Hacker News Reader

Comment by ticmasta | Hacker News Reader

>> I also think it's really, really dumb to push developers into management positions if they can't do the job.

This has been known forever, yet it still happens - Why?

>> I'd much prefer putting younger managers with great management skills into the mix...

One reason is it is impossible to tell if a young manager has great management skills. It's really hard to tell if an experienced manager has strong skills.

As a result, technical proficiency is used as a proxy for management potential. It probably has a stronger correlation than picking a random person, but is not great. The new manager is then really unhappy, quits or is fired or eventually learns the new skills and is successful.

Repeat.

View on HN

Some companies only have one kind of career track. If you want more money, you have to be in a manager position. They don't have a way for experienced programmers to keep moving up in their careers as programmers.

Is there any tech company where the technical track doesn't plateau below the people-manager track?

GitLab (I work there) does allow you to become Staff-Level which is the same multiplier as a manager.

Yes, that's common: but I have yet to see a case where the tech track goes as high as the management track. For example, "Distinguished/Staff Engineer" might be the equivalent of a "Senior Director" in an org with two or three levels of management above that (VP, SVP/CTO, EVP, etc.).

Google's tech track does go all the way to VP equivalents.

Many companies have separate tracks for independent contributors and managers. You can stay an IC and level up to Distinguished Engineer or Fellow or Staff Engineer or whatever, without needing to go into management.

I think we might need a curated list for those. At 17 years of career I've only seen one such company.

It seems pretty common with bigger companies: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, Box, Zynga, Electronic Arts, Pinterest, Microsoft, etc.

The tracks and levels are commonly referred to as the "job family architecture" -- don't be afraid to ask a recruiter for this information. Otherwise you'll never really know if you're being properly leveled. (For instance, I believe a Principal SE at Microsoft is roughly equal to a Staff Engineer at Google.)

The issue isn't the absolute height. The top manager (CEO) is going to make more more than the top IC, that's just obvious.

The real issue is that management is a pyramid but IC is ziggurat with, if you're lucky, an obelisk sitting on top of it.

People like to point to the principal staff engineer or whatever, but there's one of them for every twenty upper-mid level managers making the same money. And all those managers can take their skills to another company, but if an IC guru leaves the company where he made his bones he's probably destined for consulting (at best). Consulting has its upsides, but that's no more for everyone than management.

I think both are true. There are more "slots" for management than technical leaders at the same compensation band. There are also generally at least some compensation bands in management that are above the highest band tech lead role (architect, chief/principal/distinguished/staff/whatever).

In my company it’s also much slower to move up the technical track compared to the manager track. If you want to make money it’s much better to be manager.

I guess that would just not be realistic. There was a comment from a while ago that I think makes total sense: The organization has to evaluate the value that you bring and create. If your position moves and directs dozens of people, it will be hard for an individual contributor to match the importance no matter what. Of course, it's fine if you prefer to remain a more individual, engineering-oriented position. But there is little reason to expect you'd reach the same level of importance to the organization as some top managers/executives.

Agreed, completely. Most ICs overestimate their importance by far. Most people do regardless of title.

>> I also think it's really, really dumb to push developers into management positions if they can't do the job.

>This has been known forever, yet it still happens - Why?

This problem exists in hardware departments too. My best guess is that they want managers familiar with the tech/industry/company. My second best guess is that it's a natural human tendency and hasn't been addressed systematically.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com