
A Plan to Turn Engineers into Managers - prawn
http://firstround.com/review/this-90-day-plan-turns-engineers-into-remarkable-managers/
======
plinkplonk
"Don’t manage only to advance your career. Many tech companies have parallel
career paths to seniority for both technical and managerial high-performers."

Is this really true?

Many engineers _do_ become managers only to advance their careers.

The "parallel" technical career path never seems to deliver equal amounts of
power, or even money, as compared to managers on the same level.

Even when a rough parity exists on paper, for every "principal Engineer" or
whatever, there are a couple of dozen Vice Presidents of Blah. Oddswise, to
make the same amount of money, and more importantly, to get more lucrative job
offers in the future, in most companies it pays to transition to management
than stay technical. (which is fine, it is just the way the world works, just
pointing out that the article may need some fixing)

~~~
Ensorceled
In my 30 years of experience, the "parallel" technical track is really only
for super stars. As merely a very good developer, management pays better.

~~~
levosmetalo
And by "superstar", it's usually a person that can communicate his ideas
eloquently and knows how to effectively evangelize and self-promote. It has
not much to do with the actual technical competency. So, the skillset required
to become a "technical superstar" resembles more of a skillset required for
good manager or marketing persona than actual engineering skill set, though
some level is required.

~~~
Ensorceled
True, most of the superstars are "architects" who can both come up with
excellent technical plans and then socialize/communicate them. I have a had a
few "put on head phones and pump out 5 developers worth of excellent code"
types as well.

~~~
jerf
I'm continuing to wander slowly but surely into more architecture roles, and
while the term has fully justifiably been badly wrecked by people doing
"architecture" who think it involves drawing diagrams with lots of boxes and
lines and never checking the architecture against the requirements, there _is_
a legitimate architecture role that does exist and there are legitimate skills
that are specialized to that role. I'm not sure it's something that can be
taught very well, though. But as one for instance, I could clearly explain to
you how the architecture conforms to Conway's Law and exactly why it's shaped
the way it is, and not some other way.

(Conway's Law is _huge_ for a high-level architect... in a lot of ways you do
not so much "create" the architecture as _discover_ how to correctly translate
the pre-existing corporate structures into code in the most business-efficient
manner. "Architects" in this position who think they're working with a blank
slate crash and burn, and probably are the source of the disdain for the term.
A real architect is in fact working in some of the _most constrained_ design
space there is. In some ways that actually sorta kinda makes the job easier;
you can sort through and dismiss a _lot_ of bad choices very quickly with
Conway's Law. The biggest challenge is when you get constrained down to zero
choices for some problem and have to work Conway's Law in the other direction,
and figure out how to fix the corresponding structural failures in the
organization itself. It's a lot easier to change code than people structures,
but sometimes you have no choice....)

~~~
perlgeek
> I'm not sure it's something that can be taught very well, though

Why ever not? You can study and discuss existing architectures, their
advantages and disadvantages, discuss case studies of existing code and new
requirements and what architecture to implement them in etc.

Of course, you also need some decent programming experience to come up with
architectures that work in practice, but that can be also acquired.

~~~
dwmtm
This kind of architecture is akin to surgery, and there aren't enough cadavers
available for practice. (Zombies, on the other hand, maybe.)

The Conway's Law factors are also harder to treat "fairly" in a theoretical
sense relative to some of the real team-related difficulties that exist in any
large enough organization.

------
ryandrake
The day I decided to make it a goal to switch from developing software to
management: I was sitting at my desk at 8:00 at night fixing some bug and I
looked across the sea of gray half-height cubicles at a someone 30 years older
than me doing the same thing with the exact same job title, probably not
making much more than I.

At 95% of companies, there is zero career development and advancement once you
become a "Senior Software Engineer". Fix that and you'll see more engineers
stay put (where they're likely happier and more productive).

~~~
tamaatar
You are right about the salary. but what is your opinion on job security and
employability. the way I see it, in a tech role, as long as your are flexible
and open to learning whatever technology is thrown at you, you will always be
employable. But in management,especially in junior management and especially
in very large organisation, managers are in most cases dead weight. they don't
do much.Don't they feel the insecurity?

~~~
organsnyder
Perceiving a manager—no matter how junior—as simply "dead weight" signals a
failure in the organization, the individual manager, and/or your own
perception. In addition to ensuring accountability, a good manager also helps
to shield subordinates from the bureaucracy that is inevitable in large
organizations. This work may not always be visible.

~~~
t0mbstone
Bureaucracy inevitably leads to inefficiency.

If a primary purpose of managers is to "shield subordinates", then you have a
much bigger problem within your organization.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But chaos is also inefficient. The best possible management minimizes both the
chaos and the bureaucratic inefficiency, to get optimum output from their
organization. This does not happen without management - the "natural state" of
an organization is not as efficient as the optimal state.

