5 ms·

What I gave up to become an engineering manager

81 points by kiyanwang 2y ago

dakiol 2y ago
Middle management (eng. managers) is by far the worst role in software engineering. I either want to keep working and make my way through the IC ladder or jump directly from senior/staff engineer to be a manager of managers.
- start123 2y ago
  How will you ensure you have the skills to be manager of managers without every managing people before?
  - mannycalavera42 2y ago
    writing more code
  - lnsru 2y ago
    Most managers I worked for in corporate setting didn’t really care for people. They were loyal to their superiors. And their subordinates were more or less tools for a goal. Most absurd situation was in my previous job where the company hired experienced manager as a developer and suppressed him on every occasion. My precursor and I left that place very quickly. So the people skills from my single data point are not the prerequisite for becoming manager. But again. I am single data point. Maybe there are places where managers care about something else than budgets, timelines and their own bonuses.
    - namdnay 2y ago
      That's kind of beside the point - for the sake of argument, let's say managers only care about "budgets, timelines". It would still be a stretch to switch from an IC role to suddenly managing the "budgets, timelines" not only of a team but of a whole department
      - lnsru 2y ago
        I am convinced, that the guys, who got promoted, know how to manage things. Even in toxic place I worked as an important IC I assisted doing project plans and technology roadmaps. The department things were same charts, but without technical slang and absolutely anonymized threading workers as an abstract number “headcount”.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    "Generally, management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization. And to control many is the same as to control few. This is a matter of formations and signals." Sun Tzu
- EZ-E 2y ago
  > Middle management (eng. managers) is by far the worst role in software engineering Like most middle manager roles, I think it's only good as long as you have a good team and a decent support from the company. If the team I work with is going to be bad I'd rather be the IC than PM 100%, at least I can get some stuff done and have a level of control.
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  The smart move is to run a small startup and then either make that very successful or go back to industry as somebody that can actually run a company instead of just a little team. Even the failure modes here are quite alright (freelancing, consulting, etc.). You learn a lot trying to make a startup work. And there's nobody else to blame except yourself. Whether or not you are a good manager is of course a different matter. There are a lot of mediocre managers out there; especially in big companies. The Peter principle is the sad reality of middle management. My experience working as a principal engineer in a large multinational was pretty good. Even though there was a lot of pressure for me to stop engineering and start joining the power point brigade. I once did a headcount between me and the CEO. The number was 7. Three layers up, management was so detached from reality that it's not surprising that they ran the company into the ground. That company was Nokia. I learned a lot about how not to manage a company. My direct managers were excellent but generally powerless. I became my own boss after that. I've learned a thing or two since then about managing other people and getting results from them.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    > I've learned a thing or two since then about managing other people and getting results from them. What did you learn?
- weatherlite 2y ago
  I agree but some people seem to thrive on managing people or on the status upgrade of being called a manager that its worth it for them. Really depends on the personality. Overall though you're right - the pay gap isn't significant in most places and there's a bit more stress in being a manager I think. I'm sticking to IC till AI takes my job :)
- bjornsing 2y ago
  Personally I think it may be the other way around: When you’re a first line manager you still have 1-on-1s with people who do real work and you can spend a lot of your days “connecting the dots” and really making a difference. One you get to the second level it’s essentially 100% politics. For me the next level where it gets interesting again is when you get to the strategic level: board or C-suite.
  - dustrider 2y ago
    Still mostly politics at that level too, unfortunately. But I agree at least there’s a chance to do something worthwhile.
- badpun 2y ago
  Middle management IS about managing the managers - hence the "middle".
