5 ms·

I find "engineer to manager" guides are fundamentally not possible to write. I've been a manager of a team 3-4 times now and each experience was entirely differ

I find "engineer to manager" guides are fundamentally not possible to write. I've been a manager of a team 3-4 times now and each experience was entirely different from the previous. But this post makes the biggest mistake, something I have struggled with in every management role: focusing on managing down. Managing down isn't actually that hard to get the hang of if you have strong technical skills and reasonable communications skills. But managing down is very similar to being a good teaching professor: absolutely worthless and largely done at your own peril. Managing up is, in practice, 100% of a manager's job. I've been on teams where this was so easy I didn't even realize it was something I had to do. Leadership liked me, I could do whatever I wanted and they were happy. I've been at places where this was an impossible task (and I saw multiple other managers/leadership hires get let go very fast if they didn't "fit in", despite being hired to "shake things up"). I've been at places where I started on the ground floor, management loved me, loved my work, my team consistently outperformed... but never in a billion years were going to allow me "into the fold" so to speak. I used to admire strong technical managers that had a great vision for how to solve problems, but I also have admiration for great teaching professors. In practice the best managers care primarily about politics and growing their personal stake in the organization. I've found that the more clueless they are the better (just don't point that out).

sfpotter 1y ago
Now this is in the US, but I've met and worked with numerous absolutely top quality teaching professors and they had a disproportionately positive impact on their students. Many of them were happy and well adjusted and did not seem in much more of a precarious position than any other person I've met working a job for a similar amount of money in a field they enjoy. Obviously, it depends on the college, how well compensated you are, etc. But as far as I can see, the only thing that's absolutely worthless is sticking a top tier professor in front of a class of undergrads and forcing them to teach a low level class while simultaneously splitting their attention between twenty other responsibilities.
- linehedonist 1y ago
  The nature of a 'teaching professor' job can vary a lot, but the positions are often very precarious and unstable, as I can attest from personal experience.
  - sfpotter 1y ago
    Does not mean they are absolutely worthless.
    - crystal_revenge 1y ago
      I think you may have misunderstood my point. Being a great teaching professor is an invaluable contribution to students lives and the world, but it is “absolutely worthless” as far as promotion and tenure is concerned. My point is not “don’t respect teaching profs”, quite the opposite in fact: Recognize that the teachers that had an impact on you in university that had an impact on you not only to no career benefit, but potential to their own professional detriment. Same goes for truly great technical managers. All the technical work they enable is through their own personal devotion and at best causes no professional growth, at worst takes away energy that should be spent elsewhere.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - sfpotter 1y ago
        This is what you wrote: "Managing down isn't actually that hard to get the hang of if you have strong technical skills and reasonable communications skills. But managing down is very similar to being a good teaching professor: absolutely worthless and largely done at your own peril." If your reply above is what you meant to say, that was not at all clearly communicated.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
idiotsecant 1y ago
> the best managers care primarily about politics and growing their personal stake in the organization So fundamentally gross that this is true.
- mlinhares 1y ago
  That is also true for ICs, we just pretend it isn't. If you're not good at playing politics and selling yourself, the next layoff will take you out, there's no amount of engineering prowess that will fix it.
  - rockinghigh 1y ago
    Selling yourself and your work is always a critical skill. That's how you get hired in the first place.
starfallg 1y ago
> In practice the best managers care primarily about politics and growing their personal stake in the organization. This is fine, and expected of senior management. > I've found that the more clueless they are the better (just don't point that out). This is toxic. Management at the senior level of these organisations has been completely detached from the activities on the ground. A healthy functional organisation should have senior managers that understand the complete stack of layers, but especially at the level where the value is being generated they need to fully understand.
- MattPalmer1086 1y ago
  I find most senior managers do understand where the value is created - sales and marketing of course.
dahart 1y ago
I am intrigued by your comment but a little confused as well, could you elaborate? What do you mean by ‘best manager’? Is that one who’s valuable and good for the org, or one that’s good at getting raises and promotions for himself and nobody else? If it’s the former, I’d love to hear more about why being clueless is helpful. And what does one do if caught in the situation you describe of not ever being let into the fold? How do you manage up in that situation? Leave?
- nine_k 1y ago
  I suppose the "best manager" in this sense protects his/her team from the upper echelon politics, and, being clueless, does not bother meddling with technical decisions, letting the team do their work. Their worldview is captured in the famous quotation: «You can domesticate programmers the way beekeepers tame bees. You can't exactly communicate with them, but you can get them to swarm in one place and when they're not looking, you can carry off the honey.»
  - Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
    wow what a quote. where is that from?
    - nine_k 1y ago
      An attributed source: https://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=DeveloperBees https://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=DeveloperBees
- evanjrowley 1y ago
  > I’d love to hear more about why being clueless is helpful. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge As management roles go higher, the ability to align with other managers on the “big picture” is a key priority. This often involves believing and communicating generalities about the enterprise which are inaccurate. Having too much expertise about a given field will prevent you from aligning in this way, e.g. The Curse of Knowledge. Precision and accuracy in the enterprise come second to the political struggles fought to achieve consensus among management. This was my conclusion after a year at a fortune 100 financial company’s information risk management department. Toeing the line and fitting into a mold are natural fits for the clueless and those who oversee them. How far you advance depends more on presentation than expertise.
gchamonlive 1y ago
Even though I think you are right, I believe your expectations for what a guide should do is wrong. A set of norms and practices are usually encoded in manuals, whereas guides serve for general orientation. In this sense, I believe if the guide is well written, it could well serve as an orientation for what to expect in order to adapt as a manager.
Magmalgebra 1y ago
> Managing down isn't actually that hard to get the hang of if you have strong technical skills and reasonable communications skills. But managing down is very similar to being a good teaching professor: absolutely worthless and largely done at your own peril. To your earlier point - even this is contextual. Incredibly high performing teams tend to be really hard to retain. It's not that hard to make your bosses love you if you're posting wildly out of band results - so the struggle is making sure the people who are actually making that happen stay on and stay engaged. (I'll note that some of the most successful managers I know built their career on creating playgrounds for a small number of high performing ICs)