~~~
mateo411
Good process adds some latency, but reduces risk.

------
alexandercrohde
I cannot tell if blog post is this a theory or 15-page commercial for one
man's opinions. The title claims it turns engineers into remarkable managers,
yet provides no evidence. I see a lot of bold claims (e.g. "As with any new
job, the most important task you should be doing at any given time will
definitely be uncomfortable. It should be") but this piece lacks the
reflection and perspective of a PG think-piece or any sort of evidence to
justify its numerous opinions.

A more accurate title: "Some guy has opinions on what managers should do so we
typed those opinions up."

My other big objection is that the pieces of advice (e.g. "manage up") seem
stock and not actionable. Merely telling one to "manage up," (i.e. make your
boss happy) is a new phrase for something entirely obvious. Nobody would
disagree with "Make your boss happy," but somehow you spin the phrase in a new
way and make a new lexicon around it and you have a facade of content.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Didn't Steve McConnell (code complete) suggest that managing up should be a
firing offence.

~~~
plonh
What? Why? That's insane.

~~~
sokoloff
Most overt and intentional "managing up" is a waste of time at best and often
runs counter to the organization's goals.

By this, I mean when you decide on your drive into work "Today, I'm going to
manage up" or block it on your calendar. I don't mean doing a naturally good
job and keeping your boss informed of what's going on, figuring out how to
best help the company achieve its goals, etc. That's the productive version,
but it's 1% of the usage of that phrase IME.

Most of "managing up" ranges from pure politics to useless paperwork to ass-
kissing.

~~~
brudgers
What gets measured gets done. If higher levels of management measure politics
and ass-kissing and useless paperwork then that's what goes down when
"managing up." And of course there are plenty of organizations where that's a
big chunk of what gets measured. People who value those things tend to strive
for management positions.

There are some where it isn't. In those "managing up" can mean something else
and management tracks can attract and keep people interested in creating that
other meaning.

------
DanielBMarkham
Couple random pieces of advice:

1\. Learn management, even if you're never going to use it. Everybody in this
world has a manager. The more you know about the job, the better integrated
you can be with others, either as a manager yourself or working with managers.
That 3-way diagram? Holds true at the developer level as well.

2\. Management ain't programming. When I learned to fly airplanes on
instruments, the toughest thing was realizing that I had to rely on the gauges
and fight my natural instincts. Likewise, if you've been a super-cool coder
for many years, you're going to have to give up those coding and architecture
instincts and learn people management ones. I see far too many extremely smart
people try building and managing systems of people just as if they were
computers. Wrong answer.

3\. Ambition is fine. Being a jerk is not. If you like managing, you need to
realize that it's always a gut check to make sure you're doing the right
thing, and you very well may end up in a position where it is better to leave
your current company and go play somewhere else than it is to continue. That
sucks, but there's a difference between being a cog in a machine and being a
professional. Be a professional or don't do it.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Learn management, even if you're never going to use it.

Yeah. Those who don't do management will still have management done to them.

------
Maro
I've done the engineer -> manager transition successfully about two years ago.
The biggest help for me (=somebody who likes to read) was the Hardard Business
Review's 'Guide to X' series:

[https://hbr.org/store/landing/guides](https://hbr.org/store/landing/guides)

In particular (X=):

\- Better Business Writing

\- Coaching Employees

\- Giving Effective Feedback

\- Finance Basics for Managers

\- Office Politics (parts of it)

But really, all of them are pretty good, at about ~150 pages each, I plan to
read all of them just to be sure.

~~~
branchless
I knew a guy who did better business writing at Hardard!

------
brador
This is a list of things a CEO wants managers to do and be like. IMO following
these rules will keep you submissive and his castle nice and orderly. Not what
you want if you have an ounce of ambition.

To actually survive and excel as a manager you _need_ to play politics and win
turf battles. Take on the highest value projects and ship. To get the good
projects you'll need to fight because everyone wants them.

TLDR: Adding value to the company is how you get promoted as a manager, not by
showcasing talent in a skill.

~~~
rndn
According to the _Peter Principle_ [1], the entire concept of promotion is
flawed in that people get promoted according to their performance in their
_current_ role, not the _future_ role. Perhaps, it would generally be better
if promotions would require a test run in the new role over a long time period
(e.g. a year) before it is set in stone.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle)

~~~
eitally
A lot of companies only promote individuals after they have been acting in a
de facto capacity as the higher position.

~~~
sgt101
Yes - and this is commonly misunderstood. The critical thing in getting a
promotion is the ability to demonstrate the capabilities that will be required
in the new position. This means actually being able to point at examples of
you doing that successfully. This is really different from being brilliant at
your current job.

