5 ms·

Something very similar happened to me at a startup a few years ago and it took me a long time to realize what had happened and why I felt so terrible about it.

Something very similar happened to me at a startup a few years ago and it took me a long time to realize what had happened and why I felt so terrible about it. Even though my title, salary, and perks were still the same, it was a de-facto demotion. Important parts of my compensation (involvement, agency, sense of ownership, diversity in work effort) were just inadvertently phased out as the company I helped grow was big enough to support product managers who could do just the most rewarding parts of my job but not actually code or anything. I think (hope) there are things that one can do to guard against this from happening, and just being aware of this phenomenon is valuable.

rob_b 13y ago
The corporate world is even more so plagued by this occurrence and explains why there are so many people in roles that they shouldn't be.
jlees 13y ago
Important parts of my compensation (involvement, agency, sense of ownership, diversity in work effort) were just inadvertently phased out That's a neat observation, and a pattern I've seen before. As the company (or team, within a larger company) grows, it's possible to lose some of the things you most value about your job -- without even realising it. The company and management have the best intentions at heart for you, the team and the product -- but is this an inevitable side-effect of growth? Also, the reason I became a product manager in the first place was because I found the specific stuff you mention invigorating, and coding became a distraction from it; I wouldn't diss all product managers with the same brush, it's just an unfortunate trap that if you're a good engineer then people probably don't think you want to be more product-focused, and don't want to lose your coding contributions.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  I don't even mean to diss product managers. I realized that I basically am a product manager who also happens to be an effective technologist. I just have to find a job that lets me be both and realize that my needs may diverge from the needs of my employer, and that's OK.
FD3SA 13y ago
It would be criminal negligence if I didn't mention Michael O'Church's seminal work on this issue [1]. There is surprising depth and complexity to the power dynamics in companies, both large and small. What you've discovered first hand is that, unfortunately, politics determine the fate of nations and companies alike. 1. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-principle-questioned-macleods-hierarchy-the-technocrat-and-vc-startups/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ...
- MartinCron 13y ago
  The political is one (valid) way to look at experiences like that. Although there really wasn't anything as conscious as political scheming going on. For me, it was mostly a lack of mindfulness, both from me and from my manager, about what was going on as the dynamics changed. I'm sure that if I had said "hey, it's important that you don't take this kind of work away from me" before it was too late, it would have worked out much better.
- jedc 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but it's really difficult to take that "seminal work" seriously when that work is an in-depth analysis of the "MacLeod Model of organizational sociology". Do you know what the "MacLeod Model" is? A cartoon on the back of a business card, posted to the web without comment nine years ago: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/ http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/ Michael O'Church might have some interesting things to say, but when he extrapolates pages of meaning from a cartoon that's just trying to be humorous, it says more about Michael O'Church than anything else.
  - ahoyhere 13y ago
    But he SOUNDS so sure of himself! See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styles.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styl...
  - FD3SA 13y ago
    I enjoy Michael's descriptions because they provide a conceptual understanding of very profound evolutionary principles. As someone who understands the difficulty in simplifying evolutionary psychology for non-experts, I sincerely commend him for his work. I would classify Michael's work as an introduction to applied evolutionary psychology, using corporations as a case study. If you'd like the reasons behind why his work is valid, I'd recommend starting with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene followed by The Extended Phenotype. The sections on game theory are particularly insightful, as they describe how competing strategies reach equilibrium in a given environment. You will find the strategies described are quite similar to Michael's classifications, thus shedding much light on corporate environments.
seivan 13y ago
"I helped grow was big enough to support product managers who could do just the most rewarding parts of my job but not actually code or anything" That's the worst. Asshole idea people who can't code their bullshit design or implementation.

rob_b 13y ago

The corporate world is even more so plagued by this occurrence and explains why there are so many people in roles that they shouldn't be.

jlees 13y ago

Important parts of my compensation (involvement, agency, sense of ownership, diversity in work effort) were just inadvertently phased out That's a neat observation, and a pattern I've seen before. As the company (or team, within a larger company) grows, it's possible to lose some of the things you most value about your job -- without even realising it. The company and management have the best intentions at heart for you, the team and the product -- but is this an inevitable side-effect of growth? Also, the reason I became a product manager in the first place was because I found the specific stuff you mention invigorating, and coding became a distraction from it; I wouldn't diss all product managers with the same brush, it's just an unfortunate trap that if you're a good engineer then people probably don't think you want to be more product-focused, and don't want to lose your coding contributions.

MartinCron 13y ago
I don't even mean to diss product managers. I realized that I basically am a product manager who also happens to be an effective technologist. I just have to find a job that lets me be both and realize that my needs may diverge from the needs of my employer, and that's OK.

FD3SA 13y ago

It would be criminal negligence if I didn't mention Michael O'Church's seminal work on this issue [1]. There is surprising depth and complexity to the power dynamics in companies, both large and small. What you've discovered first hand is that, unfortunately, politics determine the fate of nations and companies alike. 1. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-principle-questioned-macleods-hierarchy-the-technocrat-and-vc-startups/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ...

MartinCron 13y ago
The political is one (valid) way to look at experiences like that. Although there really wasn't anything as conscious as political scheming going on. For me, it was mostly a lack of mindfulness, both from me and from my manager, about what was going on as the dynamics changed. I'm sure that if I had said "hey, it's important that you don't take this kind of work away from me" before it was too late, it would have worked out much better.
jedc 13y ago
I'm sorry, but it's really difficult to take that "seminal work" seriously when that work is an in-depth analysis of the "MacLeod Model of organizational sociology". Do you know what the "MacLeod Model" is? A cartoon on the back of a business card, posted to the web without comment nine years ago: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/ http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/ Michael O'Church might have some interesting things to say, but when he extrapolates pages of meaning from a cartoon that's just trying to be humorous, it says more about Michael O'Church than anything else.
- ahoyhere 13y ago
  But he SOUNDS so sure of himself! See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styles.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styl...
- FD3SA 13y ago
  I enjoy Michael's descriptions because they provide a conceptual understanding of very profound evolutionary principles. As someone who understands the difficulty in simplifying evolutionary psychology for non-experts, I sincerely commend him for his work. I would classify Michael's work as an introduction to applied evolutionary psychology, using corporations as a case study. If you'd like the reasons behind why his work is valid, I'd recommend starting with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene followed by The Extended Phenotype. The sections on game theory are particularly insightful, as they describe how competing strategies reach equilibrium in a given environment. You will find the strategies described are quite similar to Michael's classifications, thus shedding much light on corporate environments.

seivan 13y ago

"I helped grow was big enough to support product managers who could do just the most rewarding parts of my job but not actually code or anything" That's the worst. Asshole idea people who can't code their bullshit design or implementation.