[HN Gopher] Shopify elevated the non-manager career path and dit...
___________________________________________________________________
Shopify elevated the non-manager career path and ditched meetings
Author : walterbell
Score : 180 points
Date : 2023-07-12 16:42 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (creatoreconomy.so)
(TXT) w3m dump (creatoreconomy.so)
| nine_zeros wrote:
| > At Shopify, our primary job is to build products, not career
| ladders.
|
| If only my company understood this, we would spend so less time
| on optics. Managers would be rated on their ability to build
| products rather than on generating "short-term impact" documents
| for optics.
|
| Engineers these days are asked to spend far too much time
| documenting their work for optics than on the actual work itself.
| This comes from a place of career-ladder managers who don't
| really know anything about the business except people management.
| These management practices are an incredible overhead on the
| business.
| esafak wrote:
| Netflix did this right: they had no ladder for as long as
| possible and outsourced raises to the market ("bring an offer
| and we'll match it").
| Infinitesimus wrote:
| I'd love to hear the perspective of current or former
| employees of Netflix.
|
| At some point, they decided that an IC career ladder was
| important and instituted it. Management always had a ladder
| so that's not new.
|
| What changed?
| esafak wrote:
| Netflix outgrew its one-size-fits-all solution. Here are
| the details:
|
| https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/netflix-levels/
| webel0 wrote:
| I'd like to see some stats on slack usage, Google docs activity,
| and jira ticket activity (or their equivalents) before and after
| this shift.
|
| Basically: does this just mean that everything is migrating to
| written form? If so, is that good?
| nerdo wrote:
| Couldn't you use the calendar as a salary lookup tool here?
| webel0 wrote:
| What is the policy for ad hoc huddles? If I'm spending more than
| 20% of my attention on a message thread, then I'm not being a
| productive programmer. At that point I just want to pick up the
| phone and talk to people (but not hang around and chat forever).
| OJFord wrote:
| That's just a personality thing isn't it? I'd generally rather
| thrash it out over text, have the written record to refer to
| and point others at.
|
| I'm not doing anything else either way, so a call doesn't help
| that.
| webel0 wrote:
| It is. And my question is that - given that it is a
| personality thing - how is Shopify dealing with it?
| leftcenterright wrote:
| I worked at a small company with about 50 employees where self-
| organizing teams was the norm in tech departments. It was
| comprised of mostly senior developers and researchers though so
| they mostly were able to avoid rabbit-holes themselves and
| prioritize as needed. I don't think such teams have shown to work
| in bigger companies though. Does anyone else also have insight or
| experience with self-organizing teams?
| organsnyder wrote:
| A former company I worked for was what I call "intentionally
| disorganized": other than high-level direction, management was
| completely hands-off, and everyone was expected to self-
| organize and manage their own work, typically among loosely-
| organized teams with no formal accountability.
|
| Some people seemed to thrive there, but for me it was a
| devastatingly bad fit. My ADHD (clinically diagnosed) certainly
| played a major part in this. With everything being up to the
| individual, it was too easy for me to get caught up in all the
| myriad things a proper org structure provides, but that I had
| to do myself: prioritization, assistance with career growth,
| feedback loops, and the like. Everything was a struggle, and I
| was ineffective to the point that I was fired.
| esafak wrote:
| What constituted organization; what did the team look like and
| do before and after?
| jdbernard wrote:
| As much as we like to decry middle management in tech, this is
| the purpose, in my opinion, of good middle management. They
| should be the API between a self-organizing team and the
| broader organization. They're a glue layer that helps preserve
| team autonomy in a context where cooperation and coordination
| have become more important.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| "At Shopify, our approach to product reviews is different. "
|
| Ah yes, apparently the only thing every single company I've ever
| worked for has in common is that each and every one is a special
| snowflake.
|
| From his perspective: they have dual career ladders, PMs iterate
| over the same product for longer periods of time, driven by close
| customer feedback. What company doesn't say they do this?
| bbojan wrote:
| "We don't over-index on OKRs. Many important things can't be
| measured and not everything that can be measured is important."
|
| Can't agree enough.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| It seems like you don't want to argue endlessly over if a
| project is 65% complete or 70% complete? Here's a "needs
| improvement" rating for you. /s
|
| Notice how the rating is negative for corporate BS and not for
| actual service/product.
| neilv wrote:
| > _Shopify laid off 20% of its global workforce today -- its
| second sizeable employee culling after a reduction of 10%
| announced last July._ -- https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/04/how-
| shopify-bungled-its-la...
|
| I'd like to make an HN grassroots proposal... that people impose
| a moratorium period on indulging a company's PR attempts to sell
| their enlightened management culture, right after something like
| that.
|
| Layoffs looks like either a huge fudge-up that screws employees,
| _or_ screwing employees as a greedy or dumb business move.
|
| In neither scenario is it in the interests of the hiring pool to
| pretend it didn't happen.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| If the economy and an industry is generally doing well,
| frequent lay-offs can be a good thing. It would be better
| financially for the employees, as they will be able to find a
| different employer quickly and/or will receive severance
| payments. It is better for employers (those who know what
| they're doing, at least) as they can reduce their costs quickly
| if they need to. Those who are unhappy with a job can find a
| new one more easily with an elevated level of staff turnover in
| their industry.
