3 ms·

Yup, that's a common career path mistake companies do - making the only possible 'next step' for senior engineers to become managers. If your company doesn't ha

Yup, that's a common career path mistake companies do - making the only possible 'next step' for senior engineers to become managers. If your company doesn't have a strong career path for senior ICs, you should push for one

boring_twenties 6y ago
Honest question -- why does there need to be a "next step?" It's been over a decade since I've worked at a company with managers. However, it was common for the top programmers to make more money than their managers there.
- elcomet 6y ago
  That's the "next step". In some companies the only way to earn top money is becoming a manager.
- galkk 6y ago
  Because of title inflation, for example.
- vasco 6y ago
  Because some places have titles and so all places need to have titles, lest they be branded as not "helping you grow".
- ochronus 6y ago
  The need comes from the folks feeling stuck - it doesn't "have" to be that way. I've also had engineers making more money than me and looking at their impact it was well justified - the question is not only money but the sense of growth and acknowledgement of growth from the company's side - and there's a clear need for that. A bigger salary is just one (pretty volatile) form of it.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  It's been over a decade since I've worked at a company with managers. However, it was common for the top programmers to make more money than their managers there. Programming and managing are completely different jobs that accomplish different things for the organisation, but they are typically arranged in a top-down fashion, the manager has power over the programmer. A manager's job is to do the function of interacting with the wider organisation in order to determine the best way for the programmer to spend his time, in effect it's a research job, then he presents the programmer with the results of his research and they both agree that the most value can be added to the organisation by working on bug X today instead of feature Y. But what actually happens is the manager says "do this, because I said so, and if you don't I'll block your next raise". Or so-called engineering managers cherry-pick the most rewarding work for themselves and assign the unfulfilling work to subordinates as punishment. That's deeply dysfunctional but it's what happens when you have a group who wants to do real work, and another group who has plenty of time on their hands for full-time politicking.
  - ochronus 6y ago
    There are companies where managers are truly in a supporting function. I'm not here to advertise but my last two jobs were like that.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      here are companies where managers are truly in a supporting function. I'm not here to advertise but my last two jobs were like that Unless programmers have equal knowledge of and input into their managers salary as their manager does in their's, there's still that fundamental top-down structure.
    - mtberatwork 6y ago
      I am doubtful. If the managers are writing the performance reviews, they are not in a supporting function at all. They are the arbiters of the subordinate's success in the company and that is a vertical relationship.
    - Pasorrijer 6y ago
      I agree. I work in a matrixed consulting organization. I have a "People Lead" who guides my career development, and I'm handed off onto projects to "Project Leads" who guide the day to day. And I use the word guide intentionally. When I'm staffed to a project, my role as a project member is to look for the project lead for finance and schedule and PM direction, and maybe to a principal consultant if there is one to guide technical direction, but I'm an IC and expected to do my work. My People lead solicits feedback from those I work with, the project leads etc. But is disconnected from my day to day, so there's no feeling of power, just a willingness to help me with my goals.
taurath 6y ago
The problem is when it comes time to choose a direction, its gonna be you vs the person with N direct reports who can make it happen. I've seen companies give up on this and turn principles into directors - that hasn't worked out well either. It seems to be a pretty bad problem with the standard hierarchical way businesses are set up. I've heard Goog does a bit better with a bit more autonomy so people can gravitate towards good ideas, but have also heard plenty of downsides. Maybe a new way to structure employees could come about?

boring_twenties 6y ago

Honest question -- why does there need to be a "next step?" It's been over a decade since I've worked at a company with managers. However, it was common for the top programmers to make more money than their managers there.

elcomet 6y ago
That's the "next step". In some companies the only way to earn top money is becoming a manager.
galkk 6y ago
Because of title inflation, for example.
vasco 6y ago
Because some places have titles and so all places need to have titles, lest they be branded as not "helping you grow".
ochronus 6y ago
The need comes from the folks feeling stuck - it doesn't "have" to be that way. I've also had engineers making more money than me and looking at their impact it was well justified - the question is not only money but the sense of growth and acknowledgement of growth from the company's side - and there's a clear need for that. A bigger salary is just one (pretty volatile) form of it.
goatinaboat 6y ago
It's been over a decade since I've worked at a company with managers. However, it was common for the top programmers to make more money than their managers there. Programming and managing are completely different jobs that accomplish different things for the organisation, but they are typically arranged in a top-down fashion, the manager has power over the programmer. A manager's job is to do the function of interacting with the wider organisation in order to determine the best way for the programmer to spend his time, in effect it's a research job, then he presents the programmer with the results of his research and they both agree that the most value can be added to the organisation by working on bug X today instead of feature Y. But what actually happens is the manager says "do this, because I said so, and if you don't I'll block your next raise". Or so-called engineering managers cherry-pick the most rewarding work for themselves and assign the unfulfilling work to subordinates as punishment. That's deeply dysfunctional but it's what happens when you have a group who wants to do real work, and another group who has plenty of time on their hands for full-time politicking.
- ochronus 6y ago
  There are companies where managers are truly in a supporting function. I'm not here to advertise but my last two jobs were like that.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    here are companies where managers are truly in a supporting function. I'm not here to advertise but my last two jobs were like that Unless programmers have equal knowledge of and input into their managers salary as their manager does in their's, there's still that fundamental top-down structure.
  - mtberatwork 6y ago
    I am doubtful. If the managers are writing the performance reviews, they are not in a supporting function at all. They are the arbiters of the subordinate's success in the company and that is a vertical relationship.
  - Pasorrijer 6y ago
    I agree. I work in a matrixed consulting organization. I have a "People Lead" who guides my career development, and I'm handed off onto projects to "Project Leads" who guide the day to day. And I use the word guide intentionally. When I'm staffed to a project, my role as a project member is to look for the project lead for finance and schedule and PM direction, and maybe to a principal consultant if there is one to guide technical direction, but I'm an IC and expected to do my work. My People lead solicits feedback from those I work with, the project leads etc. But is disconnected from my day to day, so there's no feeling of power, just a willingness to help me with my goals.

taurath 6y ago

The problem is when it comes time to choose a direction, its gonna be you vs the person with N direct reports who can make it happen. I've seen companies give up on this and turn principles into directors - that hasn't worked out well either. It seems to be a pretty bad problem with the standard hierarchical way businesses are set up. I've heard Goog does a bit better with a bit more autonomy so people can gravitate towards good ideas, but have also heard plenty of downsides. Maybe a new way to structure employees could come about?