61–70 of 71 posts
The real reason is that replacing average manager with good manager adds more value to the company than replacing average programmer with good programmer.
The reason for that difference is that good manager improves output of the whole team, while good programmer improves mostly single person output .
In order to attract and keep good managers companies are willing to pay more.
I'm also pretty sure this is why software houses run as widget factories will produce sub-standard solutions. The hierarchical structure gives more weight to the ideas of the people managing. This works if the manager is an expert (or at least as knowledgable as their reports) in their field but with software it results in the most informed opinions being ignored or devalued especially if the costs/benefits are not i…
Apple is a widget factory run by an expert. When Jobs left the company, it took a nose-dive. He came back and immediately things started improving. The man is a dictator, but he knows his stuff. However, if I were an apple shareholder, I would be very worried about his medical condition. Because when he leaves, apple will dive again.
Of course the thing about power-mad dictators is that power-madness interferes with the ability to seriously consider transfers of power.
What if ideas are things that need to be worked on and hammered out as well? After all, isn't that why working on a startup is more rewarding? The programmer isn't just a programmer anymore, (s)he's also the PM and analyst all rolled into one. Of course, the person in charge has to be good at it all in order for it to work out. Startup people have to "pivot".
I have friends at Apple and Google, and they tell me engineers are encouraged to work on their own ideas. Analysts have shown that those companies have fairly high productivity per worker. One of my closest friends at Apple does all the mockups for her team's features, despite officially being a programmer. It feels as if the role of PM is spread out amongst a number of programmers, who aren't exactly brain-dead with regards to what a polished product should be.
Now in most companies where PM is in charge, it feels as if the toolchain has been optimized to deemphasize the importance and reliance on good programming, hence PM/analyst becoming more proportionally value-dense (whether this is a good approach or not I will not debate).
I believe it's because it's far harder to find people with good people skills than find people with good technical skills. If you talk to people who hire/interview and manage people as their primary role, you will often hear them say that the candidates attitude/people skills is more important than their technical ability. If the candidate has good attitude/people skills, they can be taught (or will pick up on their…
I disagree emphatically. Good people skills are far more common than good technical skills. However, it is incredibly rare to find someone with both the technical skill and the people skill to be a technical manager.
I believe it's because it's far harder to find people with good people skills than find people with good technical skills. If you talk to people who hire/interview and manage people as their primary role, you will often hear them say that the candidates attitude/people skills is more important than their technical ability. If the candidate has good attitude/people skills, they can be taught (or will pick up on their…
> I believe it's because it's far harder to find people with good people skills than find people with good technical skills. I disagree emphatically. Good people skills are far more common than good technical skills. However, it is incredibly rare to find someone with both the technical skill and the people skill to be a technical manager.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe it's because it's far harder to find people with good people skills than find people with good technical skills. I disagree emphatically. Good people skills are far more common than good technical skills. However, it is incredibly rare to find someone with both the technical skill and the people skill to be a technical manager.
Yes if you are taking about the general populace, I absolutely agree good people skills are far more common. However we're talking about BA/PMs in a technical company (at least that is my assumption given the original question) in which case there is already a pre-filtered environment of basic technical familiarity/knowledge. In this environment, good people skills and more specifically 'attitude' is a lot rarer than…
people skills = easy to find
technology skills = more difficult to find
technology skills + people skills = incredibly tough to find
Take the pool of qualified people who can do a job, order it by most able to least able. Now intersect that line with demand for people who can do the job. From the intersection point to the top you will see a gradual rise in salary with a sharp peak in the top 1%, below the line you will find unemployed folks.
Has nothing to do with vision, widgets, or films. The question is can you be replaced by someone who will be as productive as you are, for the same salary? Then you're on the short list. If you can be replaced for less salary, you will be.
Caveat the presence of an external force which warps the economics.
Nonetheless, I don't think the salary differences there are huge, or unreasonable. While I'm passionate about the importance of excellent engineering, I think excellent project management (and to a lesser extent, business analysis) is just as crucial to a business' success. Coders (myself included) tend to focus on the technical challenges of a project to the exclusion of the "why" behind it. As an illustration, I'm reminded of the frequent articles here and on proggit about programmers who built some awesome sprocket, only to later realize that there wasn't a market or need for the sprocket.
There's also a lot of truth to lionhearted's point that programmers often aren't the best negotiators. His advice is awesome and of the best variety: encouraging folks to make themselves more valuable by actually generating more value.
[1] http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/Programmer-V-Salary-Detai... [2] http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/Business-Systems-Analyst-... [3] http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/Project-Manager-III-Salar...
Because programmers don't ask for more money often enough. Seriously. Here's the three minute version of doing it: 1. Work hard on tangible stuff, document and claim credit for doing it, and notify people with what benefit the work provides . This sounds maybe stupidly obvious, but a lot of non-technical people don't understand the value in something. So, "Upgraded XYZ so our website loads faster, which is proven to…