4 ms·
> But that also means you still see managers "a top" of engineers (a "better" job). Managers are typically comped better. Usually on a level by level basis, bu
by ashtonkem 5y ago
> But that also means you still see managers "a top" of engineers (a "better" job).
Managers are typically comped better. Usually on a level by level basis, but also in the number of times you can be promoted before you run out of new job titles.
- topkai22 5y agoIn my (giant) company, it appears there is a bit more room at the top for managers, but in general leveling up is more difficult as there is an expectation that the amount of headcount you manage is commiserate with the level, so the optimal leveling progression appears to stay an engineer for as long as you continue to level up and then switch into management.
- bruckie 5y agoYou meant "commensurate", of course, but maybe "commiserate" was a Freudian slip? I often look at people managing large groups if people and think, "that looks like (it's often) a miserable job". :)
- hawaiianbrah 5y agoNone of the companies I’m at paid managers more than ICs level-for-level.
- ashtonkem 5y agoMy company also has a level for level match, except there are far more managers than equivalent high level ICs, and even the generous IC tree ends far sooner than the management one does. If a manager is so inclined one could pursue an executive position, and I’ve never seen an equivalent for IC engineers. I think there is probably one IC equivalent for every 2-3 low level managers, and $CORP is better about these things than any other company I’ve ever worked for.