|
| The psychological effects for employees can be greatly harmful,
| though. Additionally, there is a cost to society when projects
| are cancelled that would be beneficial to the world, even if
| not profitable, and such flitty business practice could become
| exaggerated if lay-offs did not carry such stigma.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > It would be better financially for the employees, as they
| will be able to find a different employer quickly and/or will
| receive severance payments.
|
| This is making a lot of assumptions that I think make the
| hypothesis very shaky. The only people who can decide if
| they'll be better off when this happens are the individuals
| being laid off, because they're the only ones who have enough
| information to know.
| pesfandiar wrote:
| Along the same cynical lines of thinking, I bet this is part of
| the whole belt-tightening move. If employee retention is not a
| priority, managers can reduce or neglect related tasks (think
| 1:1s, career development, ...) and manager-to-IC ratio can be
| reduced.
| abraae wrote:
| I used to think like this but external factors such as interest
| rates are real and most companies need to react to them.
|
| Take two hypothetical companies. One is conservatively run,
| never takes on anyone that they might need to let go. The other
| hires aggressively when times are good, and fires when they get
| bad.
|
| The second company will (if well run otherwise) likely be more
| successful over time and create more wealth than the first.
| oxfordmale wrote:
| Not necessarily. Layoffs do have a long-term impact on morale
| and productivity.
|
| Layoffs only positively impact the business in the long run
| if the cuts are essential to the company's survival
| (otherwise, they would go bankrupt). Spotify likely had
| enough cash to weather the storm.
|
| In can see the drop in moral in my team. We are busier than
| ever, as the work hasn't dried up, but there are no decent
| pay rises on the horizon. As soon as the economy recovers,
| most of my team will find job elsewhere.
| PreachSoup wrote:
| Exactly. When moral is low and the money is not good, the
| good ones will jump ship first. The company would need try
| really hard to retain the talents
| [deleted]
| spandrew wrote:
| I agree that interest rates have essentially driven most of
| the layoffs recently. Debt that used to cost 10c on the
| dollar to service has started to cost 2 dollars. If your
| expenses don't give, then your profits will. And potentially
| your liquidity.
|
| But it's kool-aid drinking to assume a company that is over
| aggressive at hiring in a bull market and fires in a bear
| market will create more wealth. Wealth for whom is the better
| question to ask -- certainly not the thousands of laid off
| employees.
| [deleted]
| indecisive_user wrote:
| >Wealth for whom is the better question to ask -- certainly
| not the thousands of laid off employees
|
| I think that depends on the pay structure. If a large part
| of your compensation is in stock then you'll still benefit
| from the additional wealth creation. Assuming a decent
| severance package it's certainly possible you come out
| ahead compared to the more conservative company, even being
| laid off.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > The second company will (if well run otherwise) likely be
| more successful over time and create more wealth than the
| first.
|
| Perhaps, but it's the first company that I'd rather work for.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Just to put a number, what percentage of salary hit would
| you be willing to take to work in the first company? For
| simplification, if we take Europe as the first kind and US
| as the second the difference in salary could be 2-3x after
| accounting for cost of living.
| JohnFen wrote:
| That's a legitimately difficult question to answer,
| because there are so many factors that are involved when
| I determine what my minimum requirement is for a
| particular position.
|
| But if I look at my last position and consider everything
| identical except that one case has laying employees off
| as an intentional part of the business plan, and the
| other case where that's not true, I would have wanted to
| make at least twice as much as compensation for the
| layoff risk.
|
| But... working at a place where I feel insecure would
| have other knock-on effects. Primarily, being much less
| invested in the company, and so less willing to make
| sacrifices or take risks, regardless of pay rate. And
| that means that I'd be likely to be unhappy in the
| position. So it's all very complicated.
|
| As a caveat, though, I am not particularly motivated by
| money, as long as my minimum requirements are met. I tend
| to be motivated more by the work and work environment
| itself.
|
| I have learned that there are quite a lot of things that
| can't be made better through increased compensation.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Not to mention, companies announcing major acquisitions (Uber
| acquiring Postmates), or share buybacks (Apple) right
| afterwards. If a company really did mismanage their workforce
| the CEO would be fired for it, not rewarded.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Nah ceos get fired for mismanaging profit margins, not
| people.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| When did Apple do layoffs?
| ares1 wrote:
| In '97 they layed off 4100 people - close to A third of
| their workforce at the time
| https://money.cnn.com/1997/03/14/technology/apple/
| wepple wrote:
| Why are share buybacks seen so negatively? Isn't it somewhat
| to offset the fact that a lot of shares are issued as comp,
| so dilute the pool?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| because it uses free cash to increase share price in order
| to increase executive compensation based on said share
| price, instead of using said free cash flow to compensate
| actual workers/employees
| jetpackjoe wrote:
| or for R&D, improving operations, or anything else that
| benefits the company.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Layoffs are not seen as mismanaging your workforce by
| investors. They're generally seen as a gamble that didn't pay
| off. Especially with tech companies, taking gambles is a good
| thing, investors want to see that management is taking risks.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| Though sometimes the gamble _is_ the layoff (see Twitter
| atm)
| twelve40 wrote:
| holding up people's wages to get the company through a bump
| or two would be another bold gamble and a savvy business
| move until it was made illegal (luckily for all of us non-
| sociopaths)
| coffeefirst wrote:
| Yes, but I am not obliged to entertain this fantasy.
