5 ms·

At least in the US, they're generally limited to salaries on the "general schedule", and management gets paid more than technical people, because "it wouldn't b

At least in the US, they're generally limited to salaries on the "general schedule", and management gets paid more than technical people, because "it wouldn't be fair" to have subordinates that make more than you. So there's a built-in glass ceiling for tech careers. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/22Tables/html/GS.aspx https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...

lotsofpulp 5y ago
“They” (political leaders) choose to limit salaries, and if a problem is urgent enough, they can somehow find a way pay more. It is just politics. Paying more today increases cash spend today, and that looks bad for them come election time.
halpert 5y ago
Maybe “it’s not fair to have subordinates earn more” was the justification given to you, but businesses rarely make decisions based on what’s fair. Engineers are valuable, but individual engineers are largely replaceable. Being able to coordinate a large group successfully also has a lot of value.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Think it has a lot more to do with proximity to those controlling the purse-strings. Intra-firm compensation is not nearly as "rational" as you are making it out to be.
  - halpert 5y ago
    Is it really proximity to the purse string? Because even large, profitable founder-led tech companies, where founders have full control and motive to run the company efficiently, adopt middle management. And what evidence is there that middle management is unnecessary? The only evidence presented is theoretical critiques from engineers who feel they stand to gain from the removal of management.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Let's be honest. Engineer managers are largely replacable and more easily than individual engineers. The pool is larger and can accept more manager unrelated experience. There is more to this. As the person senior leadership communicates with this person is seen as more important than they are. Senior leadership wants to maintain a leveling system to separate groups of people. It's a hedge a flat organization which makes senior leadership less important. You could swap out this person with another without losing speed but it doesn't work as well with an engineer.
  - halpert 5y ago
    Then why don’t companies adopt a flatter structure with higher compensated engineers? The goal of a company is to make money after all. If management could be removed and top engineers retained with higher salaries, then a company would surely have an advantage in the marketplace. Since this doesn’t happen, there must be more to the picture than people in upper management simply clinging to their jobs. If removing middle management were so obvious a change to make, then shareholders would demand it.
    - hiptobecubic 5y ago
      I would be careful with the "if they do it it must be sensible" reasoning. There are a lot of reasons that modeling firms using homo-economicus and perfect markets doesn't pan out.
      - halpert 5y ago
        To me, this is a case to apply Occam’s razor. What is more likely, that this decades old, Dilbertesque criticism of management is true, yet somehow eluded the purview of shareholders? Or that businesses are being run in a relatively efficient manner given the current human condition?
        jjoonathan 5y ago
        Rules for Rulers is real. It's not that management is dumb, it's that every layer of management is self-interested. Every hierarchy has to contend with principal agent problems. Organizations can do a better or worse job of it, but the incentives are always there and they lead to predictable inefficiencies which are frequently observed. Everyone knows this, but unless you know how to get someone to manage without self-interest, you aren't in a position to solve the problem. Nobody is. That's why it lingers.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

“They” (political leaders) choose to limit salaries, and if a problem is urgent enough, they can somehow find a way pay more. It is just politics. Paying more today increases cash spend today, and that looks bad for them come election time.

halpert 5y ago

Maybe “it’s not fair to have subordinates earn more” was the justification given to you, but businesses rarely make decisions based on what’s fair. Engineers are valuable, but individual engineers are largely replaceable. Being able to coordinate a large group successfully also has a lot of value.

whimsicalism 5y ago
Think it has a lot more to do with proximity to those controlling the purse-strings. Intra-firm compensation is not nearly as "rational" as you are making it out to be.
- halpert 5y ago
  Is it really proximity to the purse string? Because even large, profitable founder-led tech companies, where founders have full control and motive to run the company efficiently, adopt middle management. And what evidence is there that middle management is unnecessary? The only evidence presented is theoretical critiques from engineers who feel they stand to gain from the removal of management.
ipaddr 5y ago
Let's be honest. Engineer managers are largely replacable and more easily than individual engineers. The pool is larger and can accept more manager unrelated experience. There is more to this. As the person senior leadership communicates with this person is seen as more important than they are. Senior leadership wants to maintain a leveling system to separate groups of people. It's a hedge a flat organization which makes senior leadership less important. You could swap out this person with another without losing speed but it doesn't work as well with an engineer.
- halpert 5y ago
  Then why don’t companies adopt a flatter structure with higher compensated engineers? The goal of a company is to make money after all. If management could be removed and top engineers retained with higher salaries, then a company would surely have an advantage in the marketplace. Since this doesn’t happen, there must be more to the picture than people in upper management simply clinging to their jobs. If removing middle management were so obvious a change to make, then shareholders would demand it.
  - hiptobecubic 5y ago
    I would be careful with the "if they do it it must be sensible" reasoning. There are a lot of reasons that modeling firms using homo-economicus and perfect markets doesn't pan out.
    - halpert 5y ago
      To me, this is a case to apply Occam’s razor. What is more likely, that this decades old, Dilbertesque criticism of management is true, yet somehow eluded the purview of shareholders? Or that businesses are being run in a relatively efficient manner given the current human condition?
      - jjoonathan 5y ago
        Rules for Rulers is real. It's not that management is dumb, it's that every layer of management is self-interested. Every hierarchy has to contend with principal agent problems. Organizations can do a better or worse job of it, but the incentives are always there and they lead to predictable inefficiencies which are frequently observed. Everyone knows this, but unless you know how to get someone to manage without self-interest, you aren't in a position to solve the problem. Nobody is. That's why it lingers.