Live data from Hacker News

Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

keavy.com

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#71
post #3

This is bad advice. If you are hitting 40's, please do yourself a favor and go into management. Yes coding is fun but, 1. Not being able to change jobs because you can't invert a binary tree in 20 secs in leetcode hazing, is not fun. 2. Being managed by someone a decade younger than you with no family or responsibilities, is not fun. 3. Spending your weekends learning the latest JS framework because you don't want to…

This is definitely not true. There are IC tracks at many companies. I'm over 50, still doing technical work, and I'm having a lot of fun. I was a STSM (Senior Technical Staff Member) at IBM and I'm now a Senior Staff Engineer at Google. Yes, most senior technical folks don't actually spend much time coding; it's things like technical architecture, creating slide decks for the VP's, meeting customers, etc. That was definitely true when I was at IBM. At Google I get do more coding, but a lot of my time is spent helping more junior engineers, working subtle bugs that other people weren't able to do, reviewing code, etc. But people management? Heck, no! I enjoy doing the technical work too much to have to spend time doing people management. I'm grateful that there are people who are willing to do management, since it's a different set of skills, but it's not for me.

I do spend my weekends doing technical work (mostly reviewing and testing other people's ext4 patch submissions, and/or reviewing papers because I'm on various program committees), but that's because I love to do those things.

> 4. Being paid less than the lowest grade manager, is not fun .

At least at Google, and at IBM, it's not unknown for IC's to be paid more than their manager.

> 5. And be honest with yourself, do you really need 20 yrs of coding experience to write CRUD apps? What exactly are you bringing to the table.

It may be different for people doing other kinds of programming, but at least for Systems Engineering, there's an awful lot of value in knowing how the various abstraction layers fit together, and more importantly, understand the business imperatives which drives even the lowest level technical work. (Things like maximizing ROI on storage infrastructure by making sure you can efficiently use nearly all the IOPS which the HDD's in your data center can deliver, for example, is subtle work.)

Also, at senior levels, you need to know how to lead technical teams, and that's quite different from people management. And when I say lead, very often you may not have formal hierarchical power over the people that you need to influence; but instead of you have to pursuade them to share your vision and go along with your plan.

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#72
post #31
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't what you're describing precisely what senior ICs should be doing more of? I agree with OP, the purpose of a manager isn't to manage the technical side of things but rather the people side. It's why they have direct rapports: to manage the people. A better use of the IC's time is to unblock them so they can meet with stakeholders and develop a rich understanding of the work in order to do it most effectively. In…

> Isn't what you're describing precisely what senior ICs should be doing more of? Yes, and I think the point I'm driving towards is that if this is the stuff you want to do, you're really not an IC at all -- you're an engineering manager with zero reports who doesn't have any authority, so you're making life 10x harder for yourself.

I think your view is seriously constrained by the assumption that you can't have both a manager and a senior IC on a team. You need both to be successful. Every team I've worked in that had success had both.

In these cases, the manager relies on the team, and the IC to get a clear understanding of the root of problems. You don't need to be super technically proficient to understand constraints, but understanding why those constraints exist requires a deep technical understanding, which is provided by the IC and the team. Using this knowledge, the manager has a perspective of the system and how to improve the system, and the manager tries to reason with the organization, trying to share that perspective with them.

The manager also relies on the IC to do spikes or POC's (or relies on the IC to select a crack team which have a good chance of success).

Most often, the IC has no interest in being in non-technial meetings all day, but the manager does. The manager loves working with other managers + product and helping them understand the issue, while the IC doesn't. The IC wants to spend most of their time on resolving technical issues, thinking deeply about the future and upcoming projects.

All of this to say: they're not exclusive, and both are required for successful teams. BUT, the idea that a technical manager needs to be super technical is not something I agree with.