| [deleted]
| no_wizard wrote:
| Not that I'm quibbling, however I don't think Apple had any
| meaningful sized layoffs? I know there was some shake up in
| the retail division, but its unclear from the outside what
| the motivation was. I've heard through 2nd hand sources that
| there's been alot of churn and issues in the retail division
| really spanning back to Ron Johnson's retirement
|
| Only mentioning this as I'm not sure it categorizes the same
| as these huge 10%+ layoffs the rest of tech have participated
| in, sometimes multiple times by the same company.
| abraae wrote:
| > We built an operating system called GSD (get shit done). This
| internal tool emphasizes frequent written updates...
|
| Operating system .... Those words don't mean what you think they
| mean.
| lgharapetian wrote:
| Does anyone know how they extended the Google Calendar interface
| to show the cost of the meeting?
| inerte wrote:
| Probably Chrome extension, as the browser is managed by the
| company, they can basically extend it with anything they want.
| Djle wrote:
| This is a re-invention of the wheel. Many companies in the past
| had non-managerial career paths for technical people, and for
| some reason this fact, along with many other things, becomes "an
| innovation" by the current generation.
| esafak wrote:
| The question is whether one path is more attractive than the
| other.
| Djle wrote:
| Definitely, but the point is that technical people shouldn't
| feel like they need to take the managerial route to "get
| ahead". In the same vein, managers should become managers
| because they are good at managing people and not because they
| are the smartest people in the room.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| "technical people shouldn't feel like they need to take the
| managerial route to "get ahead". "
|
| In most companies that's definitely the case. You can make
| way more as a mediocre manager than as an outstanding IC.
| ska wrote:
| Does "get ahead" mean only salary level?
|
| Most technical people I've met who bemoan the "fact" that
| they would make more at their company as a manager
| (mediocre or otherwise) would _also_ have the option of
| moving companies and /or industries to a technical role
| that pays better. And yet, they don't. Mostly because it
| turns out the preference isn't just about $$, but about
| all the other factors (I don't want to move, I don't want
| to work on X, I only want to work on Y, it's too big,
| it's too small, they don't give enough holiday,
| whatever).
|
| So what it really comes down to is that they disagree
| with the company about how it values their relative
| contributions. Which is obviously fine, but do you really
| think the average IC has the data or experience to
| evaluate this well? Many of the rants I've heard along
| these lines were pretty naive about the business.
| esafak wrote:
| That is what I mean by attractive; whether one path gets
| you ahead significantly better than the other. Otherwise
| people will flock to the attractive path, leading to a
| worse overall outcome for the organization.
|
| It's a bit like making sure the characters in a game are
| balanced so the game "works".
| Djle wrote:
| I guess it depends on what you mean by "getting you
| ahead". It takes a mature and confident organization to
| implement this type of strategy for sure and allowing
| people, who are not managers, to make some of the
| strategic decisions.
| OJFord wrote:
| Not GP but isn't it obvious? Compensation, future
| prospects.
|
| If managers are paid more you're putting a price on how
| much someone has to dislike managing people or prefer
| spending their time ICing for someone else. I don't think
| many people will pay much (in opportunity cost) for that.
|
| And probably more significant than the initial bump for
| many is when they're looking for the next job elsewhere,
| and can say 'led a team of x many' vs. not.
| OJFord wrote:
| Did it ever go anywhere? I think it just takes a company of a
| certain size to be able to have a (formal, with some kind of
| written scope or responsibility anyway) IC track.
|
| Imagine a little start-up with a 'Distinguished Engineer' and
| slew of Principals and Staffs, it'd seem a bit weird wouldn't
| it? Even if they distinguished themselves elsewhere. Maybe it's
| just me.
| ska wrote:
| > it'd seem a bit weird wouldn't it?
|
| No weirder than a little young startup with a CEO, a CTO, a
| CMO, etc. etc.
|
| Titles in general aren't that meaningful without context, no?
| OJFord wrote:
| I suppose, but it does need some top-level leadership, and
| those (vs 'head of' or whatever) are reflective of legal
| structure.
|
| Have you ever seen/heard of one with a DE? My starting
| point was that it basically/presumably doesn't happen -
| 'imagine' - and that it would seem weird if it did. If it
| is fina and normal as you suggest then ok, it is just me
| (as I said it might be), and I haven't come across it.
| ska wrote:
| Of course it needs some leadership, but the multiple "C"
| levels are mostly just about ego management, very little
| to do with day-to-day or scope, in practice.
|
| Hell you don't need any C levels at all. The legal
| structure doesn't require it, corporate directors is not
| tied to title ... there are few things that have to
| exist, and it's mostly about who can sign contracts that
| bind your company.
