Comment by alephnerd
14 days ago
A lot of this is already known.
If I find out that management is being adversarial to ICs (eg. not offering to pay 75th percentile salaries, giving crap equity offers) I've put pressure to let heads roll. Similarly, if I've seen ICs become adversarial (eg. quiet quitting, overemployed, ignoring brutally honest conversations to upskill, constantly undermining product roadmaps) I've often allowed heads to roll as well.
At least in the Bay Area, the "Netflix Model" has become the norm post-COVID - pay top dollar, but also be open to fire if interests do not align.
What I've noticed in my career as an IC and management is a lot of lower-mid level management are people who were promoted well beyond where their capabilities. To be brutally honest, the stereotypical snarky HNer who is promoted to Staff Eng with an option to become an EM is the worst hire in any organization.
> If I find out that management is being adversarial to ICs (eg. not offering to pay 75th percentile salaries
I find this funny because it suggests an equilibrium point where 75% of management must be adversarial by definition.
Adversarial is a loaded word. In my experience, the management I’d call most adversarial occurred at companies paying 80th to 90th percentile or higher. The attitude is that they’re paying employees enough that they need to shut up and put up with anything that comes their way. If you don’t like it, we have a list of qualified applicants who will gladly take your place in a heartbeat and won’t complain as much because those paychecks are larger than what they made at their last company.
> To be brutally honest, the stereotypical snarky HNer who is promoted to Staff Eng with an option to become an EM is the worst hire in any organization.
I think the trend where companies made Staff Eng into a pseudo-management role without reports was a mistake. It gets defended heavily by people who hold that role, but in the real world the Staff Eng people I’ve worked with who don’t really write code but float around and tell people what to do and how to do it become bad for an organization over time. It’s a trap because those people are often very valuable right after they’re promoted, but the roles where they become disconnected from writing code but retain the engineer title leads to a disconnectedness that flips toward counterproductive after a few years. It goes from having an experienced person coaching others to having someone with outdated and mostly abstract knowledge who gets to gatekeep everyone’s activities based on how things worked several years ago when they were still hands on.
> companies paying 80th to 90th percentile or higher. The attitude is that they’re paying employees enough that they need to shut up and put up with anything that comes their way. If you don’t like it, we have a list of qualified applicants who will gladly take your place in a heartbeat and won’t complain as much because those paychecks are larger than what they made at their last company
Well, yes in a way.
Criticism is expected and encouraged, but if it is done so while ignoring the 3 primary goals of a business:
1. Drive revenue growth
2. Expand TAM
3. Land strategic deals (not all customers are equal)
and is provided without a solution, you will be replaced. I don't care about prioritizing a bug fix or codebase refactor if the alternative means not being able to release feature X to help land Acme's mid 7 figure TCV deal.
The best Engineers I've worked with learnt how to merge valid engineering concerns with the top-line concerns mentioned above as well as being able to provide solutions. It's also how I was able to go from an IC to management.
If an employee thinks they know better, they can try to become a PM or start a competitor.
The bad experiences mentioned above really took off shortly before and during COVID, and this is why we are seeing the pendulum swing the opposite direction.
> I think the trend where companies made Staff Eng into a pseudo-management role without reports was a mistake. It gets defended heavily by people who hold that role, but in the real world the Staff Eng people I’ve worked with who don’t really write code but float around and tell people what to do and how to do it become bad for an organization over time.
I partially agree.
I think a Staff Eng role where it is someone who is deeply technical but helps align their team's delivery with other teams is extremely valuable (basically Staff+ as an architect role).
What I feel is the severe title inflation that arose during COVID turned "staff" into the new "senior", with too many people who floated into the role without aptitude.
> Criticism is expected and encouraged, but if it is done so while ignoring the 3 primary goals of a business:
I didn’t mention criticism, though.
The abuse I was talking about was more like: “VP so-and-so mentioned this in a meeting so I need you to work nights and weekends until it’s done” for trivial features or bugs.
In one case we had a CEO who would do surprise visits to offices and demand an on-the-spot demo of what he thought the team should have been working on, often without prior communication that he wanted it to be our top priority. If you didn’t have something highly polished to demo or any bugs occurred during the impromptu demo, you could expect hours of verbal lashing and insults.
When he left, the top manager would run around trying to explain that it’s just part of the job operating at this pay grade.
I’m not talking about whiny or unproductive employees being pushed out. This is about managerial dysfunction being justified by high compensation. When people’s hands feel tied by any job change coming with a step down in compensation, a lot of toxicities can thrive. Not all highly paid companies are like this, but at big companies that pay well you can find pockets of managers who use the high pay as a weapon.
1 reply →
I find the interests do not align phrase telling. Because it is usually not the employee vs company interest, it is the employee vs the manager’s interest.