Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 292 posts

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#231

Post by lazide »

Anon1096 wrote: post #166
dhx wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a mapping to roles/levels[1], for example: Principal EM - USD$1.3m/yr per https://www.levels.fyi/companies/google/salaries/software-en... Staff EM - USD$664k/yr per https://www.levels.fyi/companies/google/salaries/software-en... Staff IC - USD$557k/yr per https://www.levels.fyi/companies/google/salaries/software-en... Senior IC - USD$410k/yr per https://www.levels.fyi/companies/google/salaries/software-en…

> Does the change mean the most competent solution architect who has successfully designed and implemented many complex systems from scratch is capped in salary package because they're not doing the important job of demanding those around them fill out TPS reports all day? In house solutions architects are not really a thing at FAANG. Designing and implementing systems is what mid+ level SWEs are expected to do. The…

I suspect they’re talking about Senior Staff IC’s - aka TL’s of TL’s.

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#232

Post by gilbetron »

whatever1 wrote: post #9

Around 5 is the correct number for a first line manager of a technical team. Go to 10 and it’s impossible to keep track of things. The day has only so many hours. Managing takes time. For bigger teams (10+) you either need individuals who are very independent and driven, or have dependable line managers.

That's been the mantra in the tech world for at least a decade now, and I've grown to really disagree. Managers should have 10 at minimum. Most should have 15-20. They should specialize in being a manager and shouldn't be solving problems except pure management problems. (Good) teachers easily manage classrooms of 10-30 kids, even in private schools. The low direct report count ends up creating managers that have too much power, too much say, and too much time to mess around.

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#233

Post by lazide »

doublerabbit wrote: post #219
moandcompany wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a few years, but from what I recall, a Principal is a Director-equivalent (L8) level. The prior poster is missing the L7 tier, which is Senior Staff Engineering Manager for the Engineering Manager Ladder. L8 is a Director on the Engineering Manager Ladder L8 is a Principal on the Software Engineer (SWE) Ladder. Tech-Lead Managers (TL/M or TLMs) were on the SWE Ladder. For reference: Software Engineer Ladder…

What's the difference between Staff and Senior engineer?

Senior engineer is usually focused on a single project, and knows it deeply. Usually directing and mentoring more junior engineers in the process.

Staff engineer typically is overseeing multiple projects, providing deep technical oversight and guidance on those projects, and mentoring Senior engineers. They start to influence technical culture. They are actively involved in ensuring business needs get met by the technical solutions their group is building.

Senior Staff Engineers will be overseeing a product function, and multiple Staff engineers. They build the correct technical culture. They ensure larger architectural issues get resolved. They are actively involved in ensuring the technical work being done is meeting business needs, and identifying business needs their technical org can be meeting - and working to make that happen.

Principal engineers are setting the tone for an entire large product (typically), and ensuring the Senior Staff engineers are doing the right things - and also often involved in driving strategic product direction.

Senior Staff and Principal tend to be increasingly political, but even Staff will get pulled into that type of thing somewhat regularly.

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#234

Post by jll29 »

moandcompany wrote: post #142
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell, I’d happily be Lundberg for $1.3M/year. Shoot, I’d probably even do it for just $1.0M — and the Bobs would be pleased! It also sounds like the 10x developers are underpaid by a factor of 100!

It's been a few years, but from what I recall, a Principal is a Director-equivalent (L8) level. The prior poster is missing the L7 tier, which is Senior Staff Engineering Manager for the Engineering Manager Ladder. L8 is a Director on the Engineering Manager Ladder L8 is a Principal on the Software Engineer (SWE) Ladder. Tech-Lead Managers (TL/M or TLMs) were on the SWE Ladder. For reference: Software Engineer Ladder…

One of the problems is that large corporations have such complicated role structures, and another problem is that they are also different from all other large corporations. A third problem is that the compensation models are again vastly different. A fourth problem is that they change over time.

All of this means as an individual you suffer from extreme information asymmetry.

Even if you got two offers from two different FAANGs, it would perhaps be hard to figure out which one is better.

Has anyone defined any mapping tables between role names across Amazon, Meta, Alphabet etc. and figured out salary ranges for them in a public spreadsheet?