|
| Fundraising is probably easier if you go out as "CEO"
| just because expectations are met, but that's a separate
| issue.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| my conjecture is that coders are the new managers - because the
| new workers are CPUs and GPUs.
|
| Prior to 2000s ish you needed people to do most tasks manually.
| Software has eaten enough of the world that most (middle class
| middle world) jobs are automated or can be.
|
| And so you have a league of coders organising the work of the
| compmay on CPUs and then a layer of legacy managers who can't or
| don't code trying to work out how to pull levers they cannot see
| anymore.
| danjc wrote:
| I'm guessing you're under 30
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Hilariously above 30. way above.
|
| Why the guess? What makes young people think management is
| mostly wasted space but not older people?
| negamax wrote:
| Expect many more such posts and changes after many companies
| including Shopify shot themselves in the foot by conducting
| engineering layoffs.
|
| None of the engineers were affected. Many were quickly absorbed
| by other companies who always had dearth of talent
|
| I don't trust Shopify to do this properly and forever. This will
| be like Covid WFH. Once the tide recede companies will be back to
| what they are
| leviathant wrote:
| Tobi announced an AI chat assistant for Shopify merchants
| today. The breathless video did little to mask that this was
| released in the wake of laying off thousands of talented people
| who have gone to work elsewhere in the ecommerce space. While I
| do think it's fair to say they overhired prior to that, it also
| seems like they're falling into a pattern of over-correction.
| I'm sure they'll weather it long-term, but they're going to
| skid around a lot in the mean time.
| negamax wrote:
| Bad layoffs are extremely costly. More costly than bad hires.
| Shopify and others signalled to everyone that they are
| replaceable at the onset of a recession. The people who
| stayed have seen the blood.
|
| How likely is it that the people who were not laid off will
| stay if economy enters a boom cycle? Not very likely. This
| article is a tongue in cheek admittance that they messed up.
| IC tracks being prioritised because people who contribute to
| product development in a growing tech company are much more
| valuable than managers.
|
| In the coming years many managers will be forcefully moved to
| IC tracks and will be laid off if they aren't keeping their
| builder chops up to date. We have seen this happening at
| Meta.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| As with all of these cute little corporate things that always
| fail, Microsoft Already Did It.
|
| Many meeting rooms at Microsoft were, at one point, installed
| with devices that showed the cost of a meeting based on the
| titles of the people attending. It was abandoned for several
| reasons, one of which being that more junior folks ended up even
| more intimidated by senior-level folks than before.
|
| They won't go on a PR blitz about it like they are now, but
| Shopify will stop this practice sooner or later, too. Nothing
| unique or interesting to see here.
| tssva wrote:
| They replaced some meetings with async written communication and
| decision making. What is that? It sounds a lot like sending
| emails. I'm not sure that having to follow and respond to email
| chains or async communication chains on whatever medium was
| chosen is inherently more cost effective or less intrusive to
| creators than meetings. The only measurement mentioned was a
| reduction in the number of meeting, so I'm not sure they really
| do either.
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| > I'm not sure that having to follow and respond to email
| chains or async communication chains on whatever medium was
| chosen is inherently more cost effective or less intrusive to
| creators than meetings.
|
| Async is 100% more efficient and cost effective. You can
| skim/ignore the content that is irrelevant to you. You can set
| aside the time that is most efficient for you to work through
| it. No one has to slice their day according to what is least
| inconvenient for the group at large.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| I somewhat disagree. There's a happy balance not met by
| maxims and decrees from on high about communication styles.
| When I'm pushing along a project (as a designer and coder,
| not a PM), I am often blocked by gaps in my knowledge, access
| requests, unclear process, etc. Similarly I am sometimes the
| gatekeeper for another person or team as they push their
| projects. The faster and smoother this communication happens,
| the less time I (or they) spend twiddling thumbs and context-
| switching.
|
| That's not to say that one should be at the beck and call of
| Slack notifications 24/7. It's important to set time aside
| for concentration, and not set the expectation that you'll
| hop on after-hours for any old thing. But I have known the
| pain of tickets that sit in queues for weeks, or emails that
| take three follow-ups to get answers, and I don't want that
| any more than I want to work somewhere that I can never
| unplug.
| esafak wrote:
| With async media you empower recipients with managing their own
| time. Now they can reduce distractions, work when they want,
| and respond when they want. It is clear to me that this leads
| to better work and I have not seen anyone dispute this. The
| question is whether the activity that used to take place in
| meetings suffers more than the actual work improves. I doubt
| it. Most meetings are inefficient; not all participants are
| needed all of the time. I would default to no meeting and
| schedule one if there is a consensus that it would be better.
| tssva wrote:
| > It is clear to me that this leads to better work and I have
| not seen anyone dispute this.
|
| I dispute it. There now you know someone that disputes it, so
| show me some evidence I'm wrong.
| esafak wrote:
| Productivity went up sharply in the pandemic, for starters:
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
|
| It's axiomatic that people can work more efficiently when
| they have fewer interruptions and more power over their
| schedules. There are many studies on this. One by Gloria
| Mark et al. found that it took around 25 minutes for
| individuals to regain their focus after an interruption or
| context switch.
