Comment by nialv7

12 days ago

It's insane to me how the manager culture is. Somehow going from an engineer to a manager is a "promotion"?

No, they are equals. Just different people doing different kinds of jobs. There should be two tracks and people should be able to choose. If engineers feel they have to become managers to grow their careers, all you are getting will just be unhappy engineers and bad managers.

A weakness of European companies is that with very few exceptions, there is no equivalent IC role to managerial roles beyond maybe junior management.

There are companies that promise this, but it is rarely done. For whatever reason, management is universally convinced that ICs have lower value and are more replacable than managers.

It's also a distinctly European trait that European executives can look at US tech companies, who have IC roles on all levels, see that they are the most successful and innovative companies in the world, and conclude that yes, maybe capping IC benefits and adding another level of management is the way to go!

  • It works well in finance, that's about it. It makes no sense, as you say, everywhere else where the core business has to do with anything that needs engineering.

I know it's ironic to say this about Intel, a notoriously management heavy company, but they did do the dual tracks which I always appreciated. A principal engineer was functionally on par with a senior manager, and a fellow with a VP. This meant that good engineers weren't forced into roles they weren't interested in, and why many stayed there 20+ years.

The issue is, even with two tracks, there's every chance that more people end up taking the management path because it's seen as an easy way to climb the ranks. Your success can be built from your teams success, rather than your own individual contribution.

  • > Your success [as a manager] can be built from your teams success, rather than your own individual contribution.

    Well, yes. That's what good managers are: a force multiplier.

    A bunch of rockstar devs reporting to a poor manager may never move the needle in an organisation. A bunch of below average devs reporting to a stellar manager will definitely move the needle.

> No, they are equals.

People want this to be true but it just isn’t in reality and can’t be. Companies are pyramid shaped and the higher up you go the more managing you do and correspondingly less engineering.

It’s baked into the structure that seniority and power is biased towards managers

  • Sort of. There's a distinction between "managing" and "using people as resources" in many tech companies.

    Many senior ICs at tech companies DO have teams assigned to them for technical tasks, but they don't have to deal with giving feedback, managing compensation, giving bonuses, hiring, etc etc. Basically they get assigned extra hands and arms to do their tasks but aren't responsible for their growth or happiness.

    • There is a reason you mainly see that in tech companies. Causes more problems than it solves but tech companies do it anyway for the sake of keeping top engineers happy.

      If you disconnect the people in the trenches from the giving feedback & managing people then you need a whole army of people with elaborate systems and KPI scoring in background trying to reconnect the dots again so that comp and feedback have some linkage to reality.

      i.e. it's done yes but it's an aberration in terms of company structuring.

      1 reply →

> Just different people doing different kinds of jobs

Except the manager is the decider, and controls the fate of the IC. That makes them unequal, even if IC salaries were higher.

There's a rather famous saying by ASMLs former CEO:

"There are no important people at ASML. Only roles with more responsibilities."

> No, they are equals.

IDK, where I am its always been that managers specifically have power over ICs