Not usually one to complain about AI, but I felt that there was some superfluous content here - maybe the use of AI has made it longer but not stronger.
I quite like this article (despite some signs of AI writing in it). It reflects my own experience of transitioning to management roles.
The first time I managed a team I designed a whole solution for the team to implement, and they were like "Are we just your typists?!! Why don't you let us do that?". They were right; I stepped back and shared goals and direction with them instead from that point. It's hard to step away from how you did things before and give trust to others to do a good job.
The other thing they highlighted also resonated - if you become a manager of people who were formally your team mates, it alters your relationships with them. I remember feeling quite depressed when people no longer joked around with me in the same way they used to, and I felt a bit isolated. Took me a while to understand the shift in dynamics and not take it personally.
Is this still a debate? It all depends on personal goal/wishes and constraints from your working contrxt (e.g company size, country of residence).
Take France with medium to large size companies: ICs (whatever the seniority) are usually paid less and have a hard time evolving so they are naturally encouraged to take on management roles by their hierarchy. In some other contexts, ICs may have more leverage thus not wanting to go the management route and that’s okay.
Anyway, in the next 5 to 10 years this all might change for better or worse so…
My motivation was quite different, and i'd like to encourage more people to consider the same.
Often times narcissistic power grabbing (often technically incompetent) engineers become managers, like it was the case a previous team I've worked at and it was quite penalizing to the whole team.
I've realized that either i can be the one managing and try to do good, or be at the mercy of another manager; chose the first.
I think this article does a great job at conveying the new skills you need from a work-completing perspective as a manager, but there's another aspect that is much more subtle and long-term: being a guide for other people's careers.
I've seen dozens of people start managing, stop managing, change roles (including myself), etc, and there are two extremes that stand out:
1. Management out of necessity. They became a manager because they wanted to solve a problem that is too big for them to solve alone, and no one else was willing to fund it. So they got headcount, hired a team, and set them to work on solving the hard problem. But the problem they're solving is the only focus. This manager tends to have an elite team of low-maintenance engineers who just get things done. They are very effective, but eventually when those reports start asking questions like, "how do I get promoted? What's the next step in my career?" their manager has to suddenly learn this new set of skills or risk losing their highest performers.
2. Management to be a mentor. They became a manager to help other people grow. Sure they are solving problems with the team, but this manager spends the time to help higher-maintenance engineers grow their own skills. This is time-consuming, this can be frustrating, progress is going to be slower, but eventually you can reach very high throughput, and also feel very accomplished knowing you helped someone else reach their potential. This, however, has to be balanced with not moving so slowly that you frustrate your top performers.
There's nothing wrong with either of these extremes so long as everyone in the manager-report relationship knows what to expect, and many managers will be between these two extremes.
The main tl;dr takeaway is: as a manager, you are not just responsible for people's tasks, you are responsible for their career. Managers need to take this seriously and address it head-on to build those skills before the first time a report asks, "so how do I get promoted?"
The only career goals I want my manager to be responsible for is to not be in my way. I tinkered with my PC since I was young without my manager. I decided to go to Computer Science without my manager. I got my degree without my manager. I got my first job without my manager. I practiced lifelong learning without my manager. I ran my own company without my manager. I handled clients without my manager. I managed to find mentors without my manager. Etc.
There might be some people that need a nanny. I am not one of those people. My manager should be a proper valve between me and whatever layer he manages for and should not play stupid games when it comes to my career. That's it. He's a colleague. Not a mentor. I'm perfectly capable of finding mentors for myself, and if it happens to be them, well, kudos to them.
Am I missing this, or are you assuming that I am incapable of finding opportunities myself, within or without the organization that the manager is beholden to? I honestly can't understand this framing, of the manager's job as a sort of opportunity finder for those 'under' them, and somehow being more impactful at this than the individuals themselves.
I'll give you this, some people need to be managed and for some reason presented with opportunities by a 2nd party. But some people just don't, they need to be collaborated with.
If one of my direct reports came to me and said they were interested in working on, say... AI observability (replace with whatever interests you), and that was something I had any influence over (even if only indirectly), I'd be finding whatever way I could to connect my report with that kind of work.