|
| http://blog.idonethis.com/distractions-at-work
| tssva wrote:
| I don't have any evidence but neither do you. Then again
| I'm not the one that stated something was clear and
| undisputed when really it is just an opinion.
|
| I'm not sure how increased productivity during the
| pandemic correlates to measuring the impacted of
| increased async communications vs meetings. I had a whole
| lot of meetings while working remote. They just occured
| via Teams, Zoom, Google Meeting, etc instead of in
| person.
| obblekk wrote:
| Silicon valley has benefited from a doubling of workers every x
| years for decades as the importance of software in the economy
| kept increasing.
|
| In that environment, it's important to push smart people toward
| management to be able to keep scaling the company.
|
| But clearly everyone in the economy cannot develop software. So
| if we start slowing down the employee growth within SV, it's
| completely rational to stop pushing smart people into management,
| and perhaps even pulling them out of management. Non-manager
| career paths are a way to indicate to smart people they should be
| spending their time here.
|
| Finance is an industry to look at as an example of one where
| plenty of money can be made by ICs. There must be others as well.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > it's important to push smart people toward management to be
| able to keep scaling the company
|
| nonsense.
|
| Apple is a perfect counterexample of your assertion.
| (disclaimer: worked there for years with an excellent role and
| what you said was then countercultural, in our engineering
| world at least).
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Agreed, I know plenty of highly competent technical people
| whose skills are utterly essential who I would not trust to
| run a doggie daycare. Technical skills and people skills are
| orthogonal to some degree.
| obblekk wrote:
| Apple headcount has increased from 37k in 2010 to 164k in
| 2022. Are you saying they only hire managers externally, they
| have dozens of reports per manager, or they prefer to push
| median employees into management instead of the best?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| I'd like you to imagine a place where people are not pushed
| but where what they pull themselves towards is
| acknowledged.
|
| Because that fits how the engineering division i enjoyed
| and in which i and most others flourished was run.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Can only speak to my engineering division, so im not saying
| anything you asked.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I also agree it's non-sense. Some people are just not cut out
| to be a manager. Some people would just not enjoy being a
| manager if they were not not cutout for it. To expand on your
| Apple example, the Woz just wanted to be an engineer making
| things. Without trying to compare myself to Woz, but I too
| would rather just keep working on making things rather than
| managing people making things.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Agreed. Many of us were like that while i was there. And
| such was encouraged as entirely strategically fine.
| rogerkirkness wrote:
| Apple is a counter example in that it is not an academy
| company, it is more like the company where you have your last
| job once you idealize your craft skills.
| addaon wrote:
| As someone who had my first job at Apple (years ago), I
| can't think of a single reading of this that makes sense
| and lines up with my experience.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| I think in the general case this makes sense. Most people
| at Apple did not start their career at Apple. They
| probably got a significant amount of experience before
| joining Apple.
| eclectic29 wrote:
| I'm sorry to be cynical here but all this is good only in theory
| or in a blog article. Real life is much different. Let me
| articulate.
|
| 1. There are many more sr mgr/director+ positions than sr. staff+
|
| 2. Corporate politics is brutal and a seasoned mgr is adept at
| it. Unfortunately, the sooner you get better at it the better for
| your career. This is one of the reasons why a seasoned director
| will always be able to command a much bigger scope than sr.
| staff+.
|
| 3. The bar for rising in the IC ladder is astronomically higher
| than that for mgmt ladder.
|
| 4. And let's not forget interviews. Management interviews are
| much easier than ICs. (think leetcode).
|
| 5. Last but not the least, even in big tech companies (FAANGM or
| whatever acronym) you should really measure how many of sr.
| staff+ folks became sr. staff+ after a stint in mgmt. They used
| mgmt to catapult their career after seeing stagnation/difficulty
| of moving up as an IC. You would be surprised how many of these
| very senior ICs have had mgmt careers for several years before.
| It's easy to extol the virtues of being an IC once you've reached
| there but no one sees how they got there :-).
|
| Now, don't get me wrong. There are some companies/orgs/teams
| where higher ICs are valued much more and do better than mgrs but
| it's really the minority. It's in your best interest to switch to
| mgmt after 8-10 yrs of IC career (8-10 yrs is sufficient enough
| to gain a solid footing in tech) and learn the ropes fast. I
| waited for 18 yrs and can see the difference.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| > Bar for rising in the IC ladder is astronomically higher than
| climbing in a mgmt ladder
|
| This is the root of all evil. Just getting from Sr -> Staff
| Engineer is not only a product of skill and experience, but
| also what problem you are working on, how many ICs exist on the
| team/org at your level, what opportunities exist in your org
| and much more. When a staff engineer leaves a company, the
| probability of a senior engineer getting promoted is the same
| as an external hire getting the spot. When a senior manager
| leaves, one of the other managers gets a promotion almost every
| time. In management you can just hire enough people under you
| to automatically climb the corporate ladder. Management often
| rewards inefficiency whereas as an IC you get punished for it.