sfpotter 1y ago

Now this is in the US, but I've met and worked with numerous absolutely top quality teaching professors and they had a disproportionately positive impact on their students. Many of them were happy and well adjusted and did not seem in much more of a precarious position than any other person I've met working a job for a similar amount of money in a field they enjoy. Obviously, it depends on the college, how well compensated you are, etc. But as far as I can see, the only thing that's absolutely worthless is sticking a top tier professor in front of a class of undergrads and forcing them to teach a low level class while simultaneously splitting their attention between twenty other responsibilities.

linehedonist 1y ago
The nature of a 'teaching professor' job can vary a lot, but the positions are often very precarious and unstable, as I can attest from personal experience.
- sfpotter 1y ago
  Does not mean they are absolutely worthless.
  - crystal_revenge 1y ago
    I think you may have misunderstood my point. Being a great teaching professor is an invaluable contribution to students lives and the world, but it is “absolutely worthless” as far as promotion and tenure is concerned. My point is not “don’t respect teaching profs”, quite the opposite in fact: Recognize that the teachers that had an impact on you in university that had an impact on you not only to no career benefit, but potential to their own professional detriment. Same goes for truly great technical managers. All the technical work they enable is through their own personal devotion and at best causes no professional growth, at worst takes away energy that should be spent elsewhere.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - sfpotter 1y ago
      This is what you wrote: "Managing down isn't actually that hard to get the hang of if you have strong technical skills and reasonable communications skills. But managing down is very similar to being a good teaching professor: absolutely worthless and largely done at your own peril." If your reply above is what you meant to say, that was not at all clearly communicated.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]

idiotsecant 1y ago

> the best managers care primarily about politics and growing their personal stake in the organization So fundamentally gross that this is true.

mlinhares 1y ago
That is also true for ICs, we just pretend it isn't. If you're not good at playing politics and selling yourself, the next layoff will take you out, there's no amount of engineering prowess that will fix it.
- rockinghigh 1y ago
  Selling yourself and your work is always a critical skill. That's how you get hired in the first place.

starfallg 1y ago

> In practice the best managers care primarily about politics and growing their personal stake in the organization. This is fine, and expected of senior management. > I've found that the more clueless they are the better (just don't point that out). This is toxic. Management at the senior level of these organisations has been completely detached from the activities on the ground. A healthy functional organisation should have senior managers that understand the complete stack of layers, but especially at the level where the value is being generated they need to fully understand.

MattPalmer1086 1y ago
I find most senior managers do understand where the value is created - sales and marketing of course.

dahart 1y ago

I am intrigued by your comment but a little confused as well, could you elaborate? What do you mean by ‘best manager’? Is that one who’s valuable and good for the org, or one that’s good at getting raises and promotions for himself and nobody else? If it’s the former, I’d love to hear more about why being clueless is helpful. And what does one do if caught in the situation you describe of not ever being let into the fold? How do you manage up in that situation? Leave?

nine_k 1y ago
I suppose the "best manager" in this sense protects his/her team from the upper echelon politics, and, being clueless, does not bother meddling with technical decisions, letting the team do their work. Their worldview is captured in the famous quotation: «You can domesticate programmers the way beekeepers tame bees. You can't exactly communicate with them, but you can get them to swarm in one place and when they're not looking, you can carry off the honey.»
- Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
  wow what a quote. where is that from?
  - nine_k 1y ago
    An attributed source: https://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=DeveloperBees https://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=DeveloperBees
evanjrowley 1y ago
> I’d love to hear more about why being clueless is helpful. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge As management roles go higher, the ability to align with other managers on the “big picture” is a key priority. This often involves believing and communicating generalities about the enterprise which are inaccurate. Having too much expertise about a given field will prevent you from aligning in this way, e.g. The Curse of Knowledge. Precision and accuracy in the enterprise come second to the political struggles fought to achieve consensus among management. This was my conclusion after a year at a fortune 100 financial company’s information risk management department. Toeing the line and fitting into a mold are natural fits for the clueless and those who oversee them. How far you advance depends more on presentation than expertise.

gchamonlive 1y ago

Even though I think you are right, I believe your expectations for what a guide should do is wrong. A set of norms and practices are usually encoded in manuals, whereas guides serve for general orientation. In this sense, I believe if the guide is well written, it could well serve as an orientation for what to expect in order to adapt as a manager.

Magmalgebra 1y ago

> Managing down isn't actually that hard to get the hang of if you have strong technical skills and reasonable communications skills. But managing down is very similar to being a good teaching professor: absolutely worthless and largely done at your own peril. To your earlier point - even this is contextual. Incredibly high performing teams tend to be really hard to retain. It's not that hard to make your bosses love you if you're posting wildly out of band results - so the struggle is making sure the people who are actually making that happen stay on and stay engaged. (I'll note that some of the most successful managers I know built their career on creating playgrounds for a small number of high performing ICs)