5 ms·

This is something people seem hesitant to realize: that after a certain point you can only grow your career by "managing" other people. This is true in a lot of

This is something people seem hesitant to realize: that after a certain point you can only grow your career by "managing" other people. This is true in a lot of (most?) fields. At some point you cannot become more productive as an individual and you need to start coordinating the work of many people if you want to increase your productivity. This can of course take many forms, but the essence is inescapable.

belval 5y ago
Exactly, FANG-like have done a lot of work to move definitions around to make it seem like "principal engineer" was still an IC position, but all good principal engineer I've interacted with were basically managers with a different name. Sure they review code and still get their hands dirty from time to time on critical pieces, but there is much more value in using your experience to lead your team in the right direction.
dvtrn 5y ago
At some point you cannot become more productive as an individual and you need to start coordinating the work of many people if you want to increase your productivity. Neat. Another manifestation of the attitude regarding productivity of "more, more, and more still" as the default trajectory in the name of 'growth'. Calling it "inescapable" even. Sheesh. What's the point at which we realize "enough" productivity is exactly "enough" and give people the agency and autonomy to perform where they are most capable at a velocity of work that is stable, sustainable and...fuck it, I'll say it: sane? Commenter, please understand: this isn't an attack on you for merely saying it, but is instead a full-frontal assault on the concept in general because honeslty...personally...I'm sick of it. Alright, I'm done venting.
- alonsonic 5y ago
  This is something I ask myself constantly. I believe what the commenter means is that if you want to "grow" or get a higher salary then you will be expected to do more, and at a certain point the definition of more can only mean stepping into a leadership role of some sort where you have to interface with more people. If you're happy with your current responsibilities as an IC then you should be able to stay at that top level (Principal engineer) and continue doing what you're doing today, just don't expect a higher pay.
  - dvtrn 5y ago
    If you're happy with your current responsibilities as an IC then you should be able to stay at that top level (Principal engineer) and continue doing what you're doing today, just don't expect a higher pay. Anecdote isn't data, but it's funny to read this given it's exactly what happened the moment I decided I wasn't happy in management and wanted to be an IC again: a 25% increase in TC pay. And I was very happy with, content with and able to provide for mine on the previous, lower TC (which was still well into six-figures) even though I wanted nothing to do with the work anymore.
  - kosievdmerwe 5y ago
    Yup I meant exactly this.
zeroonetwothree 5y ago
Software is clearly an exception to this because you can leverage your work to an arbitrary degree. One person can write software that benefits hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of people. The junior engineer solves an immediate problem. The senior engineer realizes it’s generalisable to similar problems of their team and solves them all at once. The principal engineer realizes it’s generalisable to their entire company (or broader industry) and solves it for everyone.
- kosievdmerwe 5y ago
  Not really, you can leverage your work very widely, but your rate of change to the program is limited.
  - lliamander 5y ago
    The relevant metric here is not how much code you can write or quickly you can write it, but how difficult and impactful the code being written is. Many widely-used and industry-shaping pieces of software were (at least initially) the product of just a single programmer, or at most a small handful of core developers. When other people joined it, it is often after the software had some initial success.
nostrademons 5y ago
It's interesting to me how many people miss the other big shift that can increase their earning potential: from labor to capitalist. The ceiling is effectively unlimited for this. A good manager might make double what a good IC under them does, but the shareholder makes orders of magnitude more. The essence of capitalism is shifting resources from unproductive uses to productive ones, and they operate on global markets, which gives them unprecedented leverage. Capitalism is a skill just like management, and just like management, it consists of a number of subskills. How do you know what the market will value? How can you evaluate the competitive landscape? How do you make yourself aware of technological developments and new suppliers that might affect cost structures? How do you recognize emerging complements? How do you ensure the legal structures of your agreement make sure that you share in the profits of your investment? The interesting thing is that developing these skills early, in high school and college, helps dramatically even if you don't have any capital to invest. Because you can apply the same questions toward the company you contribute your labor to, and then bargain for stock instead of cash. A junior developer who joined Coinbase in 2016 made a lot more than a manager who joined Facebook.
- gnarcoregrizz 5y ago
  Great point. One issue with your last paragraph though, is when trying to select a company to work for from an equity/ownership standpoint, there isn't the option of diversifying a career. You can only work at once place, so you put all your eggs in one basket. In hindsight, sure, you would make better money at coinbase rather than facebook, but it's essentially going long on one stock with your time rather than capital. The owners and capitalists have been the winners, at least in my lifetime. Investing has been de-risked enough through monetary and political policy that it's a good bet. A good example of monetary policy is low interest rates. The ability to borrow capital and take "risks" hasn't been cheaper. A political policy to encourage investment is for example the 401k - most wage earner's retirement funds go straight to the capital markets. Even public employees retirement funds ride the capital markets with optimistic outlooks. I suppose that makes most Americans capitalists whether they want to be or not, so my argument has come full circle, but that money bubbles up to the people up top, since they make the compounding gains and have access to inside markets. Personally, A few times I've made more money from ownership and investment than from my labor. It certainly is a valid approach to a career.
closeparen 5y ago
Of course there is some ceiling, however it seems to be kept much lower than it could be at many companies due to inexpressive "idiot proof" programming environments and highly bureaucratic processes.
theptip 5y ago
This is really not how most companies think about it. Unless you take an extremely broad view of what “management” is. As a term of art, used by people writing the JDs for “manager” jobs (source: have wrote those JDs), it specifically means having people reporting to you, being responsible for their productivity, growth, and development. The senior IC track does not (have to) involve management. It does involve a lot of communication, collaboration, and coordination, which may look like management if you squint. And there is overlap; in small companies, particularly startups, sometimes tech lead and manager hats are worn by the same person. But they are different roles. And particularly, to the point of the article, they are different career tracks. You might wear both hats for a bit, but most careers will end up specializing on one or other track. See https://lethain.com/ https://lethain.com/ for lots of material on what it means to be a staff-plus IC, as well as engineering manager.
seer 5y ago
The great thing about software is that “more” can not just be people, it can be “more software”. The way I hope to end my career is in IC, building tools that make other devs/the org more productive. Building software that multiplies other developers output will also increase your output in a sense. You are vastly more productive because you “work through the people using your software”. Which I believe can be a position of very high status in and of itself. Imagine Guido, or the teams behind go, react, etc… Most big organizations need people to work on their infra full time, and thats what I hope to end up doing someday, no need to mange people, you can still manage computers, only a lot more of them. Its what Paul Graham said in one if his essays - as a factory worker you can’t increase your output much by working more, but as a software dev - you can, and with enough planning / luck that can be exponential.

