Shopify elevated the non-manager career path and ditched meetings(creatoreconomy.so)
creatoreconomy.so
Shopify elevated the non-manager career path and ditched meetings
https://creatoreconomy.so/p/kaz-coo-shopify-craft-and-no-meetings
248 comments
Not to mention, companies announcing major acquisitions (Uber acquiring Postmates), or share buybacks (Apple) right afterwards. If a company really did mismanage their workforce the CEO would be fired for it, not rewarded.
Layoffs are not seen as mismanaging your workforce by investors. They're generally seen as a gamble that didn't pay off. Especially with tech companies, taking gambles is a good thing, investors want to see that management is taking risks.
Yes, but I am not obliged to entertain this fantasy.
Though sometimes the gamble _is_ the layoff (see Twitter atm)
Twitter's layoffs are because Elon Musk has no idea how to manage a company, not because of actual business or market pressures
In what reality do you live in? He is the most successful and transformative figure of his generation.
Right. He's gambling
A gamble? But who’s paying off the “gambling loss” during a layoff? Because it’s certainly not the person making the bet.
[deleted]
holding up people's wages to get the company through a bump or two would be another bold gamble and a savvy business move until it was made illegal (luckily for all of us non-sociopaths)
Not that I'm quibbling, however I don't think Apple had any meaningful sized layoffs? I know there was some shake up in the retail division, but its unclear from the outside what the motivation was. I've heard through 2nd hand sources that there's been alot of churn and issues in the retail division really spanning back to Ron Johnson's retirement
Only mentioning this as I'm not sure it categorizes the same as these huge 10%+ layoffs the rest of tech have participated in, sometimes multiple times by the same company.
Only mentioning this as I'm not sure it categorizes the same as these huge 10%+ layoffs the rest of tech have participated in, sometimes multiple times by the same company.
They may have meant meta? Meta announced a 40B stock buyback the day after it announced it was laying off 10,000 people. 4,000,000 per employee fired
Nah ceos get fired for mismanaging profit margins, not people.
Why are share buybacks seen so negatively? Isn't it somewhat to offset the fact that a lot of shares are issued as comp, so dilute the pool?
because it uses free cash to increase share price in order to increase executive compensation based on said share price, instead of using said free cash flow to compensate actual workers/employees
or for R&D, improving operations, or anything else that benefits the company.
Exactly. When your company buys shares back (or issue a dividend) you're basically telling shareholders "We have all this cash but we have no idea what to do with it that will provide a return greater than our Hurdle Rate, so we're just going to give it back to you." It doesn't exactly inspire confidence to me as an investor that the company is creative and forward-looking, but apparently most investors love this signal.
Isn't a company supposed to make a profit though? At some point aren't a lot of companies pretty much at their functional maximum? Investing in 'growth' isn't always practical. Example: All-Clad makes great cookware, but they last a long time and the number of people who need new pans are finite -- why should they invest more money into the company when they are operating optimallly?
Absolutely. If you're the water utility or an energy company or some other company not positioned as a "growth" company, sure, hand back your extra cash to investors. But if you're a tech company, a stock buyback just says "we're out of ideas but still want the stock price to go up".
>But if you're a tech company, a stock buyback just says "we're out of ideas but still want the stock price to go up".
Is that so bad? If I was a Meta shareholder I'd very much like the firm's profits to me, rather than funding Zuck's metaverse escapades.
Is that so bad? If I was a Meta shareholder I'd very much like the firm's profits to me, rather than funding Zuck's metaverse escapades.
It can also say:
> We belive out stock is undervalued, so we will buy it ourselves. This will reduce our cost of capital and generate value for our shareholders in the long term.
> We belive out stock is undervalued, so we will buy it ourselves. This will reduce our cost of capital and generate value for our shareholders in the long term.
> stock is undervalued
this phrase makes no sense because it's an executive buzzword: the value of a stock is what someone will pay for it
no stock is undervalued, it's at exactly the correct value. Executives conducting buybacks thus simply want the stock to be valued more than it is (so they can make more stock-priced-based-compensation money)
that an executive from a company like Shopify has options for cash like creating value via growth, or paying their workers better, but instead chooses to just increase their personal wealth (and, incidentally, that of shareholders as well), is precisely the leadership failure being pointing out here
this phrase makes no sense because it's an executive buzzword: the value of a stock is what someone will pay for it
no stock is undervalued, it's at exactly the correct value. Executives conducting buybacks thus simply want the stock to be valued more than it is (so they can make more stock-priced-based-compensation money)
that an executive from a company like Shopify has options for cash like creating value via growth, or paying their workers better, but instead chooses to just increase their personal wealth (and, incidentally, that of shareholders as well), is precisely the leadership failure being pointing out here
Sure, but why does the profit have to go to the shareholders? Companies are expected to enrich their shareholders before they enrich the talent actually making the product they sell and I think people are right to question that. Asking why someone who makes a company 200k profit per year is being paid 50k is a fair question to ask.
>Sure, but why does the profit have to go to the shareholders?
Because that's how companies are supposed to operate? Broadly speaking, companies are generally expected to pay their gross revenue three groups of people:
1. shareholders
2. bondholders/creditors
3. employees
Employees get first dibs on the cash, but the amount they're expected to earn is capped. Bondholders comes next, and shareholders come last. If there isn't any money left over, they get nothing. In exchange, they also get all of the returns, should the enterprise succeed, as well as control over it.
Because that's how companies are supposed to operate? Broadly speaking, companies are generally expected to pay their gross revenue three groups of people:
1. shareholders
2. bondholders/creditors
3. employees
Employees get first dibs on the cash, but the amount they're expected to earn is capped. Bondholders comes next, and shareholders come last. If there isn't any money left over, they get nothing. In exchange, they also get all of the returns, should the enterprise succeed, as well as control over it.
Hmm, yeah I think I grok the argument. But if excess cash flow can go to employees, would you also expect employees to inject their savings when the company has a shortfall?
I always considered employment a fairly simple exchange of my services for a fairly set rate, and investors/owners/funders to be the risk takers for ups & downs?
I always considered employment a fairly simple exchange of my services for a fairly set rate, and investors/owners/funders to be the risk takers for ups & downs?
why on earth would they do that? It's not like the executives or shareholders would. I'm certainly not throwing any additional cash at a single company I'm invested in if it's on hard times.
Why does your salary have to go to you?
It's not only to increase executive compensation, executive compensation is a tiny amount compared to everyone else who own the company (the shareholders). That 40B belonged to the shareholders and they decided to distribute it to themselves by doing a stock buyback. What's wrong with that? It is their own money.
I never claimed "only": executives do it to increase their compensation, they don't care about other shareholders unless caring puts more money in the executives' pockets
if you think that executives don't value that, or don't receive any additional compensation from it, feel free to rebut the claim that they do, but the point is that the money went into executive pockets (among others) instead of worker pockets
also, "it's their money" is a morally bankrupt argument that could be used to justify anything money can buy, and ignores that it isn't: it's their shares, the money belongs to the company, who can choose to spend it on value creation vs compensation bumps
if you think that executives don't value that, or don't receive any additional compensation from it, feel free to rebut the claim that they do, but the point is that the money went into executive pockets (among others) instead of worker pockets
also, "it's their money" is a morally bankrupt argument that could be used to justify anything money can buy, and ignores that it isn't: it's their shares, the money belongs to the company, who can choose to spend it on value creation vs compensation bumps
When did Apple do layoffs?
In ‘97 they layed off 4100 people - close to A third of their workforce at the time
https://money.cnn.com/1997/03/14/technology/apple/
Apple's return to office in 2022 may have been partially meant to serve as a stealth layoff.
I used to think like this but external factors such as interest rates are real and most companies need to react to them.
Take two hypothetical companies. One is conservatively run, never takes on anyone that they might need to let go. The other hires aggressively when times are good, and fires when they get bad.
The second company will (if well run otherwise) likely be more successful over time and create more wealth than the first.
Take two hypothetical companies. One is conservatively run, never takes on anyone that they might need to let go. The other hires aggressively when times are good, and fires when they get bad.
The second company will (if well run otherwise) likely be more successful over time and create more wealth than the first.
Not necessarily. Layoffs do have a long-term impact on morale and productivity.
Layoffs only positively impact the business in the long run if the cuts are essential to the company's survival (otherwise, they would go bankrupt). Spotify likely had enough cash to weather the storm.
In can see the drop in moral in my team. We are busier than ever, as the work hasn't dried up, but there are no decent pay rises on the horizon. As soon as the economy recovers, most of my team will find job elsewhere.
Layoffs only positively impact the business in the long run if the cuts are essential to the company's survival (otherwise, they would go bankrupt). Spotify likely had enough cash to weather the storm.
In can see the drop in moral in my team. We are busier than ever, as the work hasn't dried up, but there are no decent pay rises on the horizon. As soon as the economy recovers, most of my team will find job elsewhere.
Repeated layoffs are murder on morale. Anyone who has done 2 rounds in as many years has lost all. Oral authority to evangelize their business culture. One round maybe. Two rounds you fucked up. Three is a circus.
Exactly. When moral is low and the money is not good, the good ones will jump ship first. The company would need try really hard to retain the talents
[deleted]
I agree that interest rates have essentially driven most of the layoffs recently. Debt that used to cost 10c on the dollar to service has started to cost 2 dollars. If your expenses don't give, then your profits will. And potentially your liquidity.
But it's kool-aid drinking to assume a company that is over aggressive at hiring in a bull market and fires in a bear market will create more wealth. Wealth for whom is the better question to ask — certainly not the thousands of laid off employees.
But it's kool-aid drinking to assume a company that is over aggressive at hiring in a bull market and fires in a bear market will create more wealth. Wealth for whom is the better question to ask — certainly not the thousands of laid off employees.
>Wealth for whom is the better question to ask — certainly not the thousands of laid off employees
I think that depends on the pay structure. If a large part of your compensation is in stock then you'll still benefit from the additional wealth creation. Assuming a decent severance package it's certainly possible you come out ahead compared to the more conservative company, even being laid off.
I think that depends on the pay structure. If a large part of your compensation is in stock then you'll still benefit from the additional wealth creation. Assuming a decent severance package it's certainly possible you come out ahead compared to the more conservative company, even being laid off.
> If a large part of your compensation is in stock then you'll still benefit from the additional wealth creation.
Oh yes, the beautiful golden handcuffs will give those laid off workers wealth. Except... the handcuffs come off and are kept by the employer. Otherwise they wouldn't have been handcuffs
Oh yes, the beautiful golden handcuffs will give those laid off workers wealth. Except... the handcuffs come off and are kept by the employer. Otherwise they wouldn't have been handcuffs
[deleted]
> The second company will (if well run otherwise) likely be more successful over time and create more wealth than the first.
Perhaps, but it's the first company that I'd rather work for.
Perhaps, but it's the first company that I'd rather work for.
Just to put a number, what percentage of salary hit would you be willing to take to work in the first company? For simplification, if we take Europe as the first kind and US as the second the difference in salary could be 2-3x after accounting for cost of living.
