8 ms·

For the tl;dr crowd, here's the key takeaway: "Most companies promote workers into managerial positions because they seemingly deserve it, rather than because t

For the tl;dr crowd, here's the key takeaway: "Most companies promote workers into managerial positions because they seemingly deserve it, rather than because they have the talent for it. This practice doesn't work." Before I started a startup, I was a software engineer at a large firm, and it was clear they were grooming me for management because I was a strong individual contributor and had "put in my time": 3 years as an engineer. Advancement at this firm was measured by "how many reports" you had, as in "direct reports", or people managed by you, and if you just did superior individual work but had no one "under you", you weren't advancing. So they sent me to a couple of training courses about management and started prepping me for the path. This was one of the many reasons I quit this BigCo to start my own startup. I am now the co-founder & CTO of Parse.ly (http://parse.ly http://parse.ly). In our first two years after starting up, I spent all my time building stuff -- which is exactly what I wanted. Ironically, because the company has grown and now has a 13-person product team, I am now technically "managing" my engineering team with 13 "direct reports". But at our company, we have completely decoupled management from individual contribution -- certainly, if a strong individual contributor shows an interest in management, we'll consider it. But becoming a "manager" is not how you "advance" here -- you advance by doing great work. Our first employee who joined in 2009 is a great programmer and he is still with the company, but he's still doing what he loves: building & shipping stuff. Based on our frank conversations on the topic, I think he would quit if I forced him to be a manager. The appropriate reward for doing great work isn't a "promotion to management" -- that's actually a punishment for a great individual contributor. The right reward is to ensure you continue to provide an environment where that great work can continue for that contributor, and where they can continue to grow their skills and apply themselves productively in the role.

