6 ms·

One thing that always fails with that is that management always get more money. Wanna be a tech leader paid 150k? (fancy title, +- same salary as before) Or w

by zobzu 12y ago

One thing that always fails with that is that management always get more money. Wanna be a tech leader paid 150k? (fancy title, +- same salary as before) Or wanna be a director paid 250k? (fancier title, way bigger salary) Kinda difficult not to choose the "free tesla every year" isn't it? Plus.. the directory job is generally going to mean a more relaxed job (albeit less interesting for an engineer maybe, but that's why you have open source projects right?).

gumby 12y ago
This is why IBM created a separate path back in the 1950s so good technical people didn't have to become managers in order to be promoted. There are many ways to provide leadership, and not every manager leads much.
- tjl 12y ago
  I recall that Nortel had parallel tracks as well. One of the guys I worked with did the technical track.
- analog31 12y ago
  The Fortune 500 company that I work for has parallel tracks. I actually moved from the management track to the technical track, and was promoted in the process. I was probably an OK manager, but didn't feel that I would move up any further without doing some things that I didn't want to do, such as relocate. Our managers don't actually spend a lot of their time managing people. Rather, they work on administrative and information processing tasks, and step in as small project managers.
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  My company has a technical track in theory but over the last 2 years I have observed that mediocre managers keep getting promoted regularly whereas only absolutely outstanding engineers move up. If you want to make decent money, management is the way to go. At least in my company.
lacker 12y ago
At many companies, including Facebook, there are parallel individual-engineer tracks and management tracks, with the pay scale equivalent between the two. It isn't good to nudge engineers towards management for financial reasons.
peteretep 12y ago
> Plus.. the director job is generally going to mean a > more relaxed job If you believe responsibility over people, budgets, liabilities and policy is less stressful than responsibility over systems, you're high. As a programmer, let me tell you: people who have only ever done programming for a career have no clue how relatively easy they have it.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  I've only done programming and research for my career and shudder when I look at my boss's job. Heck, I get stressed just being assigned an intern. People management isn't for everyone.
- snoman 12y ago
  I suspect that the reason for the perpetuation of this myth is that, if a manager is doing their job really really well then all of that stress and BS is hidden from their directs.
  - jghn 12y ago
    Indeed. The best managers I've ever had were the ones that completely shielded the rest of us from the absolute BS that always exist. Go figure, those were the companies where the rank & file didn't think political BS existed - surprise, your manager was protecting you from that!
    - solistice 12y ago
      So essentially managers are people sysadmins. They make sure everyone is working, try to resolve conflicts and ideally make sure that everyone is running the right tools. What would be a people engineer in that vein?
      - blumkvist 12y ago
        HR.
erikb 12y ago
I absolutely dig the money argument. A bad junior manager will probably make much more money than a jedi developer. Therefore many people choose to be a bad manager instead of a happy, good, developer.
- hell-ban-me 12y ago
  Wow, where do you guys come from? At my current gig, as a contract engineer I make two times more than the department director, who is 4 levels up in the hyerarhy.
  - frandroid 12y ago
    Wait, are you really comparing contract to full-time?
jules 12y ago
Yes, the only way around this is to become an independent consultant or start your own company.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  And then, you become a manager.
smsm42 12y ago
I have no problem with getting less money for doing something I'm good at and not doing something I know I'd hate and probably suck at. After all, I gave up a career of a hedge fund manager and a billionaire already to be an engineer - probably for the same reasons, because I suspect I'd actually suck at hedge fund managing and won't become a billionaire. In the same vein, if I tried to become a director knowing I'd suck at it, I may briefly enjoy the benefits of higher salary, after which my incompetence and my dissatisfaction with the job would become apparent and I'd be asked to leave. So long term it is probably a bad plan, unless people I'm going to direct over and report to are exceptionally obtuse and won't notice me reaching my Peter ceiling. That happens, but why would I want my life to depend on it? And remember, we're not talking about vow of poverty here exactly. 150K gets you in top 10% easily, and if you have a household with two 150K salaries you're pretty close to the much envied 1%. Maybe there's a point where more money wouldn't actually make it better if it comes with more frustration? As for why directors get more money - again, I have no problem with people doing what I can't and won't do getting more money than I do. My life is not a competition with them, it's a competition with my last year self. If I win that, I'm good. Which means, if the company wants to keep a good engineer who thinks like me, they should be able to provide some track for me to be better next year - position-wise, money-wise, respect-wise, responsibility-wise, however it goes - than last year, without forcing people into doing something they may suck at.