That's a legitimately difficult question to answer, because there are so many factors that are involved when I determine what my minimum requirement is for a particular position.
But if I look at my last position and consider everything identical except that one case has laying employees off as an intentional part of the business plan, and the other case where that's not true, I would have wanted to make at least twice as much as compensation for the layoff risk.
But... working at a place where I feel insecure would have other knock-on effects. Primarily, being much less invested in the company, and so less willing to make sacrifices or take risks, regardless of pay rate. And that means that I'd be likely to be unhappy in the position. So it's all very complicated.
As a caveat, though, I am not particularly motivated by money, as long as my minimum requirements are met. I tend to be motivated more by the work and work environment itself.
I have learned that there are quite a lot of things that can't be made better through increased compensation.
But if I look at my last position and consider everything identical except that one case has laying employees off as an intentional part of the business plan, and the other case where that's not true, I would have wanted to make at least twice as much as compensation for the layoff risk.
But... working at a place where I feel insecure would have other knock-on effects. Primarily, being much less invested in the company, and so less willing to make sacrifices or take risks, regardless of pay rate. And that means that I'd be likely to be unhappy in the position. So it's all very complicated.
As a caveat, though, I am not particularly motivated by money, as long as my minimum requirements are met. I tend to be motivated more by the work and work environment itself.
I have learned that there are quite a lot of things that can't be made better through increased compensation.
Along the same cynical lines of thinking, I bet this is part of the whole belt-tightening move. If employee retention is not a priority, managers can reduce or neglect related tasks (think 1:1s, career development, ...) and manager-to-IC ratio can be reduced.
In 20 years, I can count the times I had a useful 1:1 on one hand. Early in my career, it seemed like a monthly thing. Only in the past decade or so did it become a weekly "requirement."
If the economy and an industry is generally doing well, frequent lay-offs can be a good thing. It would be better financially for the employees, as they will be able to find a different employer quickly and/or will receive severance payments. It is better for employers (those who know what they're doing, at least) as they can reduce their costs quickly if they need to. Those who are unhappy with a job can find a new one more easily with an elevated level of staff turnover in their industry.
The psychological effects for employees can be greatly harmful, though. Additionally, there is a cost to society when projects are cancelled that would be beneficial to the world, even if not profitable, and such flitty business practice could become exaggerated if lay-offs did not carry such stigma.
The psychological effects for employees can be greatly harmful, though. Additionally, there is a cost to society when projects are cancelled that would be beneficial to the world, even if not profitable, and such flitty business practice could become exaggerated if lay-offs did not carry such stigma.
> It would be better financially for the employees, as they will be able to find a different employer quickly and/or will receive severance payments.
This is making a lot of assumptions that I think make the hypothesis very shaky. The only people who can decide if they'll be better off when this happens are the individuals being laid off, because they're the only ones who have enough information to know.
This is making a lot of assumptions that I think make the hypothesis very shaky. The only people who can decide if they'll be better off when this happens are the individuals being laid off, because they're the only ones who have enough information to know.
My reasoning is that, from a purely financial perspective, individuals would probably prefer to be made redundant in a good economic situation than a poor one. However, many companies continue projects that are unprofitable while the economy and their business is doing well, only to make massive lay-offs when times are more difficult or even collapse entirely, flooding the job market. Thus, my intuition is that smaller but more frequent lay-offs would smooth-out the troughs and peaks of an industry's job market to make it more closely resemble the value of that industry as a whole.
I would be very curious to know what I'm missing in this picture; would you have the time to elaborate?
I would be very curious to know what I'm missing in this picture; would you have the time to elaborate?
> from a purely financial perspective, individuals would probably prefer to be made redundant in a good economic situation than a poor one.
Oh, OK. I agree with that. I thought that you were saying that being laid off is a good thing when economic times are good. I think that it's never a good thing.
However, if it has to happen, it's certainly better when times are good than when they aren't.
> Thus, my intuition is that smaller but more frequent lay-offs would smooth-out the troughs and peaks
I suppose, but I would not want to work for a company that engages in regular layoffs, even small ones. It means that you can never really settle in to the job.
I've turned down several job offers from companies solely because they engage in regularly-scheduled layoffs.
Oh, OK. I agree with that. I thought that you were saying that being laid off is a good thing when economic times are good. I think that it's never a good thing.
However, if it has to happen, it's certainly better when times are good than when they aren't.
> Thus, my intuition is that smaller but more frequent lay-offs would smooth-out the troughs and peaks
I suppose, but I would not want to work for a company that engages in regular layoffs, even small ones. It means that you can never really settle in to the job.
I've turned down several job offers from companies solely because they engage in regularly-scheduled layoffs.
I'm sorry to be cynical here but all this is good only in theory or in a blog article. Real life is much different. Let me articulate.
1. There are many more sr mgr/director+ positions than sr. staff+
2. Corporate politics is brutal and a seasoned mgr is adept at it. Unfortunately, the sooner you get better at it the better for your career. This is one of the reasons why a seasoned director will always be able to command a much bigger scope than sr. staff+.
3. The bar for rising in the IC ladder is astronomically higher than that for mgmt ladder.
4. And let's not forget interviews. Management interviews are much easier than ICs. (think leetcode).
5. Last but not the least, even in big tech companies (FAANGM or whatever acronym) you should really measure how many of sr. staff+ folks became sr. staff+ after a stint in mgmt. They used mgmt to catapult their career after seeing stagnation/difficulty of moving up as an IC. You would be surprised how many of these very senior ICs have had mgmt careers for several years before. It's easy to extol the virtues of being an IC once you've reached there but no one sees how they got there :-).
Now, don't get me wrong. There are some companies/orgs/teams where higher ICs are valued much more and do better than mgrs but it's really the minority. It's in your best interest to switch to mgmt after 8-10 yrs of IC career (8-10 yrs is sufficient enough to gain a solid footing in tech) and learn the ropes fast. I waited for 18 yrs and can see the difference.
1. There are many more sr mgr/director+ positions than sr. staff+
2. Corporate politics is brutal and a seasoned mgr is adept at it. Unfortunately, the sooner you get better at it the better for your career. This is one of the reasons why a seasoned director will always be able to command a much bigger scope than sr. staff+.
3. The bar for rising in the IC ladder is astronomically higher than that for mgmt ladder.
4. And let's not forget interviews. Management interviews are much easier than ICs. (think leetcode).
5. Last but not the least, even in big tech companies (FAANGM or whatever acronym) you should really measure how many of sr. staff+ folks became sr. staff+ after a stint in mgmt. They used mgmt to catapult their career after seeing stagnation/difficulty of moving up as an IC. You would be surprised how many of these very senior ICs have had mgmt careers for several years before. It's easy to extol the virtues of being an IC once you've reached there but no one sees how they got there :-).
Now, don't get me wrong. There are some companies/orgs/teams where higher ICs are valued much more and do better than mgrs but it's really the minority. It's in your best interest to switch to mgmt after 8-10 yrs of IC career (8-10 yrs is sufficient enough to gain a solid footing in tech) and learn the ropes fast. I waited for 18 yrs and can see the difference.
You didn't once mention creating better products/services for customers, fostering an enjoyable work environment or even creating value for shareholders. Your whole argument is about (a very narrow Machiavellian view of) individual career progression. If it makes the company less attractive to types who think like that, that sounds overall good to me. Seems like that's also what they were aiming for, and with some success, judging from the interview (which is of course a marketing piece, so to be taken with the right amounts of salt).
>a very narrow Machiavellian view
A very narrow view which is adopted by the vast majority of managers and successful salespeople. Otherwise, why did they get to become manager?
> If it makes the company less attractive to types who think like that
Not at all... this article is supposed to attract eager, naive kids who will work their butts off for little reward.
Machiavellians will find an easier time of becoming manager at this company. Staff positions are super limited, but the "possibility" reduces competition for management positions.
A very narrow view which is adopted by the vast majority of managers and successful salespeople. Otherwise, why did they get to become manager?
> If it makes the company less attractive to types who think like that
Not at all... this article is supposed to attract eager, naive kids who will work their butts off for little reward.
Machiavellians will find an easier time of becoming manager at this company. Staff positions are super limited, but the "possibility" reduces competition for management positions.
> this article is supposed to attract eager, naive kids who will work their butts off for little reward.
And how much of the real work in any given tech company is actually done by those eager naïve kids who are unreasonably loyal to the company and have not yet burned out? Perhaps the majority?
And how much of the real work in any given tech company is actually done by those eager naïve kids who are unreasonably loyal to the company and have not yet burned out? Perhaps the majority?
Probably. That's why I tell the kids to stop doing it. Kill your boss.
> Not at all... this article is supposed to attract eager, naive kids who will work their butts off for little reward.
I suppose for a company that's better than attracting managers who work their butts off to do nothing but enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else?
It just depends on who really holds the power at the company - the people who want a return on investment (the company to succeed), or the people who want to extract as much value from the company for themselves (the execs).
When companies start making decisions left and right that don't make any sense - it's not because execs are morons. It's because things are working as intended, and the execs are extracting value for themselves at the expense of everything else.
I suppose for a company that's better than attracting managers who work their butts off to do nothing but enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else?
It just depends on who really holds the power at the company - the people who want a return on investment (the company to succeed), or the people who want to extract as much value from the company for themselves (the execs).
When companies start making decisions left and right that don't make any sense - it's not because execs are morons. It's because things are working as intended, and the execs are extracting value for themselves at the expense of everything else.
I used to think execs were morons. Now, I realize they're just evil. Hanlon's razor is a bit overrated.
Why are they evil if they're just following the incentive structure? They want to make enough money for themselves and their families and to send their kids to college. Is that so different from non-execs?
Besides, most of us here on Hacker News can easily avoid big companies and go work at small start-ups or even our own businesses. If you hate the Machiavellian corporate world then vote with your feet.
Besides, most of us here on Hacker News can easily avoid big companies and go work at small start-ups or even our own businesses. If you hate the Machiavellian corporate world then vote with your feet.
There’s not going to be anything I can do to derive this from first principles, but merely extracting value from a system without directly producing anything is evil. I don’t care if you’re (supposedly) making other people more productive. Actually producing product is what’s good in this world. There are also basically no ways to measure how well a manager is doing (remember that stock reflects the whole company which is mostly non-managers), so lack of accountability is probably a good indicator that someone isn’t doing the greatest work. Also, evil is relative so I’m not comparing anyone to Stalin here.
> merely extracting value from a system without directly producing anything is evil
I think using the word evil to describe anything in economics is a bit of a stretch. But then again, I don't think what you're describing is even possible, so whether it's "evil" or not is a moot point. Even fatcat investors thousands of miles away from factories are contributing to the production with their capital and the organization and financing of the systems of production, so the concept of a "pure extractor" that you believe to be evil never exists in the first place.
If you want to find wiggle room with the word "directly" in "directly producing", then you're inviting a purely subjective argument that will eventually leave you on the evil end of the morality spectrum from someone else's point of view.
