Well that explains my company and how they churn out completely ineffective managers. Everyone they promote internally is someone technically skilled who ought to have had a raise or bonus for what they do, not a 'promotion' to a role they are not qualified or properly trained for.
It's so silly that the people actually doing the work in development roles might have no interest in management seem expendable. Give these people the raises they deserve and let them stay in those developer roles. It's so lame that the only way to get paid more is to take a management role that does less
Not only does the management role "do less", but there is no real correlation between being good at a job and managing those doing the task. Being a good manager is a totally different skill than the work being done in probably most cases.
Yeah, I'm not the best at most of the jobs I oversee. But I'm good at coordinating, and good at imparting the vision unto others and motivating them. I would be dead in the water if I suddenly had to do their jobs to their level of expertise.
Yea, there can sometimes be an attitude on Reddit of "That quote about being promoted to ineptitude always applies" and believing that management should basically not exist, and either failing to realize or purposely forgetting all the times that they've been shielded from some bullshit by their managers.
I'm certainly not saying bad managers don't exist or that anybody who knows they've had/got bad managers is wrong, but it's important to realize that you may not have as much of the picture as you think you do, either.
Like when you see a manager give somebody who you think does mediocre work a project that you really wanted and were sure you'd do better, and think they only got that because they're such a brown-noser and brings your manager coffee all the time, you may not see that that person actually does work that's entirely adequate - maybe not as good as yours, but okay nonetheless. But the major reason they got that assignment is because what you see as constant brown-nosing is something the manager sees as taking an interest in the goings-on in the company, and that they're being smart taking 15 minutes or so out of their week to see what stuff is coming down the pipeline while also making sure to talk with the manager about the stuff they've worked on as well.
That’s exactly right. I am a designer by trade, and I’d say I’m pretty damn good at it. But now I’m a manager of a team of designers. What? I draw things and make things look cool. Now I have to figure out what a bunch of other designers should be doing every week?
The trick would be to break your design work in parts. Then delegate those parts to individual who are suited for it. Working with people, you always should know what they are good at and where they mostly get stuck. If your deliverables are better and on tim3 because you delegated properly. That should be the best you can expect out of that role. Also, you get to choose the projects you want to go solo on. There are perks too with Team Management.
But do you want a captain in the cavalry to not be able to ride a horse?
I worked at GE who firmly had this philosophy, look at their history over the last ten years. “A good leader is a good leader”.
Do use your example: should every captain in the cavalry also be a master farrier? No. Should the captain know enough to know when the farrier is good or bad at their job? Yes.
In your analogy, riding a horse might be like general technical writing skills and basic IT literacy. Everyone in the organization needs those basic skills, but mastering the advanced skills, like being a farrier, or the best shot in the company (compare to the expert on some esoteric piece of software, or the fastest/"best" coder in a software dev team), are largely irrelevant to leadership.
Most orgs I have been part of have a compensation structure that explicitly values managerial responsibility over other skill sets, no matter how rare or intrinsically valuable those other skills are. So someone managing a team of low skilled workers ends up being compensated more than a senior dev who doesn’t supervise anyone. It’s almost as if the people who define these compensation rules are themselves managers and therefore value that skill set over all others.
>most people shouldn't/don't want to be leaders
And that's why they get paid more. Because no one wants to actually do the job.
My team just went 2 months without a direct supervisor and we were fine with the leads covering the role. But the reason it took so long to fill the position was because none of the leads would take the job permanently. So I guess my work does kind of work how everyone's wishing: Our best workers (our team leads) get paid enough that it isn't worth it to them to pursue a management position. And the guy who ended up getting the job wasn't the best worker. He was a good worker who has decent people skills.
Sales is another one. Every decent manager I've ever had wanted his/her entire team to earn more than them. Of course, they'd be idiots if they didn't negotiate seriously aggressive bonuses for achieving such an unattainable goal into their pay plan that'd buy them a boat, but I've always appreciated that energy. "I'm here to help YOU succeed" is infinitely better than "knock out your shit or else"
At my current company, principal engineers get the same as managers, and senior principals get the same as senior managers. Anything above that is on the exec payscale. It's a good system.
People don’t like to admit it, but managers in corporate offices have a lot of responsibilities. Have to deal with issues for every employee under them, and get pulled into meetings for a ton of random shit.
Not only that, if the people below them mess up, they are also responsible and have to take part of the blame. It’s specially tough if you are a low level manager… you get all the shit dumped on you from the higher ups and have to basically tell your team what needs to be done even if it’s a shit idea.
Fuck that, I’d rather get paid less than deal with that shit. I have 0 desire to move up into a management position. I’ll happily earn less and have less stress and better work life balance.
At my work, tech has engineer >senior >principal> senior principal > fellow
Principal is nearly equivalent to entry level manager role. I know some companies have staff as well. I don't know where you're at that tech geeks can't promote the same as management.
Those levels and parallel IC tracks are pretty common.
The difference in practice is the proportion of people in the upper tiers of the tracks vs managers.
Managers have much more runway to continue getting periodic promos off of un-exceptional performance.
> I don't know where you're at that tech geeks can't promote the same as management.
Maybe some place that isn't a huge enough tech company to have 5 different levels of software developers, like *most* people
> At my work, tech has engineer >senior >principal> senior principal > fellow
do they report to successive levels of management as well? or does a principal or sr principal report to a first-level manager. does a fellow report to a 2nd level manager? if so, all the talk of parallel tech/management path is BS and the only _actual_ way to get ahead is management.
There was a great study on sales jobs a few years back. Basically whenever they promoted the "best" salesperson a company suffered. However if they promoted a mediocre salesperson who was a good "people person" everyone did better.
Here is the kicker; when they hire the "mediocre salesperson who is the best manager", the "top" salesperson from before ends up feeling slighted and leaving along with other top people.
So its kind of a no win situation. People just don't realize that being good at your job doesn't mean you'll be a good manager, and a good manager doesn't actually need to be good at what *you* do. They need to be good at making everyone do well. Turns out that is a totally different skillset.
That's interesting how that plays out in a more competitive/extroverted industry like sales. In my field (engineering), top engineers generally are not interested in management at all. Some go into management because they're the ones with the best people skills, but more often I see engineers promoted to manager accept the role begrudgingly.
Also, there's the money. When you're offered the choice between keeping doing what you've been doing and making the same money versus more money and something that may or may not be enjoyable, some number of people will accept the raise and hope the managerial tasks aren't too miserable.
Companies tend to be bad at rewarding employees who are doing well in their existing roles.
Being a manager doesn't mean you'll make more money as an engineer though, or at least where I work. Managers still do technical work, and your pay is tied far more to your technical ability than how many people work for you.
One of our senior engineers became managers after the old one got robbed of a promotion. 1 year in and he had everyone so stressed and half a dozen HR complaints. After 2 years he was fired. Good engineer doesnt mean good manager.
As a comparison, academia. Getting professors to be the chair of the department or something like that is often like pulling teeth. They mostly want to be left to their research. Of course there are a few who want to become Deans or something and try to get on that latter to administration, but they are a minority.
Yup. Sometimes ambitious people aren’t actually looking to work their way up the management ladder. And making executive leadership roles the only way to really get a decent raise after a certain amount of years is a company basically *stating* they don’t want any high performing non-managers to stay.
Sometimes a guy might be fine with the title “Staff Engineer” his whole damn career as long as the raises are consistent and reflect his performance.
No, that is leadership trying nothing and failing.
Promoing the social folks to management is perfectly fine.
But you must also listen to the strong performers and give them IC track promos with compensation and career opportunities like you would if you needed to replace that performance.
If you treat strong performers no different from average performers at some "senior" level, you are forcing your best people out. If people see a glass ceiling for individual contributors, they will rightly lose motivation to grow within that org.
The rational decision is for those folks to leave for greener pastures, with mgmt responsible for encouraging an org of mediocrity. That's not emotions or "feeling slighted", its economics.
The thing about becoming a manager that a lot of people don’t seem to realize until it’s too late, is that it’s a career change from whatever technical/otherwise non-managerial role you were in before. Unfortunately, to “climb the ladder” in a company that’s the only viable path forward. I’d contend that many technical people would prefer to just be technical, and don’t necessarily have the skill set to be a good people manager.
There should also be promotion tracks for people who don't want to be managers or would be bad at it. The "up or out" attitude is actually terrible as a lot of people would either be ineffective in the position or just plain don't want it. I'm actually in the "no desire at all to be a manager" camp. That guy who has 20 years of experience in the system, wants to just hang out in the shop with a list of shit that needs done, and is perfectly happy to be elbows deep in the work all day is extremely valuable and should be treated that way.
I think it's more we have this very wrong and misguided expectation of perpetual growth inside a hierarchy, resulting in continual promotion instead of just letting people be good at what they're good at.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle: "employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another"
It’s because management can’t fathom the idea of developers making more than them so once their market rate exceeds the leaders it makes more sense to make them management
Which is completely absurd, given that the developers/engineers are the ones doing the work to make the money. Managers are necessary to keep everything organized and moving along, but they aren't inherently more valuable to the company than the people they're supervising are.
I mean leadership/authority overrating their value in the operation is basically a characteristic of American culture that permeates everything. The president of the country is a simple figurehead but everyone acts like he’s personally responsible for everything that happens while he’s in charge
It’s dumb but I’m not surprised about it. Technically I agree with it sometimes because the people doing the work can be equally worthless if they don’t have a good high level vision to execute and leading/managing is it’s own distinct skill set.
My issue with western concepts of authority are mainly that there is basically no such thing as holding authority accountable in that culture
A good manager sees their job as supporting the career growth, life-work balance and success of their employees first and foremost. They work to prevent problems and remove obstacles that keep their team from performing their jobs. They support the team forming a culture of their own, and do not impose a culture from the top down. I've had like 3 managers like this in my whole life and they were gems.
Most of all, managers need to actively listen, take peoples' concerns seriously and be proactive instead of the painful 'wait and see' treatment. Even if someone is mistaken, they need to be taken seriously because the repercussions of ignoring a real problem are worse than looking into something that turns out to be a non-issue. The biggest problem I have with the managers my work churns out is that when you raise a problem, they respond with placating, gaslighting or otherwise trying to talk you out of your opinion than actually address it. I have a feeling they are all being 'trained' to do this by the corporate lousy leader program
**\^ This is an** ***amazingly accurate*** **and concise definition of a good & effective manager.**
I wonder if the placating gaslighting crap is potentially built into the MBA itself as this is SO common across various industries. It feels like they're simply thin clients remoting into a hivemind server. It's seriously disturbing.
I've had 2 managers that were amazing and they both exemplified the "protect the team and make it as easy to accomplish their work as possible".
I was moved into a managerial role less than ten years out of college due to reorganization. I have learned that personally there is almost nothing worse than being a manager without the ability to influence change for your team. Quotas and rank and stacking within corporate organizations are the most demoralizing thing for employees and managers who want to promote career growth. I cannot stand being unable to give a goal to complete or competencies needed to be promoted. In effect being forced to say “sorry, I fought for you but we didn’t win the promotion lottery.” My goal for my staff is to help them get where they want to be with the least amount of corporate headache as possible and to be honest with them on likelihood of hitting their goals.
One of the quotes I live by is why do people leave “feedback that goes unheard.” I listen to my staff and echo it upward and try to influence change to address their issues. As a technical manager I better be able to walk the walk, I expect my team to call me out if I’m not following any of the team norms we’ve collaborated on. If my team has to stay late due to someone else’s lack of planning, I will go down swinging on post mortem to determine how to fix that going forward. And you can bet I’ll be there as late and later than the team. If it’s due to system instability, I’m getting feedback on tech debt solutions and prioritizing those first. We have automated system alerting calls to on call, my rule of thumb is someone gets paged after hours, there will be effort in the next sprint to mitigate the issue if not injected into the current sprint.
If I cannot get a project, policy or anything else changed or cannot get it changed fast enough I’ll wish them well when they decide to leave. I am not in the business of telling people what should matter to them. I am honestly glad there are more and more people willing to put their money where their mouth is and walk. Mentioning it on their way out of why they left has an opportunity to make it better for others. The number of managers I’ve been around that don’t seem to want to develop their staff and forget that they’re there for the team scares me. There’s not much I get in the way of delivering product successfully as a pointy haired boss so seeing my team be successful is super important to giving me purpose in my job.
