> Unlike virtually every other function in a software company, engineers — particularly the good ones — don’t want to move up. This means that the people who want the engineering manager role are unlikely to be very good at it; and those who could be good at it don’t want anything to do with it at all.
There's a huge assumption here -- that the best engineering managers used to be engineers, namely these "unicorns" who went from "wanting to be great engineer" to "wanting to be great engineering manager".
The trouble is that even if great engineer moves up, his work will require zero engineering work. Few years later he is just another formerly great engineer out of touch with superficial ideas about current practices.
I have seen that happen with programmers that moved to pure architect positions or to pure management. Just a few year later (2-3) and they start to have naive and idealized idea about programming and development process.
All I can say is that I have numerous counterexamples of awesome engineering managers. These are people who understand software and hardware, understand how to solve problems, and understand the motivations, desires, needs, and lifestyles of the people on their team.
Not sure how to reconcile with the article, except to say "my experience differs drastically".
At IMVU, we matrix "technical leadership" separate from "coaching and HR" separate from "product definition and projects."
It lets different people focus on what they're best at.
Coercive and "Pace-Setting" styles of leadership are not sustainable. They are tools to be used in specific situations but as a way of life contribute to a work environment with much less effective outcomes and high turnover. (reference: http://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results/ar/1)
I can't help but wonder if this type of attitude is what leads to cultures that are hostile to women and people of color.
6 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 26.1 ms ] threadThis is an awesome article and resonates with me.
That's not the only path.
I have seen that happen with programmers that moved to pure architect positions or to pure management. Just a few year later (2-3) and they start to have naive and idealized idea about programming and development process.
Not sure how to reconcile with the article, except to say "my experience differs drastically".
Coercive and "Pace-Setting" styles of leadership are not sustainable. They are tools to be used in specific situations but as a way of life contribute to a work environment with much less effective outcomes and high turnover. (reference: http://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results/ar/1)
I can't help but wonder if this type of attitude is what leads to cultures that are hostile to women and people of color.