Thread by @mipsytipsy

I've been in NYC all week for #LeadDevNewYork #LeadingEngNewYork #StaffPlusNewYork, and it strikes me just how many stories and questions I've been hearing about career pendulum issues. 🤔 Problems with comp, ladders, recruiting, accountants etc.

This is GREAT. This is progress.

https://twitter.com/redteamwrangler/status/1512464638197346311

When all you hear is happy stories about people swinging back to engineering work after management, you can assume it's a rare and curious event. You're bucking the system, not changing it.

Friction and cranky accountants are a sign the status quo is shifting, tho. 🙃

We talk a lot about how powerful you become as a contributor with both skill sets. We talk less about the detoxifying effect it has on team dynamics, when you drain the authoritarian elements and respect management like any other function.

(do read the whole thread ☺️)

https://twitter.com/redteamwrangler/status/1512464642139951105

One question that came up twice was that of equal pay for managers and engineers of the same level bracket.

"What do you do when the finance team tells you they've run the numbers and it's harder to hire managers, therefore managers must be paid more than engineers?"

My instinct is to say, pound sand. ☺️ Pay brackets aren't just a matter of supply and demand, they are also a statement of values.

If you say that the IC & manager tracks are of equal value and prestige, if people regularly swing between the two, equal comp seems mandatory.

1) you can't decrease the salary of a manager who goes back to engineering,

2) you don't want people to become managers for comp reasons (and people WILL make these decisions for comp)

3) if you must raise the mgr bands to successfully hire, I get it. Raise the eng bands too.

The "worst" effect this is likely to have is to exhibit some downwards pressure on engineering promotions to staff+.

This is probably a good thing? Most companies promote to staff+ too liberally in my exp.. they promote based on individual "merit" rather than business need.

which feels good, and definitely helps retain individuals, but sets up a load of organizational debt down the line if there isn't enough staff+ level work to go around.

Still, this all works pretty well for senior eng <-> EM roles. What I'm curious about is director+ folks.

What if a director or VP wants to go back to being an IC, after having switched to management from the position of senior engineer?

Level wise, they are supposedly the equivalent of a staff, principal or even distinguished engineer, but they are self-aware enough to know better.

I have only ever seen these treated like one offs, so I'm just curious to hear how others have handled this in any systematic way.

I guess the converse of this is also interesting -- what if a principal or staff level engineer wants to try management, and the parallel tracks mean they would start out as a director or VP? ☺️

Parallel bands are a good idea, but they get real complicated around the 90th %ile.

It feels really objectionably stupid for great people to have to leave companies they love because of org chart inflexibility.

But every exception and one-off creates it's own organizational debt, and often cynicism and equity issues over special treatment.