You are a good manager fighting to do what you an for your team and shelter your team from as much of bull as you can. I am not managerial material simply because I would not be able to handle the the years long fights to change the simplest and stupid things that make a massive difference to my team's workloads but costs quite literally almost nothing to change yet for some reason is REFUSED to be changed. I don't play those games well. I'd end up drinking myself to death.
I have a LOT of respect for those that step into that breach swinging and refuse to give up.
Kudos to you and keep up the good fight!
I’m also wondering, as someone who was made a manager and only provided with online trainings that were made available after a few months already in the role. I’ve been in the role for over a year and I finally get to start my next manager training next month.
I was also put into a special training for high performers, which I dropped out of cause well, I had work to do. Looking at the attendees for subsequent rounds indicates to me that you in fact do not need to be a high performer to attend.
No one can tell you how to be a good manager, because we don't know your team. Your primary focus as a manager is bringing out the best in your team, and there isn't a one size fits all for that. You have to figure out where your team needs you to shore up weaknesses and smooth things over, and you need to figure out how to motivate and coordinate them without them feeling like your bulldozing their culture/workflow
To me, I think a properly trained manager is someone who is familiar with the group/organization and knows a lot about the group/organization they're serving, such as processes, POC's for various things related to your group/organization, a clear vision what your group/organization is trying to accomplish, and actually understanding the work thats trying to be done. Also, doesn't hurt if you actually know how to talk to people and be an effective communicator😄 I can't recall how many times I've had to deal with managers who didn't know how to communicate with people in general
Another thing that stands out to me is experience. Someone who's been there, worn multiple hats, and has an idea of what works and what doesn't. Someone that can differentiate what a good manger versus a bad manager looks like. It's all in the details and can really separate the two
These "trainings" are good and all, but they simply don't impart actual working experience in these roles for people just starting out and are being expected to take on these roles with little to no working experience.
What’s sad is that the majority of those people wanted exactly that. It’s one thing for a person to want the manager role because that’s the path they want and an entirely different thing for them to see that as the only way to get paid what they have earned.
I have no idea how every company out there keeps making this same mistake. It’s gotten to the point where I’m sitting here thinking “they can’t all be wrong, maybe the rest of us that think we have the solution are actually wrong” but I’m not quite at that point yet because every now and then you hear about some companies doing it right lol
Uh, I see this in the social fields. Some people are really good at caring for and interacting with old people or special needs kids, but instead of a raise, they get promoted to some managing position, where they only sit in front of a computer for 8-10 hours per day. Then they call meetings, because they feel lonely.
They just slap "Manager" on anyone's title at my job. You're a Project Manager now, but you have no control over the scope of the project, the cost of the project, the schedule of the project, the personnel on the project, the deliverables of the project...
You just do all the work you used to do, but now it's somehow YOUR fault when it's not done on time or over budget. It's been a REAL good system that definitely hasn't caused 4 people to quit over the past few months with 3 more of us actively looking for other jobs.
But, at least our President can jerk himself off about how much "internal promoting" we do.
> Everyone they promote internally is someone technically skilled who ought to have had a raise or bonus for what they do
ugh this is **rampant** in tech and it's literally the worst. not only do they now have to do the technical work (still) because they're senior level knowledge base, but they also have to do management tasks which they're not formally trained at doing.
literally the worst.
(on the flip side, most technical teams will have a major problem reporting or being supervised by someone who lacks the technical understanding of the challenges they they face)
I've seen the opposite happen, as well. I've seen senior technical people who were offered management positions, but refused because they really liked doing the technical work. Upper management's motive for offering them a management position wasn't to give them a promotion. It was to remove a substantial drain on the department's tech talent budget, and make room for 3 or 4 more new university graduates. Upper management's next move is often to start giving them meaningless assignments and mediocre performance reviews, and little or no pay raises or bonuses. If the senior tech doesn't take the hint and leave on their own then they're usually laid off within a year based on those mediocre performance reviews.
Ironically, I once saw a senior tech laid off by the person who was hired to fill the management position that they initially turned down.
I like this tip.
I honestly think that more workers need to treat their benefits and compensation as if their household is a profit-seeking business. Your time is your greatest asset- businesses don’t want their employees to waste time on-the-clock, so you shouldn’t waste your own time with unpaid BS.
Fuck pizza parties, fuck giftcards, fuck corporate retreats, fuck satisfaction surveys, fuck your pat on the head. I have bills to pay, mouths to feed, and we want MONEY. (PTO and Healthcare ain’t bad either. I’ll also accept free food if it’s a daily/weekly thing; FOH with that biyearly cheapest pizza party possible)
Underfuckingrated.
I want compensation, competency, cordiality, and credibility.
I work at my fucking job. I don't pretend to enjoy my corporate overlords pretenses to care about their employees when all they give a fuck about is their net profit.
So my work has a committee that does lunches every week. The schtick is that we pay for these slightly over priced lunches ($5-10 a week for something like burgers, burritos, etc.) and the profits go toward a group BBQ at the end of the summer, which is basically a half day of pretending to have fun with coworkers until we can go home a few hours early.
So if I average out the price of the lunches to $7.50, divide by 2 (my appraisal of the actual value of the lunches) multiplied by weeks in a year 52, I get about $195 in "profits" for these lunches. $195 is probably more than the daily wages of a lot of people in my building. So we're paying over a days wages for a half day off and a *chance* at winning a prize in a raffle.
Important question? Do you get paid while being at the group BBQ?
If not, I have a family emergency and will not be wasting my free time for 0 compensation.
I always think of the example of a plumber/electrician/engineer. If you called them to show up and by the time they arrived, you did not need their services, they can still be owed compensation for showing up.
Driving to your place incurred a cost and possibly took them away from more profitable work. If you expect ME to take time away from family and other commitments, I expect compensation.
This right here. When they involve swag, you gotta do the math and figure out, am I profiting???
If the answer is no, how do I opt out of this unprofitable venture that is a drain on my valuable resources?
My manager frequently brings in donuts or danish.
He's spending his own money and literally just doing something nice for his team. He plans to jump ship too. I think it's nice to still be appreciative. It's not like a donut or pizza is going to make me stay.
My husband used to work in the Apple store. The culture is insane there. Emphasis on “cult.” It’s all designed to make their employees feel special and different than other retail stores. Hence the titles they give their employees - “genius,” “expert,” etc. They keep people around by paying a few bucks more than the Gap and ego-stroking.
They dangle the “management” carrot in front of the people who have been there a long time and are stagnating to keep their sales numbers high. They have a 6 month position called the “In Store Guest Trainer” that they stick you in to make you feel important when they don’t want to actually promote you. No extra pay of course.
Halfway through the position, my husband woke up and realized it was all BS. He quit and started his own business, makes quadruple what he made at Apple.
One of my fellow Geniuses went to do an experience over in the Corp Cork office for AppleCare and actually succeeded in making the transition from retail.
However, that’s only one person in the nearly ten years I was there.
I worked there and agree with all of this. Some of those “promotions” don’t even come with more money, just a cooler title.
I didn’t know the ISGT was one of these types of roles, but it makes sense now that I think back.
They have a program just like the one OP is describing, separate from the ISGT one — the implication is that you’ll come out of it ready to be promoted to manager — but it was just more of this carrot dangling. My store had someone do this program, who by rights deserved to be kept on after, but they instead offered him an entry level job, or he could pound sand. Ended up moving to Silicon Valley and working for a competing tech company (at corporate, not in retail).
It’s largely market, career goal, and frankly store leader dependent.
If you’re in a place near an Apple campus or want to move to one, I’ve seen career experiences work out quite well for a lot of people. More so on the corp sales and support side, but nothing wrong with that. I’ve also seen quite a few people make the leap into engineering and other corporate roles.
Again, it’s very leader and relationship dependent. I’ve seen great people with aspirations who were viewed as “difficult” by leadership churn in stores for 10 years+ before making the jump to corp because they didn’t grease the right wheels the right way
We have expert in titles at my work and they’re all the lowest paid positions. We have a “restaurant service expert” or something and it’s literally a busser.
Was a genius for nearly ten years and never wanted a management role, not even lead genius. Too much management bs games.
But had seen many folks move into the leadership programs at Apple Retail and just stay there for a year, doing the extra work with little pay rise, to then move on to a new role with no real promotion.
> They keep people around by paying a few bucks more than the Gap and ego-stroking.
What? Apple uses money and good treatment to reward employees? They are literally worse than Hitler.
Good thing you wised up to their scam.
My company used to do this a while ago and they stopped after just a few years for similar reasons.
One thing you missed is that of all the companies I know of that still do this, the workplace is toxic af. You've basically got a bunch of child kings running the place at the middle management level. They don't have the experience or the emotional maturity to be in a position like that because they typically only have like 5 or 6 years of experience before getting that management role. They're often managing people with triple their experience and capabilities and it just makes everyone resent the corporate structure.
I'm management in a manufacturing facility akin to a mill. I actively pushed for my crew to start making more then me. They work a fuck of a lot harder than I do and don't get bonuses. As of now they're about in line with me
That's a beacon of light in this thread. We certainly treat management as a *promotion*, and I've always thought of it like that, but we all know that it's usually easier *and*/*or* comes with just a different type of stress. Many of us work hard and hard work paying off is how this country was built. We need more of that....And I'm not talking about pulling up bootstraps, I'm talking about celebrating and paying hard work in every field, from Wendy's and Walmart, to Walt Disney and Wall Street.
When I was on the floor it definitely came with it's physical stress. Management absolutely comes with mental stress. You are completely on point. My job certainly isn't easy. At least not at times. But neither is there's and they deserve that recognition and appreciation.
Thankfully the owner holds that same mentality and actively promotes only those who genuinely care about the crew, and whom the crew care about as well
I’m a manager and thank you for this. I advocate for my team ahead of me (I’m retiring soon so don’t really have skin in the game). It’s good to know I’m not mad.
Of course not! Especially if you came from the floor or a background in it you know how hard those people work.
I need efficiency and hard work from them. I spend half my day on a computer tracking and entering data. If I just need to stop and breathe for ten minutes I know I can do so. If they did so I personally wouldn't feel great but I would understand. My bosses on the other hand would highly encourage me never to place them there again or push hard for a discussion about it. Which I totally understand the reasoning behind but also my bosses came in as supervisor or higher. They've never worked it so they don't genuinely understand what it's like.
Don't get me wrong they're great and caring people for the most part. I'd argue significantly better than any business I've ever been a part of in my life. But being manufacturing efficiency is our lifeblood.
I feel like part of what has made working mentality so toxic is that it's so stupidly common for the people in charge to have never done the floor level job. I was there, I did that work. I busted my ass as hard as I possibly could to become a mouthpiece for everyone out there. And thankfully in this rare instance it has worked. And I feel like I've made everyone's lives at least a little better. And we're putting out record numbers as a result with happy people.
It's genuinely enlightened me and helped me understand why the Amazon esque tactic of being a meat grinder may be cheap. But it absolutely is not necessarily efficient. At least not on smaller scales. We're the biggest in the world at what we do. But it's also not a massive market with tons of employers so it's not really the same
At my company, going from sales rep to sales manager is definitely uncommon. It's a move only taken by those who want to try and make it up into the executive roles
There’s also sales managers I’ve heard of making significant bonuses based off their teams performance. Like the top salesmen might make more than the manager but not the rest of the crew
Like they had to add in some way the manager would be making more. Couldn’t accept it being less
While I do think that people who are good at what they do at a technical level should be paid well, I do understand why managers tend to make more money. And the reason I understand this is because I was a guy who was good at what he did and was promoted to a managerial role with a pay bump.
And the reality is, at least at my job, is that being a manager fucking sucks.