BTW, has anyone got a leaked (anonymized) copy of FAANG employment contracts so one can compare the various clauses across employers, and track changes of their standard templates over time? (I haven't seen this topic discussed much on here in the systematic way that it deserves.)

Given the developer community invented open source it is surprising that corporations have so far succeeded in keeping such obvious things relatively secret (compared to, say, the emails of Sarah Palin and Ehud Barak ;-).

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#235

Post by ddoolin »

mikestew wrote: post #2

The 35% reduction refers to the number of managers who oversee fewer than three people, according to a person familiar with the matter. If you oversee 0-2 people, in most cases that’s probably not an efficient ratio. How did Google get so many folks in that position in the first place? And I assume the other 65% take up the slack to fluff their teams? Or what? Leave the other 65% managing 0-2 people?

I am on a team of 2 people with a dedicated manager. That is, the manager does not write code and is not even really technical.

It is awful, send help.

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#236

Post by const_cast »

b112 wrote: post #227
kelnos wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no expectation that you do two jobs at once. I laughed out loud when I read this. I've never seen anyone at any company in a hybrid tech/manager role that wasn't expected to do two jobs at once. Or at least they felt like they were, which is still the same problem. 80% coding & 80% management for that role sounds about right.

Most work 40 to 50 hrs per week. Some places even a more extreme 60. For this to be accurate, you're saying 160% aka 1.6 or 64 to 80 hrs per week, with 96hrs as the extreme?

I mean, 64 - 80 hours a week can be the expectation, and then it's just that almost nobody is living up to the expectation.

Anecdotally, a hybrid technical manager I had in the past worked 60 hours a week pretty much minimum. Which sucks.

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#238

Post by deprave »

Garlef wrote: post #200

> "We have to be more efficient as we scale up" ... google is a 27 year old company ... google is one of the most valuable and influential companies currently operating i don't think the phrase "scaling up" makes much sense in this category

I thought the same thing. Some of the commenters said this move might be related to stock price or appeasing shareholders, so I wonder if that, too, was directed at them, as in “we’re big and we plan on getting even bigger”

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#239

Post by jll29 »

kelnos wrote: post #177
xenotux wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TLM roles are a trap, but not in that sense. There's no expectation that you do two jobs at once. It's just a way to ease unsuspecting engineers into management. If you don't suck at management, your team inevitably grows (or you're handed over other teams), and before long, you're managing full-time. Which means that there are three type of people who remain TLMs in the long haul: those who suck at management; those…

> There's no expectation that you do two jobs at once. I laughed out loud when I read this. I've never seen anyone at any company in a hybrid tech/manager role that wasn't expected to do two jobs at once. Or at least they felt like they were, which is still the same problem. 80% coding & 80% management for that role sounds about right.

Management requires a birds-eye view of the project in all its breadth, and quickly responding to issues, as well as reporting up (proactive stakeholder management). The job of the manager is to keep the CXOs happy (inform/manage expectations) whilst protecting their own team so they can focus on getting their work done with minimal disruption (isolate).

Coding requires the opposite, zooming deeply into the code and retaining focus. The job of the IC coder is to deliver (design and implement) beautiful and pragmatic architectures that do what is expected.

I recommend anyone to reject to fill roles where these two are combined into one. Note that this is not a comment about workload, but about irreconcileable differences. (The perfect candidates for each even match different personality profiles...)

Re: Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

#240

Post by zeckalpha »

jll29 wrote: post #234
moandcompany wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a few years, but from what I recall, a Principal is a Director-equivalent (L8) level. The prior poster is missing the L7 tier, which is Senior Staff Engineering Manager for the Engineering Manager Ladder. L8 is a Director on the Engineering Manager Ladder L8 is a Principal on the Software Engineer (SWE) Ladder. Tech-Lead Managers (TL/M or TLMs) were on the SWE Ladder. For reference: Software Engineer Ladder…

One of the problems is that large corporations have such complicated role structures, and another problem is that they are also different from all other large corporations. A third problem is that the compensation models are again vastly different. A fourth problem is that they change over time. All of this means as an individual you suffer from extreme information asymmetry. Even if you got two offers from two diffe…

levels.fyi has this
Post reply on HN