  - jajko 2y ago
    The name is meaningless and what you say is 100% untrue in my experience across banking, telco, government, retail, car manufacturers, insurance or energy distribution. In same vein say Vice President in banks is no (vice) president of anything, just above Assistant VP (who is not assistant to anyone). Meaningless words on their own. I guess its down to ego game - nobody ambitious would like to be called ie 'low manager' or 'assistant manager', that sounds like proper secretary position.
- FlyingSnake 2y ago
  I think it’s the other way. As an EM you’re closer to the product and the team that builds it. You have direct influence on the success and failure of the product and the team and it’s where most of the fun is. It’s a truly fulfilling role for those who are hands-on and love the wholistic experience. Managers of manager and above are often in rarified air and have to cast their nets wide and farther to make decisions.
  - slkjdlskjdklsd 2y ago
    You have an illusion that you have direct influence. But the reality is you can replace the EM with a rubber duck and the engineers would still build the product. On the other hand replace the engineers with a rubber duck and there is no product.
AstralStorm 2y ago
Most important thing not mentioned: got a bigger salary. If you didn't get that, you were skinned.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  >If you didn't get that, you were skinned. What if a (purely numeric) 'bigger salary' thereafter involved a 1.5hr commute? Each way. Or, a lower salary, but involves living in Europe? Skinned? Only if non-monetary factors are equally included in the 'most important thing[s]' list.
  - Kudos 2y ago
    Engineers going into management generally don't change jobs to do it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
TheCapeGreek 2y ago
Good piece. I've done mostly IC work but have had a stint as tech lead, where a lot of this applies even if people management wasn't directly part of my role. One thing I'm curious about as well is more on the zero-to-one side of becoming an EM: If you're a "junior" manager, it seems there's quite a dearth of jobs out there. Everyone wants someone with 2+ years of experience. It's the same old entry-level-with-experience hiring conundrum, just happening again in your career. Anyone have advice in that regard?
- namdnay 2y ago
  > Anyone have advice in that regard? Join a company as a senior IC, switch to EM then stay at least 2 years?
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    Yeah, except that "switch to EM" may not be easy. How many such opportunities you might have depends on the company.
  - TheCapeGreek 2y ago
    Yeah, I suppose I should have added in my post that I assume that is the normal way, but was hoping for any more potential tips.
    - tomtheelder 2y ago
      My biggest tip would just be to make it abundantly clear in your interview that this is a goal of yours. Some jobs will bounce you for that, but that’s good- you want to filter those out. Others will see it as a positive and you’ll come in with your manager and leadership already understanding the direction you want to grow in.
creesch 2y ago
> I realized that although my one foot was in the new role, my other foot was still in the previous one. I needed to stop doing the old things to make room for the new stuff! This is exactly why it seems to odd to me that many companies see management as a logical "next" step in someone's career. It is a completely different path and requires very different skills. At least, the way many companies have set up their company structure.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Any career progression involves changes in the nature of the work. If the new job involves doing the same thing as the last job then (while it might be a great job that you want to keep forever) it isn't career progress. The reason that the progression is expected to be IC -> EM is because that is a path that leads to software people being managed by other software people. Alternate paths lead to less efficient managers because they tend to have critical knowledge gaps.
  - bjornsing 2y ago
    Let me add that it’s also an incentives thing. I’ve seen software companies where management is an entirely different career path, and it makes a lot of less talented ICs focus away from the work, jockeying for a place on the management train. And why shouldn’t they? So if you want junior engineers to really try to learn and contribute don’t tell them “well, if you really suck as an IC and focus on socializing you can be the boss of everyone here”. It’s pretty self explanatory actually.
  - supersahne 2y ago
    Totally agree! Especially the second point. Often on HN or reddit people complain that their managers are "only managers" without engineering experience and thus are incapable of understanding the various technical requirements needed for the project.