| OJFord wrote:
| This 'theory or blog article' _is_ about one of your 'some
| companies' though, the interviewee is the.. I can't remember,
| CTO or something, it's not a vacuous 'this is how I think you
| should behave wherever you work', it's saying 'this is how we
| work [and slightly a hiring pitch on that basis]'.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| > Management interviews are much easier than ICs. (think
| leetcode)
|
| And the ICs themselves are to be blamed for encouraging and
| fostering such ridiculous processes.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| maybe any given interview is harder for a technical IC, but
| IME you go through a far more rigorous process for senior
| management.
| sarchertech wrote:
| What do you mean by rigorous. In my experience the hiring
| process might be longer, but if anything it's much less
| rigorous.
| sfn42 wrote:
| What's IC supposed to mean?
| [deleted]
| minorninth wrote:
| Individual Contributor. A general-purpose word that means
| you're not a manager.
| sfn42 wrote:
| Thanks
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Integrated Circuit
| macromagnon wrote:
| Individual Contributor.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| There is a lot of reality in this post. Sadly, ICs have far too
| much scrutiny, starting from aggressive interviews, to
| onboarding, to performance reviews etc.
|
| A manager path is just a chiller life. No leetcode interviews,
| performance review is focused on hiring/firing/delivery rather
| than actual product building, maintenance etc. Managers create
| arbitrary processes for their team just to show to their bosses
| that they are doing something important. Managers also
| scapegoat ICs when their policies fail.
|
| It's a wild paradox. Companies want ICs, to develop and
| maintain but the corporate ladder is designed to favor/give
| power to managers. Wild!
| jghn wrote:
| > A manager path is just a chiller life.
|
| As someone who has done both multiple times each, this
| statement comes off as someone who hasn't spent time in
| management. My stress levels are always much lower when I'm
| an IC. Even when I'm a high level IC. My blood pressure
| levels drop when I'm an IC. etc etc etc.
|
| This is not to say that everything about being a manager is
| harder than being an IC. Not at all. But they're just not
| directly comparable the way you're doing here. They require
| completely different skillsets, and come with different
| challenges. For me, it turns out that the hard parts of
| manager life stress me out, big time. Thus I prefer IC work.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Exactly this. OP probably has not seen the grind of middle
| management and the stress that comes with it. They don't
| call it manager-IC pendulum for nothing.
| treis wrote:
| I think this is just differences in what people are
| naturally good at. Those naturally better at coding think
| IC is easier. Those naturally better at politics think
| being a manager is easier. IMHO manager has a lower minimum
| level of effort required. If things are running smoothly
| it's not a lot of hassle or time. The catch is that, at
| least at the EM & Director level, you have little control
| over whether or not things run smoothly. And if things
| aren't running smoothly you catch a lot of crap.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| At my job, I was always on as a senior engineer. Management
| pushed all the delivery responsibility down to engineers.
| As a result, I was responsible for all engineers feeling
| good, divvying the work, ensuring project moved ahead,
| removing x-team roadblocks, stand-ups, jira tickets etc.
|
| All manager did was collect status reports, weekly
| meetings, promo and optics documents and managing upwards.
| He even fired people that made him look bad.
|
| At some point, I started asking, why am I doing all the
| scoping, project management, product management, people
| management and sprint running? What exactly is my manager
| doing to move the product/service ahead?
| akamia wrote:
| I'm in the process of transitioning back to an IC role from
| a management position and that was one of the biggest
| factors. As a manager, the level of stress I felt just
| became unbearable. I'm wrapping up my management
| responsibilities right now but just knowing that I'll be
| back to IC work soon and won't have that management stress
| has had a huge positive impact on my daily life.
| mattchamb wrote:
| I am 2 weeks back as an IC after 3 years of management,
| so I went through the same thing. Take it slowly, youll
| have some management instincts that are hard to kick. I
| am really enjoying logging off and being uncontactable at
| the end of the day.
| akamia wrote:
| That's super helpful to hear. I'm also making the move
| after 3 years in management.
|
| Being able to be done at the end of the day is something
| I'm really looking forward to but it's going to take some
| time to get back into that mindset.
|
| As a manager, I felt like I was always on.
| vkou wrote:
| > ICs have far too much scrutiny, starting from aggressive
| interviews, to onboarding, to performance reviews etc.
|
| > A manager path is just a chiller life.
|
| Not quite correct. Once you get to a point in management
| seniority, _everything_ that goes wrong is your fault. When
| your immediate manager is at that point, they will absolutely
| twist _your_ thumbs off, rather than have your failures be
| reflected on him. They aren 't interested in your excuses,
| because their boss isn't interested in theirs.
|
| And if you aren't high up in management seniority, you still
| be standing in line to get a bucket of shit dumped on you
| (courtesy of the management fight I've described above), but
| it's _also_ your responsibility to shield your team from it.
| How you do it is up to you, have fun. :)
|
| ... And once you 've cleaned yourself and your team off, and
| think 'Gosh, that was bad, but hey, at least I survived
| getting through that messy place in the line', you'll
| discover that the line is actually circular.
| eclectic29 wrote:
| The important thing is to learn to play the same game your
| company plays (whether it's IC or mgmt) and start learning
| the mgmt ropes soon.