belval 5y ago

Exactly, FANG-like have done a lot of work to move definitions around to make it seem like "principal engineer" was still an IC position, but all good principal engineer I've interacted with were basically managers with a different name. Sure they review code and still get their hands dirty from time to time on critical pieces, but there is much more value in using your experience to lead your team in the right direction.

dvtrn 5y ago

At some point you cannot become more productive as an individual and you need to start coordinating the work of many people if you want to increase your productivity. Neat. Another manifestation of the attitude regarding productivity of "more, more, and more still" as the default trajectory in the name of 'growth'. Calling it "inescapable" even. Sheesh. What's the point at which we realize "enough" productivity is exactly "enough" and give people the agency and autonomy to perform where they are most capable at a velocity of work that is stable, sustainable and...fuck it, I'll say it: sane? Commenter, please understand: this isn't an attack on you for merely saying it, but is instead a full-frontal assault on the concept in general because honeslty...personally...I'm sick of it. Alright, I'm done venting.

alonsonic 5y ago
This is something I ask myself constantly. I believe what the commenter means is that if you want to "grow" or get a higher salary then you will be expected to do more, and at a certain point the definition of more can only mean stepping into a leadership role of some sort where you have to interface with more people. If you're happy with your current responsibilities as an IC then you should be able to stay at that top level (Principal engineer) and continue doing what you're doing today, just don't expect a higher pay.
- dvtrn 5y ago
  If you're happy with your current responsibilities as an IC then you should be able to stay at that top level (Principal engineer) and continue doing what you're doing today, just don't expect a higher pay. Anecdote isn't data, but it's funny to read this given it's exactly what happened the moment I decided I wasn't happy in management and wanted to be an IC again: a 25% increase in TC pay. And I was very happy with, content with and able to provide for mine on the previous, lower TC (which was still well into six-figures) even though I wanted nothing to do with the work anymore.
- kosievdmerwe 5y ago
  Yup I meant exactly this.

