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

Don't become an engineering manager

newsletter.manager.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 281 posts

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#231

Post by hnfong »

saghm wrote: post #116

> The pace of change in the last year has been completely crazy, and it’s not stopping. > But even if you don’t give in to the constant FOMO - it’s impossible to argue that the way we worked hasn’t changed. Almost every part of our work looks different, and will continue to evolve. My experience is anecdotal, but this seems to be overblown. I'd say that almost every part of my work looks pretty identical to how it di…

I don't understand what you mean by "prediction". Are you simply saying you're not using the AI tools out there and making a claim that they don't boost productivity at all?

Otherwise, even if the existing tools are overhyped (eg. instead of "exponential" gains, they are simply incrementally better), you're still gaining productivity by adopting them. And if they change your workflow, then "almost every part of our work looks different, and will continue to evolve" would be true.

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#232

Post by cucumber3732842 »

Muromec wrote: post #32
halper wrote: post #4

I cannot be alone in feeling that titles (within "tech" in particular) are almost completely arbitrary? What constitutes a "senior", "lead", "principal" and "staff" X, respectively, has so much overlap that it really depends on the organisation. I myself have been called all of those things, but have honestly not been able to tell the difference: in some cases, I have had much more responsibility as a "senior backend…

>are almost completely arbitrary? What constitutes a "senior", "lead", "principal" and "staff" X, respectively, has so much overlap that it really depends on the organisation Titles at least useful to understand the hierarchy, but roles truly mean nothing. Sometimes the adult in the room is a PO, sometimes it's EM, sometimes they are responsible for the timelines and "project stuff", sometimes it's a Senior Engineer.…

> In some places a QA is effectively doing PO stuff.

Or your support team could wind up owning it without even knowing that they own it.

Plan for who's gonna own the product because someone will, and that task will just settle somewhere random if you don't specifically assign it.

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#233

Post by Magmalgebra »

adamwk wrote: post #93
jghn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They matter within a company for the reasons you cite. They mostly don't matter between companies however.

You don’t think companies look at your past titles when you apply for a job?

The title only so matters to the extent the company is a known entity.

The "staff engineer" at some random series B startup 4 years into their career nearly always gets hired in at mid level somewhere like Meta.

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#234

Post by sokoloff »

Zaheer wrote: post #77
halper wrote: post #4

I cannot be alone in feeling that titles (within "tech" in particular) are almost completely arbitrary? What constitutes a "senior", "lead", "principal" and "staff" X, respectively, has so much overlap that it really depends on the organisation. I myself have been called all of those things, but have honestly not been able to tell the difference: in some cases, I have had much more responsibility as a "senior backend…

This is exactly why we built https://www.levels.fyi Too often people were getting down-leveled because they didn't know any better. The level comparisons we show on the homepage compare scope and responsibilities. People frequently think levels are based on compensation but compensation is the byproduct of it.

Firstly, I love levels and thanks for it.

That said, in general for any given comp package, I’d want the lowest possible level I could take and get that package. That gives more upward runway.

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#235

Post by joshuamorton »

kubb wrote: post #165
SkyPuncher wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've jumped back and forth between IC and Management. The roles are measured on completely different things. Most of IC is about through put. Most of management is about building/doing the right thing (aka making money). Sometimes, it can look like management is doing very little because you only see the tail end of their outputs to the team.

He doesn't get much say about what thing gets done. He's just kind of there.

The question to ask of course is do you see how your manager interacts with their management?

Do the things that get done stay consistent, or are your priorities constantly changing? Do you and your team control your priorities or are they out of your control?

I think it's very difficult to see what managers are even doing (I'm not one, I'm a senior IC) until you have a particular level of visibility or exposure to planning and prioritization. But once I started to see that and see why it was hard as I began to interact with it myself, it becomes much clearer.