~~~
pyre
I think you misunderstood the post your replied to. That poster was talking
about employees that have been going above and beyond their current role and
taking on many/most of the responsibilities that their "promoted to" role
would entail. The promotion is just becomes a recognition of the increased
capacity that they are currently taking on.

------
esturk
Interesting, I think this idea should be explored more. Does anyone else think
the "MBA Degree" market is rip for disruption? We've been seeing a huge flux
of MBA graduates that gets hired for mainly their network or connection. This
seems almost opposite to the whole meritocracy culture in the tech industry.

So given a manager/employee could do effectively what a MBA can do, why would
a company hire a MBA degree instead?

~~~
illuminek
Well I am an MBA(IT)[+ Mechanical Engg.], and right now I am managing some 15+
people engg team. I can very confidently say that being an MBA has helped me a
lot. It gave me an insight in being a leader and made my job of managing a
engineering team easy.

However I started my career as developer and have spent 7+ years in developing
complex systems. The one difference I could always notice was
leadership/initiative distinction between me and other developers and I used
to think why these guys are not able to manage their time and guide their
juniors. Simply they were not able to think beyond code(I am not generalising
but the pattern I noticed with obvious exceptions).

~~~
eitally
Counterpoint: I'm _not_ an MBA but I have a BA in history and a MEng in
Industrial, and I spent the first 5 years of my career as a programmer before
moving into management. I steadily moved up and am reporting to the CIO and
managing 115+ folks. As my old boss said, you can learn the key skills of an
MBA on your own, but you can't learn emotional intelligence or how to lead
without practical experience.

I'm not saying your MBA hasn't helped you. I'm just saying it's not a magic
bullet (unless a company requires an MBA to get in the door). For most
situations, just having a basic understanding of accounting & finance is
enough, and for the times it isn't, knowing how to organize and lead a large
multidisciplinary project is. That part's tougher and all the theoretical
knowledge & case study readings in the world will only get you so far.

~~~
illuminek
Agreed. MBA just helped me a bit, but I guess most of my career is a result of
coding & sitting with fellow programmers spending nights and learning vudu
tricks.

------
gailees
"Focus on enhancing strengths, not fixing weaknesses. “It’s a common trap for
new managers to focus on fixing their engineer’s weaknesses than enhancing
their strengths. The upside from improving someone's strength is typically
greater and more likely to stick than the upside from addressing a weakness."

------
huehue
"Teach Yourself Management in Ten Years" haha

Management isn't that hard, specially compared to engineering where
competition is fierce. The degrees are an absolute joke. I had virtually no
social life during my CS studies, but the other one? Some of the managers I
know don't even have one.

If you're the average HN reader you might have to hone up your soft skills and
that's about it. Any competent developer would do just fine without training,
even with autism going rampant in our industry.

It's not like we all jumped into the management career path in search for a
challenge.

~~~
LargeWu
Just because something is a "soft skill" doesn't mean it's easy.

I suspect anybody that thinks effective management is easy would not do very
well in that role. I've seen plenty of competent developers get chewed up and
spit out as managers because they didn't understand what they needed to do to
run successful teams.

