's one of them for every twenty upper-mid level managers making the same money. And all those managers can take their skills to another company, but if an IC guru leaves the company where he made his bones he's probably destined for consulting (at best). Consulting has its upsides, but that's no more for everyone than management.
    - sidlls 8y ago
      I think both are true. There are more "slots" for management than technical leaders at the same compensation band. There are also generally at least some compensation bands in management that are above the highest band tech lead role (architect, chief/principal/distinguished/staff/whatever).
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    In my company it’s also much slower to move up the technical track compared to the manager track. If you want to make money it’s much better to be manager.
  - SZJX 8y ago
    I guess that would just not be realistic. There was a comment from a while ago that I think makes total sense: The organization has to evaluate the value that you bring and create. If your position moves and directs dozens of people, it will be hard for an individual contributor to match the importance no matter what. Of course, it's fine if you prefer to remain a more individual, engineering-oriented position. But there is little reason to expect you'd reach the same level of importance to the organization as some top managers/executives.
    - sidlls 8y ago
      Agreed, completely. Most ICs overestimate their importance by far. Most people do regardless of title.
mental1896 8y ago
>> I also think it's really, really dumb to push developers into management positions if they can't do the job. >This has been known forever, yet it still happens - Why? This problem exists in hardware departments too. My best guess is that they want managers familiar with the tech/industry/company. My second best guess is that it's a natural human tendency and hasn't been addressed systematically.

sp332 8y ago

Some companies only have one kind of career track. If you want more money, you have to be in a manager position. They don't have a way for experienced programmers to keep moving up in their careers as programmers.

sidlls 8y ago
Is there any tech company where the technical track doesn't plateau below the people-manager track?
- lbotos 8y ago
  GitLab (I work there) does allow you to become Staff-Level which is the same multiplier as a manager.
  - sidlls 8y ago
    Yes, that's common: but I have yet to see a case where the tech track goes as high as the management track. For example, "Distinguished/Staff Engineer" might be the equivalent of a "Senior Director" in an org with two or three levels of management above that (VP, SVP/CTO, EVP, etc.).
    - Shebanator 8y ago
      Google's tech track does go all the way to VP equivalents.
- robterrell 8y ago
  Many companies have separate tracks for independent contributors and managers. You can stay an IC and level up to Distinguished Engineer or Fellow or Staff Engineer or whatever, without needing to go into management.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    I think we might need a curated list for those. At 17 years of career I've only seen one such company.
    - robterrell 8y ago
      It seems pretty common with bigger companies: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, Box, Zynga, Electronic Arts, Pinterest, Microsoft, etc. The tracks and levels are commonly referred to as the "job family architecture" -- don't be afraid to ask a recruiter for this information. Otherwise you'll never really know if you're being properly leveled. (For instance, I believe a Principal SE at Microsoft is roughly equal to a Staff Engineer at Google.)
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  The issue isn't the absolute height. The top manager (CEO) is going to make more more than the top IC, that's just obvious. The real issue is that management is a pyramid but IC is ziggurat with, if you're lucky, an obelisk sitting on top of it. People like to point to the principal staff engineer or whatever, but there's one of them for every twenty upper-mid level managers making the same money. And all those managers can take their skills to another company, but if an IC guru leaves the company where he made his bones he's probably destined for consulting (at best). Consulting has its upsides, but that's no more for everyone than management.
  - sidlls 8y ago
    I think both are true. There are more "slots" for management than technical leaders at the same compensation band. There are also generally at least some compensation bands in management that are above the highest band tech lead role (architect, chief/principal/distinguished/staff/whatever).
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  In my company it’s also much slower to move up the technical track compared to the manager track. If you want to make money it’s much better to be manager.
- SZJX 8y ago
  I guess that would just not be realistic. There was a comment from a while ago that I think makes total sense: The organization has to evaluate the value that you bring and create. If your position moves and directs dozens of people, it will be hard for an individual contributor to match the importance no matter what. Of course, it's fine if you prefer to remain a more individual, engineering-oriented position. But there is little reason to expect you'd reach the same level of importance to the organization as some top managers/executives.
  - sidlls 8y ago
    Agreed, completely. Most ICs overestimate their importance by far. Most people do regardless of title.

mental1896 8y ago

>> I also think it's really, really dumb to push developers into management positions if they can't do the job. >This has been known forever, yet it still happens - Why? This problem exists in hardware departments too. My best guess is that they want managers familiar with the tech/industry/company. My second best guess is that it's a natural human tendency and hasn't been addressed systematically.