  - creesch 2y ago
    To be clear, I am not arguing there shouldn't be any changes. But when it involves effectively an entirely different skill set I strongly believe that something is not quite right. Do note that I specifically said many companies, not all companies. I think there certainly is room for software people being managed by other software people. If this is done in ways where the managing people also do keep being involved in the actual work in order to keep their skills and, more importantly maybe, their perspective up to date with what is happening. I see too many companies where this is not the case and I see ex-software people giving justifications based on skills and insights that have very little relevance with the current situation on the floor.
mgaunard 2y ago
You can definitely be a hands-on manager who builds things, though that's often what's called a team lead instead.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  "Team lead" is usually just "the first among equals" IC without any disciplinary power. It's a different role from a manager. It could be a stepping stone to management, though.
  - mgaunard 2y ago
    Many organizations don't distinguish the two.
  - joshstrange 2y ago
    And I’ve seen people who can be great team leads not do great at managing because it requires that “people management“ skill. It can be easy (or easier rather) to manage people that are all doing the right thing, managing gets hard when you have deal with people who aren’t meeting expectations. That said, when you have addressed any issues and rectified them it can feel like a super power to get good work out of your team. Taking an idea, farming it out to the team, then seeing it all come together. It’s very rewarding.
gadders 2y ago
If it's any consolation, this jump between contributor to manager exists in other industries. I have a friend who is a senior ground worker (managing a team that digs up roads with a JCB/backhoe to put in eg gas mains) and he'd been asked to "go off the tools" to work in head office and was debating the pros and cons.
surfingdino 2y ago
Congrats and I hope you will make a positive difference for your team. Non-technical managers of technical teams are the bane of my professional life so it is good to see "one of us" on the other side of the fence.
regulation_d 2y ago
Re: 5. building things: The only thing that keeps me sane since moving into a leadership role is that the what I love about building, namely watching things that didn't exist-- begin to exist, still happens. I guess I'm more of a farmer now than a carpenter, but I'm still seeing my environment change in a way that I contributed to and take pride in. That includes not only watching our product evolve, but also watching our team grow.
MEMORYC_RRUPTED 2y ago
Tangentially related: I've been struggling with the decision to go for the technical track or the management track in my current org. I'm lucky to work in a company that has a technical ladder (though one can certainly argue that everything above staff isn't really realistically achievable). Certainly has my preference. But being in Western Europe, most companies don't have this, and with the current state of the industry, with somewhat regular lay-offs, if I have to change jobs and want to stay an IC, I'll basically have reached the plateau of where I can get career-wise. The only way to get past that barrier is becoming an EM. I hate to even have the thought, because, purely on principle, it's the worst reason to become an EM. But career-planning wise, I'd be crazy not to. Anyway, your post is another argument in the column to stay on the technical track a bit more, we'll see what life brings :).
- playing_colours 2y ago
  As a Staff and higher engineer you may be paid on the level of EM or Director. So switching the career track as an engineer beyond senior in most cases will not lead to salary increase. Second argument is the assumption that switching to management opens the doors to much higher salary ceiling. In theory, yes, but realistically there is a strong competition for high level positions, few of us reach those places, and there is a big chance that one will simply stuck at a Director level position till retirement. Think if you enjoy management so much that you are ready to replace ability and joy of building things with more meetings, budget discussions, and politics. Particularly in Europe with our taxes the benefits of slightly higher income may not have a sensible impact on your life.
jkj33k 2y ago
[flagged]
xiphias2 2y ago