jordanb 13y ago
So this contributor who's been very productive since 2009, I assume he's gotten a series of substantial pay raises along with corresponding increases in "technical track" job titles?
- pixelmonkey 13y ago
  We don't really do "job title" promotions either, but yes, he has gotten continued pay raises & stock option grants in our case.
  - dclowd9901 13y ago
    Just for the sake of any future position he might want somewhere else, if you believe they are at the level, a "senior" in the title would behoove them.
paukiatwee 13y ago
"Most companies promote workers into managerial positions because they seemingly deserve it, rather than because they have the talent for it. This practice doesn't work" This known as Peter Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
bane 13y ago
I love this. But let me play a mild devil's advocate. Sometimes people move into management not because they want to necessarily progress in the company they're in now, but because moving into management is an overall career advancement. Leaving a position with "manager" in your title makes it more likely you'll end up in one with "manager" in the title at your next job and be able to command a better position/pay combination.
- pixelmonkey 13y ago
  This is a chicken & egg problem. If someone is moving into management as a form of "career advancement", the way I read that is, they think they should be paid more, but they don't think companies pay individual contributors with lots of experience more than they pay managers with lots of experience. That sucks. My belief is that management & compensation should be completely decoupled, so people wouldn't seek to do management for "career advancement", but because they actually enjoy management. For example, I hired a product manager last year and he really loves the work. It allows him to mix small engineering projects with product strategy, requirements elaboration, and his considerable people skills. But I don't see him as a "superior" to my other engineers -- he is just a contributor, like my other engineers. The "pay scale" for management should be similar to the pay scale for advanced individual work, in my opinion. Unfortunately, that's not the market we live in, so I can see why people would choose to seek management for "advancement" reasons, but this is just an unfortunate side effect of the market and ultimately causes a lot of talented contributors to do work they don't really love. Why? Essentially, for the money & prestige that needlessly comes with it.
  - bane 13y ago
    Actually, in the cases where I've done lots of hiring etc. It's quite often that good engineers make more than their managers. I think this is a good thing in some cases. I'm thinking of the recent Ask HN "What happens to older developers?" Which I answered in some detail here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373301 There's lots of reasons for wanting to get into management, and I've found that one of the main motivators is wanting to get out of direct code-slinging software development as the majority of their day and use their experience for the company good in different ways -- basically new challenges and all that...but keep a similar level of pay. And very few people these days want to stay at a single job for more than a few years. So for a very experienced developer, they may start to feel "trapped" in their career and may not even know it. Sorry, I don't want to be contradictory or make you defend what's obviously a working system for you guys. Just food for thought.
3pt14159 13y ago
That doesn't scale for motivated people. I was told the same thing when I joined FreshBooks when they were only a 20 person team. By the time they were a 45 person team the strain of lack of management (without the Github / Valve style decoupling) was obvious. Then I was tasked with hiring my boss. It sucked hard, I was doing awesome work (four raises in a year an a half) but when the writing is on the wall and you're only 25 years old the only play is to leave the company. I'm 95% convinced that companies larger than 50 people can't acquire truly outstanding people without having a decentralized system that doesn't reward power grabs and people pyramids.
- pixelmonkey 13y ago
  The reason "hiring your boss" sucked hard is because your boss was paid a lot more than you, right? What if he/she was a great manager but was actually paid on the same scale as you, and you were all advancing in pay with years of contribution?
  - gaius 13y ago
    LOL true story: a couple of companies ago my team were tasked with hiring our new manager, because none of us wanted the job. We had one candidate who came in and said "well this is very unusual for workers to interview managers, the first thing I'll do is put a stop to that". She didn't get the job.
  - bsder 13y ago
    If how much the person you are hiring gets paid relative to you is a criterion, you should not be part of the hiring process. I have hired people at salaries greater and lesser than mine. Occasionally, the person above me was earning less than me and in several cases the person under me was earning significantly more than me. The only question should be: is the person in the correct position and earning the amount they are being paid.
- ska 13y ago
  Can you elaborate why this "sucked hard"? Hiring your boss can be a lot better than just being handed one, after all. It sounds like the company was growing quickly and running into organizational issues because of it, makes sense they might be looking to hire some people with more experience than any 25 is likely to be able to offer. Or did you mean you were hoping for a Valve style structure, and they weren't going there?
jiggy2011 13y ago
How do you think this would scale if you grew to 100 employees? If the same person is with you then they would be the person with the most knowledge of the codebase and the business itself, so it would seem natural that newer employees would go to this person for guidance and defer to them for higher level decisions. Would it still make sense to pay them as much to just write code as it would for them to take on a more decision making role?
- hrktb 13y ago
  Not a CTO, but having good knowledge of the business and assisting fellow workers can be put in other terms than just 'manager'. It can mean architect, lead developper, technical lead, new recruit's mentor or technical instructor. The choices are endless, and the title and actual work can be fitted to the person.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    That's true, you can change the title but you still get to a point where you're "managing" things more than "doing" thing.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Our group has 40 people. We're part of a 1200 people group, which is part of a 37,000 people group, which is part of a 240,000 people group. now imagine no managers. Yeah, that's not going to work.
waltherg 13y ago
Also see the Peter Principle: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455 http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
The old way is basically aristocratic thinking, the people who actually do stuff are scum, the people "in charge" are simply better than them. Once you start admitting that "managing people" is just a job that you can do well or badly, and that can be really important or just administrative trivia, then that worldview shatters. Unfortunately it seems very well embedded in the general culture, even in tech where it's not totally unthinkable for someone to earn more money (and provide more value) to the firm than the person who manages them.
- ssdfsdf 13y ago
  Ahmen
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Isn't it desirable though to have the people in charge be skilled in the job that the people who manage them are doing? So you're paying more because you need somebody with 2 skill sets.
pasbesoin 13y ago
I was never familiar with it nor with the responsibility in detail of individuals there, but the parent comment makes me think of the old Bell Labs. (And/or parts of Xerox, etc.) Highly capable people given and environment that fostered their production. Not everything generated was immediately commercial. But it was a very productive environment, and this had strong commercial implications. It also created a lot of public good, immediately and/or eventually. Not every institution can afford a Bell Labs or a PARC. [1] But letting people do what they are good at, is perhaps not such a bad idea. -- [1] P.S. I suppose that from one perspective, not even Bell nor Xerox could... although I don't subscribe to the argument, at least and especially not at such a simplistic level.
pjc50 13y ago
I'm sure this was mentioned in The Mythical Man Month - the need to have a technical promotion track instead of just the managerial one, for exactly this reason. There needs to be a path to seniority that does not involve accumulating underlings.

jordanb 13y ago

So this contributor who's been very productive since 2009, I assume he's gotten a series of substantial pay raises along with corresponding increases in "technical track" job titles?

pixelmonkey 13y ago
We don't really do "job title" promotions either, but yes, he has gotten continued pay raises & stock option grants in our case.
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  Just for the sake of any future position he might want somewhere else, if you believe they are at the level, a "senior" in the title would behoove them.

paukiatwee 13y ago

"Most companies promote workers into managerial positions because they seemingly deserve it, rather than because they have the talent for it. This practice doesn't work" This known as Peter Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

bane 13y ago

I love this. But let me play a mild devil's advocate. Sometimes people move into management not because they want to necessarily progress in the company they're in now, but because moving into management is an overall career advancement. Leaving a position with "manager" in your title makes it more likely you'll end up in one with "manager" in the title at your next job and be able to command a better position/pay combination.