------
colund
For me, the whole idea of management in the software industry is to get out of
the way to ensure engineers can do their job and and
[https://twitter.com/therealfitz/status/623526248338186240](https://twitter.com/therealfitz/status/623526248338186240)

~~~
cousin_it
FWIW, I don't believe that managers should shield engineers from what's going
on up above. Instead, they should present the information in a manageable way,
but also in a way that's honest. Political reality is too important to your
reports' careers, so withholding it is kinda irresponsible.

------
yanilkr
After being a consultant, engineer, manager and again starting as allinone on
a small project, I believe organizational hierarchy is just an OK solution. If
I put on a career planner hat, I find so many career paths which are in big
hierarchies personally bad deals and would avoid them in future and advice the
same to others. I wrote a summary of what I observed so many times. Sorry for
a lengthy post.

When a software company becomes successful, it becomes a magnet for crazies.
The crazies are the process-people who use fancy marketing lingo to tell you
that you are doing something inadequate and you should be using a different
methodology which is more correct for your company.

This takes the conversation away from “ideas” to “sudo-ideas”. The
conversation shifts from what made the product amazing and what else we can do
about it to a new conversation about how someone should do a certain job and
fulfill its role. A new engineer with a good potential to produce software
will have to go through a phase of self doubt surviving in this world and
asking himself/herself if he/she is meeting the role and understanding what it
means to meet the role. Now you need more people who are smarter than the
engineer to tell him/her and hold him/her accountable and enforce certain
improvements needed to fulfill this role.

This leads to a burdensome overhead which derails the whole organization from
focusing on the core or the simplicity in its culture which enabled the
business to succeed in the first place. This overhead and drama around it is
what the smart helpless people call politics. Instead of a plan to solve a
problem you can see people talking about a plan for a plan. Instead of a
simple understanding between people, there will be a process to come up with
more process. Someone writes a document about how to write documents because
somehow that seems to be more rewarded. You got to be good at being the
process abiding employee fulfilling the Role to play in this environment. An
expert professional sees this system as something that is designed to keep you
at the same level of influence no matter how much value you can produce and
sees the leadership very un-inspiring.

There comes a point where if you are a productive engineer, it is more easy to
build something and let the market forces decide if your invention is worth
any merit. The bar in the market is not too high either. You build an app that
lets you share your dick pictures, you get a billion dollar investment. Though
it takes multiple engineer teams to produce useful software, it is possible to
build a very useful feature or system that is missing from an ecosystem of a
larger product or service. This micro service/product which generates revenue,
Improves on the market feedback, succeed and itself might one day become a
magnet for crazies. The feedback the market gives you is far more useful and
actionable than the feedback you get in a large organization that is designed
to to fit you to the role.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
I just joined an organization with minimal hierarchy (no team leads, no
architects, no whatever) and minimal process. It feels right somehow, I'm
curious how its going to work out.

~~~
jaegerpicker
In my experience poorly as it starts to scale above 5-10 developers on a team.
Good developers tend to be opinionated people and after a certain size you
need someone to break ties and keep everyone pointed in a useful direction.
I'm a team lead/Developer manager and somewhat new to the job and that's my
role. Help the team get the info they need, make difficult decisions about the
direction of the tech, and help solve the really hard issues that they are
bumping their heads against. Mostly stay out of their way if things are going
well but still keep track of everything that's going down.

------
markbnj
I took on a project management role in a "take one for the team" scenario, and
it was a disaster. I believe I managed the project fairly well, but since I
hadn't wanted the job in the first place I felt I had some leeway to do things
my way, and the boss ended up resenting that I didn't "want" the job and
didn't reflect that by working hard to get things done his way. I ended up
leaving the company after four years of good reviews. Not a mistake I will
repeat.

------
kevinSuttle
I've never understood this. At some point, you suddenly become great at
managing people? No. You worked your way up by being good at what you do,
coding. [http://lizthedeveloper.com/how-to-reward-skilled-coders-
with...](http://lizthedeveloper.com/how-to-reward-skilled-coders-with-
something-other-than-people-management)

~~~
15155
At some point you realize that your career is going to hit a dead end in most
organizations.

That's the reality.

Software engineers, by and large, are under-compensated relative to value
produced.

------
pbreit
I'm sure everyone has their own opinions on all of this but, wow, that is an
incredible resource.

~~~
6d0debc071
You might want to check out the manager-tools podcasts as well, (different
people, I believe,) if you haven't already:

[https://www.manager-tools.com](https://www.manager-tools.com)

:)

------
joeevans1000
Lol... who the fuck wants to manage instead of code? I guess if you're burning
out and seriously paranoid you won't be worth a fuck as a coder, you have to
go in the management direction.

But the joy of where things are headed -- and what technology is increasingly
enabling -- is that we can finally get rid of managers.

------
chriscareycode
"Every time you dissuade a great engineer from becoming a manager, an angel
gets its wings." \- Roy Rapoport

------
endymi0n
Related, a little opinioated as well and incredibly well drilled down:
[http://www.defmacro.org/2014/10/03/engman.html](http://www.defmacro.org/2014/10/03/engman.html)

------
sergiofbsilva
[http://www.surf-the-edge.com/2014/05/08/the-engineer-
manager...](http://www.surf-the-edge.com/2014/05/08/the-engineer-manager/)

------
cmwelsh
They should just call it "Management Perspective Training"... even if you
don't graduate to manager you're still given essential insight on how to help
them do their jobs effectively.

------
navbaker
Has anyone here had experience going the other way: management to technical?

------
Aoyagi
Well, it seems to have worked well for AMD (Su) and GM (Barra) so far.

------
shellbye
Long article but really a good one.

------
mooogs
Very well written article