The best manager I had never gave up on building things and getting deeply technical: he just spent half of his time asking around people if everything is good, and whenever he saw that somebody is stuck, sat down together and helped debugging the problem (and maybe helped finding people getting it unstuck). About meetings: he put some ,,meeting''s in the calendar entry, becuase PMs loved taking his time unnecessarily (he was still available for meetings, just not all the time). As a high level example Elon Musk talks a lot about his managing style at Starbase in his interviews with Everyday Astronout, and it looks similar: he always goes to the place which is most critical for the product and looks at the technical issues.
stn_za 2y ago
Why did you move to management if you wanted to carryon coding? 2 different personality types, mindsets. Becoming a better coder while also getting manager pay instead of moving to management is a thing ya know
dangsux 2y ago
[dead]
sdiupIGPWEfh 2y ago
> 1. Short-Sightedness > As an IC, my focus was on immediate tasks and technical details. I thought in terms of sprints and short-term goals, which are more predictable and easier to estimate. > I wasn’t ready to think about the uncertainties around long-term plans, roadmaps, and quarterly goals. Promoting to management people who haven't demonstrated skills at long-term planning, roadmap design, and goal setting? What the hell. Though that would explain a lot about the state of things, wouldn't it. Here I am having to plan multi-year roadmaps, execute them, and consider quarterly progress as a lowly senior IC. If you're only thinking about and working on sprint-sized goals, what are you actually getting promoted for past junior level?
remon 2y ago
Managing people is such a wildly different skillset compared to engineering that it still puzzles me the former is the assumed "next step" for an engineer. Managing engineers is a facilitating job and should be viewed (and paid) as such. Companies valuing a principle engineer lower than the person managing the day to day of that engineer is a crazy bit of corporate legacy.
karmakaze 2y ago
Of the given list, any innovative and competent staff developer should already have given up (1) and lost (2). Similarly for (3) if you're creating new designs and patterns of working it can be an uphill battle to get it socialized and accepted, even if/when it turns out to be just the thing that's needed. 5. Building Things 4. Focus Time 3. Fast Feedback 2. Conflict Avoidance 1. Short-Sightedness The other thing about (5) is that many managers think/feel like they 'built' something when their team did. Of course they were also part of the team, but some would say "Back when I was in ... I built..." rather than "my team built...". Taking it to the top a CEO may say they built such and such, but really they built the company that built it. So they created the conditions and directions/motivations but didn't make all the decisions along the way etc. This varies greatly though, some CEOs are super-technical and can get in the weeds on occasion and make a good call. I'll leave one more point that many managers give up (but shouldn't): 6. Keeping up with currently used and relevant upcoming tech to communicate effectively and make good decisions + plans
iamleppert 2y ago
Even inside of Google, Amazon and others it's a huge mistake to not go into management if you want to maximize your power and compensation at the company. Don't fall for the trap of "parallel careers" even the highest level technical person can't hold a candle to the power or compensation of a VP or SVP. Roles like Principle engineer or distinguished engineer and such are just a sucker's share of the bag and make me question, why isn't this dude an SVP or VP? Why did they have to carve out a special role for him? He's probably a good engineer and good at his job, but hard to work with? Maybe he has dirt on the CTO? Those are the questions that go through my head.
- azemetre 2y ago
  It also looks like that Principle/Staff engineers have to justify everything they do to get their compensation whereas VPs/directors have a lot of great excuses to brush off failures while keeping power. The power dynamics are absolutely not the same, the VP can fire you or make your life hell. You can’t fire the VP.
- joshcsimmons 2y ago
  This is so wrong for a number of reasons. At any major tech company the total compensation is, in fact, parallel between both tracks. Most Staff/Principal+ engineers I have seen enjoy CONSIDERABLY better WLB compared to their management-track peers. In addition, they don't have to deal with random people drama nearly as much. If you want to get particular about it, that would mean that they are earning significantly more per-hour of work. How is this the "sucker's share of the bag"? I really don't mean to nitpick but your misspelling of "principal" (as well as the commenter in thread) makes me suspect you are new to the industry.

