A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers • Hacker News Board

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#121

Post by michaelochurch » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 4:39 PM UTC

bkeroack wrote: post #114

lgieron wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bigger problem is that most companies view "engineer" as "implementor of ideas that come from the business". Isn't that the inherent nature of a lot of the programming jobs, though? For example, I'm currently contracting at a e-commerce company. My day to day work is as you described - closing tickets that get assigned to me in the Sprint. I also suggest new tickets, but they're solely limited to technical issu…

Then empower yourself by learning how the business/market works, or if that sounds stupid and boring, leave for someplace where it wouldn't be. I'm not the OP, but the point I think is that as long as you are content to be a "code monkey" (no disrespect meant at all, but that's what it sounds like) that just does what they're told for 40-50 hours per week, you can't expect to have any upward career growth.

Engineers, speaking generally, are more than happy to work with the business.

Where there's divergence is that engineers don't want to work for the business as a subordinate, or for compensation that justifies working on something less interesting or career-beneficial than what one would prefer.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#122

Post by lgieron » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

bkeroack wrote: post #114

lgieron wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bigger problem is that most companies view "engineer" as "implementor of ideas that come from the business". Isn't that the inherent nature of a lot of the programming jobs, though? For example, I'm currently contracting at a e-commerce company. My day to day work is as you described - closing tickets that get assigned to me in the Sprint. I also suggest new tickets, but they're solely limited to technical issu…

Then empower yourself by learning how the business/market works, or if that sounds stupid and boring, leave for someplace where it wouldn't be. I'm not the OP, but the point I think is that as long as you are content to be a "code monkey" (no disrespect meant at all, but that's what it sounds like) that just does what they're told for 40-50 hours per week, you can't expect to have any upward career growth.

In this kind of setting there is no career growth though. You're either a 'code monkey' or someone like a technical product manager, or you manage people. They are all different paths, with none of them being inherently better or worse than others. Money-wise, a lot of code monkeys are contractors, which means that they take home as much or more than senior management.

Honestly, I'm not even sure how "upward career growth" could look in a company structured like that. I don't think I saw a single programmer in here who empowered himself with business domain knowledge to a degree where he could make meaningful contributions. I guess we're all comfortable with where we stand.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#123

Post by toby » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 4:58 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #119

pc86 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what exactly you have in mind.

Well, if nothing else works, a programmer's union. I'd prefer something more like the Screen Actor's Guild, which provides support (legal assistance if you need it, access to talent agents) but doesn't regulate compensation. That said, I don't think things necessarily need to go that way, and I don't want to see the negatives of traditional labor unions. But that shouldn't be off the table. The other side isn't going…

FYI, SAG does set minimum compensation, working conditions, meal requirements, etc. It doesn't set upper bounds or demand that more senior people get the better jobs.

It's also somewhat difficult to get into. Any aspiring actor can't just go and join.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#124

Post by Ensorceled » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #88

Ensorceled wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, most of the superstars are "architects" who can both come up with excellent technical plans and then socialize/communicate them. I have a had a few "put on head phones and pump out 5 developers worth of excellent code" types as well.

I'm continuing to wander slowly but surely into more architecture roles, and while the term has fully justifiably been badly wrecked by people doing "architecture" who think it involves drawing diagrams with lots of boxes and lines and never checking the architecture against the requirements, there is a legitimate architecture role that does exist and there are legitimate skills that are specialized to that role. I'm…

Yes, I've worked with Architects and "architects". Only the first type actually benefit the company :-)

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#125

Post by t0mbstone » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:03 PM UTC

organsnyder wrote: post #105

tamaatar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right about the salary. but what is your opinion on job security and employability. the way I see it, in a tech role, as long as your are flexible and open to learning whatever technology is thrown at you, you will always be employable. But in management,especially in junior management and especially in very large organisation, managers are in most cases dead weight. they don't do much.Don't they feel the ins…

Perceiving a manager—no matter how junior—as simply "dead weight" signals a failure in the organization, the individual manager, and/or your own perception. In addition to ensuring accountability, a good manager also helps to shield subordinates from the bureaucracy that is inevitable in large organizations. This work may not always be visible.

Bureaucracy inevitably leads to inefficiency.

