41–50 of 69 posts
Having been in the industry for 15 years, and having been both a hard developer and an engineering manager, my two cents: 1- managing a team of engineers WELL is really hard, and requires a broad range of skills. Granted, there are a lot of bad managers out there, particularly in engineering. 2- managers aren't getting paid for their productivity, or even their time. They are getting paid for judgment and accountabil…
I'm surprised at how passive aggressive some of these answers sound. I imagine many of you have worked some poor managers who weren't very good at their job. That will make you question why they deserve to get paid so much. For the record, as a manager I've had staff members make as much as I have. I believe a (good) manager gets paid a lot because they make their team more productive, focused, and happy. a good mana…
I find managers who see themselves as visionary hero's, who mentors subordinates often forget engineers are capable people with their own ideas, self motivated with skills they probably don't have themselves. They dont need to be lead, but helped to self organise and to stop external interference.
That's quite a whole lot more difficult to be done, than said. I've been learning that first-hand for the past year, especially when it comes to subordinates that are not too keen on being dealt with in a "conventional" manner.
We've been told by a lot of sources that 10x engineers don't exist, and only the team matters [1]. Suppose this is true, or at least suppose the company decision makers believe this. In that case, there is no point paying any engineer more than 2-3X what another one makes - why pay more for the same productivity?
In contrast, management matters a lot. All your engineers might be more or less interchangeable cogs, but the manager is a force multiplier. A good manager might increase the productivity of 20-40 engineers by 25% each - as such, he's as valuable as 5-10 engineers.
(Having worked with engineers both 1/10 and 10x as good as me, I personally do believe that 100x engineers exist. But assuming you don't believe such things are possible, then engineers being wildly underpaid relative to managers is simply people being paid for their marginal productivity.)
[1] e.g. http://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheMythOfTheRockstarProgrammer... https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/hacker-mythologies-and-m... http://leftoblique.net/wp/2014/12/27/on-the-myth-of-the-10x-...
1 manager, 9 engineers (or more). The ratio of investment per employee might not align up to the investment in function - the investment might be spread 20%/80% between both functions. I've worked with (uh, "under" feels insulting) really good managers who truly earn their pay & it has given me a different perspective of what they do to make "things happen". I've cut that down into literally four levels of management…
Was there any book or resource that helped you shape that view?
Don't get too caught up on which job role has more risk, responsibility, or communication skills. Salaries are apportioned based on how close a job role is to the company's revenue stream. Executives come out on top because they control the money and payscales. Sales is often second because they can very easily point to new revenues and say "I brought that in". Profit center staff (most Valley engineers) would be som…
Ok, so I've spent my career as a "line engineer" (aka programmer), but in my previous job we were heading for a crisis. I stepped up to manage because there was only so much I could do to avert the crisis by typing code. I (we) needed something done that was wider in scope than that role. I got a raise as part of that. We made things work and met our deadlines and obligations. I deserved that raise. Now I'm back in t…
Having been in that role definitely changes perspective.
Don't get too caught up on which job role has more risk, responsibility, or communication skills. Salaries are apportioned based on how close a job role is to the company's revenue stream. Executives come out on top because they control the money and payscales. Sales is often second because they can very easily point to new revenues and say "I brought that in". Profit center staff (most Valley engineers) would be som…
At the end of the hierarchy, skill (& experience/age) counts. Engineering is one of the best paid "worker profession", i.e. you are not involved in managing the work of others.
Some jobs can be easily replaced, which usually means they are paid less.
Some jobs require trust by the employer (e.g. manager) and are better paid, because changing jobs would harm the employer.
Also some industries pay more than others, simply because their industry is more profitable than others.
Managers are promoted to managers because the higher ups like them, and want to include them in their circle. They have the right face, fit in, agree on similar things etc. They earn more money for the same reason. If your are not the sort person, who can surpress your own values to fit in with the right crowd. Its best to just regularly reneogiate your salary. Humans are humans after all. We run on emotions/friendsh…
Managers are promoted and hired because, you know, they are good at managing people and projects (resources). Most engineers are so introverted and stubborn (especially the mid level ones) that they NEED to be managed.
Don't get too caught up on which job role has more risk, responsibility, or communication skills. Salaries are apportioned based on how close a job role is to the company's revenue stream. Executives come out on top because they control the money and payscales. Sales is often second because they can very easily point to new revenues and say "I brought that in". Profit center staff (most Valley engineers) would be som…
I also find it illuminating to compare to three other careers that I consider intellectually similar to engineering in that they are not "management", and yet they capture way more of their value in their corporate zenith (or did at some point in time when their reputations as careers were made).
- Lawyers: Lawyers aim to make partner. They become owners. None of this "engineers are afraid of risk" stuff.
- Doctors: Doctors control supply. I have met many socially odd doctors, without "negotiation skills" or "business acumen", but they don't worry about their salary precisely because this "union-like" aspect to their profession.
- Finance people: a.k.a "bankers". Most people have no better proxy for their "value" than what they agree on a job interview ("the value of your work is what people are willing to pay for it"). But "bankers" do know what their work is worth, outside of this exchange. And they know how much their peers are making, and are basically immune to the collective cluelessness that is "I don't need to know how much my peer and my boss make to be satisfied with my salary".
Engineers? No union. Meek personality and culture plus cluelessness about labor economics means they are ecstatic making 200k even if their company is making 1M+ for their work.
Some scattered thoughts here, but thank you for your post.