zeroonetwothree 5y ago

Software is clearly an exception to this because you can leverage your work to an arbitrary degree. One person can write software that benefits hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of people. The junior engineer solves an immediate problem. The senior engineer realizes it’s generalisable to similar problems of their team and solves them all at once. The principal engineer realizes it’s generalisable to their entire company (or broader industry) and solves it for everyone.

kosievdmerwe 5y ago
Not really, you can leverage your work very widely, but your rate of change to the program is limited.
- lliamander 5y ago
  The relevant metric here is not how much code you can write or quickly you can write it, but how difficult and impactful the code being written is. Many widely-used and industry-shaping pieces of software were (at least initially) the product of just a single programmer, or at most a small handful of core developers. When other people joined it, it is often after the software had some initial success.

nostrademons 5y ago

It's interesting to me how many people miss the other big shift that can increase their earning potential: from labor to capitalist. The ceiling is effectively unlimited for this. A good manager might make double what a good IC under them does, but the shareholder makes orders of magnitude more. The essence of capitalism is shifting resources from unproductive uses to productive ones, and they operate on global markets, which gives them unprecedented leverage. Capitalism is a skill just like management, and just like management, it consists of a number of subskills. How do you know what the market will value? How can you evaluate the competitive landscape? How do you make yourself aware of technological developments and new suppliers that might affect cost structures? How do you recognize emerging complements? How do you ensure the legal structures of your agreement make sure that you share in the profits of your investment? The interesting thing is that developing these skills early, in high school and college, helps dramatically even if you don't have any capital to invest. Because you can apply the same questions toward the company you contribute your labor to, and then bargain for stock instead of cash. A junior developer who joined Coinbase in 2016 made a lot more than a manager who joined Facebook.

gnarcoregrizz 5y ago
Great point. One issue with your last paragraph though, is when trying to select a company to work for from an equity/ownership standpoint, there isn't the option of diversifying a career. You can only work at once place, so you put all your eggs in one basket. In hindsight, sure, you would make better money at coinbase rather than facebook, but it's essentially going long on one stock with your time rather than capital. The owners and capitalists have been the winners, at least in my lifetime. Investing has been de-risked enough through monetary and political policy that it's a good bet. A good example of monetary policy is low interest rates. The ability to borrow capital and take "risks" hasn't been cheaper. A political policy to encourage investment is for example the 401k - most wage earner's retirement funds go straight to the capital markets. Even public employees retirement funds ride the capital markets with optimistic outlooks. I suppose that makes most Americans capitalists whether they want to be or not, so my argument has come full circle, but that money bubbles up to the people up top, since they make the compounding gains and have access to inside markets. Personally, A few times I've made more money from ownership and investment than from my labor. It certainly is a valid approach to a career.

closeparen 5y ago

Of course there is some ceiling, however it seems to be kept much lower than it could be at many companies due to inexpressive "idiot proof" programming environments and highly bureaucratic processes.

theptip 5y ago

This is really not how most companies think about it. Unless you take an extremely broad view of what “management” is. As a term of art, used by people writing the JDs for “manager” jobs (source: have wrote those JDs), it specifically means having people reporting to you, being responsible for their productivity, growth, and development. The senior IC track does not (have to) involve management. It does involve a lot of communication, collaboration, and coordination, which may look like management if you squint. And there is overlap; in small companies, particularly startups, sometimes tech lead and manager hats are worn by the same person. But they are different roles. And particularly, to the point of the article, they are different career tracks. You might wear both hats for a bit, but most careers will end up specializing on one or other track. See https://lethain.com/ https://lethain.com/ for lots of material on what it means to be a staff-plus IC, as well as engineering manager.

seer 5y ago

The great thing about software is that “more” can not just be people, it can be “more software”. The way I hope to end my career is in IC, building tools that make other devs/the org more productive. Building software that multiplies other developers output will also increase your output in a sense. You are vastly more productive because you “work through the people using your software”. Which I believe can be a position of very high status in and of itself. Imagine Guido, or the teams behind go, react, etc… Most big organizations need people to work on their infra full time, and thats what I hope to end up doing someday, no need to mange people, you can still manage computers, only a lot more of them. Its what Paul Graham said in one if his essays - as a factory worker you can’t increase your output much by working more, but as a software dev - you can, and with enough planning / luck that can be exponential.