You're not wrong. A Staff Engineer might manage people, but if that were their main desired focus, they probably would have the title Engineering Manager instead.
Not sure but I believe it’s possible you may have read the parent comment unintentionally in the inverse? I might be wrong but I believe you posited their desired focus is to manage people from parent comment, but I actually think it’s opposite. They don’t want to manage people (especially career wise), instead they want to manage and guide the work of teams and people across one or many teams.
My interpretation of it was to pursue the type of work and things you focus on as an Engineering Manager in terms of getting the most of out teams for the goals of the organization but doing so without the need to manage people directly. Which I would agree is nice since it’s really hard to wear the technical hat and also directly manage people, so separation of concerns makes for far less context switching and folks to naturally align doing the part of the job that they do best. I also agree with this definition since it’s how I think of it too.
I took the post you're replying to as to have interpreted the "doesn't want to be a manager or director" idea as that there are times others or a team may be foist upon them without such a people management role being the majority of the person's time during, say, a year.
I'd also add "team lead" to the list of possible titles that indicate a primary focus on people management vs. individual contribution.
> I took the post you're replying to as to have interpreted the "doesn't want to be a manager or director" idea as that there are times others or a team may be foist upon them without such a people management role being the majority of the person's time during, say, a year.
Yes, this. There may come a point in your career where your old manager is advancing and they need a new manager for your team. The position is offered to you, maybe repeatedly. It's clear that either you take it or you and your teammates will soon have a new manager who is fresh to the team or company. Maybe you've seen the latter go badly before. Maybe your outgoing manager expresses their own anxiety about that possibility. You finally get the hint and become a manager.
Now you can change from the engineering ladder to the management ladder, but you don't have to. You can be an Engineering Manager, commit all your time to this, and hope to advance to Engineering Director. Or you can stay a Staff (Software) Engineer and also manage a few people. With some help from say a good PM, you can be a good manager to a small team without giving up the technical aspects. (I assert part-time managers are actually better for small, high-performing teams; no idle time for micro management.)
> I'd also add "team lead" to the list of possible titles that indicate a primary focus on people management vs. individual contribution.
Maybe. At some companies (e.g. Google), a team's tech lead and manager can be two different people. If so, the tech lead doesn't have reports according to HR. At promo time, they don't do the manager reviews, although they likely put a fair bit of time into writing peer reviews and participate in the promo and calibration committees, so they're not entirely without what many smaller and/or more traditional companies would consider manager responsibilities.
> a team's tech lead and manager can be two different people
Yes, I've worked in an environment like that. I had a "functional manager" that took care of the HR side of things and a "team lead" that kind of led an effort for a specific project. They also interacted with each other about how things were going. I also agree that for small, high-performing teams it can be a very nice arrangement for everyone.
But my point was that the "team lead" role ends up requiring some amount of people management while not taking over as the primary focus for the person with that role, "no idle time for micro management" as you said. I may have been lazy with "a primary focus" as a construction because while I don't think it's >50% of time for a team lead in the structure I worked in or imagined in this discussion, I do think it can be around 20% for that person, depending on how they feel about people management, and the dynamics that exist between those involved, and the size of the team being led.
In companies I am familiar with, pay bands and total comp are roughly equivalent between:
senior engineer ≈ engineering team lead
staff engineer/tech lead ≈ engineering manager
principal engineer ≈ senior engineering manager
Reiterating that management is not a "promotion" from senior engineer, but a track switch.
That said, the maximum compensation ceiling is ultimately higher on the management track at director/vp level. Personally, no thanks, don't want that job. Staff+ IC is where it's at for me.
> Who makes more money, a "staff engineer" or an "engineering manager"?
I think engineering manager is the easier path to advancement. Compare for example Google Staff Software Engineer (L6) vs Engineering Manager (L6). [1, 2] The latter gets paid more but IMHO the ladder expectations are easier to meet, and even more so when advancing to L7.
This is admittedly cynical, but to some extent I think managers are often judged by the size of their empire, while engineers are judged by their (individual or team) accomplishments, which includes setting the overall project design and filling in gaps between the smaller pieces delegated to other engineers. Building a large empire is easier but can be counterproductive. To accomplish things you also need good design oversight, technical mentorship, etc. that managers aren't expected to deliver.
A lot of people who are passionate enough about software stay on the SWE ladder in spite of the relative difficulty. I know someone who switched to the management ladder then eventually (at great trouble) switched back; he nearly got down-leveled in the process.
There are great engineering managers out there of course, but I think in general the difference in expectations is real and unfortunate.
My belief is that while eng manager empire building was the easier path to get promoted before 2022, it's not anymore, for two main reasons:
1. HC doesn't accrue like that anymore.
2. Many organizations are looking to delayer; harder to promote up to director when your org went from 9 runs to 5.
I hear a lot of the focus going to Tech Lead Manager roles--fewer reports but more hand-on keyboard than EM roles of the past.
