Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

firstround.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 198 posts

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#61

Post by mhurron »

Ensorceled wrote: post #32
plinkplonk wrote: post #12

"Don’t manage only to advance your career. Many tech companies have parallel career paths to seniority for both technical and managerial high-performers." Is this really true? Many engineers do become managers only to advance their careers. The "parallel" technical career path never seems to deliver equal amounts of power, or even money, as compared to managers on the same level. Even when a rough parity exists on pa…

In my 30 years of experience, the "parallel" technical track is really only for super stars. As merely a very good developer, management pays better.

> As merely a very good developer, management pays better.

There are also more management positions. The parallel track technical positions are significantly more rare, even in the companies that have them.

There is a top to technical positions, the rest is management. You have to choose where you will be happy.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#62

Post by analog31 »

plinkplonk wrote: post #12

"Don’t manage only to advance your career. Many tech companies have parallel career paths to seniority for both technical and managerial high-performers." Is this really true? Many engineers do become managers only to advance their careers. The "parallel" technical career path never seems to deliver equal amounts of power, or even money, as compared to managers on the same level. Even when a rough parity exists on pa…

The company where I work has the parallel career paths, but like you say, has a much higher proportion of managers at the higher levels.

In my view, money and advancement have to be part of the motivation for becoming a manager. Otherwise, it's too stressful and boring, and nobody would do it. My evidence is that every person who has joined management at the lowest rung, where the work is the most boring and unrewarding, has been somebody with a family to support.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#63

Post by adaml_623 »

msravi wrote: post #39
anotherdatem wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a VP at a mid-sized ($100mm revenue) startup. I report to the CTO, and am his probable successor. I make slightly less than our highest paid engineer. I would recommend finding a company with a true parallel track, rather than dedicating yourself to a job that you don't want, and thus likely won't ever be great at.

An honest question: Does the highest paid engineer know that (s)he makes slightly more than you? If so, does (s)he know of it in an official capacity or has (s)he sort-of figured it out? Oftentimes, I've found that management operates from a position of informational advantage, while a person on a parallel technical track at the same level has access to a lot less information. Hence the question.

That's a really good question

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#64

Post by gailees »

"Focus on enhancing strengths, not fixing weaknesses. “It’s a common trap for new managers to focus on fixing their engineer’s weaknesses than enhancing their strengths. The upside from improving someone's strength is typically greater and more likely to stick than the upside from addressing a weakness."

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#65

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

yanilkr wrote: post #7

After being a consultant, engineer, manager and again starting as allinone on a small project, I believe organizational hierarchy is just an OK solution. If I put on a career planner hat, I find so many career paths which are in big hierarchies personally bad deals and would avoid them in future and advice the same to others. I wrote a summary of what I observed so many times. Sorry for a lengthy post. When a softwar…

I just joined an organization with minimal hierarchy (no team leads, no architects, no whatever) and minimal process. It feels right somehow, I'm curious how its going to work out.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#66

Post by JustSomeNobody »

plinkplonk wrote: post #12

"Don’t manage only to advance your career. Many tech companies have parallel career paths to seniority for both technical and managerial high-performers." Is this really true? Many engineers do become managers only to advance their careers. The "parallel" technical career path never seems to deliver equal amounts of power, or even money, as compared to managers on the same level. Even when a rough parity exists on pa…

Until engineering decides to do something about it, engineering will always be subordinate to management.

There are no true parallel career paths.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#67

Post by k__ »

msravi wrote: post #39
anotherdatem wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a VP at a mid-sized ($100mm revenue) startup. I report to the CTO, and am his probable successor. I make slightly less than our highest paid engineer. I would recommend finding a company with a true parallel track, rather than dedicating yourself to a job that you don't want, and thus likely won't ever be great at.

An honest question: Does the highest paid engineer know that (s)he makes slightly more than you? If so, does (s)he know of it in an official capacity or has (s)he sort-of figured it out? Oftentimes, I've found that management operates from a position of informational advantage, while a person on a parallel technical track at the same level has access to a lot less information. Hence the question.

Where I worked, there were a few senjor devs who got the biggest pay-checks.

Funny thing is, they weren't the most influencial people, they just got a problem and solved it.

If the times were though, they sometimes even were "set free" because they company could operate without them, just don't do much new stuff anymore.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#68

Post by brudgers »

sokoloff wrote: post #59
plonh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why? That's insane.

Most overt and intentional "managing up" is a waste of time at best and often runs counter to the organization's goals. By this, I mean when you decide on your drive into work "Today, I'm going to manage up" or block it on your calendar. I don't mean doing a naturally good job and keeping your boss informed of what's going on, figuring out how to best help the company achieve its goals, etc. That's the productive ver…

What gets measured gets done. If higher levels of management measure politics and ass-kissing and useless paperwork then that's what goes down when "managing up." And of course there are plenty of organizations where that's a big chunk of what gets measured. People who value those things tend to strive for management positions.

There are some where it isn't. In those "managing up" can mean something else and management tracks can attract and keep people interested in creating that other meaning.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#69

Post by viewer5 »

eitally wrote: post #49
brador wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone is promoted doesn't mean they can't be fired or demoted. What difference is their in your 1 year training period suggestion and simply promoting then firing or demoting in 1 year if things don't work out? I personally prefer providing opportunities for a gradual increase in responsibilities over outright "here's your new job title and fresh office". Then once they've shown capability with the new…

Most companies don't demote at all. Even if an employee requests demotion (I have gone through this a few times, where a great technical staffer was promoted to supervisor or manager and then decided later that they really hated the change.), it was always a huge hassle trying to convince HR to accommodate it, and the employee in question had to write a personal letter requesting the demotion and explaining why.)

Does that seem unreasonable? I don't have any experience with such things, but it seems reasonable to me. The company decided you'd be most effective in position Y, so they put you there and gave you a pay/benefits raise, and now you're saying "I'd really like to do position X which is less optimal for the company even though you want me at Y and might/probably have already found someone to do X, and my reasons are A, B, and C".

A letter sounds like the perfect medium to communicate something like that.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#70

Post by eitally »

viewer5 wrote: post #69
eitally wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most companies don't demote at all. Even if an employee requests demotion (I have gone through this a few times, where a great technical staffer was promoted to supervisor or manager and then decided later that they really hated the change.), it was always a huge hassle trying to convince HR to accommodate it, and the employee in question had to write a personal letter requesting the demotion and explaining why.)

Does that seem unreasonable? I don't have any experience with such things, but it seems reasonable to me. The company decided you'd be most effective in position Y, so they put you there and gave you a pay/benefits raise, and now you're saying "I'd really like to do position X which is less optimal for the company even though you want me at Y and might/probably have already found someone to do X, and my reasons are A…

Yes, it was the right way to handle it, but my impression when I went through it was that it was completely novel to the HR organization and they were reluctant to agree to demote anyone at all, whether they were requesting it or not.
Post reply on HN