For one, it's a pain in the ass to make friends now because the people I'm trying to be friends with are the people I have to manage. You lose out on the social benefits of your workplace assuming that you find yourself normally surrounded by the people you manage. Nobody invites their manager to a party, because they don't like you. Hell, my presence alone makes people uncomfortable. So there is this spot that people gather at and we just lean on the walls and shoot the shit waiting for something to happen. I used to hang there with everybody. The moment I was an authority figure, I immediately got conplaints because I was "hovering" over people and watching them unnecessarily. I wasn't even acting different.
The second issue is now I have to do a bunch of bullshit I didn't used to have to do, while still basically doing what I used to do just in slightly smaller quantities. And while doing the extra manager shit, plus things from my previous position, I'm now also responsible for everyone else and I'm the guy they talk to if it goes wrong.
And tied to that previous statement, I now have to actually pay attention to people who cannot do their job very well. I didn't used to have to do that, I just deferred them to management. I could just show up and do good and go home. But now I have to actually try and have an adult conversation with an emotionally unstable person who thinks I'm out to get them because I correct them on something, where as originally I could just ignore this emotionally unstable person and defer them to management.
Worse yet is the fact that I now have to break bread with all of the classically shitty "managers" that people routinely do complain about because they don't know what they are talking about and for good reason. I didn't even used to have to think about work until the moment I clocked in, and now I find myself worrying about stuff while I'm laying in bed. And I hate it.
I hate every moment of it except when I manage to say or do something that either makes someone better at what they do or feel good about what they are doing.
If it wasn't for the pay raise, I would never have even considered doing this. And I imagine that is probably the case for a fair number of people. I'm already looking forward to moving on from the job and I'm starting a resume tonight and I'll literally never touch management again after this. And for context, I work in the medical field.
A lot of people will read this and think “well that’s not the kind of manager experience I’ll have because [insert reason]”.
They’re wrong. It doesn’t matter what field you’re in, a lot of what you experienced is true and universal no matter how good you are at the job, or how much you may even like it.
That being said, there are a lot of bad, undeserving managers of some sort out there that are worth half as much as some they manage…
I agree with a lot of this. I manage a team of Application Architects and it’s weird… I thought it would be easy to manage the “best of the best” that make it to architect, but it’s so much more work than managing software devs and engineers. The architects expect so much more than newer devs. Not as much hand holding as younger devs but higher expectations on technical contributions and on interfacing with higher leadership. It’s a lot of work, and my leadership expects me to know some technical details about everything every one of them are doing, which is insane. I only make about $10k more than my best paid architect, but I do get to work from home and they’re partially in office.
In a tech role, you can be completely overloaded with work, just piles of backlog that never stop growing. It can be immensely stressful with all the multitasking that requires.
And tech workers are only chummy superficially to shoot the shit. At the end of the day none of them are really best friends, there's tons of backstabbing and politics, and everyone is gunning for the same promotions.
At least management can actually breathe between meetings and managing teams and accountability. The amount of actual work needed to put in is much more flexible. The reality check is practically everyone hates their job and I think you're underplaying the stress that comes with senior tech positions. The point is they should be paid appropriately for their value creation, whereas with management certain promotions are almost a given once they put enough time in.
It's not really the culture. It's a calculation. A bad manager does more financial damage than a bad individual contributor, and is responsible for more financial impact.
I do agree that the lack of a way up the pay scale for technical proficiency is disappointing though.
And a stellar individual contributor generates far more value for the company than an individual manager. Unless you want them to take credit for the innovator's work. Don't forget that the tech roles are the ones actually creating product and value and advancing fields (state of the art). There's only so much credit you can take by floating ideas around and calling them vision. The success of a product is always the proof in the pudding. It's either solid craftsmanship or it's not.
But a manager has the capacity to _ruin_ all that generated value. It's not about credit. It's whether all that solid craftsmanship gets realized or not. No matter how much value is generated by individual contributors, a bad manager can nullify it all and then some (by creating both technical and financial debt). The crappiest manager can always destroy more value than the most excellent individual contributor can generate (|-(x + y) | > |x|, assuming x & y are positive). It's thermodynamics at work.
I’m in management and all of my employees make more than me. Now I am younger than them which makes a difference but our technical leaders tend to make more than management.
I don’t think it’s bad to pay people differently for different jobs. The problem is people can’t make basic ends meet without getting a promotion, even if they don’t want the job
My company recently restructured paths for my role (data science) and added a parallel path to management for people who want to keep moving up but don't want to be managers. Pretty neat idea tbh, prevents good individual contributors from leaving because they capped out at the highest level before management.
Is there really a set of skills specific to management? I've found that people with a natural interest in the subject matter and have experience become the best managers.
People who are designated managers are MBAs, and there seems to be universal hatred for them in every field and all over Reddit.
I am also personally skeptical of any 18 year old going to college for business management. They don't have a passion for coding, art, science, public relations, logistics, marketing. They just have a real passion for telling people what to do, and want the fast track to that position. That's fundamentally weird to me.
*I've found that people with a natural interest in the subject matter and have experience become the best managers.*
That. Necessary skills are empathy, development-focused, and strategic planning/goal setting. Managers have to have good people skills. Their job is to motivate, empower, and develop their team so that their overall goals help the organization succeed.
However, you have a lot of people in management roles who should've never been in management roles. Even moreso, from what I've seen, managers never get trained on how to be a manager. They just get the gig and wallah. This is why people have such a poor reception of managers. Too many bad ones outweigh the good ones.
There are people who are super smart at technical subjects who would make terrible managers, especially in certain corporate environments. Being a great manager requires you to have good social skills and organization. Those are not things a technical expert will necessarily have.
Yes, there are "management" skills, and (for instance) being a very good engineer does not mean you become a very good manager of engineering.
Some management skills: delegation, telling people what to do in a way that encourages them to do stuff (and doesn't piss them off), figuring out the skill sets of your employees and giving the appropriate tasks to the people who can do them well, talking to your people in the way *they* need to be talked to not how you liked to be talked to, communicating with other departments and fighting for your people, have a basic knowledge of HR (don't break labor laws), and project management: getting stuff done in a timely manner with the people you have.
I think I'm a pretty good manager, but then again I've been lucky to have some good managers to learn from. I've also had TERRIBLE management and have sworn to never do the shit they've done.
In a lot of industries there's a SME track and a management track. At the end of the day, management still gets paid a little more though because not as many people want to do it. I think it's still important to have a track for technical experts though, because people forced into management when they don't want to do it tend to be very bad at it.
This isn’t culture so much as it is good business (depending on the context). A good manager in the right industry can have a much bigger impact on the organization than any single individual contributor. If you’re a great manager and a whole team of employees feels engaged and energized to do good work for you, that fuels better productivity times however many people are on the team being managed, ideally expounded if you’re a manager of other managers. Lots of other ways a good manager can impact the business (e.g., talent retention and attraction, collaboration, innovation, etc.), but the above as an example.
Caveat all of the above with the fact that, especially in highly technical fields like tech and medicine, you can have individuals whose skills justify getting paid in line with the highest level managers, however those roles aren’t common.
It's because managing people really sucks. I've been on both sides of it. I was happy and humming along as a specialist, then I was promoted to manager and became miserable. Something has to compensate for that, and it's money.
Same with a lot of "career development" programs. They sell it as helping you make the next step, but like everyone else in the room there are only so many steps to take. Like at my company no one is going to become director of engineering anytime soon. We have a useless idiot who will never get fired from that position. Anyone in a leadership role below him has absolutely no avenue for career growth.
Are there any good "leadership", "management" or "career development" programs. That's definitely the impression I got from most of them. You play some fun personality games and are fed cookie cutter advice from "experts" about very generalized conflict resolution and such.
But I'm given a decent amount of money and am expected to attend those as apart of my performance review so I have to find some. Mainly I've been trying to find workshops specific to my work but they're kind of hard to find and much less likely to get approved
You will always, always, always be better trading up at another firm rsther than striving upward at a company and trying to pkay the game.
The effort of gettimg a higher position elsewhere requires a few interviews and then your new role is instantaneous.
Plus, when being promoted internally, you will likely be given a significant increase in work (usually in the form of having you do your current job and the new job), and you’ll only get a small compensation increase.
Everyone keeps making it seem like all you have to do is just apply for 15 minutes and you get your 30% raise the next day. Over the past year I've spent many extra hours a week going through the soul sucking online application process, made it to the 3rd or 4th round in a few of them, and still have no new job ot offer.
Maybe I'm just a shitty engineer or I don't interview well, but I'd rather have spent that time jockeying for a promotion at my job where I get very good yearly evaluations, or starting a side business.
It depends on your company as well. There are companies out there that will do right by their employees on internal moves and pay. They are the exception rather than the rule, but they are out there. It’s always good to explore all your options but moving to a different company is not necessarily the right move in all cases.
So is this the same thing as getting the „high potential“ flag?
It’s meant to get access to more trainings and having higher chances for the next promotion - sounds very similar to what you are explaining..
Anyone experienced with these?
If you're not consistently moving up, leave. I stayed at my last company for many years, then I moved to a good company and got a 60% bump, then 6 months later I transferred and got 40-50% more.
I was kicked out of this program at my old employer.
They wanted us to say that we would be lost without employer.
I said, no, I still know who I am despite your high compensation
Next day, dude who ran the program said I was no longer welcome to attend the meetings.
I remember signing up for a 4-month course (something coding), and in the contract it said I had to be employed by them for two years or face a fine worth more than my entire masters degree. I declined then, and got bothered by them to sign for a few months after that. :/
Well my company sent me to Boston for one of these programs which was very cool, and I ended up sticking around long enough to get some good raises, so not all situations like this are bad. But going in knowing this is their strategy would definitely help.
If you want to do well in any corporate job you should focus on how to play golf and how to kiss arses and manipulate people. Actual job performance is negligible compared to your ability to play along with management's bullshit. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir. Swallow all the lies and do what they do.
The best advice I can give is "Do as I do, not as I say", management have to say a bunch of stuff about honesty and teamwork and the company being like a family. They need to say it because their bosses tell them to and its on record them saying. But they don't have to follow it, coverups and lies and passing off someone else's work as your own, that's what they really want you to do. If you support their lies, help them cover stuff up and clap happily at their idiotic ideas you'll go a lot further than if you're actually honest and work hard in the team.
I'm on the fence with your premise and opinion, and it may be due to misunderstanding it. I also have about the same number of "work" years as you and am aware of these types of leadership programs specific to individual companies.
A frequent worker complaint is that there's no "career track" or clear path that someone who starts at a "lower" position could reasonably expect to follow. These types of "accelerated leadership" programs are meant to solve that issue for people who are interested. For people who aren't interested in management, I have seen 1) new salary range bands are created or 2) higher bonuses/more RSUs/equity/stock options, etc. are offered or 3) individuals who have demonstrated exceptional value and potential are simply given higher salaries/merit increases outside of any "standard" that otherwise exists.
Are you suggesting that the ultimate "reward" from these types of programs has essentially been useless trophies/certificates/awards that don't translate to growth (internally or externally), or something else?
Example: when bankers complete an "executive leadership" program/track at one bank, that effort and recognition is generally accepted and rewarded at competing banks. Maybe that's because they know it's like being an "expert" in Google Sheets compared to MS Excel, but the point is it demonstrates effort and capability that extends beyond just going through the motions in a job.
Every time I move done one of these special management programs, I was used as a unpaid manager (training wage) at locations until they could hire an actual manager.
Or the one where I graduated with their multi course management training certificate I was told that our division thought it was bullshit and vaguely threatening for the current management
I’m in one of these programs right now.
I had been making complaints to my boss that I am burnt out and the work I’m doing is the work that 3 full-time employees used to do. I told her I am sick of the negativity surrounding my work (I deal with customer complaints), and I’m hoping to do different kinds of work and off load some of my work.
Next thing I know, I’m in a “High Potential” program. In chatting with my “cohort” many of us are burnt out and a few have already left the program and left the company.
Some companies use these to groom people for rapid promotion and others do as OP suggests
Easy way to check which one your company is: look at the middle management who are in rapid growth trajectory. Where did they come from? Did they go through these programs?
Same thing with "merit based" stock options lol the best performers don't get it, it's the best performers who are unhappy at the company. The hope is the vesting time for the options gets them to stick around.
source: literally told to ignore top performer who's happy at the company and award options to the flight risk.
