But that also means you still see managers "a top" of engineers (a "better" job).
But just because you are managing a project shouldn't mean you stand above all the people in the project. Like e.g. a trainer in football/soccer might direct the Team but the highly experienced players in the Team are, while directed by the trainer, not in a social hierarchy below the trainer. Because most times they stay when the trainer gets fired and they might get the trainer fired too if they believe the trainer is incompetent.
So in the end the problem just again boils down to seeing being a manager as a advancement of your carrier but becoming a senior engineer just as a continuation/negligible advancement.(1)
(1): assuming proper standards for senior engines, I have seen many people in senior engineer positions which do not have the skills to call them senior engineer IMHO.
> But that also means you still see managers "a top" of engineers (a "better" job).
No. All that’s required is that 10-20% of individual contributors see it this way. They will start manoeuvring, “virtue signalling” their ignorance, effectively destroying the culture.
You don’t see it that way. I don’t see it that way. But they do. That’s enough unfortunately.
What you need to break this dynamic is that the opportunity to be a trainer (or at least coach) is a kind of reward for learning to play the game really well. I think that’s how it works e.g. in (European) football as well.
> But that also means you still see managers "a top" of engineers (a "better" job).
Managers are typically comped better. Usually on a level by level basis, but also in the number of times you can be promoted before you run out of new job titles.
In my (giant) company, it appears there is a bit more room at the top for managers, but in general leveling up is more difficult as there is an expectation that the amount of headcount you manage is commiserate with the level, so the optimal leveling progression appears to stay an engineer for as long as you continue to level up and then switch into management.
You meant "commensurate", of course, but maybe "commiserate" was a Freudian slip? I often look at people managing large groups if people and think, "that looks like (it's often) a miserable job". :)
My company also has a level for level match, except there are far more managers than equivalent high level ICs, and even the generous IC tree ends far sooner than the management one does. If a manager is so inclined one could pursue an executive position, and I’ve never seen an equivalent for IC engineers.
I think there is probably one IC equivalent for every 2-3 low level managers, and $CORP is better about these things than any other company I’ve ever worked for.
I think a lot of success in hierarchies is based around the willingness and ability to turn a screw.
What domain expertise buys you is a higher intuition on whether or not you should.
Sure, you can have a lot of technical managers who suck. You can also have a good experience with a non-technical manager.
But day by day, pound for pound, my money is on domain expertise leading to better results. This happily explains why a manager is typically a senior role.
But that also means you still see managers "a top" of engineers (a "better" job).
But just because you are managing a project shouldn't mean you stand above all the people in the project. Like e.g. a trainer in football/soccer might direct the Team but the highly experienced players in the Team are, while directed by the trainer, not in a social hierarchy below the trainer. Because most times they stay when the trainer gets fired and they might get the trainer fired too if they believe the trainer is incompetent.
So in the end the problem just again boils down to seeing being a manager as a advancement of your carrier but becoming a senior engineer just as a continuation/negligible advancement.(1)
(1): assuming proper standards for senior engines, I have seen many people in senior engineer positions which do not have the skills to call them senior engineer IMHO.