It's all well and good to say that you're in control of your own career advancement, but that's not in conflict with working with your manager on supporting your career development. Even if they don't have anything to teach you, they will necessarily have some influence of your scope/area of work, so it only makes sense to work them on aligning your work with your interests.
I believe everything you wrote about here is actually cooperation between two people, and to the point of what I said, you not actively getting in the way of your direct report's career progression.
> The manager's job is to find you impactful work that a) gets you promoted and b) challenges you in the ways you want or need to grow.
To me, the comment I responded to reads like a manager actively involved in the promotion of a direct report, and in finding a scope of work that the report might find challenging so that they grow. Your comment reads like a colleague helping out another colleague to the best of their ability. Which is exactly what I expect from a manager.
There won't be many managers for long. And definitely not the ones that don't know proper engineering. Teams are already shrinking, managers will be the first casualty.
That's an entirely valid point of view, and one plenty of people share. Being accountable for other people's mistakes sucks.
The only issue with it is that you can only get positive side for work you do directly, which limits the scale of what you're seen to be capable of doing. I lead a team of about 50 (7 directly, plus their teams), so I get to lead on quite big projects that I'd only work on smaller parts of I wasn't a manager. I enjoy that aspect of my role. But yeah, taking the blame when someone screw up isn't fun.
When did I say any of that? wtf are you talking about? I clearly said OTHER PEOPLE's mistakes, not my own. But thanks for playing.
edit: In fact, that is exactly my point. I DO take responsibility for my own mistakes, I just don't want to be held responsible for OTHER PEOPLE's mistakes.
it's a bullshit term because a managers contributions are also individual and the kind of contributions (implied to come from non-individual contributors) also come from individual contributors
Not usually one to complain about AI, but I felt that there was some superfluous content here - maybe the use of AI has made it longer but not stronger.
Yep, I stopped reading as soon as I saw the obvious AI language. It's a huge turnoff.
I quite like this article (despite some signs of AI writing in it). It reflects my own experience of transitioning to management roles.
The first time I managed a team I designed a whole solution for the team to implement, and they were like "Are we just your typists?!! Why don't you let us do that?". They were right; I stepped back and shared goals and direction with them instead from that point. It's hard to step away from how you did things before and give trust to others to do a good job.
The other thing they highlighted also resonated - if you become a manager of people who were formally your team mates, it alters your relationships with them. I remember feeling quite depressed when people no longer joked around with me in the same way they used to, and I felt a bit isolated. Took me a while to understand the shift in dynamics and not take it personally.
Is this still a debate? It all depends on personal goal/wishes and constraints from your working contrxt (e.g company size, country of residence).
Take France with medium to large size companies: ICs (whatever the seniority) are usually paid less and have a hard time evolving so they are naturally encouraged to take on management roles by their hierarchy. In some other contexts, ICs may have more leverage thus not wanting to go the management route and that’s okay.
Anyway, in the next 5 to 10 years this all might change for better or worse so…
My motivation was quite different, and i'd like to encourage more people to consider the same.
Often times narcissistic power grabbing (often technically incompetent) engineers become managers, like it was the case a previous team I've worked at and it was quite penalizing to the whole team.
I've realized that either i can be the one managing and try to do good, or be at the mercy of another manager; chose the first.
I think this article does a great job at conveying the new skills you need from a work-completing perspective as a manager, but there's another aspect that is much more subtle and long-term: being a guide for other people's careers.
I've seen dozens of people start managing, stop managing, change roles (including myself), etc, and there are two extremes that stand out:
1. Management out of necessity. They became a manager because they wanted to solve a problem that is too big for them to solve alone, and no one else was willing to fund it. So they got headcount, hired a team, and set them to work on solving the hard problem. But the problem they're solving is the only focus. This manager tends to have an elite team of low-maintenance engineers who just get things done. They are very effective, but eventually when those reports start asking questions like, "how do I get promoted? What's the next step in my career?" their manager has to suddenly learn this new set of skills or risk losing their highest performers.
2. Management to be a mentor. They became a manager to help other people grow. Sure they are solving problems with the team, but this manager spends the time to help higher-maintenance engineers grow their own skills. This is time-consuming, this can be frustrating, progress is going to be slower, but eventually you can reach very high throughput, and also feel very accomplished knowing you helped someone else reach their potential. This, however, has to be balanced with not moving so slowly that you frustrate your top performers.