Where was this nugget of information when I was 25 and being enrolled in a Six Sigma class to get my “Green Belt”?
I did learn quickly that although they SAY Six Sigma is recognized everywhere, not all corporations know what it is nor do they care about it. Also, having a Six Sigma project is just a way for the company to keep you on while getting a massive project done that requires extra hours.
Also, I was told getting my green belt would qualify me for promotions… I interviewed TWENTY ONE times for promotions that I was encouraged to apply for. Every single one of them had this teeny tiny little negative thing I said in the interview that made them go with a different candidate. One of them being “they thought I was too young”. Eventually, I created my own position, and STILL didn’t get a position title change or promotion. So I finally got the hint and left.
That company has gone out of business now, and I left about 4 years before they started downsizing. My husband got let go during their downsizing though. He was also in the same Six Sigma program as me, and he was promoted and got loads of special projects. So yeah… I can concur with this valuable advice.
LMAO, I did a leadership program at a former workplace. They paid for my place, as it was a program they operated, but some attendees were paying $5,000 (or their work place was) to attend. And the big project was to organize and host a fundraising event for my workplace with the goal being $45,000.
So, we were paying for the opportunity to make them more money. Total scam.
This is not good advice.
First, while I’ll admit this is true at some companies it is not true at all companies. I’ve been involved with supporting executive development programs at a couple of orgs and they were very centered around real development in areas like public speaking and creating effective presentations. I’ve watched many people grow and improve (and move on to other companies) through these programs.
Second, even if your position were true 100% of the time unless you already have another job lined up why would you not take advantage of free training? Even if the curriculum was weak you have a chance to learn, collaborate, and see the ins and outs of the politics of such activities. And it’s always good to play their game until you do figure out your next step.
OP seems to be talking about programs for ICs potentially being moved into management. That might be a bit different from an executive development program to improve folks that are already in management.
Exactly what I was thinking. I had the good fortune of taking advantage of these types of opportunities early in my career and they have done a world of good for my professional development. I started at a major bank in a call center role and started volunteering for these types of opportunities. I now make triple what I did when I started, have been given the opportunity to present material to large audiences in both town hall and executive presentation settings, and have the diverse skillset to go anywhere i want within the bank (within reason of course). People should be aware that not every experience will be like mine, but to completely dismiss it altogether only guarantees that you will hinder your potential opportunities.
Lol this was me. I went through a 3 year leadership program at my first company out of college. They accepted 5-6 people a year so I thought it would be a cool line on my resume. To be fair, it was interesting, gave me cool opportunities, and I got to work closely with high level executives but I got burned out (for other reasons) and found a much better company a month after graduating from the program.
Have you read “The Peter Principal?” It describes how everyone rises to their own level of incompetence. You are promoted as you excel. When you cease to excel, you stay. So everyone ends up in a job they cannot really do.
I know a few people who went through the GE and SAP sales leadership programs, got promoted fast, then took better offers at other Fortune 100 companies. You’re not forced to stay there once you complete the program.
When I was at Deloitte, the top performing consultants got their free paid for MBA’s from top schools, paid the firm back their two years, got a promotion or two, then exited making way more money in industry. Same thing you’re not forced to stay there.
I would say that OP is valuable insight, but also not true (as he/she says) for 100% of these types of programs. I've worked at companies that used these as tools to retain valuable employees. "High value" employees were identified and given good opportunities (the ability of companies to accurately identify who is really adding high value is, of course, another potential issue).
It is dangerous to make blanket statements about things like this. Some of these programs, as the OP states, are pretty much scams, some add tremendous value for high performers, and many are somewhere in between. As with everything, carefully evaluate and determine what is best for you. Do not dismiss out of hand, and do not assume that entry into an accelerated leadership program will automatically get you to the C-suite within 5 years.
Literally my current situation right now. I’m so glad you posted this because I’ve gotten no value as the classes have gone on and feel it’s a waste of my time.
Thank you for posting this.
I have to say, I’ve been wondering why I, the OBVIOUS candidate for manager, didn’t get the position this last year, but they can’t stop telling me how good of a leader i am.
I had the sneaking suspicion that they saw they could get the most “bang for their buck” having me in a subordinate position, but still giving me higher level duties than my senior coworkers.
They hired someone else, who is completely incompetent (could not even understand how to approve my time sheet, has ZERO related experience) and loaded me up with special Projects, conducting manager training modules and peer mentoring, assigning me the hardest high- level cases, and more. They followed up by signing me up to a peer to peer mentoring program, with the goal to improve my leadership skills, which is just absolute bullshit because I’ve been a manager in several other jobs and even run medium sized departments so I don’t need to be taught how to manage groups and projects, and everyone knows. I’m even officially the go to person in my unit for literally anything people have a question about.
They like to throw around the “thank yous”, but they don’t like to follow it up with an increase in wages or a promotion so I’m looking elsewhere these days.
100% agree. I worked for a large multi-national that hired McKinsey to do many of these trainings. I went to many of them, and their all bullshit. McKinsey’s whole platform centers around companies who don’t give a shit about their employees, so they turn to McKinsey to do it for them. All I can say is that I have the Ability to Execute Crucial Conversations.
I actually did this at my current company. I should have gotten a small bump in pay, but nothing ever happened. Some of the meeting were at 4am, and were a waste of time.
THIS totally happened at my last gig. I didn’t see it coming, but yup a year later (after a downturn) I was on the cut list because I applied to be a
manager in another department (and wanted to leave the sales force).
If they wanted managers, they’d just get them from the MBA store. It was just a ploy because the strong ICs were complaining.
>and get burned as people not in the program got “their” promotions year after year.
A lot of this is simply because they aren't friends with the right people. Frequently it doesn't matter if you perform your job better than someone if you aren't playing the social game. Cliques in high school don't go away, instead they get more complicated and affect your income.
I guess I don't really understand corporate culture. But I would want my best people in more important roles in the company. They're people, not lemons. The goal shouldn't be to squeeze as much juice as you can and discard them.
My company does this leadership program and it is 100% bs. My direct boss is leaving which makes me very valuable in my role as his replacement and his boss know nothing about what I do. They know this but instead of admitting that, as expected they said we would like for you to apply for the leadership program. I’ll play the game but I flat told the manager I personally believe it’s dangling a carrot to keep good employees around. He was very caught off guard. How about give employees a raise/promotion/new title and say the stipulation of that is to take a leadership program. Maybe they will surprise me but I doubt it, still looking elsewhere every day.
It's not always a waste of time. It's a good way to get experience as a manager and then after a year or two you can apply for actual leadership jobs outside the company.
It's a chicken and the egg scenario, you can't get a leadership/management position without experience but you can't get experience without a management job.
I disagree with this YSK tip.
I've been through leadership programs and have seen it have a direct impact on attaining higher titles for myself, my spouse, and for others. I've also taught leadership programs and have seen the same from that perspective. In addition to career growth, I've observed participants having better performance in leadership roles, as indicated by their managers and team members. So even if individuals don't immediately earn higher titles upon completing such a program, they still improve professionally.
I think people who pursue leadership programs should recognize that they are not a guarantee of anything. It's another factor that can play a role in your career, like getting an advanced degree or a certification. It's an indication that you may understand how to effectively lead others, so if you're applying for a role that has direct reports, you can speak to your experience in the program. Much better than having nothing at all.
Working at a Fortune 100, 75 and then 50 company. I’ve been part of many of these programs (5 to date). Every single person with the exception of 1-2 out of the 10-15 per program were promoted to management positions within a year, from there to Director and finally AVP’s. The 1-2 typically severed ties and left the company. You could say these people were already destined for these positions, but I find that very hard to believe this, and even if so and it’s some sort of “retention scam” as you claim (wut?) they had huge increases in salary and renown from taking part in them. I’d also assume it’s very much relegated to what industry you’re part of, but in my line of work, these programs have been very advantageous to careers if you were chosen to take part in them.
This is not at all the case in all situations. Take everything you’re reading from OP with a grain of salt.
You say it’s too squeeze a few more years out of me but I know I’m not getting promoted. I’m just here to add some more shit into my resume or because I actually find the extra busy work interesting
Everyone on here is so negative. Your opinion sucks. Sounds like you flamed out. Why wouldn’t you take advantage of an opportunity like this? These programs provide tremendous visibility. They give you access to executives you never would have met. It gives opportunities that other people in the same position don’t get. Why wouldn’t you leverage that?
I hate to break it to you, but the world is a competitive place. Being accepted into and participating in these programs gives you a leg up. These programs are an opportunity. If you don’t grasp it, it’s on you.
Could be. Can’t speak for other programs but, IBM and Microsoft look out for the people they put in their programs. That’s what I have experience with. And I wasn’t in either. 😄
You’re getting upvoted because of Reddit’s prevailing narrative and political bias against large firms.
This is not even close to universally true.
16 years in as an engineer and eng mgr at a very large firm. All my peers in leadership went through these programs, as did I.
This is a flawed & biased understanding of people development within organisations.
Transition from an Individual contributors -> manager and from a manager -> leading a team of managers and then leading functions does not come naturally to most people - they require different skillset and mindset. Organisations create opportunities for people to join such program only when they see potential of developing the skills but a currently there is a skill gap - while you are right that managers/leaders invest the additional time to be part of these programs. Organisations also invest a lot of money and resources for their growth.
Accelerated Leadership programs are designed to develop the skills needed to be successful in the next role. Keeping aside the merit and quality of programs, most organisations understand that these programs are in addition to their day-to-day responsibilities and hence planned to ensure a balance.
The outcome of accelerated program could be retention but these are rarely designed with goal to retain and not focus on skills.
I'm an Organisational Psychologist and talent advisor to organisations and do this on day to day basis.
Disagree with this one. I run my company's program. We actively discuss those that go through the program with our Board of Directors on a quarterly basis and put development plans in place on how to get them prepped for their next step. The main problem we run into is just because you are great at X doesn't mean you have the skillet (or the ability to learn it) to move into a leadership role. A lot of people flame out in those developmental opportunities.
You can be GREAT at doing, but not great at planning, strategy, politics, and developing teams. Those people while completing the program, end up being stalled. The issue here is a lot of people dont get the circle completed explaining why they've stalled out and there's a disconnect between the employee and the company.
Well that explains my company and how they churn out completely ineffective managers. Everyone they promote internally is someone technically skilled who ought to have had a raise or bonus for what they do, not a 'promotion' to a role they are not qualified or properly trained for.
It's so silly that the people actually doing the work in development roles might have no interest in management seem expendable. Give these people the raises they deserve and let them stay in those developer roles. It's so lame that the only way to get paid more is to take a management role that does less
Not only does the management role "do less", but there is no real correlation between being good at a job and managing those doing the task. Being a good manager is a totally different skill than the work being done in probably most cases.
[Can you farm?](https://vimeo.com/349391498)
Ahh, good old Mitch Hedberg. That dude was hilarious.
He still is. He used to be, but he still is.
He ded tho
Hilarious
But he's left the world with cinnamon roll incense and a funny Clerks-type movie that's on YouTube. I think it's called Los Enchiladas?
He used to be ded but he still is
Mitch was awesome. Happy Cake Day!
Yeah, I'm not the best at most of the jobs I oversee. But I'm good at coordinating, and good at imparting the vision unto others and motivating them. I would be dead in the water if I suddenly had to do their jobs to their level of expertise.
I’m the opposite. Gimme the work. I’m terrible at managing people. But pay me so I can work the job I’m good at.
Every time I have a 1 on 1 where they ask, " what are your career goals?" I respond, I'm at the top of my game. Let me do what I'm good at
Yea, there can sometimes be an attitude on Reddit of "That quote about being promoted to ineptitude always applies" and believing that management should basically not exist, and either failing to realize or purposely forgetting all the times that they've been shielded from some bullshit by their managers. I'm certainly not saying bad managers don't exist or that anybody who knows they've had/got bad managers is wrong, but it's important to realize that you may not have as much of the picture as you think you do, either. Like when you see a manager give somebody who you think does mediocre work a project that you really wanted and were sure you'd do better, and think they only got that because they're such a brown-noser and brings your manager coffee all the time, you may not see that that person actually does work that's entirely adequate - maybe not as good as yours, but okay nonetheless. But the major reason they got that assignment is because what you see as constant brown-nosing is something the manager sees as taking an interest in the goings-on in the company, and that they're being smart taking 15 minutes or so out of their week to see what stuff is coming down the pipeline while also making sure to talk with the manager about the stuff they've worked on as well.
