5 ms·

Why do we expect to have good managers when we promote based on technical competency rather than leadership ability? Sure, a certain basic level of technical co

Why do we expect to have good managers when we promote based on technical competency rather than leadership ability? Sure, a certain basic level of technical competency is needed, but after that management and development require different skills.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Do we? I was under the impression that we promote based on who games the promotion system best.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  It’s easy to over-focus on gaming the promotion system because that’s the part that’s under your control. If someone comes to ask me for advice on how to get promoted, I can’t exactly say “try being smarter and delivering results faster”, even though those factors have a lot more impact than micro-optimizing the promotion review committees.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
i_k_k 3y ago
Another problem is that much of the industry sees getting into management as a promotion. This is something that Microsoft tried, at least, to get right: pay/rank was mostly divorced from job function.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  Facebook and Google also have parallel tracks up to very senior levels.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    I mean yeah, theoretically. It's nonsense though. Just count the number of individual contributors vs managers at a director level and it quickly becomes apparent that one of the parallel tracks is much, much larger than the other.
    - lupire 3y ago
      Not entirely fair, because most of those low/mid managers are active developers too. What's stranger is that managers write more code than high level (not line level) "org tech leads" who sit in meetings all day.
      - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
        > Not entirely fair, because most of those low/mid managers are active developers too. I dunno, certainly at IC5 (so I think IC4 now) level at FB, my manager was totally judged on the output of her team, and strongly discouraged from working on her own projects. Meanwhile, at the same level as an IC, I was working on my own projects but mostly helping others accomplish theirs.
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
I'm finding many companies are learning that technical ability and leadership ability are entirely different functions. I consider myself highly technically competent, but if you asked me to lead a team, delegate, etc., I would crash and burn. I just don't have the interpersonal and communication skills to set expectations. Could I learn those skills? Oh, certainly. But why? The work doesn't interest me. The more I'd go up the management chain, the more I'd get disconnected from the technical work that I actually find interesting, and my day is spent in bullshit meetings where we'd rehash the same bullshit plans on a weekly basis.
watwut 3y ago
I did not seen all that much promotions based on technical competency. We promote based on impressions of upper management that have zero to do with technical competency and zero to do with leadership ability. Also, pretty much all non technical lower level managers were disaster. And issue was not just their lack of tech knowledge in pure form, but their insecurity, inferiority complexes and what not everybody else had to deal with. And profound not understanding of culture around tech just lead to completely unnecessary misunderstanding. Lack of technical knowledge in the context of managing technical people imply that you will fail in social aspect too.
bensonperry 3y ago
agree, but agree with another reply that it doesn't even seem like technical competency is the skill used outside of potentially engineering. feels like optimizing for "managing up" (which is code for "making people above you happy" and doesn't necessarily correlate with delivering any type of value) is what these managers do. in other R&D roles (design, product) most managers i've met aren't actually gifted at executing in an IC context
screye 3y ago
First, it's ego. Engineers are a deeply opinionated species that will not heed the advice of a man they deem to be inferior to them in technical ability. Technical competency based promotion is about managing hubris and egos. For the second, I have a hot-take: "All problems in tech are work estimation problems." And so too is who gets to be manager. Nothing annoys an engineer more than a manager who estimates arbitrary times to tasks. Similarly, nothing annoys a manager than being unable to establish accountability for work effectiveness of an employee. So non-technical managers set up metrics (LOC, Hours worked, tickets moved) for accountability. Average Metrics are bad and bad metrics are disastrous. Metrics are exploited by the politically savvy, set up micromanagement structures and discourage those who are actually well aligned with product success. A good engineer makes work-estimation easier, avoiding the need for some of these toxic structures.
- lupire 3y ago
  Work estimation isn't very important. Priority estimation and value estimation are very important. What matters is finding the 10x to 1000x value thing to build, and putting resources (usually many people) building it. It doesn't matter how long it takes, as long as it's something people need and can afford and you are able to build it.
say_it_as_it_is 3y ago
There are a lot of managers who haven't done any of the work that their reports do, and those that do have field experience but not even expertise.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Do we? I was under the impression that we promote based on who games the promotion system best.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
It’s easy to over-focus on gaming the promotion system because that’s the part that’s under your control. If someone comes to ask me for advice on how to get promoted, I can’t exactly say “try being smarter and delivering results faster”, even though those factors have a lot more impact than micro-optimizing the promotion review committees.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

