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

141–150 of 198 posts

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#141

Post by sarwechshar »

gadders wrote: post #42
jasode wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The "parallel" technical career path never seems to deliver equal amounts of power, or even money, as compared to managers on the same level. This is true. There's a self-deprecating joke about CIO being an acronym for "Career Is Over" because the Chief Information Officers are never promoted to CEO. On the other hand, it's common for the board to promote COOs and CFOs to CEOs. If tech people want to be CEOs, they h…

If you're a CIO in a large company, your life is more about managing budgets than doing anything technical.

I don't remember the last time I saw a company with a "CIO". It seems to be a dying trend.

Interesting fact: CIOs are also known as Chief Investment Officers (mainly in finance) and play an integral role to the company, perhaps in importance second only to the CEO.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#142

Post by s73v3r »

pc86 wrote: post #85
kelukelugames wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as true as: 1) We value work life balance! 2) We only hire the best! Everyone here is a rock star. 3) We love diversity! 4) We have an open door policy. You can complain about anything!

> 1) We value work life balance! I interviewed somewhere that specifically mentioned #1 in the job description. I applied in part because it was the only job ad I had seen to that point specifically mentioning it. It was brought up again in the interview as a perk of the job, by the person who would be my boss, without my prompting. In the very next sentence he made a generalization about being confused as to why dev…

Wow. That person sounds like an entitled ass.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#143

Post by s73v3r »

carc wrote: post #15
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…

FWIW, I know senior engineers that chose the technical route rather than manager route, who make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. Like close to 1,000,000/year including equity. I don't know any non VP level people making anywhere close to that. Obviously this is anecdotal though.

And I know of plenty of people who play football who make several million dollars a year. The question is, how common is it? In both athletics and engineering, the answer is not all that common.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#144

Post by mateo411 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #130
t0mbstone wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good process adds some latency, but reduces risk.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#145

Post by s73v3r »

rndn wrote: post #38
brador wrote: post #17

This is a list of things a CEO wants managers to do and be like. IMO following these rules will keep you submissive and his castle nice and orderly. Not what you want if you have an ounce of ambition. To actually survive and excel as a manager you need to play politics and win turf battles. Take on the highest value projects and ship. To get the good projects you'll need to fight because everyone wants them. TLDR: Ad…

According to the Peter Principle [1], the entire concept of promotion is flawed in that people get promoted according to their performance in their current role, not the future role. Perhaps, it would generally be better if promotions would require a test run in the new role over a long time period (e.g. a year) before it is set in stone. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

The problem being that people are going to have to perform both their current job AND their future job, for the same pay they have now.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#146

Post by sarwechshar »

pc86 wrote: post #85
kelukelugames wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as true as: 1) We value work life balance! 2) We only hire the best! Everyone here is a rock star. 3) We love diversity! 4) We have an open door policy. You can complain about anything!

> 1) We value work life balance! I interviewed somewhere that specifically mentioned #1 in the job description. I applied in part because it was the only job ad I had seen to that point specifically mentioning it. It was brought up again in the interview as a perk of the job, by the person who would be my boss, without my prompting. In the very next sentence he made a generalization about being confused as to why dev…

I don't disagree with the guy on the "clock watchers" point but he should appreciate that in some cases people's circumstances push them to become "clock watchers". If they commit and produce excellent work during the time they are there then they should last.

Also, yeah, that doesn't make sense at all! It suggests they didn't a) read the job spec or b) believe in the company's values or c) perhaps the phrase was really "We value [when you] work [your] life [out of] balance" ;)

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#147

Post by s73v3r »

brador wrote: post #41
rndn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Peter Principle [1], the entire concept of promotion is flawed in that people get promoted according to their performance in their current role, not the future role. Perhaps, it would generally be better if promotions would require a test run in the new role over a long time period (e.g. a year) before it is set in stone. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

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…

"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?"

You don't have to pay them the higher pay for the year.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#148

Post by sarwechshar »

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.

Plot twist: the engineer is the CTO.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#149

Post by ownagefool »

pc86 wrote: post #89
ownagefool wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know these people exist but it's whether or not they're common enough for your better than average tech to land and whether it requires actual technical knowledge or just good salesmanship. I imagine it's a mixture of both, but that if I wasn't a contractor, I'd probably feel it's easier to get paid more by going tech -> team leader -> manager.

I've never heard it suggested that these best-of-the-best types of positions should be attainable by "your better than average tech." If your biggest asset is that you are "better than average" I think even hoping for a generic Senior Software Developer type of position is ambitious.

Not everyone can be the best of the best, a lot of us are sadly just a bit better than average and we matter too. The market encompasses more than just the elite.

That said, given cultural differences and our abilities to judge their own skill, it's entirely possible your best of the best is just my above average.

Re: A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers

#150

Post by nostrademons »

sarwechshar wrote: post #139
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few good managers. Everyone else is a boss. Boss's are detriment to an organization. Managers manage. They don't wait until there's a fire and then start running around tossing the blame ball. Boss's do that.

I would say the type of manager you describe could be more aptly called a leader: visionary (motivating the team behind ideals), willing to do the hardest work (as opposed to handing it down apathetically), respectful (building trust and such) and more.

"Leader" is usually reserved for a different kind of work. A leader determines where the organization should go; a manager ensures that everyone under him is marching in that direction. They require very different skillsets - leading is an outward-facing, synthesizing, strategic role, while managing is an inwards-facing, empathizing, tactical role. To use Ben Horowitz's terminology [1], leaders are Ones and managers are Twos. The CEO's usually the most visible leader in the company, but you'll often find them at lower levels as well, like the tech lead trying out a new experimental Skunkworks project.

Both of them are distinct from "boss" as the grandparent describes it, which is usually what happens when you get a manager who lacks empathy, awareness, and flexibility. Both leader and manager are highly cognitively-complex, pro-active roles that require constant information-gathering. Boss is what happens when you get someone in that position who lacks the confidence or skillset to stay on top of all that information and then reacts through command & control techniques when things go wrong.

[1] http://www.bhorowitz.com/ones_and_twos

Post reply on HN