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#236

Post by joshuamorton »

temp8830 wrote: post #64
alephnerd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's this idea that there's a "dual ladder", and the IC ladder offers just as much respect and compensation as the management one It is not a lie. It is true IF you live and work in the Bay Area, Seattle, and TLV - which represent the bulk of tech industry employment. Companies where the underlying stack is a revenue generator and not a cost center are companies where these kinds of dual tracks exist, but these…

Sorry, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The ladders are simply not comparable, even in the Bay Area. Sure, at the entry point where one transfers from the IC ladder to management compensation can even drop. However, that's the bottom rung - and one typically can't get straight into management as a new grad. The management ladder goes higher.

I mean, this is true and also not true. The management ladder does start higher and arguably does end higher with C-suite titles (though even that may not be the case, e.g. Google now has a Chief Technologist or two, who are SVP/C-suite level). But at the major tech companies under discussion in the parent, yeah the levels do map basically 1:1.

You can maybe argue that it's easier to advance on the management side, and I think that was certainly true pre-2023, but since then there's been a clear tightening of easy empire building advancement, and at least in my neck of the woods, I've seen IC-track advancement has been faster from staff to principal than from manager to director.

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#237

Post by DaedalusII »

tomgp wrote: post #176
saghm wrote: post #116

> The pace of change in the last year has been completely crazy, and it’s not stopping. > But even if you don’t give in to the constant FOMO - it’s impossible to argue that the way we worked hasn’t changed. Almost every part of our work looks different, and will continue to evolve. My experience is anecdotal, but this seems to be overblown. I'd say that almost every part of my work looks pretty identical to how it di…

Yes. Also there's a weird thing going on where the claims are simultaneously that these tools are super easy to use and everyone and their dog is going to be using them to create awesome software and that it's only going to get easier to do so BUT ALSO that you have to immediately start using them or you'll get left behind. Why should we start now if they're going to be more powerful and more accesible in a years tim…

for the same reason people had to start using microsoft excel when windows 95 came out

yes you could wait a few years as an accountant until quickbooks/intuit/whatever was built out, but arguably being good at spreadsheets+basic VBA between 1995 and 2010 paid about as well as being a python dev these days

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#238

Post by joquarky »

OJFord wrote: post #205
pkaler wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have said, levels and titles are generally for compensation and performance reviews. Each company has their own bespoke ladder but it generally maps to: - L1: Intern with undergrad degree - L2: Intern with graduate degree - L3: Junior - L4: Intermediate - L5: Senior - L6: Staff - L7: Senior Staff - L8: Principal - L9: Distinguished - L10: Fellow Each company has their own numbers and names but it generally…

> L5 or Senior is usually considered a “terminal” role. That means all engineers should be able to get to this role. Doesn't it mean more like it's an acceptable end, a destination - obviously not everyone's career track is to take over the company as CEO one day, but nor is it necessarily to progress to Staff and beyond. The idea being that it's a bit of a role change, to a greater extent than the levels before it w…

In my experience, it's the highest point you can reach before you have to deal with politics on a daily basis.

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#239

Post by jimbokun »

democracy wrote: post #131
Swizec wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When hiring, titles are basically ignored As a hiring manager, this is completely accurate. I don't look at your title, I look at your scope . Tell me what you did, for whom, and what was the impact. That's all I care about. We all know that Senior Principal Architect Engineer at 3-person startup is somewhere around junior to mid-level at a real company. Whereas some poor schmuck at a larger company with a title li…

Interesting, you've got it absolutely the wrong way around.

The engineer at the startup may have a broad scope of responsibility and ownership, but also might be working on relatively small systems that have not needed to scale yet.

Re: Don't become an engineering manager

#240

Post by jimbokun »

Retric wrote: post #219
ozim wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big organizations need generalists too.

Generalist means something very different for big orgs. At FANG size companies have people to setup 401k and health insurance, tiny startups need 1 of 3 people to figure that out even if it just means finding a company to outsource such things it still needs to happen. Payroll doesn’t need to be a complex system but taxes must be paid etc.

That shows an ability to figure out what needs to be done and do it, regardless of whether it fits the formal job description. That can be an invaluable skill in an organization of any size.
Post reply on HN