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#73
post #15
post #3

This is bad advice. If you are hitting 40's, please do yourself a favor and go into management. Yes coding is fun but, 1. Not being able to change jobs because you can't invert a binary tree in 20 secs in leetcode hazing, is not fun. 2. Being managed by someone a decade younger than you with no family or responsibilities, is not fun. 3. Spending your weekends learning the latest JS framework because you don't want to…

I'm trying but at 35 haven't formally held a title that meant I was leading others. Every posting even for a team lead wants 3 years or 5 years or whatever of leadership already, and that's not even really a management position most places. An MBA and re-entering at the bottom would be very expensive, in direct costs and lost wages. What's the way in? Hope you find yourself in a job where there are leadership positio…

You can find ways of being a technical leader without having a formal role. You can mentor more junior engineers; you can try to establish better coding and test/QA standards at your company. You can find some open source project that you're passionate about, and take on leadership roles there. Maybe you can find a way to contribute in standards organization.

If I'm interviewing you for a job at $COMPANY, I'm going to be looking for signs that you can exhibit leadership, and that's going to be way more important than whatever title that you might have. If you have the title, but you can't demonstrate ways in which you were able to demonstrate technical leadership, the title isn't going to mean much.

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#74

The Manager's Path by Camille Fournier does a good job covering the various steps from technical individual contributor all the way up through the ranks of management and looks at questions like when to stop getting involved in technical decision making. Would recommend for anyone interested in pursuing a leadership role.

The Fakespot stats on this book and the critical comments in the Amazon listing don't put this book in the same light as you have. Additionally, the conditions surrounding the exit of Camille Fournier and three other C-level individuals from the company which she was a CTO don't inspire confidence that this is good material with regards to the area it is supposed to cover.

"It is a significant exodus in a short time, and many former employees describe a corporate culture at the fashion company that is unwelcoming, stressful, and occasionally hostile."

https://fortune.com/2015/11/17/rent-the-runway-exodus/

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#75
> senior principal engineer

you're telling me there's a difference between a principal and a senior principal? this seems like title bloat (non-financial, meaningless compensation)

i think there are just way too many senior engineers and not enough work for them. this title thing feeds into my hypothesis: if you're getting to the principal level and then encouraged towards "senior principal" level, that's an illusion of career progress.

i think more senior engineers expect to carry the sort of intellectual freedom they had as high output juniors forever as they become "organizationally woke elite hackers". that's just not a good way to portray yourself, though: eager juniors like that person once was will do the job at 75% cost, and not try to occasionally wade into politics as this free roamer has empowered herself to (ref. bullet about cross-organizational lubricant type)

i would be extremely wary of portraying myself as an "elite hacker with enough confidence to meddle across teams" because that is about as vanilla as it could be in 2019. instead i would slot in with an enterprising managerial type and basically become his code peon, pumping out his prototypes, giving him the credit where due, and understanding that he's generating the ideas but not the code, so he can't ghost you very easily and (maybe) he'll keep you safe in the event of layoffs.

this keeps you learning new tech and always building, but makes you really valuable to someone with organizational power, so safer than some generic engineer on a larger team.

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#76
post #8

My problem in the senior IC track at my company is that of how to influence people to get things done. Managers can very easily utilize resources, where the IC has to convince people and then also horse trade on priorities between managers who usually own a certain area and can’t really spare much help. Strike teams seem to the most effective thing for ICs to lead, and having that be an explicit part of eng culture a…

Your first point rings so true it hurts.

I've talked with many of my now manager peers and they seem to not understand that simply walking into a room with "manager" or "director" in your title gives you almost immediate clout (or something similar). Whereas if you enter a room as a "senior IC" there's just not as much authority inherent in your presence.

It's unfortunate, it's not right, but it seems to be true.

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#77
The list of "What does Strategic Engineering Work look like," looks a whole lot like basic management. Each of these things listed below are fundamentally organizational/resources/personnel issues and except for one have almost no relation to the work stream of an IC which would include actually writing new code, refactoring old code, debugging, etc...:

- Tackling technical challenges that span multiple technical and organizational systems.

- Researching and identifying the problems that could be worked on, a year or two from now

- Ramping up strike teams to help build a thing.

- Looking at the big picture including cultural, product and technical challenges, to help inform choices that would be best for the org, perhaps with a 2-5 year view.

- Forming strategies, writing proposals and pitching them across the company, for new architecture, systems or approaches.

- etc...

Except for developing prototypes, assuming the senior engineer is actually doing that, that entire list are just foundational management/leadership tasks.