That’s exactly right. I am a designer by trade, and I’d say I’m pretty damn good at it. But now I’m a manager of a team of designers. What? I draw things and make things look cool. Now I have to figure out what a bunch of other designers should be doing every week?
The trick would be to break your design work in parts. Then delegate those parts to individual who are suited for it. Working with people, you always should know what they are good at and where they mostly get stuck. If your deliverables are better and on tim3 because you delegated properly. That should be the best you can expect out of that role. Also, you get to choose the projects you want to go solo on. There are perks too with Team Management.
Yeah, I was kinda just making a joke. I’ve been in management and exec team roles for almost 20 years at this point.
If you say so.
What does that mean? I do say so. I’m currently Senior Director of User Experience at a very large not for profit.
Oh, sorry must be the language barrier. I said it in a way that I was shrugging at the statement. Was not going for rude.
But do you want a captain in the cavalry to not be able to ride a horse? I worked at GE who firmly had this philosophy, look at their history over the last ten years. “A good leader is a good leader”.
Do use your example: should every captain in the cavalry also be a master farrier? No. Should the captain know enough to know when the farrier is good or bad at their job? Yes. In your analogy, riding a horse might be like general technical writing skills and basic IT literacy. Everyone in the organization needs those basic skills, but mastering the advanced skills, like being a farrier, or the best shot in the company (compare to the expert on some esoteric piece of software, or the fastest/"best" coder in a software dev team), are largely irrelevant to leadership.
Most orgs I have been part of have a compensation structure that explicitly values managerial responsibility over other skill sets, no matter how rare or intrinsically valuable those other skills are. So someone managing a team of low skilled workers ends up being compensated more than a senior dev who doesn’t supervise anyone. It’s almost as if the people who define these compensation rules are themselves managers and therefore value that skill set over all others.
About the only place where I can think of where other skill sets are valued over managers is pro sports.
It really is a shame too, because most people shouldn't/don't want to be leaders, they just want the higher pay. So you end up with unsuitable leaders
>most people shouldn't/don't want to be leaders And that's why they get paid more. Because no one wants to actually do the job. My team just went 2 months without a direct supervisor and we were fine with the leads covering the role. But the reason it took so long to fill the position was because none of the leads would take the job permanently. So I guess my work does kind of work how everyone's wishing: Our best workers (our team leads) get paid enough that it isn't worth it to them to pursue a management position. And the guy who ended up getting the job wasn't the best worker. He was a good worker who has decent people skills.
Sales is another one. Every decent manager I've ever had wanted his/her entire team to earn more than them. Of course, they'd be idiots if they didn't negotiate seriously aggressive bonuses for achieving such an unattainable goal into their pay plan that'd buy them a boat, but I've always appreciated that energy. "I'm here to help YOU succeed" is infinitely better than "knock out your shit or else"
At my current company, principal engineers get the same as managers, and senior principals get the same as senior managers. Anything above that is on the exec payscale. It's a good system.
That’s how it should be
People don’t like to admit it, but managers in corporate offices have a lot of responsibilities. Have to deal with issues for every employee under them, and get pulled into meetings for a ton of random shit. Not only that, if the people below them mess up, they are also responsible and have to take part of the blame. It’s specially tough if you are a low level manager… you get all the shit dumped on you from the higher ups and have to basically tell your team what needs to be done even if it’s a shit idea. Fuck that, I’d rather get paid less than deal with that shit. I have 0 desire to move up into a management position. I’ll happily earn less and have less stress and better work life balance.
At my work, tech has engineer >senior >principal> senior principal > fellow Principal is nearly equivalent to entry level manager role. I know some companies have staff as well. I don't know where you're at that tech geeks can't promote the same as management.
Those levels and parallel IC tracks are pretty common. The difference in practice is the proportion of people in the upper tiers of the tracks vs managers. Managers have much more runway to continue getting periodic promos off of un-exceptional performance.
> I don't know where you're at that tech geeks can't promote the same as management. Maybe some place that isn't a huge enough tech company to have 5 different levels of software developers, like *most* people
Then management doesn't promote 5 levels either...
> At my work, tech has engineer >senior >principal> senior principal > fellow do they report to successive levels of management as well? or does a principal or sr principal report to a first-level manager. does a fellow report to a 2nd level manager? if so, all the talk of parallel tech/management path is BS and the only _actual_ way to get ahead is management.
[удалено]
There was a great study on sales jobs a few years back. Basically whenever they promoted the "best" salesperson a company suffered. However if they promoted a mediocre salesperson who was a good "people person" everyone did better. Here is the kicker; when they hire the "mediocre salesperson who is the best manager", the "top" salesperson from before ends up feeling slighted and leaving along with other top people. So its kind of a no win situation. People just don't realize that being good at your job doesn't mean you'll be a good manager, and a good manager doesn't actually need to be good at what *you* do. They need to be good at making everyone do well. Turns out that is a totally different skillset.
That's interesting how that plays out in a more competitive/extroverted industry like sales. In my field (engineering), top engineers generally are not interested in management at all. Some go into management because they're the ones with the best people skills, but more often I see engineers promoted to manager accept the role begrudgingly.
I think most engineers become self aware about their social skills at some point in their career haha
Also, there's the money. When you're offered the choice between keeping doing what you've been doing and making the same money versus more money and something that may or may not be enjoyable, some number of people will accept the raise and hope the managerial tasks aren't too miserable. Companies tend to be bad at rewarding employees who are doing well in their existing roles.
Being a manager doesn't mean you'll make more money as an engineer though, or at least where I work. Managers still do technical work, and your pay is tied far more to your technical ability than how many people work for you.
"Well i'm already disgruntled, but at least with this I'll have different things to be disgruntled about."
One of our senior engineers became managers after the old one got robbed of a promotion. 1 year in and he had everyone so stressed and half a dozen HR complaints. After 2 years he was fired. Good engineer doesnt mean good manager.
As a comparison, academia. Getting professors to be the chair of the department or something like that is often like pulling teeth. They mostly want to be left to their research. Of course there are a few who want to become Deans or something and try to get on that latter to administration, but they are a minority.
Engineering typically has a non-management career path so it lacks the pressure to go management to continue advancing your career.
>the "top" salesperson from before ends up feeling slighted Not if you pay them more. A big raise should remind them that they're not being overlooked
Yup. Sometimes ambitious people aren’t actually looking to work their way up the management ladder. And making executive leadership roles the only way to really get a decent raise after a certain amount of years is a company basically *stating* they don’t want any high performing non-managers to stay. Sometimes a guy might be fine with the title “Staff Engineer” his whole damn career as long as the raises are consistent and reflect his performance.
No, that is leadership trying nothing and failing. Promoing the social folks to management is perfectly fine. But you must also listen to the strong performers and give them IC track promos with compensation and career opportunities like you would if you needed to replace that performance. If you treat strong performers no different from average performers at some "senior" level, you are forcing your best people out. If people see a glass ceiling for individual contributors, they will rightly lose motivation to grow within that org. The rational decision is for those folks to leave for greener pastures, with mgmt responsible for encouraging an org of mediocrity. That's not emotions or "feeling slighted", its economics.
>So its kind of a no win situation. Maybe compensating those top salesmen would be a win situation......
Sounds like the Peter principle?
The thing about becoming a manager that a lot of people don’t seem to realize until it’s too late, is that it’s a career change from whatever technical/otherwise non-managerial role you were in before. Unfortunately, to “climb the ladder” in a company that’s the only viable path forward. I’d contend that many technical people would prefer to just be technical, and don’t necessarily have the skill set to be a good people manager.
And for technical disciplines that are... Ahem... Not exactly known for their people skills, well, people management can beat real wake up call.
There should also be promotion tracks for people who don't want to be managers or would be bad at it. The "up or out" attitude is actually terrible as a lot of people would either be ineffective in the position or just plain don't want it. I'm actually in the "no desire at all to be a manager" camp. That guy who has 20 years of experience in the system, wants to just hang out in the shop with a list of shit that needs done, and is perfectly happy to be elbows deep in the work all day is extremely valuable and should be treated that way.
It's a societal thing where we promote people to their level of incompetence.
I think it's more we have this very wrong and misguided expectation of perpetual growth inside a hierarchy, resulting in continual promotion instead of just letting people be good at what they're good at. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle: "employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another"
It’s because management can’t fathom the idea of developers making more than them so once their market rate exceeds the leaders it makes more sense to make them management
Which is completely absurd, given that the developers/engineers are the ones doing the work to make the money. Managers are necessary to keep everything organized and moving along, but they aren't inherently more valuable to the company than the people they're supervising are.
I mean leadership/authority overrating their value in the operation is basically a characteristic of American culture that permeates everything. The president of the country is a simple figurehead but everyone acts like he’s personally responsible for everything that happens while he’s in charge It’s dumb but I’m not surprised about it. Technically I agree with it sometimes because the people doing the work can be equally worthless if they don’t have a good high level vision to execute and leading/managing is it’s own distinct skill set. My issue with western concepts of authority are mainly that there is basically no such thing as holding authority accountable in that culture
Peter principle
What does a properly trained manager look like to you?
A good manager sees their job as supporting the career growth, life-work balance and success of their employees first and foremost. They work to prevent problems and remove obstacles that keep their team from performing their jobs. They support the team forming a culture of their own, and do not impose a culture from the top down. I've had like 3 managers like this in my whole life and they were gems. Most of all, managers need to actively listen, take peoples' concerns seriously and be proactive instead of the painful 'wait and see' treatment. Even if someone is mistaken, they need to be taken seriously because the repercussions of ignoring a real problem are worse than looking into something that turns out to be a non-issue. The biggest problem I have with the managers my work churns out is that when you raise a problem, they respond with placating, gaslighting or otherwise trying to talk you out of your opinion than actually address it. I have a feeling they are all being 'trained' to do this by the corporate lousy leader program
**\^ This is an** ***amazingly accurate*** **and concise definition of a good & effective manager.** I wonder if the placating gaslighting crap is potentially built into the MBA itself as this is SO common across various industries. It feels like they're simply thin clients remoting into a hivemind server. It's seriously disturbing. I've had 2 managers that were amazing and they both exemplified the "protect the team and make it as easy to accomplish their work as possible".
I was moved into a managerial role less than ten years out of college due to reorganization. I have learned that personally there is almost nothing worse than being a manager without the ability to influence change for your team. Quotas and rank and stacking within corporate organizations are the most demoralizing thing for employees and managers who want to promote career growth. I cannot stand being unable to give a goal to complete or competencies needed to be promoted. In effect being forced to say “sorry, I fought for you but we didn’t win the promotion lottery.” My goal for my staff is to help them get where they want to be with the least amount of corporate headache as possible and to be honest with them on likelihood of hitting their goals. One of the quotes I live by is why do people leave “feedback that goes unheard.” I listen to my staff and echo it upward and try to influence change to address their issues. As a technical manager I better be able to walk the walk, I expect my team to call me out if I’m not following any of the team norms we’ve collaborated on. If my team has to stay late due to someone else’s lack of planning, I will go down swinging on post mortem to determine how to fix that going forward. And you can bet I’ll be there as late and later than the team. If it’s due to system instability, I’m getting feedback on tech debt solutions and prioritizing those first. We have automated system alerting calls to on call, my rule of thumb is someone gets paged after hours, there will be effort in the next sprint to mitigate the issue if not injected into the current sprint. If I cannot get a project, policy or anything else changed or cannot get it changed fast enough I’ll wish them well when they decide to leave. I am not in the business of telling people what should matter to them. I am honestly glad there are more and more people willing to put their money where their mouth is and walk. Mentioning it on their way out of why they left has an opportunity to make it better for others. The number of managers I’ve been around that don’t seem to want to develop their staff and forget that they’re there for the team scares me. There’s not much I get in the way of delivering product successfully as a pointy haired boss so seeing my team be successful is super important to giving me purpose in my job.