81 points by kiyanwang 2y ago

Middle management (eng. managers) is by far the worst role in software engineering. I either want to keep working and make my way through the IC ladder or jump directly from senior/staff engineer to be a manager of managers.

start123 2y ago
How will you ensure you have the skills to be manager of managers without every managing people before?
- mannycalavera42 2y ago
  writing more code
- lnsru 2y ago
  Most managers I worked for in corporate setting didn’t really care for people. They were loyal to their superiors. And their subordinates were more or less tools for a goal. Most absurd situation was in my previous job where the company hired experienced manager as a developer and suppressed him on every occasion. My precursor and I left that place very quickly. So the people skills from my single data point are not the prerequisite for becoming manager. But again. I am single data point. Maybe there are places where managers care about something else than budgets, timelines and their own bonuses.
  - namdnay 2y ago
    That's kind of beside the point - for the sake of argument, let's say managers only care about "budgets, timelines". It would still be a stretch to switch from an IC role to suddenly managing the "budgets, timelines" not only of a team but of a whole department
    - lnsru 2y ago
      I am convinced, that the guys, who got promoted, know how to manage things. Even in toxic place I worked as an important IC I assisted doing project plans and technology roadmaps. The department things were same charts, but without technical slang and absolutely anonymized threading workers as an abstract number “headcount”.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  "Generally, management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization. And to control many is the same as to control few. This is a matter of formations and signals." Sun Tzu
EZ-E 2y ago
> Middle management (eng. managers) is by far the worst role in software engineering Like most middle manager roles, I think it's only good as long as you have a good team and a decent support from the company. If the team I work with is going to be bad I'd rather be the IC than PM 100%, at least I can get some stuff done and have a level of control.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
The smart move is to run a small startup and then either make that very successful or go back to industry as somebody that can actually run a company instead of just a little team. Even the failure modes here are quite alright (freelancing, consulting, etc.). You learn a lot trying to make a startup work. And there's nobody else to blame except yourself. Whether or not you are a good manager is of course a different matter. There are a lot of mediocre managers out there; especially in big companies. The Peter principle is the sad reality of middle management. My experience working as a principal engineer in a large multinational was pretty good. Even though there was a lot of pressure for me to stop engineering and start joining the power point brigade. I once did a headcount between me and the CEO. The number was 7. Three layers up, management was so detached from reality that it's not surprising that they ran the company into the ground. That company was Nokia. I learned a lot about how not to manage a company. My direct managers were excellent but generally powerless. I became my own boss after that. I've learned a thing or two since then about managing other people and getting results from them.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  > I've learned a thing or two since then about managing other people and getting results from them. What did you learn?
weatherlite 2y ago
I agree but some people seem to thrive on managing people or on the status upgrade of being called a manager that its worth it for them. Really depends on the personality. Overall though you're right - the pay gap isn't significant in most places and there's a bit more stress in being a manager I think. I'm sticking to IC till AI takes my job :)
bjornsing 2y ago
Personally I think it may be the other way around: When you’re a first line manager you still have 1-on-1s with people who do real work and you can spend a lot of your days “connecting the dots” and really making a difference. One you get to the second level it’s essentially 100% politics. For me the next level where it gets interesting again is when you get to the strategic level: board or C-suite.
- dustrider 2y ago
  Still mostly politics at that level too, unfortunately. But I agree at least there’s a chance to do something worthwhile.
badpun 2y ago
Middle management IS about managing the managers - hence the "middle".
- jajko 2y ago
  The name is meaningless and what you say is 100% untrue in my experience across banking, telco, government, retail, car manufacturers, insurance or energy distribution. In same vein say Vice President in banks is no (vice) president of anything, just above Assistant VP (who is not assistant to anyone). Meaningless words on their own. I guess its down to ego game - nobody ambitious would like to be called ie 'low manager' or 'assistant manager', that sounds like proper secretary position.
FlyingSnake 2y ago
I think it’s the other way. As an EM you’re closer to the product and the team that builds it. You have direct influence on the success and failure of the product and the team and it’s where most of the fun is. It’s a truly fulfilling role for those who are hands-on and love the wholistic experience. Managers of manager and above are often in rarified air and have to cast their nets wide and farther to make decisions.
- slkjdlskjdklsd 2y ago
  You have an illusion that you have direct influence. But the reality is you can replace the EM with a rubber duck and the engineers would still build the product. On the other hand replace the engineers with a rubber duck and there is no product.

AstralStorm 2y ago

Most important thing not mentioned: got a bigger salary. If you didn't get that, you were skinned.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
>If you didn't get that, you were skinned. What if a (purely numeric) 'bigger salary' thereafter involved a 1.5hr commute? Each way. Or, a lower salary, but involves living in Europe? Skinned? Only if non-monetary factors are equally included in the 'most important thing[s]' list.
- Kudos 2y ago
  Engineers going into management generally don't change jobs to do it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

TheCapeGreek 2y ago

Good piece. I've done mostly IC work but have had a stint as tech lead, where a lot of this applies even if people management wasn't directly part of my role. One thing I'm curious about as well is more on the zero-to-one side of becoming an EM: If you're a "junior" manager, it seems there's quite a dearth of jobs out there. Everyone wants someone with 2+ years of experience. It's the same old entry-level-with-experience hiring conundrum, just happening again in your career. Anyone have advice in that regard?

namdnay 2y ago
> Anyone have advice in that regard? Join a company as a senior IC, switch to EM then stay at least 2 years?
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  Yeah, except that "switch to EM" may not be easy. How many such opportunities you might have depends on the company.
- TheCapeGreek 2y ago
  Yeah, I suppose I should have added in my post that I assume that is the normal way, but was hoping for any more potential tips.
  - tomtheelder 2y ago
    My biggest tip would just be to make it abundantly clear in your interview that this is a goal of yours. Some jobs will bounce you for that, but that’s good- you want to filter those out. Others will see it as a positive and you’ll come in with your manager and leadership already understanding the direction you want to grow in.

creesch 2y ago

> I realized that although my one foot was in the new role, my other foot was still in the previous one. I needed to stop doing the old things to make room for the new stuff! This is exactly why it seems to odd to me that many companies see management as a logical "next" step in someone's career. It is a completely different path and requires very different skills. At least, the way many companies have set up their company structure.