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#78
post #3

This is bad advice. If you are hitting 40's, please do yourself a favor and go into management. Yes coding is fun but, 1. Not being able to change jobs because you can't invert a binary tree in 20 secs in leetcode hazing, is not fun. 2. Being managed by someone a decade younger than you with no family or responsibilities, is not fun. 3. Spending your weekends learning the latest JS framework because you don't want to…

In my early 40s, I am starting to reluctantly wonder if this is true after all. I don't like it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. Another point is: In many/most actual organizations, it's the people managers making strategic technical decisions, not anyone on any other track.

On the technical track your job is to get the management track to make the right technical decisions. This is hard: they have more power and don't have to listen, but a proven track record of good advice - combined with hard knocks when things didn't go well that you claim to be preventing gives you the power to give them the strategic direction they roll out.

Don't forget that there are more possible correct answers to strategy than there are people to do it. Should your company continue to update the current project, work on the big re-write to fix all the problems, or abandon current products for something complete new? All of these are valid answers for different situations, and some of the reasons to choose each are not technical and so you shouldn't influence them.

I have a dozen projects I'm thinking about at any given time. Some will never get more than thinking about. Some are in progress. Some I'm working to get into progress. Some are likely to be needed soon and are just waiting for the time of need so I can save the day with a plan (if the likely need turns to reality). Some are bad ideas that I need to prove are bad ideas so that we don't go down a bad route.

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#79
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that 80% of the time, the IC track is bad for the ambitious, non-consulting engineer ultimately, unless your plan is to move around alot, which is a strategy that gets riskier as you get older and better compensated. Even for the consultant, the path to growth is... hiring people and leveraging their labors! End of the day, the size of your tribe or budget is a physical manifestation of your power in an organ…

This is an excellent point. About 80% of the time, this is how it plays out in most larger orgs. The interesting thing is what happens in mid size to smaller companies, where organization structures are not as well defined. You still need people here, however, if you know the stack very well or are a proficient IC, you can make contributions that can have a significant impact on the org, and gain the trust and allegi…

You're not making a great case for senior ICs being impactful.

I mean, what you described is one way to deliver senior-level impact for a team.

However, this has a very important problem. Every time you join a team, you have to build up this rapport from scratch. If you switch jobs every few years, you'll find half your professional time consisting of busting your ass to build up rapport, only to have to start from zero at the next job.

When you're hired as a manager, you don't need to do (this kind of) rapport building. You just tell people what to do, and they will build it.

Re: Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path

#80
post #72
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't what you're describing precisely what senior ICs should be doing more of? Yes, and I think the point I'm driving towards is that if this is the stuff you want to do, you're really not an IC at all -- you're an engineering manager with zero reports who doesn't have any authority, so you're making life 10x harder for yourself.

I think your view is seriously constrained by the assumption that you can't have both a manager and a senior IC on a team. You need both to be successful. Every team I've worked in that had success had both. In these cases, the manager relies on the team, and the IC to get a clear understanding of the root of problems. You don't need to be super technically proficient to understand constraints, but understanding why…

I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing with me. Of course a team needs a technical lead who is likely a senior engineer. I think that much is obvious. However, that person is predominantly concerned with their own team's technology.

As an engineering director, I have an entire organization of teams I'm personally accountable for, and I have to make sure the work that's being planned out meshes well with what all the other teams are also planning. I cannot constantly be pulling in a dozen senior developers into every meeting every day to help me figure things out. I also have my own technical objectives I want to achieve for the company that cut across multiple teams or the entire engineering organization. Most of these considerations are technical in nature, and while a senior IC on one team can help they frankly don't have time to be involved in the whole process -- that would prevent them from succeeding as a senior engineer in their current role.

Under discussion is not the role of a senior engineer, but rather the technical track beyond that point -- roles commonly termed staff, senior staff, distinguished, principal, fellow, or even senior fellow. My core claim is there's more in common between engineering management and these roles than many folks tend to believe and/or realize.

Often an engineering manager is just someone at this level of seniority who also has rock-solid people skills and has been empowered in the organization to actually get bigger things done that cut across teams, though they may not themselves write code anymore.

Certainly I agree with you that not every manager needs to be deeply technical, but I think that for someone who is deeply technical, engineering management can actually be a much more powerful and interesting choice vs. trying to expand your impact without taking on formal leadership responsibility on an IC track.

Post reply on HN