I think using the word evil to describe anything in economics is a bit of a stretch. But then again, I don't think what you're describing is even possible, so whether it's "evil" or not is a moot point. Even fatcat investors thousands of miles away from factories are contributing to the production with their capital and the organization and financing of the systems of production, so the concept of a "pure extractor" that you believe to be evil never exists in the first place.
If you want to find wiggle room with the word "directly" in "directly producing", then you're inviting a purely subjective argument that will eventually leave you on the evil end of the morality spectrum from someone else's point of view.
I don’t think you have to be a pure extractor for it to be evil, just extracting at all is evil (so even the producers are generally somewhat evil at least in America). If you view everything from a scientific/mathematical lens you will never find morality, because that is orthogonal. But when you see people doing bad in the world — forcing negative emotions on others for the sake of getting rich — you can draw straightforward conclusions.
> forcing negative emotions on others for the sake of getting rich
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm fine with agreeing that is not morally defensible. The Tucker Carlsons of the world are behaving as close to indisputably evil as possible, but I wouldn't lump them in with every business owner that is extracting more value than they're directly producing with their own hands on a daily basis.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm fine with agreeing that is not morally defensible. The Tucker Carlsons of the world are behaving as close to indisputably evil as possible, but I wouldn't lump them in with every business owner that is extracting more value than they're directly producing with their own hands on a daily basis.
My preference personally was anything but management. Know I do management as CEO as this was needed to provide better service for the customers. I just tell sales guys they have to monetize our market position/brand.
Why would improving products and creating shareholder value not be strongly correlated with career progression?
You can filter people who want career progression out of engineering, you will still have them in all of other functions. You will still be working for these people.
You can filter people who want career progression out of engineering, you will still have them in all of other functions. You will still be working for these people.
Shopify is a business not a charity.
I'll donate to someone who needs it, not wealthy capitalists.
If capitalists want my time, they need to pay what it's worth.
I'll donate to someone who needs it, not wealthy capitalists.
If capitalists want my time, they need to pay what it's worth.
> There are many more mgr/director positions
Not only this, but management levels is pretty well recognized across the industry. The titles themselves might not be the same, but where you fit in is.
High level engineering positions is not that way. It often can depend a lot on your experience with the company and not necessarily tech in general. You could be a staff engineer one place, and {bigCo} just decides based on one person during the interview that you should only be an SDE 2 during the interview. So often, the non management track leads you stuck without options other than being "downleveled" and taking a demotion to leave.
Not only this, but management levels is pretty well recognized across the industry. The titles themselves might not be the same, but where you fit in is.
High level engineering positions is not that way. It often can depend a lot on your experience with the company and not necessarily tech in general. You could be a staff engineer one place, and {bigCo} just decides based on one person during the interview that you should only be an SDE 2 during the interview. So often, the non management track leads you stuck without options other than being "downleveled" and taking a demotion to leave.
> Management interviews are much easier than ICs. (think leetcode)
And the ICs themselves are to be blamed for encouraging and fostering such ridiculous processes.
And the ICs themselves are to be blamed for encouraging and fostering such ridiculous processes.
maybe any given interview is harder for a technical IC, but IME you go through a far more rigorous process for senior management.
What do you mean by rigorous. In my experience the hiring process might be longer, but if anything it’s much less rigorous.
> Bar for rising in the IC ladder is astronomically higher than climbing in a mgmt ladder
This is the root of all evil. Just getting from Sr -> Staff Engineer is not only a product of skill and experience, but also what problem you are working on, how many ICs exist on the team/org at your level, what opportunities exist in your org and much more. When a staff engineer leaves a company, the probability of a senior engineer getting promoted is the same as an external hire getting the spot. When a senior manager leaves, one of the other managers gets a promotion almost every time. In management you can just hire enough people under you to automatically climb the corporate ladder. Management often rewards inefficiency whereas as an IC you get punished for it.
This is the root of all evil. Just getting from Sr -> Staff Engineer is not only a product of skill and experience, but also what problem you are working on, how many ICs exist on the team/org at your level, what opportunities exist in your org and much more. When a staff engineer leaves a company, the probability of a senior engineer getting promoted is the same as an external hire getting the spot. When a senior manager leaves, one of the other managers gets a promotion almost every time. In management you can just hire enough people under you to automatically climb the corporate ladder. Management often rewards inefficiency whereas as an IC you get punished for it.
> "There are many more sr mgr/director+ positions than sr. staff+"
Your points seems be based on the assumption there's more people managers than IC's.
I'm not certain that is accurate (or at least accurate at a well operated company).
Your points seems be based on the assumption there's more people managers than IC's.
I'm not certain that is accurate (or at least accurate at a well operated company).
More people managers at a sufficiently high level. It's not that there are more managers than junior/mid/senior engineers, it's that there are more senior managers/directors than there are senior staff/principal engineers. At least at big tech companies, I understand that this is just true and by several multiples at that. So there would be several times more directors than principal engineers at Google, which are the two relevant roles at the same level (L8).
That's not what they're saying. At the lower and mid levels, there are far more ICs than managers. At the top levels, there are more managers than ICs (at each level.) This is the case in most major tech companies I've seen.
There is a lot of reality in this post. Sadly, ICs have far too much scrutiny, starting from aggressive interviews, to onboarding, to performance reviews etc.
A manager path is just a chiller life. No leetcode interviews, performance review is focused on hiring/firing/delivery rather than actual product building, maintenance etc. Managers create arbitrary processes for their team just to show to their bosses that they are doing something important. Managers also scapegoat ICs when their policies fail.
It's a wild paradox. Companies want ICs, to develop and maintain but the corporate ladder is designed to favor/give power to managers. Wild!
A manager path is just a chiller life. No leetcode interviews, performance review is focused on hiring/firing/delivery rather than actual product building, maintenance etc. Managers create arbitrary processes for their team just to show to their bosses that they are doing something important. Managers also scapegoat ICs when their policies fail.
It's a wild paradox. Companies want ICs, to develop and maintain but the corporate ladder is designed to favor/give power to managers. Wild!
> A manager path is just a chiller life.
As someone who has done both multiple times each, this statement comes off as someone who hasn't spent time in management. My stress levels are always much lower when I'm an IC. Even when I'm a high level IC. My blood pressure levels drop when I'm an IC. etc etc etc.
This is not to say that everything about being a manager is harder than being an IC. Not at all. But they're just not directly comparable the way you're doing here. They require completely different skillsets, and come with different challenges. For me, it turns out that the hard parts of manager life stress me out, big time. Thus I prefer IC work.
As someone who has done both multiple times each, this statement comes off as someone who hasn't spent time in management. My stress levels are always much lower when I'm an IC. Even when I'm a high level IC. My blood pressure levels drop when I'm an IC. etc etc etc.
This is not to say that everything about being a manager is harder than being an IC. Not at all. But they're just not directly comparable the way you're doing here. They require completely different skillsets, and come with different challenges. For me, it turns out that the hard parts of manager life stress me out, big time. Thus I prefer IC work.
At my job, I was always on as a senior engineer. Management pushed all the delivery responsibility down to engineers. As a result, I was responsible for all engineers feeling good, divvying the work, ensuring project moved ahead, removing x-team roadblocks, stand-ups, jira tickets etc.
All manager did was collect status reports, weekly meetings, promo and optics documents and managing upwards. He even fired people that made him look bad.
At some point, I started asking, why am I doing all the scoping, project management, product management, people management and sprint running? What exactly is my manager doing to move the product/service ahead?
All manager did was collect status reports, weekly meetings, promo and optics documents and managing upwards. He even fired people that made him look bad.
At some point, I started asking, why am I doing all the scoping, project management, product management, people management and sprint running? What exactly is my manager doing to move the product/service ahead?
It looks like you're doing his work. You may try to undercut him by connecting with his managers, get his job, or get fired if he sees your plan. You may try to make it clear to him you understand this arrangement and you're fine with it, but you need more money to make your responsibility tolerable, and he will comply as you let him collect his paycheck for free. Or you might be missing something important and bringing this up will get you fired.
I was about to write something similar. The TLDR that I tell people is computers do exactly what I tell them, people not so much.
In IC work there's often a 'right' answer. At least an answer that can be tested and pass some sort of test. Management is murky, "will this deal work out?", "why are employee A and B constantly fighting?", "partner is asking when X will be done, that I'm only tangentially in control of" ugh, the list goes on.
In IC work there's often a 'right' answer. At least an answer that can be tested and pass some sort of test. Management is murky, "will this deal work out?", "why are employee A and B constantly fighting?", "partner is asking when X will be done, that I'm only tangentially in control of" ugh, the list goes on.
Exactly this. OP probably has not seen the grind of middle management and the stress that comes with it. They don’t call it manager-IC pendulum for nothing.
I'm in the process of transitioning back to an IC role from a management position and that was one of the biggest factors. As a manager, the level of stress I felt just became unbearable. I'm wrapping up my management responsibilities right now but just knowing that I'll be back to IC work soon and won't have that management stress has had a huge positive impact on my daily life.
I am 2 weeks back as an IC after 3 years of management, so I went through the same thing. Take it slowly, youll have some management instincts that are hard to kick.
I am really enjoying logging off and being uncontactable at the end of the day.
That's super helpful to hear. I'm also making the move after 3 years in management.
Being able to be done at the end of the day is something I'm really looking forward to but it's going to take some time to get back into that mindset.
As a manager, I felt like I was always on.
Being able to be done at the end of the day is something I'm really looking forward to but it's going to take some time to get back into that mindset.
As a manager, I felt like I was always on.
I think this is just differences in what people are naturally good at. Those naturally better at coding think IC is easier. Those naturally better at politics think being a manager is easier. IMHO manager has a lower minimum level of effort required. If things are running smoothly it's not a lot of hassle or time. The catch is that, at least at the EM & Director level, you have little control over whether or not things run smoothly. And if things aren't running smoothly you catch a lot of crap.
> ICs have far too much scrutiny, starting from aggressive interviews, to onboarding, to performance reviews etc.
> A manager path is just a chiller life.
Not quite correct. Once you get to a point in management seniority, everything that goes wrong is your fault. When your immediate manager is at that point, they will absolutely twist your thumbs off, rather than have your failures be reflected on him. They aren't interested in your excuses, because their boss isn't interested in theirs.
And if you aren't high up in management seniority, you still be standing in line to get a bucket of shit dumped on you (courtesy of the management fight I've described above), but it's also your responsibility to shield your team from it. How you do it is up to you, have fun. :)
... And once you've cleaned yourself and your team off, and think 'Gosh, that was bad, but hey, at least I survived getting through that messy place in the line', you'll discover that the line is actually circular.
> A manager path is just a chiller life.
Not quite correct. Once you get to a point in management seniority, everything that goes wrong is your fault. When your immediate manager is at that point, they will absolutely twist your thumbs off, rather than have your failures be reflected on him. They aren't interested in your excuses, because their boss isn't interested in theirs.