i_k_k 3y ago

Another problem is that much of the industry sees getting into management as a promotion. This is something that Microsoft tried, at least, to get right: pay/rank was mostly divorced from job function.

kevinventullo 3y ago
Facebook and Google also have parallel tracks up to very senior levels.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  I mean yeah, theoretically. It's nonsense though. Just count the number of individual contributors vs managers at a director level and it quickly becomes apparent that one of the parallel tracks is much, much larger than the other.
  - lupire 3y ago
    Not entirely fair, because most of those low/mid managers are active developers too. What's stranger is that managers write more code than high level (not line level) "org tech leads" who sit in meetings all day.
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
      > Not entirely fair, because most of those low/mid managers are active developers too. I dunno, certainly at IC5 (so I think IC4 now) level at FB, my manager was totally judged on the output of her team, and strongly discouraged from working on her own projects. Meanwhile, at the same level as an IC, I was working on my own projects but mostly helping others accomplish theirs.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago

I'm finding many companies are learning that technical ability and leadership ability are entirely different functions. I consider myself highly technically competent, but if you asked me to lead a team, delegate, etc., I would crash and burn. I just don't have the interpersonal and communication skills to set expectations. Could I learn those skills? Oh, certainly. But why? The work doesn't interest me. The more I'd go up the management chain, the more I'd get disconnected from the technical work that I actually find interesting, and my day is spent in bullshit meetings where we'd rehash the same bullshit plans on a weekly basis.

watwut 3y ago

I did not seen all that much promotions based on technical competency. We promote based on impressions of upper management that have zero to do with technical competency and zero to do with leadership ability. Also, pretty much all non technical lower level managers were disaster. And issue was not just their lack of tech knowledge in pure form, but their insecurity, inferiority complexes and what not everybody else had to deal with. And profound not understanding of culture around tech just lead to completely unnecessary misunderstanding. Lack of technical knowledge in the context of managing technical people imply that you will fail in social aspect too.

bensonperry 3y ago

agree, but agree with another reply that it doesn't even seem like technical competency is the skill used outside of potentially engineering. feels like optimizing for "managing up" (which is code for "making people above you happy" and doesn't necessarily correlate with delivering any type of value) is what these managers do. in other R&D roles (design, product) most managers i've met aren't actually gifted at executing in an IC context

screye 3y ago

First, it's ego. Engineers are a deeply opinionated species that will not heed the advice of a man they deem to be inferior to them in technical ability. Technical competency based promotion is about managing hubris and egos. For the second, I have a hot-take: "All problems in tech are work estimation problems." And so too is who gets to be manager. Nothing annoys an engineer more than a manager who estimates arbitrary times to tasks. Similarly, nothing annoys a manager than being unable to establish accountability for work effectiveness of an employee. So non-technical managers set up metrics (LOC, Hours worked, tickets moved) for accountability. Average Metrics are bad and bad metrics are disastrous. Metrics are exploited by the politically savvy, set up micromanagement structures and discourage those who are actually well aligned with product success. A good engineer makes work-estimation easier, avoiding the need for some of these toxic structures.

lupire 3y ago
Work estimation isn't very important. Priority estimation and value estimation are very important. What matters is finding the 10x to 1000x value thing to build, and putting resources (usually many people) building it. It doesn't matter how long it takes, as long as it's something people need and can afford and you are able to build it.

say_it_as_it_is 3y ago

There are a lot of managers who haven't done any of the work that their reports do, and those that do have field experience but not even expertise.