| sfn42 wrote:
| I just write code for the highest bidder. I'm not
| interested in management, I studied software development
| because that's what I want to do. If my company doesn't pay
| me competitive rates to do what I'm good at I'll go do it
| elsewhere. I don't see any reason to stop doing what I'm
| good at. I certainly don't see any reason why anyone should
| pay me more to do something I'm probably not good at.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Who defines the corporate ladder and decides who moves up it?
| Managers.
|
| Obviously it's going to be designed in the way that works
| best for them.
| twelve40 wrote:
| This and the parent thread sound kind of simplistic. In any
| non-trivial-size company, there are many managers, and the
| space on top is always limited. So lower and mid-levels
| have to compete with each other for that limited space,
| they can always be undercut, left behind over an outside
| hire, end up on a crappy project by bad luck, end up with a
| bad boss or the opposite, a team of incompetent ICs who
| fail to deliver while there is only so much a manager can
| do. Always have to beg for adequate resources and overall
| be at the mercy of a large number of random people. Saying
| that it's disneyland designed for easy promotions
| doesn't... really sound correct?
| claudiulodro wrote:
| Let's switch industries for a more objective perspective:
| Does a general contractor have a chiller life than a framer?
| In some ways, sure, they don't have to climb ladders hauling
| 2x6s in the rain, however I don't think the framer would be
| more relaxed if they were dealing with permitting offices,
| sourcing reliable subcontractors, estimating and collecting
| payments from clients, etc. rather than framing. They're both
| necessary roles for large-scale projects.
| c7b wrote:
| You didn't once mention creating better products/services for
| customers, fostering an enjoyable work environment or even
| creating value for shareholders. Your whole argument is about
| (a very narrow Machiavellian view of) individual career
| progression. If it makes the company less attractive to types
| who think like that, that sounds overall good to me. Seems like
| that's also what they were aiming for, and with some success,
| judging from the interview (which is of course a marketing
| piece, so to be taken with the right amounts of salt).
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Shopify is a business not a charity.
|
| I'll donate to someone who needs it, not wealthy capitalists.
|
| If capitalists want my time, they need to pay what it's
| worth.
| boondoggle16 wrote:
| >a very narrow Machiavellian view
|
| A very narrow view which is adopted by the vast majority of
| managers and successful salespeople. Otherwise, why did they
| get to become manager?
|
| > If it makes the company less attractive to types who think
| like that
|
| Not at all... this article is supposed to attract eager,
| naive kids who will work their butts off for little reward.
|
| Machiavellians will find an easier time of becoming manager
| at this company. Staff positions are super limited, but the
| "possibility" reduces competition for management positions.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > Not at all... this article is supposed to attract eager,
| naive kids who will work their butts off for little reward.
|
| I suppose for a company that's better than attracting
| managers who work their butts off to do nothing but enrich
| themselves at the expense of everyone else?
|
| It just depends on who really holds the power at the
| company - the people who want a return on investment (the
| company to succeed), or the people who want to extract as
| much value from the company for themselves (the execs).
|
| When companies start making decisions left and right that
| don't make any sense - it's not because execs are morons.
| It's because things are working as intended, and the execs
| are extracting value for themselves at the expense of
| everything else.
| ironmagma wrote:
| I used to think execs were morons. Now, I realize they're
| just evil. Hanlon's razor is a bit overrated.
| dron57 wrote:
| Why are they evil if they're just following the incentive
| structure? They want to make enough money for themselves
| and their families and to send their kids to college. Is
| that so different from non-execs?
|
| Besides, most of us here on Hacker News can easily avoid
| big companies and go work at small start-ups or even our
| own businesses. If you hate the Machiavellian corporate
| world then vote with your feet.
| ironmagma wrote:
| There's not going to be anything I can do to derive this
| from first principles, but merely extracting value from a
| system without directly producing anything is evil. I
| don't care if you're (supposedly) making other people
| more productive. Actually producing product is what's
| good in this world. There are also basically no ways to
| measure how well a manager is doing (remember that stock
| reflects the whole company which is mostly non-managers),
| so lack of accountability is probably a good indicator
| that someone isn't doing the greatest work. Also, evil is
| relative so I'm not comparing anyone to Stalin here.
| kccqzy wrote:
| > this article is supposed to attract eager, naive kids who
| will work their butts off for little reward.
|
| And how much of the real work in any given tech company is
| actually done by those eager naive kids who are
| unreasonably loyal to the company and have not yet burned
| out? Perhaps the majority?
| szundi wrote:
| My preference personally was anything but management. Know
| I do management as CEO as this was needed to provide better
| service for the customers. I just tell sales guys they have
| to monetize our market position/brand.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| I'd rather start my own company which is what I'm doing.
|
| Absolutely hate corporate politics when I have not enough
| equity to put that much effort in.
| mandeepj wrote:
| > Management interviews are much easier than ICs.
|
| You'd think so, but it's not. During mgmt interviews, you have
| to show how did you rally your team and had impact. It's much
| easier to rally yourself (think leetcode) than rally 6 other
| people.
| jacques_chester wrote:
| > _It 's much easier to rally yourself (think leetcode) than
| rally 6 other people._
|
| For me at least this hasn't been true.