There's nothing wrong with either of these extremes so long as everyone in the manager-report relationship knows what to expect, and many managers will be between these two extremes.
The main tl;dr takeaway is: as a manager, you are not just responsible for people's tasks, you are responsible for their career. Managers need to take this seriously and address it head-on to build those skills before the first time a report asks, "so how do I get promoted?"
Perhaps these two roles shouldn't be conflated into a single position?
The only career goals I want my manager to be responsible for is to not be in my way. I tinkered with my PC since I was young without my manager. I decided to go to Computer Science without my manager. I got my degree without my manager. I got my first job without my manager. I practiced lifelong learning without my manager. I ran my own company without my manager. I handled clients without my manager. I managed to find mentors without my manager. Etc.
There might be some people that need a nanny. I am not one of those people. My manager should be a proper valve between me and whatever layer he manages for and should not play stupid games when it comes to my career. That's it. He's a colleague. Not a mentor. I'm perfectly capable of finding mentors for myself, and if it happens to be them, well, kudos to them.
> That's it. He's a colleague. Not a mentor
You're missing a very important aspect of how managers impact your career: Opportunities.
The manager's job is to find you impactful work that a) gets you promoted and b) challenges you in the ways you want or need to grow.
Am I missing this, or are you assuming that I am incapable of finding opportunities myself, within or without the organization that the manager is beholden to? I honestly can't understand this framing, of the manager's job as a sort of opportunity finder for those 'under' them, and somehow being more impactful at this than the individuals themselves.
I'll give you this, some people need to be managed and for some reason presented with opportunities by a 2nd party. But some people just don't, they need to be collaborated with.
This is a pretty odd take, from my perspective.
If one of my direct reports came to me and said they were interested in working on, say... AI observability (replace with whatever interests you), and that was something I had any influence over (even if only indirectly), I'd be finding whatever way I could to connect my report with that kind of work.
It's all well and good to say that you're in control of your own career advancement, but that's not in conflict with working with your manager on supporting your career development. Even if they don't have anything to teach you, they will necessarily have some influence of your scope/area of work, so it only makes sense to work them on aligning your work with your interests.
I believe everything you wrote about here is actually cooperation between two people, and to the point of what I said, you not actively getting in the way of your direct report's career progression.
> The manager's job is to find you impactful work that a) gets you promoted and b) challenges you in the ways you want or need to grow.
To me, the comment I responded to reads like a manager actively involved in the promotion of a direct report, and in finding a scope of work that the report might find challenging so that they grow. Your comment reads like a colleague helping out another colleague to the best of their ability. Which is exactly what I expect from a manager.
There won't be many managers for long. And definitely not the ones that don't know proper engineering. Teams are already shrinking, managers will be the first casualty.
[dead]
[dead]
I avoided having minions for my entire 30 year IT career. Fuck if I'm going to let someone else's mistakes reflect negatively on me.
That's an entirely valid point of view, and one plenty of people share. Being accountable for other people's mistakes sucks.
The only issue with it is that you can only get positive side for work you do directly, which limits the scale of what you're seen to be capable of doing. I lead a team of about 50 (7 directly, plus their teams), so I get to lead on quite big projects that I'd only work on smaller parts of I wasn't a manager. I enjoy that aspect of my role. But yeah, taking the blame when someone screw up isn't fun.
May you be released from thinking that your mistakes reflect poorly on anyone, including yourself. Being bad is a necessary part of becoming good
When did I say any of that? wtf are you talking about? I clearly said OTHER PEOPLE's mistakes, not my own. But thanks for playing.
edit: In fact, that is exactly my point. I DO take responsibility for my own mistakes, I just don't want to be held responsible for OTHER PEOPLE's mistakes.
I hate the term "individual contributor" how else does an individual contribute but individually
A lot of professions have terms of art that can be interpreted incorrectly or be viewed as odd by laymen. "Individual contributor" is no different.
Maybe it sounds weird to you, but it's a well-understood term in the management profession.
it's a bullshit term because a managers contributions are also individual and the kind of contributions (implied to come from non-individual contributors) also come from individual contributors