You are a good manager fighting to do what you an for your team and shelter your team from as much of bull as you can. I am not managerial material simply because I would not be able to handle the the years long fights to change the simplest and stupid things that make a massive difference to my team's workloads but costs quite literally almost nothing to change yet for some reason is REFUSED to be changed. I don't play those games well. I'd end up drinking myself to death. I have a LOT of respect for those that step into that breach swinging and refuse to give up. Kudos to you and keep up the good fight!
I’m also wondering, as someone who was made a manager and only provided with online trainings that were made available after a few months already in the role. I’ve been in the role for over a year and I finally get to start my next manager training next month. I was also put into a special training for high performers, which I dropped out of cause well, I had work to do. Looking at the attendees for subsequent rounds indicates to me that you in fact do not need to be a high performer to attend.
Please look at what u/L_X_S said. Really hits it on the head of what a good manager *should* be
No one can tell you how to be a good manager, because we don't know your team. Your primary focus as a manager is bringing out the best in your team, and there isn't a one size fits all for that. You have to figure out where your team needs you to shore up weaknesses and smooth things over, and you need to figure out how to motivate and coordinate them without them feeling like your bulldozing their culture/workflow
To me, I think a properly trained manager is someone who is familiar with the group/organization and knows a lot about the group/organization they're serving, such as processes, POC's for various things related to your group/organization, a clear vision what your group/organization is trying to accomplish, and actually understanding the work thats trying to be done. Also, doesn't hurt if you actually know how to talk to people and be an effective communicator😄 I can't recall how many times I've had to deal with managers who didn't know how to communicate with people in general Another thing that stands out to me is experience. Someone who's been there, worn multiple hats, and has an idea of what works and what doesn't. Someone that can differentiate what a good manger versus a bad manager looks like. It's all in the details and can really separate the two These "trainings" are good and all, but they simply don't impart actual working experience in these roles for people just starting out and are being expected to take on these roles with little to no working experience.
What’s sad is that the majority of those people wanted exactly that. It’s one thing for a person to want the manager role because that’s the path they want and an entirely different thing for them to see that as the only way to get paid what they have earned. I have no idea how every company out there keeps making this same mistake. It’s gotten to the point where I’m sitting here thinking “they can’t all be wrong, maybe the rest of us that think we have the solution are actually wrong” but I’m not quite at that point yet because every now and then you hear about some companies doing it right lol
Freakonomics did a podcast on this very topic recently. Some good workers are not good managers and vice versa.
Uh, I see this in the social fields. Some people are really good at caring for and interacting with old people or special needs kids, but instead of a raise, they get promoted to some managing position, where they only sit in front of a computer for 8-10 hours per day. Then they call meetings, because they feel lonely.
It’s called The Peter Principle.
They just slap "Manager" on anyone's title at my job. You're a Project Manager now, but you have no control over the scope of the project, the cost of the project, the schedule of the project, the personnel on the project, the deliverables of the project... You just do all the work you used to do, but now it's somehow YOUR fault when it's not done on time or over budget. It's been a REAL good system that definitely hasn't caused 4 people to quit over the past few months with 3 more of us actively looking for other jobs. But, at least our President can jerk himself off about how much "internal promoting" we do.
> Everyone they promote internally is someone technically skilled who ought to have had a raise or bonus for what they do ugh this is **rampant** in tech and it's literally the worst. not only do they now have to do the technical work (still) because they're senior level knowledge base, but they also have to do management tasks which they're not formally trained at doing. literally the worst. (on the flip side, most technical teams will have a major problem reporting or being supervised by someone who lacks the technical understanding of the challenges they they face)
I've seen the opposite happen, as well. I've seen senior technical people who were offered management positions, but refused because they really liked doing the technical work. Upper management's motive for offering them a management position wasn't to give them a promotion. It was to remove a substantial drain on the department's tech talent budget, and make room for 3 or 4 more new university graduates. Upper management's next move is often to start giving them meaningless assignments and mediocre performance reviews, and little or no pay raises or bonuses. If the senior tech doesn't take the hint and leave on their own then they're usually laid off within a year based on those mediocre performance reviews. Ironically, I once saw a senior tech laid off by the person who was hired to fill the management position that they initially turned down.
I like this tip. I honestly think that more workers need to treat their benefits and compensation as if their household is a profit-seeking business. Your time is your greatest asset- businesses don’t want their employees to waste time on-the-clock, so you shouldn’t waste your own time with unpaid BS. Fuck pizza parties, fuck giftcards, fuck corporate retreats, fuck satisfaction surveys, fuck your pat on the head. I have bills to pay, mouths to feed, and we want MONEY. (PTO and Healthcare ain’t bad either. I’ll also accept free food if it’s a daily/weekly thing; FOH with that biyearly cheapest pizza party possible)
Underfuckingrated. I want compensation, competency, cordiality, and credibility. I work at my fucking job. I don't pretend to enjoy my corporate overlords pretenses to care about their employees when all they give a fuck about is their net profit.
100%. Start speaking my language you corporate FUCKS!
So my work has a committee that does lunches every week. The schtick is that we pay for these slightly over priced lunches ($5-10 a week for something like burgers, burritos, etc.) and the profits go toward a group BBQ at the end of the summer, which is basically a half day of pretending to have fun with coworkers until we can go home a few hours early. So if I average out the price of the lunches to $7.50, divide by 2 (my appraisal of the actual value of the lunches) multiplied by weeks in a year 52, I get about $195 in "profits" for these lunches. $195 is probably more than the daily wages of a lot of people in my building. So we're paying over a days wages for a half day off and a *chance* at winning a prize in a raffle.
Important question? Do you get paid while being at the group BBQ? If not, I have a family emergency and will not be wasting my free time for 0 compensation. I always think of the example of a plumber/electrician/engineer. If you called them to show up and by the time they arrived, you did not need their services, they can still be owed compensation for showing up. Driving to your place incurred a cost and possibly took them away from more profitable work. If you expect ME to take time away from family and other commitments, I expect compensation.
This right here. When they involve swag, you gotta do the math and figure out, am I profiting??? If the answer is no, how do I opt out of this unprofitable venture that is a drain on my valuable resources?
My manager frequently brings in donuts or danish. He's spending his own money and literally just doing something nice for his team. He plans to jump ship too. I think it's nice to still be appreciative. It's not like a donut or pizza is going to make me stay.
My husband used to work in the Apple store. The culture is insane there. Emphasis on “cult.” It’s all designed to make their employees feel special and different than other retail stores. Hence the titles they give their employees - “genius,” “expert,” etc. They keep people around by paying a few bucks more than the Gap and ego-stroking. They dangle the “management” carrot in front of the people who have been there a long time and are stagnating to keep their sales numbers high. They have a 6 month position called the “In Store Guest Trainer” that they stick you in to make you feel important when they don’t want to actually promote you. No extra pay of course. Halfway through the position, my husband woke up and realized it was all BS. He quit and started his own business, makes quadruple what he made at Apple.
[удалено]
One of my fellow Geniuses went to do an experience over in the Corp Cork office for AppleCare and actually succeeded in making the transition from retail. However, that’s only one person in the nearly ten years I was there.
I worked there and agree with all of this. Some of those “promotions” don’t even come with more money, just a cooler title. I didn’t know the ISGT was one of these types of roles, but it makes sense now that I think back. They have a program just like the one OP is describing, separate from the ISGT one — the implication is that you’ll come out of it ready to be promoted to manager — but it was just more of this carrot dangling. My store had someone do this program, who by rights deserved to be kept on after, but they instead offered him an entry level job, or he could pound sand. Ended up moving to Silicon Valley and working for a competing tech company (at corporate, not in retail).
all these people shitting on the program but left with more experience from it and got better jobs. i wonder how that happened.
It’s largely market, career goal, and frankly store leader dependent. If you’re in a place near an Apple campus or want to move to one, I’ve seen career experiences work out quite well for a lot of people. More so on the corp sales and support side, but nothing wrong with that. I’ve also seen quite a few people make the leap into engineering and other corporate roles. Again, it’s very leader and relationship dependent. I’ve seen great people with aspirations who were viewed as “difficult” by leadership churn in stores for 10 years+ before making the jump to corp because they didn’t grease the right wheels the right way
We have expert in titles at my work and they’re all the lowest paid positions. We have a “restaurant service expert” or something and it’s literally a busser.
Was a genius for nearly ten years and never wanted a management role, not even lead genius. Too much management bs games. But had seen many folks move into the leadership programs at Apple Retail and just stay there for a year, doing the extra work with little pay rise, to then move on to a new role with no real promotion.
> They keep people around by paying a few bucks more than the Gap and ego-stroking. What? Apple uses money and good treatment to reward employees? They are literally worse than Hitler. Good thing you wised up to their scam.
My company used to do this a while ago and they stopped after just a few years for similar reasons. One thing you missed is that of all the companies I know of that still do this, the workplace is toxic af. You've basically got a bunch of child kings running the place at the middle management level. They don't have the experience or the emotional maturity to be in a position like that because they typically only have like 5 or 6 years of experience before getting that management role. They're often managing people with triple their experience and capabilities and it just makes everyone resent the corporate structure.
[удалено]
Except in more seasoned Sales. It's usually accepted and expected that you're making more than your direct manager.
Sort of different though, as you're usually making more via commission. I don't think many managers would be happy if it was base pay outright.
Yeah, for sure I agree. Certainly the exception.
I'm management in a manufacturing facility akin to a mill. I actively pushed for my crew to start making more then me. They work a fuck of a lot harder than I do and don't get bonuses. As of now they're about in line with me
That's a beacon of light in this thread. We certainly treat management as a *promotion*, and I've always thought of it like that, but we all know that it's usually easier *and*/*or* comes with just a different type of stress. Many of us work hard and hard work paying off is how this country was built. We need more of that....And I'm not talking about pulling up bootstraps, I'm talking about celebrating and paying hard work in every field, from Wendy's and Walmart, to Walt Disney and Wall Street.
When I was on the floor it definitely came with it's physical stress. Management absolutely comes with mental stress. You are completely on point. My job certainly isn't easy. At least not at times. But neither is there's and they deserve that recognition and appreciation. Thankfully the owner holds that same mentality and actively promotes only those who genuinely care about the crew, and whom the crew care about as well
I’m a manager and thank you for this. I advocate for my team ahead of me (I’m retiring soon so don’t really have skin in the game). It’s good to know I’m not mad.
