3 ms·

Managers control the money. They hire, they fire, the approve or disapprove promotions. That's _fundamentally_ more power than writing code. It would be nice to

Managers control the money. They hire, they fire, the approve or disapprove promotions. That's _fundamentally_ more power than writing code. It would be nice to be able to ignore this, but things like paying for housing, paying for kids' education, etc means you can't really just put that aside. If you want to stay in a technical track, you need to offset your natural disadvantage here. You can't _just_ be writing code, you need to make sure you're actively -- and visibly! -- adding a lot of value as a tech lead. Even if you're not formally managing people, you're going to be coaching and mentoring engineers, because being able to tie your org's goals into a technical vision is the easy part -- the hard part is turning that vision into code that will be mostly written by not-you. And that's all people skills, involving people who do not report to you. IOW, there's still a lot of "management" work if you want to stay in the technical track. I recently did a stint in the management track but have gone back to the technical one because I get a lot out of technical work and found I need that to sustain me and give me energy. I found I can do the management part, and didn't even mind most of it, but it wasn't sustaining me -- an important consideration since, while I've been working for a while, I have a long while to work yet. But it did help clarify where I need to grow if I'm committed to staying "technical".

lkrubner 5y ago
Another pattern I've seen is the software developer who is promoted to high level manager, but they remain focused on the work being done by the software developers. On this front they are very good: mentoring, teaching, removing obstacles. But part of their job is also to now form a better understanding of the other parts of the business: how does the work of the software developers overlap with that of the marketing team, the sales team, the operations team, the financial team, the inventory team, etc. These newly promoted managers don't seem to realize that their new authority means they must now focus on more than tech. I've known developers who get promoted to CTO, and they are loved by the software developers at the company, but they are hated by the CMO, CFO, CCO and eventually, after enough complaints, they are hated by the CEO, at which point they are fired. I write about this in some detail here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/should-top-managers-focus-on-their https://demodexio.substack.com/p/should-top-managers-focus-o... 'This CTO is loved by the software developers but disliked by their peers. The CMO feels unheard, the CFO thinks the CTO doesn't show enough concern for the budget, the Chief Content Officer (CCO) feels that their team is crippled because the CTO doesn't understand their publishing needs. Such moments can undermine the career of a CTO. I'm aware of at least one case where, 10 years after the situation arose, the CMO and CFO and COO, who had all moved on to new jobs at new companies, were still whispering rumors about the CTO. When the CTO applied for a new job, and the company asked his former peers what they thought of him, they were told "He is uncooperative, he is not a team player." So clearly, in that case, it would have been better for the CTO if he'd spent less time with his tech team, and more time with his C-level peers. Or rather, there must have been some particular moment in the growing history of the company when it would have been best for the CTO to switch his focus away from tech and towards his peers, but the CTO missed that moment, much to the irritation of his peers."
- bengold14 5y ago
  > They start their career at age 24 and, because they have a Master's degree, they skip over the long years in the trenches working as a computer programmer. Instead, their first job is often as CTO of some medium sized company. If this is actually in your book I would remove it. This totally destroys your credibility because: A. You're talking about a 7 person startup, not a "medium sized company" B. You're talking about the worst managed medium sized company I've ever heard of, where they would put a 24 y.o. masters student with no real world experience in charge of anyone. C. It's not a true anecdote Any of the above options lead me as a reader to think that either you don't have experience in the industry, have experience with poorly managed companies or are making up scenarios to fit your narrative

lkrubner 5y ago

Another pattern I've seen is the software developer who is promoted to high level manager, but they remain focused on the work being done by the software developers. On this front they are very good: mentoring, teaching, removing obstacles. But part of their job is also to now form a better understanding of the other parts of the business: how does the work of the software developers overlap with that of the marketing team, the sales team, the operations team, the financial team, the inventory team, etc. These newly promoted managers don't seem to realize that their new authority means they must now focus on more than tech. I've known developers who get promoted to CTO, and they are loved by the software developers at the company, but they are hated by the CMO, CFO, CCO and eventually, after enough complaints, they are hated by the CEO, at which point they are fired. I write about this in some detail here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/should-top-managers-focus-on-their https://demodexio.substack.com/p/should-top-managers-focus-o... 'This CTO is loved by the software developers but disliked by their peers. The CMO feels unheard, the CFO thinks the CTO doesn't show enough concern for the budget, the Chief Content Officer (CCO) feels that their team is crippled because the CTO doesn't understand their publishing needs. Such moments can undermine the career of a CTO. I'm aware of at least one case where, 10 years after the situation arose, the CMO and CFO and COO, who had all moved on to new jobs at new companies, were still whispering rumors about the CTO. When the CTO applied for a new job, and the company asked his former peers what they thought of him, they were told "He is uncooperative, he is not a team player." So clearly, in that case, it would have been better for the CTO if he'd spent less time with his tech team, and more time with his C-level peers. Or rather, there must have been some particular moment in the growing history of the company when it would have been best for the CTO to switch his focus away from tech and towards his peers, but the CTO missed that moment, much to the irritation of his peers."

bengold14 5y ago
> They start their career at age 24 and, because they have a Master's degree, they skip over the long years in the trenches working as a computer programmer. Instead, their first job is often as CTO of some medium sized company. If this is actually in your book I would remove it. This totally destroys your credibility because: A. You're talking about a 7 person startup, not a "medium sized company" B. You're talking about the worst managed medium sized company I've ever heard of, where they would put a 24 y.o. masters student with no real world experience in charge of anyone. C. It's not a true anecdote Any of the above options lead me as a reader to think that either you don't have experience in the industry, have experience with poorly managed companies or are making up scenarios to fit your narrative