And if you aren't high up in management seniority, you still be standing in line to get a bucket of shit dumped on you (courtesy of the management fight I've described above), but it's also your responsibility to shield your team from it. How you do it is up to you, have fun. :)
... And once you've cleaned yourself and your team off, and think 'Gosh, that was bad, but hey, at least I survived getting through that messy place in the line', you'll discover that the line is actually circular.
> Once you get to a point in management seniority, everything that goes wrong is your fault.
Guess whose fault it becomes once the line manager is being blamed from above.
Guess whose fault it becomes once the line manager is being blamed from above.
He can blame you all he wants, but firing you is unlikely to ship whatever he wants faster.
I still get fired, despite having done nothing wrong. The company doesn't want engineers fired for BS reasons. Only the manager wants it.
Management games are detrimental to innovation.
Management games are detrimental to innovation.
Let's switch industries for a more objective perspective: Does a general contractor have a chiller life than a framer? In some ways, sure, they don't have to climb ladders hauling 2x6s in the rain, however I don't think the framer would be more relaxed if they were dealing with permitting offices, sourcing reliable subcontractors, estimating and collecting payments from clients, etc. rather than framing. They're both necessary roles for large-scale projects.
Who defines the corporate ladder and decides who moves up it? Managers.
Obviously it's going to be designed in the way that works best for them.
Obviously it's going to be designed in the way that works best for them.
This and the parent thread sound kind of simplistic. In any non-trivial-size company, there are many managers, and the space on top is always limited. So lower and mid-levels have to compete with each other for that limited space, they can always be undercut, left behind over an outside hire, end up on a crappy project by bad luck, end up with a bad boss or the opposite, a team of incompetent ICs who fail to deliver while there is only so much a manager can do. Always have to beg for adequate resources and overall be at the mercy of a large number of random people. Saying that it's disneyland designed for easy promotions doesn't... really sound correct?
The important thing is to learn to play the same game your company plays (whether it's IC or mgmt) and start learning the mgmt ropes soon.
I just write code for the highest bidder. I'm not interested in management, I studied software development because that's what I want to do. If my company doesn't pay me competitive rates to do what I'm good at I'll go do it elsewhere. I don't see any reason to stop doing what I'm good at. I certainly don't see any reason why anyone should pay me more to do something I'm probably not good at.
You are talking about engineering IC's. The article is talking about Product Manager ICs which is far less complex to handle in an organization.
> Management interviews are much easier than ICs.
You'd think so, but it's not. During mgmt interviews, you have to show how did you rally your team and had impact. It's much easier to rally yourself (think leetcode) than rally 6 other people.
You'd think so, but it's not. During mgmt interviews, you have to show how did you rally your team and had impact. It's much easier to rally yourself (think leetcode) than rally 6 other people.
I don’t know. For staff engineer interviews I’ve been on, they seem to want technical proficiency and team leadership. They want the full package.
But there’s no test suite that fails for a story about rallying 6 others, or having impact all of which cannot be verified and thus easily embellished - leetcode, and subsequently your candidacy, either passes the bar or it doesn’t.
> It's much easier to rally yourself (think leetcode) than rally 6 other people.
For me at least this hasn't been true.
For me at least this hasn't been true.
The higher the position, the easier the interview. My interview for a CxO-level position at an early stage company was one of the easiest in my life (and I got the job offer.) I was stupid to take the position. After several years, I realized I dislike managing people and dealing with corporate politics, so I went back to a "staff+" job.
In general, most companies do not value higher level ICs, including the one I'm at now. But I don't like going to meetings all day, so what am I to do?
In general, most companies do not value higher level ICs, including the one I'm at now. But I don't like going to meetings all day, so what am I to do?
This 'theory or blog article' is about one of your 'some companies' though, the interviewee is the.. I can't remember, CTO or something, it's not a vacuous 'this is how I think you should behave wherever you work', it's saying 'this is how we work [and slightly a hiring pitch on that basis]'.
What's IC supposed to mean?
Individual Contributor. A general-purpose word that means you're not a manager.
Thanks
Individual Contributor.
[deleted]
Integrated Circuit
I’d rather start my own company which is what I’m doing.
Absolutely hate corporate politics when I have not enough equity to put that much effort in.
Absolutely hate corporate politics when I have not enough equity to put that much effort in.
The problem with dedicated IC career paths are that they aren't respected outside of core tech companies. At some point if you want to switch industries you could be looking at a massive pay cut. I noticed this in FAANG. Okay, you get to IC8, you're a master of the universe. Realistically you can only take that credibility with you to other FAANG. If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable.
There are of course exceptions if you are a true rock star and have worked on/led household-name projects as an IC. But again, if you jump ship, you might end up in a manager-esque role anyway. Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.
There are of course exceptions if you are a true rock star and have worked on/led household-name projects as an IC. But again, if you jump ship, you might end up in a manager-esque role anyway. Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.
I would argue the high-end IC career path isn't really respected in general at F500. I have worked for multiple large public companies. Most of the time the highest tier IC role consisted of the grizzled veteran engineers who were there forever, but disliked managers (and management in general). They were usually a bit dis-disgruntled as well (probably because they were stuck in that role!). They were never promoted or moved into management, because they were too highly compensated to make it work.
Basically if you dont "hop" to management in the first 1-6 years into your career, it quickly becomes too late.
After years of discussion about this with my manager, I recently accepted a low level managerial role at my current company. It was a large step down title wise (from highest level IC title to low level manager title). The only reason I did this was because HR agreed to let me keep my current salary (albeit "frozen" until I get promoted)..
I found that in general the pay for entry level tech manager was a large pay-cut for me , but I was also under qualified for type of Director role.
Basically if you dont "hop" to management in the first 1-6 years into your career, it quickly becomes too late.
After years of discussion about this with my manager, I recently accepted a low level managerial role at my current company. It was a large step down title wise (from highest level IC title to low level manager title). The only reason I did this was because HR agreed to let me keep my current salary (albeit "frozen" until I get promoted)..
I found that in general the pay for entry level tech manager was a large pay-cut for me , but I was also under qualified for type of Director role.
> They were never promoted or moved into management, because they were too highly compensated to make it work.
Or maybe because they had no interest in management work?
Or maybe because they had no interest in management work?
Yeah I would never want to be a manager. My career is writing code/building software. I like doing that. Pay me according to my ability to ship good code and don't ever make me manage people please.
The thing is that you are almost never compensated on your ability to ship good code, you're compensated on your ability to create business value. More business value usually means owning and leading more scope, not better/more code.
> The thing is that you are almost never compensated on your ability to ship good code, you're compensated on your ability to create business value.
If I can be allowed to split hairs a little, ackshually you're compensated based on your level/title which sometimes, but not always (maybe not even often) is proportional to your ability to create business value. Companies like to say that they pay based on business value because it sounds good. But they don't have really great ways to measure that, especially if you're not in sales.
If I can be allowed to split hairs a little, ackshually you're compensated based on your level/title which sometimes, but not always (maybe not even often) is proportional to your ability to create business value. Companies like to say that they pay based on business value because it sounds good. But they don't have really great ways to measure that, especially if you're not in sales.
You are compensated based on how much the alternative costs.
The level/title is merely a tool that attempts to frame someone relative to the alternatives to make that determination easier.
The level/title is merely a tool that attempts to frame someone relative to the alternatives to make that determination easier.
Sure but I can accomplish that by being a technical lead - planning architecture, reviewing code, mentoring junior devs, building libraries etc.
I'm not the person you responded to, but I realize this, and I realize that my career ambitions put a definite ceiling on my salary.
Which is fine! I'd rather have my current salary and not have to manage people. I wouldn't want a manager's job for twice my salary. It would make me unhappy, and a spare salary wouldn't make it up to me.
Which is fine! I'd rather have my current salary and not have to manage people. I wouldn't want a manager's job for twice my salary. It would make me unhappy, and a spare salary wouldn't make it up to me.
> owning and leading more scope
And software is one of those things where an IC or small team lead can end up owning and being responsible for a huge amount of scope/impact.
And software is one of those things where an IC or small team lead can end up owning and being responsible for a huge amount of scope/impact.
[deleted]
just curious: if you take a junior engineer under your wing, teach them how to build a system, and watch them put code into production
is that not just another version of "shipping code"?
sure it's one degree removed from your physical fingers on the actual keyboard, but that junior only got to ship because of your mentorship/management
is that not just another version of "shipping code"?
sure it's one degree removed from your physical fingers on the actual keyboard, but that junior only got to ship because of your mentorship/management
Absolutely. When I say I don't want to be in a management role, I mean I don't want to be in the role that most tech companies seem to call "management", which is usually someone mostly completely divorced from actual technical decisions.
Being a force multiplier by being technical leadership to other devs is fine by me. I just don't want to spend all day in an office managing upwards.
Being a force multiplier by being technical leadership to other devs is fine by me. I just don't want to spend all day in an office managing upwards.
My point was that most corporations remove the option from high level individual contributors. The higher you go, the more the option is removed. I was directly told that I am more than qualified from a technical perspective to be a Director, but not qualified from an management perspective.
Teaching people management skills is probably a whole heck of a lot easier than teaching them technical skills, but companies don't see it that way. Companies will pay top dollar for a fresh Harvard MBA, and put them in-charge of a large technology thing they know little about, but reject the idea of a IC8 moving into that role.
Teaching people management skills is probably a whole heck of a lot easier than teaching them technical skills, but companies don't see it that way. Companies will pay top dollar for a fresh Harvard MBA, and put them in-charge of a large technology thing they know little about, but reject the idea of a IC8 moving into that role.
Why wouldn't they allow an IC8 to move into a lower-level management position? It sounds like the option isn't removed, you just have to move downwards on the parallel track, to learn those things.
Imagine it the other way around; I would not expect the head of HR at my employer to move directly into a Staff Engineering position if they expressed interest in moving towards a technical role.
Imagine it the other way around; I would not expect the head of HR at my employer to move directly into a Staff Engineering position if they expressed interest in moving towards a technical role.
I would however expect a Staff Engineer to make an entirely adequate head of HR
Why on earth would you expect that to be true?
I share your bias, but if I'm being intellectually honest with myself, this is an unjustified bias.
I share your bias, but if I'm being intellectually honest with myself, this is an unjustified bias.
What informed your conjecture?
> Basically if you don't "hop" to management in the first 1-6 years into your career, it quickly becomes too late.
Agreed with this, but only for traditional management track. Like if you want to be a CEO of a F500, you need to hop on the management track early and spend the time rising through the ranks. But there is more flexibility in startup world. In a small growing company you can have 15+ of exp as IC but quickly become VP or C level if you show aptitude and the situation allows for it. And if you have success there, you have generalized management credibility.
Agreed with this, but only for traditional management track. Like if you want to be a CEO of a F500, you need to hop on the management track early and spend the time rising through the ranks. But there is more flexibility in startup world. In a small growing company you can have 15+ of exp as IC but quickly become VP or C level if you show aptitude and the situation allows for it. And if you have success there, you have generalized management credibility.