roenxi 2y ago
Any career progression involves changes in the nature of the work. If the new job involves doing the same thing as the last job then (while it might be a great job that you want to keep forever) it isn't career progress. The reason that the progression is expected to be IC -> EM is because that is a path that leads to software people being managed by other software people. Alternate paths lead to less efficient managers because they tend to have critical knowledge gaps.
- bjornsing 2y ago
  Let me add that it’s also an incentives thing. I’ve seen software companies where management is an entirely different career path, and it makes a lot of less talented ICs focus away from the work, jockeying for a place on the management train. And why shouldn’t they? So if you want junior engineers to really try to learn and contribute don’t tell them “well, if you really suck as an IC and focus on socializing you can be the boss of everyone here”. It’s pretty self explanatory actually.
- supersahne 2y ago
  Totally agree! Especially the second point. Often on HN or reddit people complain that their managers are "only managers" without engineering experience and thus are incapable of understanding the various technical requirements needed for the project.
- creesch 2y ago
  To be clear, I am not arguing there shouldn't be any changes. But when it involves effectively an entirely different skill set I strongly believe that something is not quite right. Do note that I specifically said many companies, not all companies. I think there certainly is room for software people being managed by other software people. If this is done in ways where the managing people also do keep being involved in the actual work in order to keep their skills and, more importantly maybe, their perspective up to date with what is happening. I see too many companies where this is not the case and I see ex-software people giving justifications based on skills and insights that have very little relevance with the current situation on the floor.

mgaunard 2y ago

You can definitely be a hands-on manager who builds things, though that's often what's called a team lead instead.

The_Colonel 2y ago
"Team lead" is usually just "the first among equals" IC without any disciplinary power. It's a different role from a manager. It could be a stepping stone to management, though.
- mgaunard 2y ago
  Many organizations don't distinguish the two.
- joshstrange 2y ago
  And I’ve seen people who can be great team leads not do great at managing because it requires that “people management“ skill. It can be easy (or easier rather) to manage people that are all doing the right thing, managing gets hard when you have deal with people who aren’t meeting expectations. That said, when you have addressed any issues and rectified them it can feel like a super power to get good work out of your team. Taking an idea, farming it out to the team, then seeing it all come together. It’s very rewarding.

gadders 2y ago

If it's any consolation, this jump between contributor to manager exists in other industries. I have a friend who is a senior ground worker (managing a team that digs up roads with a JCB/backhoe to put in eg gas mains) and he'd been asked to "go off the tools" to work in head office and was debating the pros and cons.

surfingdino 2y ago

Congrats and I hope you will make a positive difference for your team. Non-technical managers of technical teams are the bane of my professional life so it is good to see "one of us" on the other side of the fence.

regulation_d 2y ago

Re: 5. building things: The only thing that keeps me sane since moving into a leadership role is that the what I love about building, namely watching things that didn't exist-- begin to exist, still happens. I guess I'm more of a farmer now than a carpenter, but I'm still seeing my environment change in a way that I contributed to and take pride in. That includes not only watching our product evolve, but also watching our team grow.

MEMORYC_RRUPTED 2y ago

Tangentially related: I've been struggling with the decision to go for the technical track or the management track in my current org. I'm lucky to work in a company that has a technical ladder (though one can certainly argue that everything above staff isn't really realistically achievable). Certainly has my preference. But being in Western Europe, most companies don't have this, and with the current state of the industry, with somewhat regular lay-offs, if I have to change jobs and want to stay an IC, I'll basically have reached the plateau of where I can get career-wise. The only way to get past that barrier is becoming an EM. I hate to even have the thought, because, purely on principle, it's the worst reason to become an EM. But career-planning wise, I'd be crazy not to. Anyway, your post is another argument in the column to stay on the technical track a bit more, we'll see what life brings :).

playing_colours 2y ago
As a Staff and higher engineer you may be paid on the level of EM or Director. So switching the career track as an engineer beyond senior in most cases will not lead to salary increase. Second argument is the assumption that switching to management opens the doors to much higher salary ceiling. In theory, yes, but realistically there is a strong competition for high level positions, few of us reach those places, and there is a big chance that one will simply stuck at a Director level position till retirement. Think if you enjoy management so much that you are ready to replace ability and joy of building things with more meetings, budget discussions, and politics. Particularly in Europe with our taxes the benefits of slightly higher income may not have a sensible impact on your life.