If a primary purpose of managers is to "shield subordinates", then you have a much bigger problem within your organization.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#126

Post by lucidrains » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:12 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #107

tamaatar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right about the salary. but what is your opinion on job security and employability. the way I see it, in a tech role, as long as your are flexible and open to learning whatever technology is thrown at you, you will always be employable. But in management,especially in junior management and especially in very large organisation, managers are in most cases dead weight. they don't do much.Don't they feel the ins…

Definitely not as many available jobs. Every company in the Valley seems to be looking for engineers by the truckload, but there are not so many openings for [people|project|product] managers. Apparently, engineers now self-organize and products simply leap from their fingertips onto store shelves. As for job security, I guess I'll find out eventually. My gut feeling is that in software companies, it's easier to get…

Yeah, this is my gut feeling too. Unspoken is the fact that productivity tools like Asana, Trello, Slack are innovations to replace management.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#127

Post by cossatot » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:13 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #29

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…

I have no idea if this is true, but just postulating a reason… If you consider management to be a distinct skill,Someone with 10 years of experience engineering and also 10 years in management is (potentially) very skilled in two distinct fields. Imagine you have a lawyer with a PHD in geology and they work on ground water disputes or oil well stuff. Being an expert in two fields is valuable.

I agree. In my experience (PhD in geology actually, and decent modeling/statistics/etc.-type programmer but not 'expert' by HN standards), this sort of dual expertise is quite valuable, especially at a higher level: Not only can you be a liaison between the two domains and, say, proficiently implement an idea or interpret scientific findings in terms of case law for your clients, but you can also see opportunities for solving one domain's problems with another domain's tools, when the problem domain may never even realize there's a good solution (or even much of a problem!).

In terms of management and engineering, dual experience or expertise could definitely help with understanding how to implement features in a way that encourages collaboration or efficiency between devs, or leaves a feature open for extensibility or interaction with potential features that the engineers aren't aware of yet.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#128

Post by michaelochurch » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

toby wrote: post #123

michaelochurch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if nothing else works, a programmer's union. I'd prefer something more like the Screen Actor's Guild, which provides support (legal assistance if you need it, access to talent agents) but doesn't regulate compensation. That said, I don't think things necessarily need to go that way, and I don't want to see the negatives of traditional labor unions. But that shouldn't be off the table. The other side isn't going…

FYI, SAG does set minimum compensation, working conditions, meal requirements, etc. It doesn't set upper bounds or demand that more senior people get the better jobs. It's also somewhat difficult to get into. Any aspiring actor can't just go and join.

FYI, SAG does set minimum compensation, working conditions, meal requirements, etc. It doesn't set upper bounds or demand that more senior people get the better jobs.

Sounds like what we need in software: downside protection (especially against managerial misbehavior) but no limit on the upside, and no stupid seniority system.

It's also somewhat difficult to get into. Any aspiring actor can't just go and join.

How does it work?

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#129

Post by pun_Krawk » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #79

The day I decided to make it a goal to switch from developing software to management: I was sitting at my desk at 8:00 at night fixing some bug and I looked across the sea of gray half-height cubicles at a someone 30 years older than me doing the same thing with the exact same job title, probably not making much more than I. At 95% of companies, there is zero career development and advancement once you become a "Seni…

The 8:00pm bug is why I had volunteered to transition into project management at my job. Actually, I kind of just took on the job informally. I balanced a ratio of coding/project management until I wasn't really coding anymore.

I'm not sure what entices a developer into pursuing management. As the above post pointed out, they didn't see a viable career path. I'm going to guess another reason is that many are fed up with how things are currently being done at their workplace, and they feel they can do a much better job than their current manager. This was my case.

Maybe the next statement is a little naive, but if you want to make things better, than just do it. Insert yourself wherever possible. Learn what you need to learn. If you end up hating it, at least you tried. It's a lot of effort to support yourself, but it can be well worth it. For me, I was able to introduce a Wagile workflow for our team, which had dramatic effects in just a month. I'm now actually starting to do product work as well as transition everyone into a full Agile approach.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#130

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

t0mbstone wrote: post #125

organsnyder wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perceiving a manager—no matter how junior—as simply "dead weight" signals a failure in the organization, the individual manager, and/or your own perception. In addition to ensuring accountability, a good manager also helps to shield subordinates from the bureaucracy that is inevitable in large organizations. This work may not always be visible.

Bureaucracy inevitably leads to inefficiency. If a primary purpose of managers is to "shield subordinates", then you have a much bigger problem within your organization.

But chaos is also inefficient. The best possible management minimizes both the chaos and the bureaucratic inefficiency, to get optimum output from their organization. This does not happen without management - the "natural state" of an organization is not as efficient as the optimal state.