> Basically if you dont "hop" to management in the first 1-6 years into your career
I only recently became a manager. I'm somewhere around year 28 of my career, depending on how you want to count some early jobs.
It happens.
I only recently became a manager. I'm somewhere around year 28 of my career, depending on how you want to count some early jobs.
It happens.
Same, my friends got into management after 20+ years. I'm still trying to avoid it
I should have said, "It happens if you're not careful."
> They were never promoted or moved into management, because they were too highly compensated to make it work.
You're telling me these guys are making absolute shitloads of money doing what they are good at and you're saying it as if that's a bad thing.
Sign me up. If I wanted to manage I'd have a business degree, not a CS degree.
You're telling me these guys are making absolute shitloads of money doing what they are good at and you're saying it as if that's a bad thing.
Sign me up. If I wanted to manage I'd have a business degree, not a CS degree.
It is a bad thing from the companies perspective!
Here you have motivated , respected, talented individuals who wants to take all of the things they have learned and apply it to a broader set of things across the company. They are literally asking to provide more value to the company by broadening the scope of their influence.
For a crappy sports analogy, its like never letting the MVP become a coach.
Here you have motivated , respected, talented individuals who wants to take all of the things they have learned and apply it to a broader set of things across the company. They are literally asking to provide more value to the company by broadening the scope of their influence.
For a crappy sports analogy, its like never letting the MVP become a coach.
You really think making Lionel Messi or Christiano Ronaldo coaches would be a better use of their talents than having them play?
There's a reason athletes only become coaches after their prime. Once they can no longer be superstars on the field, they can try to pass on some knowledge to the next generation.
I don't really see how taking deep knowledge of stuff like databases and webservers and applying it to "broader sets of things" is useful. That's like taking rocket science knowledge and applying it to cooking. Sure, you may find some use for some stuff but the vast majority of your knowledge is just wasted now, it isn't being "applied to a broader set of things". It's just deteriorating.
There's a reason athletes only become coaches after their prime. Once they can no longer be superstars on the field, they can try to pass on some knowledge to the next generation.
I don't really see how taking deep knowledge of stuff like databases and webservers and applying it to "broader sets of things" is useful. That's like taking rocket science knowledge and applying it to cooking. Sure, you may find some use for some stuff but the vast majority of your knowledge is just wasted now, it isn't being "applied to a broader set of things". It's just deteriorating.
Yes, you are exactly correct, MVP athletes (aka IC8s) CAN become coaches in their post-prime life. For a 20+ year developer, this is rarely possible.
Broader set of things != Different things.
So you don't think that moving a Distinguished NASA engineer with an illustrious 25 year career into management is a good idea? They arent moving fields, just positions within their field. Your cooking analogy doesn't apply.
The case example of this working well is Boeing, which was ran (top to bottom) mostly by engineers for a while.
Broader set of things != Different things.
So you don't think that moving a Distinguished NASA engineer with an illustrious 25 year career into management is a good idea? They arent moving fields, just positions within their field. Your cooking analogy doesn't apply.
The case example of this working well is Boeing, which was ran (top to bottom) mostly by engineers for a while.
[deleted]
>If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable.
That is not my experience. FAANG pays significantly more for the same level of management.
That is not my experience. FAANG pays significantly more for the same level of management.
FAANG does pay more, perhaps should I have made the point differently. Perhaps what I meant was:
TC for mid-level manager/director at FAANG = TC for high level manager/VP/C-suite in non-FAANG
TC for maxx level IC in FAANG = Doesn't exist!
The ceiling for manager is higher and is actually possible, whereas you will literally never make an IC8 TC as an IC outside of FAANG, no matter what.
TC for mid-level manager/director at FAANG = TC for high level manager/VP/C-suite in non-FAANG
TC for maxx level IC in FAANG = Doesn't exist!
The ceiling for manager is higher and is actually possible, whereas you will literally never make an IC8 TC as an IC outside of FAANG, no matter what.
This is true in my experience. But it is a feature, not a bug.
FAANGs, and SV more generally, have figured out how to leverage the effort of top-quality engineers to create tremendous business value. This is reflected in the performance of these stocks in the public market.
Other parts of the economy do not have the need for such high levels of technical skills. They simply don't know what to do with it! Hence they cannot pay ICs as high either.
We will eventually get to a point where few engineers, controlling larger number of computers, can produce significant business value. IC salaries will rise then.
FAANGs, and SV more generally, have figured out how to leverage the effort of top-quality engineers to create tremendous business value. This is reflected in the performance of these stocks in the public market.
Other parts of the economy do not have the need for such high levels of technical skills. They simply don't know what to do with it! Hence they cannot pay ICs as high either.
We will eventually get to a point where few engineers, controlling larger number of computers, can produce significant business value. IC salaries will rise then.
That's definitely the case at my company. To get to the same pay grade that even mediocre managers get promoted to by default, an IC basically has to walk on water.
It's a supply/demand issue. There are piles of ambitious engineers who want to be staff+, and not that many instances where it's needed.
Contrary to popular narratives, management outside the c-suite is a mostly a thankless grind with no glory. Getting competent people to do it requires some major incentives, and every team, at every level, requires management.
Contrary to popular narratives, management outside the c-suite is a mostly a thankless grind with no glory. Getting competent people to do it requires some major incentives, and every team, at every level, requires management.
This has been the exact opposite of my experience.
There is an endless availability of engineers who can push JSON to an API, but people who can lead a team, handle cross team comms, architect, and code the hard problems are fairly rare. This is why they command salaries comparable to specialist doctors.
Meanwhile, MBAs are an endless resource, given that that and Law School are the default for people who haven't figured out what they want to do in undergrad.
There is an endless availability of engineers who can push JSON to an API, but people who can lead a team, handle cross team comms, architect, and code the hard problems are fairly rare. This is why they command salaries comparable to specialist doctors.
Meanwhile, MBAs are an endless resource, given that that and Law School are the default for people who haven't figured out what they want to do in undergrad.
The thing is though, most of the time you really do just need to push JSON to API. Your average non-tech company doesn't need hardcore grizzled IC veteran who can code hard problems and architect. They would rather just hire a good manager, an architect, and some mid level people to muddle through. Hyperscale is not a widespread need outside of FAANG.
A competent manager of a software team or org should also be able to do all the things you mention for ICs minus the coding part while also inspiring, leading, people managing. Hiring an MBA to lead/manage a software product group and engineers without those capabilities is asking for sub par results.
> Contrary to popular narratives, management outside the c-suite is a mostly a thankless grind with no glory.
I would be thrilled to take on my VP or SVP's "thankless grind" for just 25% of their salary. There are probably many more like me lined up, too.
I would be thrilled to take on my VP or SVP's "thankless grind" for just 25% of their salary. There are probably many more like me lined up, too.
" you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role"
Isn't this sort of the point? It's not a matter of respect so much as impact. Having say director level impact as an IC requires working on the right sorts of problems, at the right sorts of scale, in an organization that is structured to take advantage of it. It shouldn't really be surprising that this doesn't describe most positions.
Isn't this sort of the point? It's not a matter of respect so much as impact. Having say director level impact as an IC requires working on the right sorts of problems, at the right sorts of scale, in an organization that is structured to take advantage of it. It shouldn't really be surprising that this doesn't describe most positions.
[disclamer: I'm at Shopify and haven't read the post.]
I agree with that, but my experience has been on the flip-side. At other companies when I get beyond staff level I've been expected to manage people, when my strength is on the technical side. Being able to lead technically and elevate the tech level of teams is more effective and rewarding for me. There are other ways to force-multiply without being a chain-of-communication person:
> Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.
I agree with that, but my experience has been on the flip-side. At other companies when I get beyond staff level I've been expected to manage people, when my strength is on the technical side. Being able to lead technically and elevate the tech level of teams is more effective and rewarding for me. There are other ways to force-multiply without being a chain-of-communication person:
> Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.
> Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.
This is the key statement. People don't like to hear this, but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult to move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level IC. There are people who can pull this off, but the number of people who believe they can are orders of magnitude different than those who actually can.
For almost all people, all paths to be worth the lofty title involve being able to have an indirect influence on a larger sphere of influence as their hands on keyboard results only go so far. And however one wants to slice it, these paths start to sound like the types of things that people say they don't want to do when they decry "management". Influencing people, politics, mentorship, building trust & alignment, etc.
Leadership roles provide a clear path forward for this, but while there are other ways they tend to still get poopoo'd by the "I just want to code!" crowd.
Mind you, there's nothing wrong with "I just want to code!", I'm currently in such a phase myself. One just needs to be realistic about what that means for their progression.
This is the key statement. People don't like to hear this, but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult to move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level IC. There are people who can pull this off, but the number of people who believe they can are orders of magnitude different than those who actually can.
For almost all people, all paths to be worth the lofty title involve being able to have an indirect influence on a larger sphere of influence as their hands on keyboard results only go so far. And however one wants to slice it, these paths start to sound like the types of things that people say they don't want to do when they decry "management". Influencing people, politics, mentorship, building trust & alignment, etc.
Leadership roles provide a clear path forward for this, but while there are other ways they tend to still get poopoo'd by the "I just want to code!" crowd.
Mind you, there's nothing wrong with "I just want to code!", I'm currently in such a phase myself. One just needs to be realistic about what that means for their progression.
You seem to be conflating IC with coding. I spend so little time on the keyboard that I couldn't even learn a new keyboard layout without extra typing practice. The most value I provide is in guiding the shape of emerging projects, as well as technical alignment with other projects and long-term directions in parts of the platform. None of that is 'coding'. If my hands are on the keyboard, it's for technical communication. Having people report to me isn't going to make be better at providing this kind of input.
Yes. This is the main thrust of my point.
If you spend enough time in threads on this topic here, you'll see people popping up complaining that there's no IC path forward without taking time away from coding and requiring building good soft skills.
What I was getting at is that with few exceptions, no such path exists.
You're 100% right that one doesn't need to go into leadership roles, and definitely not management roles, to get there. But one's hands on keyboard contributions will top out at some point and the only way to move the needle further is to do something else on top of that.
I personally separate the concepts of leadership and people management. So to me, most paths forward start to enter the sphere of "leadership" one way or another. But this is just nomenclature, YMMV.
If you spend enough time in threads on this topic here, you'll see people popping up complaining that there's no IC path forward without taking time away from coding and requiring building good soft skills.
What I was getting at is that with few exceptions, no such path exists.
You're 100% right that one doesn't need to go into leadership roles, and definitely not management roles, to get there. But one's hands on keyboard contributions will top out at some point and the only way to move the needle further is to do something else on top of that.
I personally separate the concepts of leadership and people management. So to me, most paths forward start to enter the sphere of "leadership" one way or another. But this is just nomenclature, YMMV.
We might be in agreement but certain phrases like "I just want to code" detract from it. Technical leadership doesn't need to manage people, but soft skills are still valuable. This can be done in an IC role.
> What I was getting at is that with few exceptions, no such path exists.
What I believe the post to be about is what such an exception could look like as a model for other orgs.