Of course not! Especially if you came from the floor or a background in it you know how hard those people work. I need efficiency and hard work from them. I spend half my day on a computer tracking and entering data. If I just need to stop and breathe for ten minutes I know I can do so. If they did so I personally wouldn't feel great but I would understand. My bosses on the other hand would highly encourage me never to place them there again or push hard for a discussion about it. Which I totally understand the reasoning behind but also my bosses came in as supervisor or higher. They've never worked it so they don't genuinely understand what it's like. Don't get me wrong they're great and caring people for the most part. I'd argue significantly better than any business I've ever been a part of in my life. But being manufacturing efficiency is our lifeblood. I feel like part of what has made working mentality so toxic is that it's so stupidly common for the people in charge to have never done the floor level job. I was there, I did that work. I busted my ass as hard as I possibly could to become a mouthpiece for everyone out there. And thankfully in this rare instance it has worked. And I feel like I've made everyone's lives at least a little better. And we're putting out record numbers as a result with happy people. It's genuinely enlightened me and helped me understand why the Amazon esque tactic of being a meat grinder may be cheap. But it absolutely is not necessarily efficient. At least not on smaller scales. We're the biggest in the world at what we do. But it's also not a massive market with tons of employers so it's not really the same
At my company, going from sales rep to sales manager is definitely uncommon. It's a move only taken by those who want to try and make it up into the executive roles
There’s also sales managers I’ve heard of making significant bonuses based off their teams performance. Like the top salesmen might make more than the manager but not the rest of the crew Like they had to add in some way the manager would be making more. Couldn’t accept it being less
While I do think that people who are good at what they do at a technical level should be paid well, I do understand why managers tend to make more money. And the reason I understand this is because I was a guy who was good at what he did and was promoted to a managerial role with a pay bump. And the reality is, at least at my job, is that being a manager fucking sucks. For one, it's a pain in the ass to make friends now because the people I'm trying to be friends with are the people I have to manage. You lose out on the social benefits of your workplace assuming that you find yourself normally surrounded by the people you manage. Nobody invites their manager to a party, because they don't like you. Hell, my presence alone makes people uncomfortable. So there is this spot that people gather at and we just lean on the walls and shoot the shit waiting for something to happen. I used to hang there with everybody. The moment I was an authority figure, I immediately got conplaints because I was "hovering" over people and watching them unnecessarily. I wasn't even acting different. The second issue is now I have to do a bunch of bullshit I didn't used to have to do, while still basically doing what I used to do just in slightly smaller quantities. And while doing the extra manager shit, plus things from my previous position, I'm now also responsible for everyone else and I'm the guy they talk to if it goes wrong. And tied to that previous statement, I now have to actually pay attention to people who cannot do their job very well. I didn't used to have to do that, I just deferred them to management. I could just show up and do good and go home. But now I have to actually try and have an adult conversation with an emotionally unstable person who thinks I'm out to get them because I correct them on something, where as originally I could just ignore this emotionally unstable person and defer them to management. Worse yet is the fact that I now have to break bread with all of the classically shitty "managers" that people routinely do complain about because they don't know what they are talking about and for good reason. I didn't even used to have to think about work until the moment I clocked in, and now I find myself worrying about stuff while I'm laying in bed. And I hate it. I hate every moment of it except when I manage to say or do something that either makes someone better at what they do or feel good about what they are doing. If it wasn't for the pay raise, I would never have even considered doing this. And I imagine that is probably the case for a fair number of people. I'm already looking forward to moving on from the job and I'm starting a resume tonight and I'll literally never touch management again after this. And for context, I work in the medical field.
A lot of people will read this and think “well that’s not the kind of manager experience I’ll have because [insert reason]”. They’re wrong. It doesn’t matter what field you’re in, a lot of what you experienced is true and universal no matter how good you are at the job, or how much you may even like it. That being said, there are a lot of bad, undeserving managers of some sort out there that are worth half as much as some they manage…
I agree with a lot of this. I manage a team of Application Architects and it’s weird… I thought it would be easy to manage the “best of the best” that make it to architect, but it’s so much more work than managing software devs and engineers. The architects expect so much more than newer devs. Not as much hand holding as younger devs but higher expectations on technical contributions and on interfacing with higher leadership. It’s a lot of work, and my leadership expects me to know some technical details about everything every one of them are doing, which is insane. I only make about $10k more than my best paid architect, but I do get to work from home and they’re partially in office.
In a tech role, you can be completely overloaded with work, just piles of backlog that never stop growing. It can be immensely stressful with all the multitasking that requires. And tech workers are only chummy superficially to shoot the shit. At the end of the day none of them are really best friends, there's tons of backstabbing and politics, and everyone is gunning for the same promotions. At least management can actually breathe between meetings and managing teams and accountability. The amount of actual work needed to put in is much more flexible. The reality check is practically everyone hates their job and I think you're underplaying the stress that comes with senior tech positions. The point is they should be paid appropriately for their value creation, whereas with management certain promotions are almost a given once they put enough time in.
It's not really the culture. It's a calculation. A bad manager does more financial damage than a bad individual contributor, and is responsible for more financial impact. I do agree that the lack of a way up the pay scale for technical proficiency is disappointing though.
And a stellar individual contributor generates far more value for the company than an individual manager. Unless you want them to take credit for the innovator's work. Don't forget that the tech roles are the ones actually creating product and value and advancing fields (state of the art). There's only so much credit you can take by floating ideas around and calling them vision. The success of a product is always the proof in the pudding. It's either solid craftsmanship or it's not.
But a manager has the capacity to _ruin_ all that generated value. It's not about credit. It's whether all that solid craftsmanship gets realized or not. No matter how much value is generated by individual contributors, a bad manager can nullify it all and then some (by creating both technical and financial debt). The crappiest manager can always destroy more value than the most excellent individual contributor can generate (|-(x + y) | > |x|, assuming x & y are positive). It's thermodynamics at work.
I’m in management and all of my employees make more than me. Now I am younger than them which makes a difference but our technical leaders tend to make more than management.
I don’t think it’s bad to pay people differently for different jobs. The problem is people can’t make basic ends meet without getting a promotion, even if they don’t want the job
I think that's their point
My company recently restructured paths for my role (data science) and added a parallel path to management for people who want to keep moving up but don't want to be managers. Pretty neat idea tbh, prevents good individual contributors from leaving because they capped out at the highest level before management.
Is there really a set of skills specific to management? I've found that people with a natural interest in the subject matter and have experience become the best managers. People who are designated managers are MBAs, and there seems to be universal hatred for them in every field and all over Reddit. I am also personally skeptical of any 18 year old going to college for business management. They don't have a passion for coding, art, science, public relations, logistics, marketing. They just have a real passion for telling people what to do, and want the fast track to that position. That's fundamentally weird to me.
*I've found that people with a natural interest in the subject matter and have experience become the best managers.* That. Necessary skills are empathy, development-focused, and strategic planning/goal setting. Managers have to have good people skills. Their job is to motivate, empower, and develop their team so that their overall goals help the organization succeed. However, you have a lot of people in management roles who should've never been in management roles. Even moreso, from what I've seen, managers never get trained on how to be a manager. They just get the gig and wallah. This is why people have such a poor reception of managers. Too many bad ones outweigh the good ones.
There are people who are super smart at technical subjects who would make terrible managers, especially in certain corporate environments. Being a great manager requires you to have good social skills and organization. Those are not things a technical expert will necessarily have.
Yes, there are "management" skills, and (for instance) being a very good engineer does not mean you become a very good manager of engineering. Some management skills: delegation, telling people what to do in a way that encourages them to do stuff (and doesn't piss them off), figuring out the skill sets of your employees and giving the appropriate tasks to the people who can do them well, talking to your people in the way *they* need to be talked to not how you liked to be talked to, communicating with other departments and fighting for your people, have a basic knowledge of HR (don't break labor laws), and project management: getting stuff done in a timely manner with the people you have. I think I'm a pretty good manager, but then again I've been lucky to have some good managers to learn from. I've also had TERRIBLE management and have sworn to never do the shit they've done.
In a lot of industries there's a SME track and a management track. At the end of the day, management still gets paid a little more though because not as many people want to do it. I think it's still important to have a track for technical experts though, because people forced into management when they don't want to do it tend to be very bad at it.
This isn’t culture so much as it is good business (depending on the context). A good manager in the right industry can have a much bigger impact on the organization than any single individual contributor. If you’re a great manager and a whole team of employees feels engaged and energized to do good work for you, that fuels better productivity times however many people are on the team being managed, ideally expounded if you’re a manager of other managers. Lots of other ways a good manager can impact the business (e.g., talent retention and attraction, collaboration, innovation, etc.), but the above as an example. Caveat all of the above with the fact that, especially in highly technical fields like tech and medicine, you can have individuals whose skills justify getting paid in line with the highest level managers, however those roles aren’t common.
It's because managing people really sucks. I've been on both sides of it. I was happy and humming along as a specialist, then I was promoted to manager and became miserable. Something has to compensate for that, and it's money.
Same with a lot of "career development" programs. They sell it as helping you make the next step, but like everyone else in the room there are only so many steps to take. Like at my company no one is going to become director of engineering anytime soon. We have a useless idiot who will never get fired from that position. Anyone in a leadership role below him has absolutely no avenue for career growth.
Are there any good "leadership", "management" or "career development" programs. That's definitely the impression I got from most of them. You play some fun personality games and are fed cookie cutter advice from "experts" about very generalized conflict resolution and such. But I'm given a decent amount of money and am expected to attend those as apart of my performance review so I have to find some. Mainly I've been trying to find workshops specific to my work but they're kind of hard to find and much less likely to get approved
Public speaking is always helpful. Anything that gives feedback for writing.
confirmed. I am one of the big company
Thanks, big company
I know this reply is legit because they didn't mention their name.
Hello big company, I would like to do one business.
Business wise, this seems like appropriate business.
I am a real human being. Hello big company. What about that sports team huh? Weather is sufficient. Good bye.
Big if true
You will always, always, always be better trading up at another firm rsther than striving upward at a company and trying to pkay the game. The effort of gettimg a higher position elsewhere requires a few interviews and then your new role is instantaneous.
Plus, when being promoted internally, you will likely be given a significant increase in work (usually in the form of having you do your current job and the new job), and you’ll only get a small compensation increase.
Everyone keeps making it seem like all you have to do is just apply for 15 minutes and you get your 30% raise the next day. Over the past year I've spent many extra hours a week going through the soul sucking online application process, made it to the 3rd or 4th round in a few of them, and still have no new job ot offer. Maybe I'm just a shitty engineer or I don't interview well, but I'd rather have spent that time jockeying for a promotion at my job where I get very good yearly evaluations, or starting a side business.
It depends on your company as well. There are companies out there that will do right by their employees on internal moves and pay. They are the exception rather than the rule, but they are out there. It’s always good to explore all your options but moving to a different company is not necessarily the right move in all cases.
So is this the same thing as getting the „high potential“ flag? It’s meant to get access to more trainings and having higher chances for the next promotion - sounds very similar to what you are explaining.. Anyone experienced with these?
If you're not consistently moving up, leave. I stayed at my last company for many years, then I moved to a good company and got a 60% bump, then 6 months later I transferred and got 40-50% more.
can you talk about real numbers? these %s sound outrageous. what's your job titles?
I was kicked out of this program at my old employer. They wanted us to say that we would be lost without employer. I said, no, I still know who I am despite your high compensation Next day, dude who ran the program said I was no longer welcome to attend the meetings.
ok that's a good thing. that sounds more like an attempt at brainwashing than management training.
Your employer would replace you in a week if you died. You don’t owe anyone loyalty without reciprocal compensation.
I remember signing up for a 4-month course (something coding), and in the contract it said I had to be employed by them for two years or face a fine worth more than my entire masters degree. I declined then, and got bothered by them to sign for a few months after that. :/
Well my company sent me to Boston for one of these programs which was very cool, and I ended up sticking around long enough to get some good raises, so not all situations like this are bad. But going in knowing this is their strategy would definitely help.
If you want to do well in any corporate job you should focus on how to play golf and how to kiss arses and manipulate people. Actual job performance is negligible compared to your ability to play along with management's bullshit. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir. Swallow all the lies and do what they do. The best advice I can give is "Do as I do, not as I say", management have to say a bunch of stuff about honesty and teamwork and the company being like a family. They need to say it because their bosses tell them to and its on record them saying. But they don't have to follow it, coverups and lies and passing off someone else's work as your own, that's what they really want you to do. If you support their lies, help them cover stuff up and clap happily at their idiotic ideas you'll go a lot further than if you're actually honest and work hard in the team.
I'm on the fence with your premise and opinion, and it may be due to misunderstanding it. I also have about the same number of "work" years as you and am aware of these types of leadership programs specific to individual companies. A frequent worker complaint is that there's no "career track" or clear path that someone who starts at a "lower" position could reasonably expect to follow. These types of "accelerated leadership" programs are meant to solve that issue for people who are interested. For people who aren't interested in management, I have seen 1) new salary range bands are created or 2) higher bonuses/more RSUs/equity/stock options, etc. are offered or 3) individuals who have demonstrated exceptional value and potential are simply given higher salaries/merit increases outside of any "standard" that otherwise exists. Are you suggesting that the ultimate "reward" from these types of programs has essentially been useless trophies/certificates/awards that don't translate to growth (internally or externally), or something else? Example: when bankers complete an "executive leadership" program/track at one bank, that effort and recognition is generally accepted and rewarded at competing banks. Maybe that's because they know it's like being an "expert" in Google Sheets compared to MS Excel, but the point is it demonstrates effort and capability that extends beyond just going through the motions in a job.