jkj33k 2y ago

[flagged]

xiphias2 2y ago

The best manager I had never gave up on building things and getting deeply technical: he just spent half of his time asking around people if everything is good, and whenever he saw that somebody is stuck, sat down together and helped debugging the problem (and maybe helped finding people getting it unstuck). About meetings: he put some ,,meeting''s in the calendar entry, becuase PMs loved taking his time unnecessarily (he was still available for meetings, just not all the time). As a high level example Elon Musk talks a lot about his managing style at Starbase in his interviews with Everyday Astronout, and it looks similar: he always goes to the place which is most critical for the product and looks at the technical issues.

stn_za 2y ago

Why did you move to management if you wanted to carryon coding? 2 different personality types, mindsets. Becoming a better coder while also getting manager pay instead of moving to management is a thing ya know

dangsux 2y ago

[dead]

sdiupIGPWEfh 2y ago

> 1. Short-Sightedness > As an IC, my focus was on immediate tasks and technical details. I thought in terms of sprints and short-term goals, which are more predictable and easier to estimate. > I wasn’t ready to think about the uncertainties around long-term plans, roadmaps, and quarterly goals. Promoting to management people who haven't demonstrated skills at long-term planning, roadmap design, and goal setting? What the hell. Though that would explain a lot about the state of things, wouldn't it. Here I am having to plan multi-year roadmaps, execute them, and consider quarterly progress as a lowly senior IC. If you're only thinking about and working on sprint-sized goals, what are you actually getting promoted for past junior level?

remon 2y ago

Managing people is such a wildly different skillset compared to engineering that it still puzzles me the former is the assumed "next step" for an engineer. Managing engineers is a facilitating job and should be viewed (and paid) as such. Companies valuing a principle engineer lower than the person managing the day to day of that engineer is a crazy bit of corporate legacy.

karmakaze 2y ago

Of the given list, any innovative and competent staff developer should already have given up (1) and lost (2). Similarly for (3) if you're creating new designs and patterns of working it can be an uphill battle to get it socialized and accepted, even if/when it turns out to be just the thing that's needed. 5. Building Things 4. Focus Time 3. Fast Feedback 2. Conflict Avoidance 1. Short-Sightedness The other thing about (5) is that many managers think/feel like they 'built' something when their team did. Of course they were also part of the team, but some would say "Back when I was in ... I built..." rather than "my team built...". Taking it to the top a CEO may say they built such and such, but really they built the company that built it. So they created the conditions and directions/motivations but didn't make all the decisions along the way etc. This varies greatly though, some CEOs are super-technical and can get in the weeds on occasion and make a good call. I'll leave one more point that many managers give up (but shouldn't): 6. Keeping up with currently used and relevant upcoming tech to communicate effectively and make good decisions + plans

iamleppert 2y ago

Even inside of Google, Amazon and others it's a huge mistake to not go into management if you want to maximize your power and compensation at the company. Don't fall for the trap of "parallel careers" even the highest level technical person can't hold a candle to the power or compensation of a VP or SVP. Roles like Principle engineer or distinguished engineer and such are just a sucker's share of the bag and make me question, why isn't this dude an SVP or VP? Why did they have to carve out a special role for him? He's probably a good engineer and good at his job, but hard to work with? Maybe he has dirt on the CTO? Those are the questions that go through my head.

azemetre 2y ago
It also looks like that Principle/Staff engineers have to justify everything they do to get their compensation whereas VPs/directors have a lot of great excuses to brush off failures while keeping power. The power dynamics are absolutely not the same, the VP can fire you or make your life hell. You can’t fire the VP.
joshcsimmons 2y ago
This is so wrong for a number of reasons. At any major tech company the total compensation is, in fact, parallel between both tracks. Most Staff/Principal+ engineers I have seen enjoy CONSIDERABLY better WLB compared to their management-track peers. In addition, they don't have to deal with random people drama nearly as much. If you want to get particular about it, that would mean that they are earning significantly more per-hour of work. How is this the "sucker's share of the bag"? I really don't mean to nitpick but your misspelling of "principal" (as well as the commenter in thread) makes me suspect you are new to the industry.