> What I was getting at is that with few exceptions, no such path exists.
What I believe the post to be about is what such an exception could look like as a model for other orgs.
> but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult to move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level IC.
I think this is entirely dependent on industry and company size/stage.
Anything from a well funded startup to a high-growth pre-IPO "unicorn" will likely gain much more from a very senior engineer than from a "leadership" hire.
An existing fortune 500? Yeah you're probably right.
I think this is entirely dependent on industry and company size/stage.
Anything from a well funded startup to a high-growth pre-IPO "unicorn" will likely gain much more from a very senior engineer than from a "leadership" hire.
An existing fortune 500? Yeah you're probably right.
I'm more talking about personal growth, not hiring someone fresh. As an IC, it becomes hard for people to move the needle further and further *unless* they start taking on more interpersonal responsibilities.
Even for hiring in the circumstances you describe, I don't think you're wrong per se. But there aren't many situations or people where I'd prefer someone who just wants to sit in a corner and code vs someone who can do all the other stuff at a high level too.
Even for hiring in the circumstances you describe, I don't think you're wrong per se. But there aren't many situations or people where I'd prefer someone who just wants to sit in a corner and code vs someone who can do all the other stuff at a high level too.
I can see that. You get to flex a particular skillset which isn't rewarded elsewhere, so for you, it's a positive. You could think of the "IC track" terminating in this kind of role, which is pretty cool. I do think some people may not realize by choosing this path they are locking themselves in to industries where this role is needed or rewarded. It's not quite as generalizable or broadly recognized as "management". So steer clear if you think you may not want this for the long term.
> If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable.
You think if you're an L8 manager at Google, you're going to get hired at some ecom hotdog startup and not take a MASSIVE pay cut?
You think if you're an L8 manager at Google, you're going to get hired at some ecom hotdog startup and not take a MASSIVE pay cut?
OTOH, does any company outside of Big/Medium Tech have the work and compensation available to take advantage of an IC8?
The reason for this is that the skills of an IC at that level are simply not needed at most companies outside of ones that have pure tech as their differentiator. What would a consulting body shop do with a rockstar engineer who invented a programming language or scaled a database to a load previously considered unachievable or created a new industry-standard cryptographic algorithm? A manager who can work a team of 5 junior-mid level engineers to the bone to meet an arbitrary client deadline with "good enough" work is a lot more valuable.
> Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.
This doesn't make sense to me. How? If I'm really fucking good with software development, how does it make sense to have me do something other than software development? If we were talking about tech lead or architect type positions I'd be in agreement, but what force are you multiplying otherwise?
The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men. I don't see how a good developer is any better at any of that than some random person you pull off the street and I'd go as far as saying the dev is wasted in such a role. Grab someone with a business degree or some other bullshit who wants to do this stuff. Even the people who used to be devs quickly lose touch with the dev role once they transition to management.
This doesn't make sense to me. How? If I'm really fucking good with software development, how does it make sense to have me do something other than software development? If we were talking about tech lead or architect type positions I'd be in agreement, but what force are you multiplying otherwise?
The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men. I don't see how a good developer is any better at any of that than some random person you pull off the street and I'd go as far as saying the dev is wasted in such a role. Grab someone with a business degree or some other bullshit who wants to do this stuff. Even the people who used to be devs quickly lose touch with the dev role once they transition to management.
> The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men.
Removing distractions and time-sucks from the engineers is a force multiplication though.
Removing distractions and time-sucks from the engineers is a force multiplication though.
Not of the developer's force. He has a hugely valuable skill and it's just deteriorating while he isn't using it to create value.
Like I just said in the message you responded to, anyone can do that role. It doesn't have to be a dev.
Like I just said in the message you responded to, anyone can do that role. It doesn't have to be a dev.
>The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men.
The goal of engineers at a company is not to write code but to generate some type of business value. Making engineers more efficient at generating business value by understanding client needs or coordinating across departments is force multiplication.
The goal of engineers at a company is not to write code but to generate some type of business value. Making engineers more efficient at generating business value by understanding client needs or coordinating across departments is force multiplication.
> The problem with dedicated IC career paths are that they aren't respected outside of core tech companies.
I think it's not about FAANG vs tech vs other sectors. It's about blow-out growth vs no growth. An IC has great value only when a company needs her to build something that directly impacts the top line. Otherwise, an IC is just a cog in giant machine. Of course, some ICs are so good that they can create opportunities in a well-established organization, but they are exceptions.
I think it's not about FAANG vs tech vs other sectors. It's about blow-out growth vs no growth. An IC has great value only when a company needs her to build something that directly impacts the top line. Otherwise, an IC is just a cog in giant machine. Of course, some ICs are so good that they can create opportunities in a well-established organization, but they are exceptions.
I'm curious what percentage of tech managers at FAANG were IC8 prior to becoming managers
That's easy. Its 0.00001%
[deleted]
Interesting discussion. Every tech company I know of has a career path for engineers who don't want to get into management (with roles like staff, senior staff, principal, distinguished engineer, technical fellow etc.) and so you can keep progressing basically indefinitely as an IC. I have never seen this done on the product side, however. After a point every product manager has to start to focus on people management to get ahead, which undoubtedly has a negative effect on the product itself. I wonder if more companies will start following this approach for non-technical roles as well.
It's also missing from the marketing side of the house. I've jumped between technical marketing (being an expert on the software we sell) and marketing technology (being an expert in the tools we use to power our marketing stack). In both types of roles, I've found it difficult to find career progression without a move into management. So I guess now I'm in middle management, and struggling with this for helping my own employees along their career paths.
There sadly doesn't seem to be much appetite for finding parity with the product engineering side of the house, even when the work is quite similar. A principal architect is a principal architect, whether the systems they are tying together are Istio and Redis and Kubernetes or Salesforce and Marketo and Tableau. A Senior Developer is a Senior Developer whether the code they're writing is for our product or for the backend of our CMS.
There sadly doesn't seem to be much appetite for finding parity with the product engineering side of the house, even when the work is quite similar. A principal architect is a principal architect, whether the systems they are tying together are Istio and Redis and Kubernetes or Salesforce and Marketo and Tableau. A Senior Developer is a Senior Developer whether the code they're writing is for our product or for the backend of our CMS.
I agree this is a big issue. I liked the article written by Ken Norton about this issue (in Product Management) at https://www.bringthedonuts.com/essays/dual-product-managemen...
I have seen a "Principal" Product Manager role at some companies I have worked at, but the Distinguished Product Manager level role is not one that I have seen in practice unfortunately.
I have seen a "Principal" Product Manager role at some companies I have worked at, but the Distinguished Product Manager level role is not one that I have seen in practice unfortunately.
This is my experience as well. In most companies I've worked at (non-FAANG) the product team just isn't really large enough to support a more variable career chart. You have 8-10 PMs. You promote 1 to manager and another to principal. So does the one manager have 9 reports? You end up with a strange org chart where some director's at facilitating work, and others are doing more strategic stuff. Ultimately some manager is going to be over burdened with days full of 1:1's and that's it.
Interested in hearing other's experience with this!
Interested in hearing other's experience with this!
Peter principle?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
I work for a global top 100 and while I can’t vouch for every department, ours offers product progression. Senior, Lead, etc. It’s relatively new.
As with all of these cute little corporate things that always fail, Microsoft Already Did It.
Many meeting rooms at Microsoft were, at one point, installed with devices that showed the cost of a meeting based on the titles of the people attending. It was abandoned for several reasons, one of which being that more junior folks ended up even more intimidated by senior-level folks than before.
They won't go on a PR blitz about it like they are now, but Shopify will stop this practice sooner or later, too. Nothing unique or interesting to see here.
Many meeting rooms at Microsoft were, at one point, installed with devices that showed the cost of a meeting based on the titles of the people attending. It was abandoned for several reasons, one of which being that more junior folks ended up even more intimidated by senior-level folks than before.
They won't go on a PR blitz about it like they are now, but Shopify will stop this practice sooner or later, too. Nothing unique or interesting to see here.
Silicon valley has benefited from a doubling of workers every x years for decades as the importance of software in the economy kept increasing.
In that environment, it's important to push smart people toward management to be able to keep scaling the company.
But clearly everyone in the economy cannot develop software. So if we start slowing down the employee growth within SV, it's completely rational to stop pushing smart people into management, and perhaps even pulling them out of management. Non-manager career paths are a way to indicate to smart people they should be spending their time here.
Finance is an industry to look at as an example of one where plenty of money can be made by ICs. There must be others as well.
In that environment, it's important to push smart people toward management to be able to keep scaling the company.
But clearly everyone in the economy cannot develop software. So if we start slowing down the employee growth within SV, it's completely rational to stop pushing smart people into management, and perhaps even pulling them out of management. Non-manager career paths are a way to indicate to smart people they should be spending their time here.
Finance is an industry to look at as an example of one where plenty of money can be made by ICs. There must be others as well.
> it's important to push smart people toward management to be able to keep scaling the company
nonsense.
Apple is a perfect counterexample of your assertion. (disclaimer: worked there for years with an excellent role and what you said was then countercultural, in our engineering world at least).
nonsense.
Apple is a perfect counterexample of your assertion. (disclaimer: worked there for years with an excellent role and what you said was then countercultural, in our engineering world at least).
I also agree it's non-sense. Some people are just not cut out to be a manager. Some people would just not enjoy being a manager if they were not not cutout for it. To expand on your Apple example, the Woz just wanted to be an engineer making things. Without trying to compare myself to Woz, but I too would rather just keep working on making things rather than managing people making things.
Agreed. Many of us were like that while i was there. And such was encouraged as entirely strategically fine.
Apple headcount has increased from 37k in 2010 to 164k in 2022. Are you saying they only hire managers externally, they have dozens of reports per manager, or they prefer to push median employees into management instead of the best?
Can only speak to my engineering division, so im not saying anything you asked.
I’d like you to imagine a place where people are not pushed but where what they pull themselves towards is acknowledged.
Because that fits how the engineering division i enjoyed and in which i and most others flourished was run.
Because that fits how the engineering division i enjoyed and in which i and most others flourished was run.
Agreed, I know plenty of highly competent technical people whose skills are utterly essential who I would not trust to run a doggie daycare. Technical skills and people skills are orthogonal to some degree.
Apple is a counter example in that it is not an academy company, it is more like the company where you have your last job once you idealize your craft skills.
As someone who had my first job at Apple (years ago), I can't think of a single reading of this that makes sense and lines up with my experience.
I think in the general case this makes sense. Most people at Apple did not start their career at Apple. They probably got a significant amount of experience before joining Apple.
"We don’t over-index on OKRs. Many important things can’t be measured and not everything that can be measured is important."
Can't agree enough.
Can't agree enough.
It seems like you don't want to argue endlessly over if a project is 65% complete or 70% complete? Here's a "needs improvement" rating for you. /s
Notice how the rating is negative for corporate BS and not for actual service/product.
Notice how the rating is negative for corporate BS and not for actual service/product.