pixelmonkey 13y ago
This is a chicken & egg problem. If someone is moving into management as a form of "career advancement", the way I read that is, they think they should be paid more, but they don't think companies pay individual contributors with lots of experience more than they pay managers with lots of experience. That sucks. My belief is that management & compensation should be completely decoupled, so people wouldn't seek to do management for "career advancement", but because they actually enjoy management. For example, I hired a product manager last year and he really loves the work. It allows him to mix small engineering projects with product strategy, requirements elaboration, and his considerable people skills. But I don't see him as a "superior" to my other engineers -- he is just a contributor, like my other engineers. The "pay scale" for management should be similar to the pay scale for advanced individual work, in my opinion. Unfortunately, that's not the market we live in, so I can see why people would choose to seek management for "advancement" reasons, but this is just an unfortunate side effect of the market and ultimately causes a lot of talented contributors to do work they don't really love. Why? Essentially, for the money & prestige that needlessly comes with it.
- bane 13y ago
  Actually, in the cases where I've done lots of hiring etc. It's quite often that good engineers make more than their managers. I think this is a good thing in some cases. I'm thinking of the recent Ask HN "What happens to older developers?" Which I answered in some detail here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373301 There's lots of reasons for wanting to get into management, and I've found that one of the main motivators is wanting to get out of direct code-slinging software development as the majority of their day and use their experience for the company good in different ways -- basically new challenges and all that...but keep a similar level of pay. And very few people these days want to stay at a single job for more than a few years. So for a very experienced developer, they may start to feel "trapped" in their career and may not even know it. Sorry, I don't want to be contradictory or make you defend what's obviously a working system for you guys. Just food for thought.

3pt14159 13y ago

That doesn't scale for motivated people. I was told the same thing when I joined FreshBooks when they were only a 20 person team. By the time they were a 45 person team the strain of lack of management (without the Github / Valve style decoupling) was obvious. Then I was tasked with hiring my boss. It sucked hard, I was doing awesome work (four raises in a year an a half) but when the writing is on the wall and you're only 25 years old the only play is to leave the company. I'm 95% convinced that companies larger than 50 people can't acquire truly outstanding people without having a decentralized system that doesn't reward power grabs and people pyramids.

pixelmonkey 13y ago
The reason "hiring your boss" sucked hard is because your boss was paid a lot more than you, right? What if he/she was a great manager but was actually paid on the same scale as you, and you were all advancing in pay with years of contribution?
- gaius 13y ago
  LOL true story: a couple of companies ago my team were tasked with hiring our new manager, because none of us wanted the job. We had one candidate who came in and said "well this is very unusual for workers to interview managers, the first thing I'll do is put a stop to that". She didn't get the job.
- bsder 13y ago
  If how much the person you are hiring gets paid relative to you is a criterion, you should not be part of the hiring process. I have hired people at salaries greater and lesser than mine. Occasionally, the person above me was earning less than me and in several cases the person under me was earning significantly more than me. The only question should be: is the person in the correct position and earning the amount they are being paid.
ska 13y ago
Can you elaborate why this "sucked hard"? Hiring your boss can be a lot better than just being handed one, after all. It sounds like the company was growing quickly and running into organizational issues because of it, makes sense they might be looking to hire some people with more experience than any 25 is likely to be able to offer. Or did you mean you were hoping for a Valve style structure, and they weren't going there?

jiggy2011 13y ago

How do you think this would scale if you grew to 100 employees? If the same person is with you then they would be the person with the most knowledge of the codebase and the business itself, so it would seem natural that newer employees would go to this person for guidance and defer to them for higher level decisions. Would it still make sense to pay them as much to just write code as it would for them to take on a more decision making role?

hrktb 13y ago
Not a CTO, but having good knowledge of the business and assisting fellow workers can be put in other terms than just 'manager'. It can mean architect, lead developper, technical lead, new recruit's mentor or technical instructor. The choices are endless, and the title and actual work can be fitted to the person.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  That's true, you can change the title but you still get to a point where you're "managing" things more than "doing" thing.
chris_mahan 13y ago
Our group has 40 people. We're part of a 1200 people group, which is part of a 37,000 people group, which is part of a 240,000 people group. now imagine no managers. Yeah, that's not going to work.

waltherg 13y ago

Also see the Peter Principle: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455 http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

ZeroGravitas 13y ago

The old way is basically aristocratic thinking, the people who actually do stuff are scum, the people "in charge" are simply better than them. Once you start admitting that "managing people" is just a job that you can do well or badly, and that can be really important or just administrative trivia, then that worldview shatters. Unfortunately it seems very well embedded in the general culture, even in tech where it's not totally unthinkable for someone to earn more money (and provide more value) to the firm than the person who manages them.

ssdfsdf 13y ago
Ahmen
jiggy2011 13y ago
Isn't it desirable though to have the people in charge be skilled in the job that the people who manage them are doing? So you're paying more because you need somebody with 2 skill sets.

pasbesoin 13y ago

I was never familiar with it nor with the responsibility in detail of individuals there, but the parent comment makes me think of the old Bell Labs. (And/or parts of Xerox, etc.) Highly capable people given and environment that fostered their production. Not everything generated was immediately commercial. But it was a very productive environment, and this had strong commercial implications. It also created a lot of public good, immediately and/or eventually. Not every institution can afford a Bell Labs or a PARC. [1] But letting people do what they are good at, is perhaps not such a bad idea. -- [1] P.S. I suppose that from one perspective, not even Bell nor Xerox could... although I don't subscribe to the argument, at least and especially not at such a simplistic level.

pjc50 13y ago

I'm sure this was mentioned in The Mythical Man Month - the need to have a technical promotion track instead of just the managerial one, for exactly this reason. There needs to be a path to seniority that does not involve accumulating underlings.