So, you want to become an Engineering Manager?(mckerlie.com)
mckerlie.com
So, you want to become an Engineering Manager?
https://mckerlie.com/posts/you-want-to-be-an-engineering-manager/
16 comments
Moved to manager track ~2 years ago from IC, and from what I have seen, yes. Mangers typically make a bit more than the equivalent IC role. The pay bands are slightly higher, so you probably make ~5-20% more for the same "level" as a manager than you do as an IC.
exactly!!
No one ever seems to be answer this question. You are agreeing to work for less if you choose to stay IC. Thats the truth.
No one ever seems to be answer this question. You are agreeing to work for less if you choose to stay IC. Thats the truth.
In a lot of newer tech companies it's more of a lateral move at the senior level (e.g. SE3 == EM1). I've worked at a few companies now where I've managed engineers who make more than I do.
It's a different set of skills, you're specializing in people vs code. Companies that stack management on top of IC are basically forcing their best engineers to either go into management or leave for a company that doesn't do this.
It's a different set of skills, you're specializing in people vs code. Companies that stack management on top of IC are basically forcing their best engineers to either go into management or leave for a company that doesn't do this.
> In a lot of newer tech companies it's more of a lateral move at the senior level
Not really. FAANGs - and few more - have been doing for a time longer than I know of. https://qr.ae/pv58mp
> Companies that stack management on top of IC are basically forcing their best engineers to either go into management or leave for a company that doesn't do this. Again, not really! Amazon does stack rank and they can't afford to force out their best engineers. I'm aware their culture is demanding and that's purpose built, but that does not imply what you are saying. Check their levels here - https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries/software-en...
Not really. FAANGs - and few more - have been doing for a time longer than I know of. https://qr.ae/pv58mp
> Companies that stack management on top of IC are basically forcing their best engineers to either go into management or leave for a company that doesn't do this. Again, not really! Amazon does stack rank and they can't afford to force out their best engineers. I'm aware their culture is demanding and that's purpose built, but that does not imply what you are saying. Check their levels here - https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries/software-en...
>Not really. FAANGs - and few more - have been doing for a time longer than I know of.
I work at a faang and managers at the same level make more more money, you can easily confirm this on levels.fyi.
I work at a faang and managers at the same level make more more money, you can easily confirm this on levels.fyi.
Doesn't amazon also have an IC track (with Principal level) and Engineering Managers?
> Don't most engineering managers get paid more than most IC engineers? Doesn't the move to management progress all the way to the C-suite? If so, then how is moving to management a lateral move?
> Don't most engineering managers get paid more than most IC engineers? Nope, about the same if not less!
> Doesn't the move to management progress all the way to the C-suite? Also the IC part can take you there (Managers have a hard time becoming CTOs)
> If so, then how is moving to management a lateral move? Because it's a different role (in most companies) and there's no direct connection between technical level and people management
> Don't most engineering managers get paid more than most IC engineers? Nope, about the same if not less!
> Doesn't the move to management progress all the way to the C-suite? Also the IC part can take you there (Managers have a hard time becoming CTOs)
> If so, then how is moving to management a lateral move? Because it's a different role (in most companies) and there's no direct connection between technical level and people management
A lot of departments in faang now just have engineering managers and leads, they outsource 90% of the day-to-day dev/grunt work to sub-contractors.
I'm a senior, don't want to be a lead, perhaps this is something for me because I like helping developers but I dislike dealing with stakeholders. Thanks
I'm a senior, don't want to be a lead, perhaps this is something for me because I like helping developers but I dislike dealing with stakeholders. Thanks
That's interesting. Any particular company that does this?
You can see it's quite prevalent:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-20/contra...
In my experience they operate with 100s of external partners. You will find a Faang engineering team with maybe 1-3 internal devs, and 5-10 sub-contracted.
It's a bit frustrating because you're expected to do same level engineering work for maybe 1/2 or 1/3 of the pay.
In my experience they operate with 100s of external partners. You will find a Faang engineering team with maybe 1-3 internal devs, and 5-10 sub-contracted.
It's a bit frustrating because you're expected to do same level engineering work for maybe 1/2 or 1/3 of the pay.
That's not about SW devs, more about data entry / dataset labeling / "turkers".
I did saw something that you described long time ago at a multinational company, where the employees were mostly managers and team leads, and most devs were contractors. But they gradually moved to a model were they have R&D centers in a lower cost regions were the developers are hired as local employees.
Advantages of hiring SW devs/engineers as contractors at big public companies:
1. they can be hired and fired with the short notice (elasticity)
2. the HR process is less scrupulous and/or bureaucratic (since it's not a permanent position)
3. usually contractors are still can be hired, even when there is a freeze on hiring new employees
4. it can be treated as a trial period for potential new employees
5. most contractors (i.e. those hired via agency, not self-employed) see employee status as a coveted promotion
6. public companies don't count contractors as employees but as service providers, so Revenue-per-employee / Profit-per-employee will be much higher
I did saw something that you described long time ago at a multinational company, where the employees were mostly managers and team leads, and most devs were contractors. But they gradually moved to a model were they have R&D centers in a lower cost regions were the developers are hired as local employees.
Advantages of hiring SW devs/engineers as contractors at big public companies:
1. they can be hired and fired with the short notice (elasticity)
2. the HR process is less scrupulous and/or bureaucratic (since it's not a permanent position)
3. usually contractors are still can be hired, even when there is a freeze on hiring new employees
4. it can be treated as a trial period for potential new employees
5. most contractors (i.e. those hired via agency, not self-employed) see employee status as a coveted promotion
6. public companies don't count contractors as employees but as service providers, so Revenue-per-employee / Profit-per-employee will be much higher
> elasticity
these are human beings you're talking about.
> most contractors (i.e. those hired via agency, not self-employed) see employee status as a coveted promotion
there are non-hire agreements between vendor and the clients.
whatever kind of euphemistic spin people want to put on it, it's a form of exploitation.
these are human beings you're talking about.
> most contractors (i.e. those hired via agency, not self-employed) see employee status as a coveted promotion
there are non-hire agreements between vendor and the clients.
whatever kind of euphemistic spin people want to put on it, it's a form of exploitation.
> these are human beings you're talking about.
I know, I was a contractor, and I think I'm mostly human being.
> there are non-hire agreements between vendor and the clients.
Large companies have a lot of leverage on agencies supplying contractors (I myself run one in the past). They dictate the margins and after which period they can hire the people supplied by the agencies. I think it's about the same cost as paying a headhunter.
As a rule usually the larger company dictates the contract terms to the smaller one.
I know, I was a contractor, and I think I'm mostly human being.
> there are non-hire agreements between vendor and the clients.
Large companies have a lot of leverage on agencies supplying contractors (I myself run one in the past). They dictate the margins and after which period they can hire the people supplied by the agencies. I think it's about the same cost as paying a headhunter.
As a rule usually the larger company dictates the contract terms to the smaller one.
The decision log is good for reflection, but as a mechanism it seems prone to luck. Maybe situations are more repeatable than I assume, though.
Don't most engineering managers get paid more than most IC engineers? Doesn't the move to management progress all the way to the C-suite? If so, then how is moving to management a lateral move?