Expect many more such posts and changes after many companies including Shopify shot themselves in the foot by conducting engineering layoffs.
None of the engineers were affected. Many were quickly absorbed by other companies who always had dearth of talent
I don't trust Shopify to do this properly and forever. This will be like Covid WFH. Once the tide recede companies will be back to what they are
None of the engineers were affected. Many were quickly absorbed by other companies who always had dearth of talent
I don't trust Shopify to do this properly and forever. This will be like Covid WFH. Once the tide recede companies will be back to what they are
Tobi announced an AI chat assistant for Shopify merchants today. The breathless video did little to mask that this was released in the wake of laying off thousands of talented people who have gone to work elsewhere in the ecommerce space. While I do think it's fair to say they overhired prior to that, it also seems like they're falling into a pattern of over-correction. I'm sure they'll weather it long-term, but they're going to skid around a lot in the mean time.
Bad layoffs are extremely costly. More costly than bad hires. Shopify and others signalled to everyone that they are replaceable at the onset of a recession. The people who stayed have seen the blood.
How likely is it that the people who were not laid off will stay if economy enters a boom cycle? Not very likely. This article is a tongue in cheek admittance that they messed up. IC tracks being prioritised because people who contribute to product development in a growing tech company are much more valuable than managers.
In the coming years many managers will be forcefully moved to IC tracks and will be laid off if they aren't keeping their builder chops up to date. We have seen this happening at Meta.
How likely is it that the people who were not laid off will stay if economy enters a boom cycle? Not very likely. This article is a tongue in cheek admittance that they messed up. IC tracks being prioritised because people who contribute to product development in a growing tech company are much more valuable than managers.
In the coming years many managers will be forcefully moved to IC tracks and will be laid off if they aren't keeping their builder chops up to date. We have seen this happening at Meta.
This is a re-invention of the wheel. Many companies in the past had non-managerial career paths for technical people, and for some reason this fact, along with many other things, becomes "an innovation" by the current generation.
Did it ever go anywhere? I think it just takes a company of a certain size to be able to have a (formal, with some kind of written scope or responsibility anyway) IC track.
Imagine a little start-up with a 'Distinguished Engineer' and slew of Principals and Staffs, it'd seem a bit weird wouldn't it? Even if they distinguished themselves elsewhere. Maybe it's just me.
Imagine a little start-up with a 'Distinguished Engineer' and slew of Principals and Staffs, it'd seem a bit weird wouldn't it? Even if they distinguished themselves elsewhere. Maybe it's just me.
> it'd seem a bit weird wouldn't it?
No weirder than a little young startup with a CEO, a CTO, a CMO, etc. etc.
Titles in general aren't that meaningful without context, no?
No weirder than a little young startup with a CEO, a CTO, a CMO, etc. etc.
Titles in general aren't that meaningful without context, no?
I suppose, but it does need some top-level leadership, and those (vs 'head of' or whatever) are reflective of legal structure.
Have you ever seen/heard of one with a DE? My starting point was that it basically/presumably doesn't happen - 'imagine' - and that it would seem weird if it did. If it is fina and normal as you suggest then ok, it is just me (as I said it might be), and I haven't come across it.
Have you ever seen/heard of one with a DE? My starting point was that it basically/presumably doesn't happen - 'imagine' - and that it would seem weird if it did. If it is fina and normal as you suggest then ok, it is just me (as I said it might be), and I haven't come across it.
Of course it needs some leadership, but the multiple "C" levels are mostly just about ego management, very little to do with day-to-day or scope, in practice.
Hell you don't need any C levels at all. The legal structure doesn't require it, corporate directors is not tied to title ... there are few things that have to exist, and it's mostly about who can sign contracts that bind your company.
Fundraising is probably easier if you go out as "CEO" just because expectations are met, but that's a separate issue.
Hell you don't need any C levels at all. The legal structure doesn't require it, corporate directors is not tied to title ... there are few things that have to exist, and it's mostly about who can sign contracts that bind your company.
Fundraising is probably easier if you go out as "CEO" just because expectations are met, but that's a separate issue.
The question is whether one path is more attractive than the other.
Definitely, but the point is that technical people shouldn't feel like they need to take the managerial route to "get ahead". In the same vein, managers should become managers because they are good at managing people and not because they are the smartest people in the room.
That is what I mean by attractive; whether one path gets you ahead significantly better than the other. Otherwise people will flock to the attractive path, leading to a worse overall outcome for the organization.
It's a bit like making sure the characters in a game are balanced so the game "works".
It's a bit like making sure the characters in a game are balanced so the game "works".
I guess it depends on what you mean by "getting you ahead". It takes a mature and confident organization to implement this type of strategy for sure and allowing people, who are not managers, to make some of the strategic decisions.
Not GP but isn't it obvious? Compensation, future prospects.
If managers are paid more you're putting a price on how much someone has to dislike managing people or prefer spending their time ICing for someone else. I don't think many people will pay much (in opportunity cost) for that.
And probably more significant than the initial bump for many is when they're looking for the next job elsewhere, and can say 'led a team of x many' vs. not.
If managers are paid more you're putting a price on how much someone has to dislike managing people or prefer spending their time ICing for someone else. I don't think many people will pay much (in opportunity cost) for that.
And probably more significant than the initial bump for many is when they're looking for the next job elsewhere, and can say 'led a team of x many' vs. not.
"technical people shouldn't feel like they need to take the managerial route to "get ahead". "
In most companies that's definitely the case. You can make way more as a mediocre manager than as an outstanding IC.
In most companies that's definitely the case. You can make way more as a mediocre manager than as an outstanding IC.
Does "get ahead" mean only salary level?
Most technical people I've met who bemoan the "fact" that they would make more at their company as a manager (mediocre or otherwise) would also have the option of moving companies and/or industries to a technical role that pays better. And yet, they don't. Mostly because it turns out the preference isn't just about $$, but about all the other factors (I don't want to move, I don't want to work on X, I only want to work on Y, it's too big, it's too small, they don't give enough holiday, whatever).
So what it really comes down to is that they disagree with the company about how it values their relative contributions. Which is obviously fine, but do you really think the average IC has the data or experience to evaluate this well? Many of the rants I've heard along these lines were pretty naive about the business.
Most technical people I've met who bemoan the "fact" that they would make more at their company as a manager (mediocre or otherwise) would also have the option of moving companies and/or industries to a technical role that pays better. And yet, they don't. Mostly because it turns out the preference isn't just about $$, but about all the other factors (I don't want to move, I don't want to work on X, I only want to work on Y, it's too big, it's too small, they don't give enough holiday, whatever).
So what it really comes down to is that they disagree with the company about how it values their relative contributions. Which is obviously fine, but do you really think the average IC has the data or experience to evaluate this well? Many of the rants I've heard along these lines were pretty naive about the business.
Great stuff!
Now maybe one of these engineers that “love” to build “great” products could take a look at the “great” Shopify PHP SDK [1], where no issue or feedback is ever answered and the developers who use it (and who are actually promoting Shopify by using their API) are left in the dirt to fend for themselves.
[1]https://github.com/Shopify/shopify-api-php
Now maybe one of these engineers that “love” to build “great” products could take a look at the “great” Shopify PHP SDK [1], where no issue or feedback is ever answered and the developers who use it (and who are actually promoting Shopify by using their API) are left in the dirt to fend for themselves.
[1]https://github.com/Shopify/shopify-api-php
Shopify doesn't have the best developer relations across the board, not just their API packages. Advice I've gotten from others who have maintained Shopify integrations long term recommend that you use their GraphQL or REST APIs directly and build your own client.
I know people at this company. The Slack channel purge coupled with a move to Facebook Workplace to "shake up productivity" was disastrous for most productivity during the month of January.
They did it right after the holidays too — when many employees are just reacquainting themselves with channels and comms again.
Despite some wisdom in the idea of promoting crafters over meetings this isn't some genius mantra of productivity. It was just poor systems neglected by the company being cleaned up in the dumbest way possible. A poor management sandwich.
They did it right after the holidays too — when many employees are just reacquainting themselves with channels and comms again.
Despite some wisdom in the idea of promoting crafters over meetings this isn't some genius mantra of productivity. It was just poor systems neglected by the company being cleaned up in the dumbest way possible. A poor management sandwich.
I worked at a small company with about 50 employees where self-organizing teams was the norm in tech departments. It was comprised of mostly senior developers and researchers though so they mostly were able to avoid rabbit-holes themselves and prioritize as needed. I don't think such teams have shown to work in bigger companies though. Does anyone else also have insight or experience with self-organizing teams?
A former company I worked for was what I call "intentionally disorganized": other than high-level direction, management was completely hands-off, and everyone was expected to self-organize and manage their own work, typically among loosely-organized teams with no formal accountability.
Some people seemed to thrive there, but for me it was a devastatingly bad fit. My ADHD (clinically diagnosed) certainly played a major part in this. With everything being up to the individual, it was too easy for me to get caught up in all the myriad things a proper org structure provides, but that I had to do myself: prioritization, assistance with career growth, feedback loops, and the like. Everything was a struggle, and I was ineffective to the point that I was fired.
Some people seemed to thrive there, but for me it was a devastatingly bad fit. My ADHD (clinically diagnosed) certainly played a major part in this. With everything being up to the individual, it was too easy for me to get caught up in all the myriad things a proper org structure provides, but that I had to do myself: prioritization, assistance with career growth, feedback loops, and the like. Everything was a struggle, and I was ineffective to the point that I was fired.
As much as we like to decry middle management in tech, this is the purpose, in my opinion, of good middle management. They should be the API between a self-organizing team and the broader organization. They're a glue layer that helps preserve team autonomy in a context where cooperation and coordination have become more important.
What constituted organization; what did the team look like and do before and after?
> At Shopify, our primary job is to build products, not career ladders.
If only my company understood this, we would spend so less time on optics. Managers would be rated on their ability to build products rather than on generating "short-term impact" documents for optics.
Engineers these days are asked to spend far too much time documenting their work for optics than on the actual work itself. This comes from a place of career-ladder managers who don't really know anything about the business except people management. These management practices are an incredible overhead on the business.
If only my company understood this, we would spend so less time on optics. Managers would be rated on their ability to build products rather than on generating "short-term impact" documents for optics.
Engineers these days are asked to spend far too much time documenting their work for optics than on the actual work itself. This comes from a place of career-ladder managers who don't really know anything about the business except people management. These management practices are an incredible overhead on the business.
Netflix did this right: they had no ladder for as long as possible and outsourced raises to the market ("bring an offer and we'll match it").
I'd love to hear the perspective of current or former employees of Netflix.
At some point, they decided that an IC career ladder was important and instituted it. Management always had a ladder so that's not new.
What changed?
At some point, they decided that an IC career ladder was important and instituted it. Management always had a ladder so that's not new.
What changed?
Netflix outgrew its one-size-fits-all solution. Here are the details:
https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/netflix-levels/
https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/netflix-levels/
They replaced some meetings with async written communication and decision making. What is that? It sounds a lot like sending emails. I'm not sure that having to follow and respond to email chains or async communication chains on whatever medium was chosen is inherently more cost effective or less intrusive to creators than meetings. The only measurement mentioned was a reduction in the number of meeting, so I'm not sure they really do either.