by zobzu 12y ago

gumby 12y ago

This is why IBM created a separate path back in the 1950s so good technical people didn't have to become managers in order to be promoted. There are many ways to provide leadership, and not every manager leads much.

tjl 12y ago
I recall that Nortel had parallel tracks as well. One of the guys I worked with did the technical track.
analog31 12y ago
The Fortune 500 company that I work for has parallel tracks. I actually moved from the management track to the technical track, and was promoted in the process. I was probably an OK manager, but didn't feel that I would move up any further without doing some things that I didn't want to do, such as relocate. Our managers don't actually spend a lot of their time managing people. Rather, they work on administrative and information processing tasks, and step in as small project managers.
maxxxxx 12y ago
My company has a technical track in theory but over the last 2 years I have observed that mediocre managers keep getting promoted regularly whereas only absolutely outstanding engineers move up. If you want to make decent money, management is the way to go. At least in my company.

lacker 12y ago

At many companies, including Facebook, there are parallel individual-engineer tracks and management tracks, with the pay scale equivalent between the two. It isn't good to nudge engineers towards management for financial reasons.

peteretep 12y ago

> Plus.. the director job is generally going to mean a > more relaxed job If you believe responsibility over people, budgets, liabilities and policy is less stressful than responsibility over systems, you're high. As a programmer, let me tell you: people who have only ever done programming for a career have no clue how relatively easy they have it.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
I've only done programming and research for my career and shudder when I look at my boss's job. Heck, I get stressed just being assigned an intern. People management isn't for everyone.
snoman 12y ago
I suspect that the reason for the perpetuation of this myth is that, if a manager is doing their job really really well then all of that stress and BS is hidden from their directs.
- jghn 12y ago
  Indeed. The best managers I've ever had were the ones that completely shielded the rest of us from the absolute BS that always exist. Go figure, those were the companies where the rank & file didn't think political BS existed - surprise, your manager was protecting you from that!
  - solistice 12y ago
    So essentially managers are people sysadmins. They make sure everyone is working, try to resolve conflicts and ideally make sure that everyone is running the right tools. What would be a people engineer in that vein?
    - blumkvist 12y ago
      HR.

erikb 12y ago

I absolutely dig the money argument. A bad junior manager will probably make much more money than a jedi developer. Therefore many people choose to be a bad manager instead of a happy, good, developer.

hell-ban-me 12y ago
Wow, where do you guys come from? At my current gig, as a contract engineer I make two times more than the department director, who is 4 levels up in the hyerarhy.
- frandroid 12y ago
  Wait, are you really comparing contract to full-time?

jules 12y ago

Yes, the only way around this is to become an independent consultant or start your own company.

marcosdumay 12y ago
And then, you become a manager.

smsm42 12y ago

I have no problem with getting less money for doing something I'm good at and not doing something I know I'd hate and probably suck at. After all, I gave up a career of a hedge fund manager and a billionaire already to be an engineer - probably for the same reasons, because I suspect I'd actually suck at hedge fund managing and won't become a billionaire. In the same vein, if I tried to become a director knowing I'd suck at it, I may briefly enjoy the benefits of higher salary, after which my incompetence and my dissatisfaction with the job would become apparent and I'd be asked to leave. So long term it is probably a bad plan, unless people I'm going to direct over and report to are exceptionally obtuse and won't notice me reaching my Peter ceiling. That happens, but why would I want my life to depend on it? And remember, we're not talking about vow of poverty here exactly. 150K gets you in top 10% easily, and if you have a household with two 150K salaries you're pretty close to the much envied 1%. Maybe there's a point where more money wouldn't actually make it better if it comes with more frustration? As for why directors get more money - again, I have no problem with people doing what I can't and won't do getting more money than I do. My life is not a competition with them, it's a competition with my last year self. If I win that, I'm good. Which means, if the company wants to keep a good engineer who thinks like me, they should be able to provide some track for me to be better next year - position-wise, money-wise, respect-wise, responsibility-wise, however it goes - than last year, without forcing people into doing something they may suck at.