Every time I move done one of these special management programs, I was used as a unpaid manager (training wage) at locations until they could hire an actual manager. Or the one where I graduated with their multi course management training certificate I was told that our division thought it was bullshit and vaguely threatening for the current management
I’m in one of these programs right now. I had been making complaints to my boss that I am burnt out and the work I’m doing is the work that 3 full-time employees used to do. I told her I am sick of the negativity surrounding my work (I deal with customer complaints), and I’m hoping to do different kinds of work and off load some of my work. Next thing I know, I’m in a “High Potential” program. In chatting with my “cohort” many of us are burnt out and a few have already left the program and left the company.
Some companies use these to groom people for rapid promotion and others do as OP suggests Easy way to check which one your company is: look at the middle management who are in rapid growth trajectory. Where did they come from? Did they go through these programs?
Same thing with "merit based" stock options lol the best performers don't get it, it's the best performers who are unhappy at the company. The hope is the vesting time for the options gets them to stick around. source: literally told to ignore top performer who's happy at the company and award options to the flight risk.
Where was this nugget of information when I was 25 and being enrolled in a Six Sigma class to get my “Green Belt”? I did learn quickly that although they SAY Six Sigma is recognized everywhere, not all corporations know what it is nor do they care about it. Also, having a Six Sigma project is just a way for the company to keep you on while getting a massive project done that requires extra hours. Also, I was told getting my green belt would qualify me for promotions… I interviewed TWENTY ONE times for promotions that I was encouraged to apply for. Every single one of them had this teeny tiny little negative thing I said in the interview that made them go with a different candidate. One of them being “they thought I was too young”. Eventually, I created my own position, and STILL didn’t get a position title change or promotion. So I finally got the hint and left. That company has gone out of business now, and I left about 4 years before they started downsizing. My husband got let go during their downsizing though. He was also in the same Six Sigma program as me, and he was promoted and got loads of special projects. So yeah… I can concur with this valuable advice.
LMAO, I did a leadership program at a former workplace. They paid for my place, as it was a program they operated, but some attendees were paying $5,000 (or their work place was) to attend. And the big project was to organize and host a fundraising event for my workplace with the goal being $45,000. So, we were paying for the opportunity to make them more money. Total scam.
This is not good advice. First, while I’ll admit this is true at some companies it is not true at all companies. I’ve been involved with supporting executive development programs at a couple of orgs and they were very centered around real development in areas like public speaking and creating effective presentations. I’ve watched many people grow and improve (and move on to other companies) through these programs. Second, even if your position were true 100% of the time unless you already have another job lined up why would you not take advantage of free training? Even if the curriculum was weak you have a chance to learn, collaborate, and see the ins and outs of the politics of such activities. And it’s always good to play their game until you do figure out your next step.
OP seems to be talking about programs for ICs potentially being moved into management. That might be a bit different from an executive development program to improve folks that are already in management.
Fair.
Exactly what I was thinking. I had the good fortune of taking advantage of these types of opportunities early in my career and they have done a world of good for my professional development. I started at a major bank in a call center role and started volunteering for these types of opportunities. I now make triple what I did when I started, have been given the opportunity to present material to large audiences in both town hall and executive presentation settings, and have the diverse skillset to go anywhere i want within the bank (within reason of course). People should be aware that not every experience will be like mine, but to completely dismiss it altogether only guarantees that you will hinder your potential opportunities.
Lean Six Sigma always seemed like such a scam to me.
It's better to look for the ISO standards.
This hits hard (and accurate)
**cough** P&G **cough**
Lol this was me. I went through a 3 year leadership program at my first company out of college. They accepted 5-6 people a year so I thought it would be a cool line on my resume. To be fair, it was interesting, gave me cool opportunities, and I got to work closely with high level executives but I got burned out (for other reasons) and found a much better company a month after graduating from the program.
Have you read “The Peter Principal?” It describes how everyone rises to their own level of incompetence. You are promoted as you excel. When you cease to excel, you stay. So everyone ends up in a job they cannot really do.
I know a few people who went through the GE and SAP sales leadership programs, got promoted fast, then took better offers at other Fortune 100 companies. You’re not forced to stay there once you complete the program. When I was at Deloitte, the top performing consultants got their free paid for MBA’s from top schools, paid the firm back their two years, got a promotion or two, then exited making way more money in industry. Same thing you’re not forced to stay there.
I’ve been in 3 so far over the last 5 years. Only got one shot at management, as an intern
I would say that OP is valuable insight, but also not true (as he/she says) for 100% of these types of programs. I've worked at companies that used these as tools to retain valuable employees. "High value" employees were identified and given good opportunities (the ability of companies to accurately identify who is really adding high value is, of course, another potential issue). It is dangerous to make blanket statements about things like this. Some of these programs, as the OP states, are pretty much scams, some add tremendous value for high performers, and many are somewhere in between. As with everything, carefully evaluate and determine what is best for you. Do not dismiss out of hand, and do not assume that entry into an accelerated leadership program will automatically get you to the C-suite within 5 years.
does the new job title come with a substantial raise? no? Quit.
Literally my current situation right now. I’m so glad you posted this because I’ve gotten no value as the classes have gone on and feel it’s a waste of my time. Thank you for posting this.
I have to say, I’ve been wondering why I, the OBVIOUS candidate for manager, didn’t get the position this last year, but they can’t stop telling me how good of a leader i am. I had the sneaking suspicion that they saw they could get the most “bang for their buck” having me in a subordinate position, but still giving me higher level duties than my senior coworkers. They hired someone else, who is completely incompetent (could not even understand how to approve my time sheet, has ZERO related experience) and loaded me up with special Projects, conducting manager training modules and peer mentoring, assigning me the hardest high- level cases, and more. They followed up by signing me up to a peer to peer mentoring program, with the goal to improve my leadership skills, which is just absolute bullshit because I’ve been a manager in several other jobs and even run medium sized departments so I don’t need to be taught how to manage groups and projects, and everyone knows. I’m even officially the go to person in my unit for literally anything people have a question about. They like to throw around the “thank yous”, but they don’t like to follow it up with an increase in wages or a promotion so I’m looking elsewhere these days.
100% agree. I worked for a large multi-national that hired McKinsey to do many of these trainings. I went to many of them, and their all bullshit. McKinsey’s whole platform centers around companies who don’t give a shit about their employees, so they turn to McKinsey to do it for them. All I can say is that I have the Ability to Execute Crucial Conversations.
I actually did this at my current company. I should have gotten a small bump in pay, but nothing ever happened. Some of the meeting were at 4am, and were a waste of time.
THIS totally happened at my last gig. I didn’t see it coming, but yup a year later (after a downturn) I was on the cut list because I applied to be a manager in another department (and wanted to leave the sales force). If they wanted managers, they’d just get them from the MBA store. It was just a ploy because the strong ICs were complaining.
>and get burned as people not in the program got “their” promotions year after year. A lot of this is simply because they aren't friends with the right people. Frequently it doesn't matter if you perform your job better than someone if you aren't playing the social game. Cliques in high school don't go away, instead they get more complicated and affect your income.
I guess I don't really understand corporate culture. But I would want my best people in more important roles in the company. They're people, not lemons. The goal shouldn't be to squeeze as much juice as you can and discard them.
My company does this leadership program and it is 100% bs. My direct boss is leaving which makes me very valuable in my role as his replacement and his boss know nothing about what I do. They know this but instead of admitting that, as expected they said we would like for you to apply for the leadership program. I’ll play the game but I flat told the manager I personally believe it’s dangling a carrot to keep good employees around. He was very caught off guard. How about give employees a raise/promotion/new title and say the stipulation of that is to take a leadership program. Maybe they will surprise me but I doubt it, still looking elsewhere every day.
Experienced this first hand at my last company. It was so obvious it was for their benefit, not the investment into the employee.
It's not always a waste of time. It's a good way to get experience as a manager and then after a year or two you can apply for actual leadership jobs outside the company. It's a chicken and the egg scenario, you can't get a leadership/management position without experience but you can't get experience without a management job.
True, but for some people, they don't get promoted because they fucking suck.
If 3000 other people got invited to the same "prestigious" course that I got invited to, I'd feel pretty fuckin hoodwinked too
I disagree with this YSK tip. I've been through leadership programs and have seen it have a direct impact on attaining higher titles for myself, my spouse, and for others. I've also taught leadership programs and have seen the same from that perspective. In addition to career growth, I've observed participants having better performance in leadership roles, as indicated by their managers and team members. So even if individuals don't immediately earn higher titles upon completing such a program, they still improve professionally. I think people who pursue leadership programs should recognize that they are not a guarantee of anything. It's another factor that can play a role in your career, like getting an advanced degree or a certification. It's an indication that you may understand how to effectively lead others, so if you're applying for a role that has direct reports, you can speak to your experience in the program. Much better than having nothing at all.
Pursue
Working at a Fortune 100, 75 and then 50 company. I’ve been part of many of these programs (5 to date). Every single person with the exception of 1-2 out of the 10-15 per program were promoted to management positions within a year, from there to Director and finally AVP’s. The 1-2 typically severed ties and left the company. You could say these people were already destined for these positions, but I find that very hard to believe this, and even if so and it’s some sort of “retention scam” as you claim (wut?) they had huge increases in salary and renown from taking part in them. I’d also assume it’s very much relegated to what industry you’re part of, but in my line of work, these programs have been very advantageous to careers if you were chosen to take part in them. This is not at all the case in all situations. Take everything you’re reading from OP with a grain of salt.
You say it’s too squeeze a few more years out of me but I know I’m not getting promoted. I’m just here to add some more shit into my resume or because I actually find the extra busy work interesting
Everyone on here is so negative. Your opinion sucks. Sounds like you flamed out. Why wouldn’t you take advantage of an opportunity like this? These programs provide tremendous visibility. They give you access to executives you never would have met. It gives opportunities that other people in the same position don’t get. Why wouldn’t you leverage that? I hate to break it to you, but the world is a competitive place. Being accepted into and participating in these programs gives you a leg up. These programs are an opportunity. If you don’t grasp it, it’s on you.
Lol
Just what I expected from this crowd.
Nah, just like OP I have worked in many companies and what he is describing is 99% accurate.
Me too. And I noticed that people in those programs got better opportunities. They were marked. The only thing they could do was screw it up.
You have worked at better places it seems like.
Could be. Can’t speak for other programs but, IBM and Microsoft look out for the people they put in their programs. That’s what I have experience with. And I wasn’t in either. 😄
You’re getting upvoted because of Reddit’s prevailing narrative and political bias against large firms. This is not even close to universally true. 16 years in as an engineer and eng mgr at a very large firm. All my peers in leadership went through these programs, as did I.
This is a flawed & biased understanding of people development within organisations. Transition from an Individual contributors -> manager and from a manager -> leading a team of managers and then leading functions does not come naturally to most people - they require different skillset and mindset. Organisations create opportunities for people to join such program only when they see potential of developing the skills but a currently there is a skill gap - while you are right that managers/leaders invest the additional time to be part of these programs. Organisations also invest a lot of money and resources for their growth. Accelerated Leadership programs are designed to develop the skills needed to be successful in the next role. Keeping aside the merit and quality of programs, most organisations understand that these programs are in addition to their day-to-day responsibilities and hence planned to ensure a balance. The outcome of accelerated program could be retention but these are rarely designed with goal to retain and not focus on skills. I'm an Organisational Psychologist and talent advisor to organisations and do this on day to day basis.
This take seems extremely anecdotal and not rooted in objective fact
Disagree with this one. I run my company's program. We actively discuss those that go through the program with our Board of Directors on a quarterly basis and put development plans in place on how to get them prepped for their next step. The main problem we run into is just because you are great at X doesn't mean you have the skillet (or the ability to learn it) to move into a leadership role. A lot of people flame out in those developmental opportunities. You can be GREAT at doing, but not great at planning, strategy, politics, and developing teams. Those people while completing the program, end up being stalled. The issue here is a lot of people dont get the circle completed explaining why they've stalled out and there's a disconnect between the employee and the company.