> I'm not sure that having to follow and respond to email chains or async communication chains on whatever medium was chosen is inherently more cost effective or less intrusive to creators than meetings.
Async is 100% more efficient and cost effective. You can skim/ignore the content that is irrelevant to you. You can set aside the time that is most efficient for you to work through it. No one has to slice their day according to what is least inconvenient for the group at large.
Async is 100% more efficient and cost effective. You can skim/ignore the content that is irrelevant to you. You can set aside the time that is most efficient for you to work through it. No one has to slice their day according to what is least inconvenient for the group at large.
> Async is 100% more efficient and cost effective. You can skim/ignore the content that is irrelevant to you. You can set aside the time that is most efficient for you to work through it. No one has to slice their day according to what is least inconvenient for the group at large.
I find it hard to believe that optimizing for the individual vs the group is obviously 100% more efficient and cost effective when what really matters is the overall results of the group.
I find it hard to believe that optimizing for the individual vs the group is obviously 100% more efficient and cost effective when what really matters is the overall results of the group.
The overall results of the group are just the sum of results of the individuals. The more efficient the individuals are, the better the results of the group.
And that's not even getting in to things like individuals' happiness and the results of turnover.
And that's not even getting in to things like individuals' happiness and the results of turnover.
> The overall results of the group are just the sum of results of the individuals.
The overall result of the group is not just a straight sum of the results of the individuals.
The overall result of the group is not just a straight sum of the results of the individuals.
[deleted]
With async media you empower recipients with managing their own time. Now they can reduce distractions, work when they want, and respond when they want. It is clear to me that this leads to better work and I have not seen anyone dispute this. The question is whether the activity that used to take place in meetings suffers more than the actual work improves. I doubt it. Most meetings are inefficient; not all participants are needed all of the time. I would default to no meeting and schedule one if there is a consensus that it would be better.
> It is clear to me that this leads to better work and I have not seen anyone dispute this.
I dispute it. There now you know someone that disputes it, so show me some evidence I'm wrong.
I dispute it. There now you know someone that disputes it, so show me some evidence I'm wrong.
Productivity went up sharply in the pandemic, for starters: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
It's axiomatic that people can work more efficiently when they have fewer interruptions and more power over their schedules. There are many studies on this. One by Gloria Mark et al. found that it took around 25 minutes for individuals to regain their focus after an interruption or context switch.
http://blog.idonethis.com/distractions-at-work
It's axiomatic that people can work more efficiently when they have fewer interruptions and more power over their schedules. There are many studies on this. One by Gloria Mark et al. found that it took around 25 minutes for individuals to regain their focus after an interruption or context switch.
http://blog.idonethis.com/distractions-at-work
I don't have any evidence but neither do you. Then again I'm not the one that stated something was clear and undisputed when really it is just an opinion.
I'm not sure how increased productivity during the pandemic correlates to measuring the impacted of increased async communications vs meetings. I had a whole lot of meetings while working remote. They just occured via Teams, Zoom, Google Meeting, etc instead of in person.
I'm not sure how increased productivity during the pandemic correlates to measuring the impacted of increased async communications vs meetings. I had a whole lot of meetings while working remote. They just occured via Teams, Zoom, Google Meeting, etc instead of in person.
"At Shopify, our approach to product reviews is different. "
Ah yes, apparently the only thing every single company I've ever worked for has in common is that each and every one is a special snowflake.
From his perspective: they have dual career ladders, PMs iterate over the same product for longer periods of time, driven by close customer feedback. What company doesn't say they do this?
Ah yes, apparently the only thing every single company I've ever worked for has in common is that each and every one is a special snowflake.
From his perspective: they have dual career ladders, PMs iterate over the same product for longer periods of time, driven by close customer feedback. What company doesn't say they do this?
I’d like to see some stats on slack usage, Google docs activity, and jira ticket activity (or their equivalents) before and after this shift.
Basically: does this just mean that everything is migrating to written form? If so, is that good?
Basically: does this just mean that everything is migrating to written form? If so, is that good?
> We built an operating system called GSD (get shit done). This internal tool emphasizes frequent written updates...
Operating system .... Those words don't mean what you think they mean.
Operating system .... Those words don't mean what you think they mean.
my conjecture is that coders are the new managers - because the new workers are CPUs and GPUs.
Prior to 2000s ish you needed people to do most tasks manually. Software has eaten enough of the world that most (middle class middle world) jobs are automated or can be.
And so you have a league of coders organising the work of the compmay on CPUs and then a layer of legacy managers who can't or don't code trying to work out how to pull levers they cannot see anymore.
Prior to 2000s ish you needed people to do most tasks manually. Software has eaten enough of the world that most (middle class middle world) jobs are automated or can be.
And so you have a league of coders organising the work of the compmay on CPUs and then a layer of legacy managers who can't or don't code trying to work out how to pull levers they cannot see anymore.
That doesn’t connect with my (FAANG) experience. The best managers are highly technical regardless of current code output.
But the best managers aren't what we are talking about. Or rather, what is the point of management - to organise resources to achieve organisational objectives.
Resources are now CPUs. A farm that bought a thousand tractors and combine harvesters but still tried to have the same manual labourer management practises, hiring, compensation would struggle.
We are seeing old labour practises trying to meet a world where one coder can launch and co-ordinate thousands or hundreds thousands of CPUs globally.
There is a management impedance mismatch
Resources are now CPUs. A farm that bought a thousand tractors and combine harvesters but still tried to have the same manual labourer management practises, hiring, compensation would struggle.
We are seeing old labour practises trying to meet a world where one coder can launch and co-ordinate thousands or hundreds thousands of CPUs globally.
There is a management impedance mismatch
I'm guessing you're under 30
Hilariously above 30. way above.
Why the guess? What makes young people think management is mostly wasted space but not older people?
Why the guess? What makes young people think management is mostly wasted space but not older people?
the phrase "are automated or can be" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and the pure-opinion portion "or can be" is doing about 99% of that heavy lifting
put tersely, they aren't, and can't be in the relevantly immediate future, so the optimistic take might have been misconstrued as youth (since such optimism on average tends to decrease with age, in my experience)
it's a good premise for a sci-fi novel at the moment
put tersely, they aren't, and can't be in the relevantly immediate future, so the optimistic take might have been misconstrued as youth (since such optimism on average tends to decrease with age, in my experience)
it's a good premise for a sci-fi novel at the moment
I’m curious how many opportunities the IC path has to lead and conduct “managerial” duties. I’m sure it varies by company, but I’d like to believe it’s like how most research teams operate - leaders lead and organize meetings when necessary, but they are primarily responsible for the research at the end of the day.
I’ve only been a low level IC, so I don’t know what it looks like. Anyone care to share their experience?
I’ve only been a low level IC, so I don’t know what it looks like. Anyone care to share their experience?
My experience as a staff-level IC is that I end up doing a lot of project management, scoping, resource allocation, interacting & negotiating with business stakeholders, and defining & delegating work items. I meet often with my actual EM and work with him on strategic team direction. I still code but quite a bit less than as a senior IC, instead doing more oversight, review, and direction-setting across all the team's projects and work.
But I don't have to do the real people management stuff like perf reviews, dealing with personal issues, hiring/firing, reporting to the execs/board, etc.
I have some previous "real" management experience from a prior job but I noped out of it for staff+ IC, for now.
But I don't have to do the real people management stuff like perf reviews, dealing with personal issues, hiring/firing, reporting to the execs/board, etc.
I have some previous "real" management experience from a prior job but I noped out of it for staff+ IC, for now.
"elevated the non-manager career path"
This is misleading.
They opened up the doors to move up as Product Manager without needing to manage others. In other words MBA's and not the highly technical people (engineers - which is much harder to do). This isn't hard to do and shouldn't be treated as some significant accomplishment.
This is misleading.
They opened up the doors to move up as Product Manager without needing to manage others. In other words MBA's and not the highly technical people (engineers - which is much harder to do). This isn't hard to do and shouldn't be treated as some significant accomplishment.
What is the policy for ad hoc huddles? If I’m spending more than 20% of my attention on a message thread, then I’m not being a productive programmer. At that point I just want to pick up the phone and talk to people (but not hang around and chat forever).
That's just a personality thing isn't it? I'd generally rather thrash it out over text, have the written record to refer to and point others at.
I'm not doing anything else either way, so a call doesn't help that.
I'm not doing anything else either way, so a call doesn't help that.
It is. And my question is that - given that it is a personality thing - how is Shopify dealing with it?
> We built an operating system called GSD (get shit done). This internal tool emphasizes frequent written updates, which are much easier to digest than constant meetings
Curious what this mean/what this actually looks like
Curious what this mean/what this actually looks like
Sounds to me like a Slack bot (or whatever they use) that prompts you to provide an update to a couple of questions, like a text-based 'stand-up', at a scheduled time or manually triggered.
But I may just be overfitting to my own experience with something like that (not at Shopify) and don't know why that couldn't just be Jira (or whatever) comments. To have a more product-oriented than ticket-micro-managing view perhaps?
But I may just be overfitting to my own experience with something like that (not at Shopify) and don't know why that couldn't just be Jira (or whatever) comments. To have a more product-oriented than ticket-micro-managing view perhaps?
It's nothing too fancy. A Rails app with some text boxes and nice styling.
I can say that both of these things have long been true (Shopify occasionally killing meetings and handing an IC leadership path). Not sure why all the sudden we keep seeing these headlines.
Couldn't you use the calendar as a salary lookup tool here?
I feel overdue to apply. Love Ruby, RSpec, and the utility of Rails.
When they released the library that let namespaces explicitly control their public and private interface, I had my good OO sensors tingle.
I've gone from worse to better in the companies I've worked with but I really feel the blast doors closing on the promise of ten years ago. There was a time when there was a real effort at engineering for the sake of the engineer and user. The window seems to close day by day.
So, maybe Shopify and 37Signals can be the last stand in a way Fog Creek, and many others could not.
When they released the library that let namespaces explicitly control their public and private interface, I had my good OO sensors tingle.
I've gone from worse to better in the companies I've worked with but I really feel the blast doors closing on the promise of ten years ago. There was a time when there was a real effort at engineering for the sake of the engineer and user. The window seems to close day by day.
So, maybe Shopify and 37Signals can be the last stand in a way Fog Creek, and many others could not.
[deleted]
Does anyone know how they extended the Google Calendar interface to show the cost of the meeting?
Probably Chrome extension, as the browser is managed by the company, they can basically extend it with anything they want.
I'd like to make an HN grassroots proposal... that people impose a moratorium period on indulging a company's PR attempts to sell their enlightened management culture, right after something like that.
Layoffs looks like either a huge fudge-up that screws employees, or screwing employees as a greedy or dumb business move.
In neither scenario is it in the interests of the hiring pool to pretend it didn't happen.