| mrburkins wrote:
| But there's no test suite that fails for a story about
| rallying 6 others, or having impact all of which cannot be
| verified and thus easily embellished - leetcode, and
| subsequently your candidacy, either passes the bar or it
| doesn't.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| > "There are many more sr mgr/director+ positions than sr.
| staff+"
|
| Your points seems be based on the assumption there's more
| people managers than IC's.
|
| I'm not certain that is accurate (or at least accurate at a
| well operated company).
| zeroxfe wrote:
| That's not what they're saying. At the lower and mid levels,
| there are far more ICs than managers. At the top levels,
| there are more managers than ICs (at each level.) This is the
| case in most major tech companies I've seen.
| tikhonj wrote:
| More people managers _at a sufficiently high level_. It 's
| not that there are more managers than junior/mid/senior
| engineers, it's that there are more senior managers/directors
| than there are senior staff/principal engineers. At least at
| big tech companies, I understand that this is just true and
| by several multiples at that. So there would be several times
| more directors than principal engineers at Google, which are
| the two relevant roles at the same level (L8).
| hypnotechno9a wrote:
| You are talking about engineering IC's. The article is talking
| about Product Manager ICs which is far less complex to handle
| in an organization.
| extr wrote:
| The problem with dedicated IC career paths are that they aren't
| respected outside of core tech companies. At some point if you
| want to switch industries you could be looking at a massive pay
| cut. I noticed this in FAANG. Okay, you get to IC8, you're a
| master of the universe. Realistically you can only take that
| credibility with you to other FAANG. If you're a
| manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the
| comp bands will be more comparable.
|
| There are of course exceptions if you are a true rock star and
| have worked on/led household-name projects as an IC. But again,
| if you jump ship, you might end up in a manager-esque role
| anyway. Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience
| you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of
| "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the
| keyboard.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you
| anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable.
|
| That is not my experience. FAANG pays significantly more for
| the same level of management.
| extr wrote:
| FAANG does pay more, perhaps should I have made the point
| differently. Perhaps what I meant was:
|
| TC for mid-level manager/director at FAANG = TC for high
| level manager/VP/C-suite in non-FAANG
|
| TC for maxx level IC in FAANG = Doesn't exist!
|
| The ceiling for manager is higher and is actually possible,
| whereas you will literally never make an IC8 TC as an IC
| outside of FAANG, no matter what.
| sfn42 wrote:
| > Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you
| are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of
| "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the
| keyboard.
|
| This doesn't make sense to me. How? If I'm really fucking good
| with software development, how does it make sense to have me do
| something other than software development? If we were talking
| about tech lead or architect type positions I'd be in
| agreement, but what force are you multiplying otherwise?
|
| The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication.
| They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like
| talking to clients and being middle men. I don't see how a good
| developer is any better at any of that than some random person
| you pull off the street and I'd go as far as saying the dev is
| wasted in such a role. Grab someone with a business degree or
| some other bullshit who wants to do this stuff. Even the people
| who used to be devs quickly lose touch with the dev role once
| they transition to management.
| claudiulodro wrote:
| > The leaders in my company don't do any force
| multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to
| deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men.
|
| Removing distractions and time-sucks from the engineers is a
| force multiplication though.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| That's definitely the case at my company. To get to the same
| pay grade that even mediocre managers get promoted to by
| default, an IC basically has to walk on water.
| seneca wrote:
| It's a supply/demand issue. There are piles of ambitious
| engineers who want to be staff+, and not that many instances
| where it's needed.
|
| Contrary to popular narratives, management outside the
| c-suite is a mostly a thankless grind with no glory. Getting
| competent people to do it requires some major incentives, and
| every team, at every level, requires management.
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| This has been the exact opposite of my experience.
|
| There is an endless availability of engineers who can push
| JSON to an API, but people who can lead a team, handle
| cross team comms, architect, and code the hard problems are
| fairly rare. This is why they command salaries comparable
| to specialist doctors.
|
| Meanwhile, MBAs are an endless resource, given that that
| and Law School are the default for people who haven't
| figured out what they want to do in undergrad.
| extr wrote:
| The thing is though, most of the time you really do just
| need to push JSON to API. Your average non-tech company
| doesn't need hardcore grizzled IC veteran who can code
| hard problems and architect. They would rather just hire
| a good manager, an architect, and some mid level people
| to muddle through. Hyperscale is not a widespread need
| outside of FAANG.
| derek1800 wrote:
| A competent manager of a software team or org should also
| be able to do all the things you mention for ICs minus
| the coding part while also inspiring, leading, people
| managing. Hiring an MBA to lead/manage a software product
| group and engineers without those capabilities is asking
| for sub par results.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| OTOH, does any company outside of Big/Medium Tech have the work
| and compensation available to take advantage of an IC8?
| ska wrote:
| " you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role"
|
| Isn't this sort of the point? It's not a matter of respect so
| much as impact. Having say director level impact as an IC
| requires working on the right sorts of problems, at the right
| sorts of scale, in an organization that is structured to take
| advantage of it. It shouldn't really be surprising that this
| doesn't describe most positions.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you
| anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable.
|
| You think if you're an L8 manager at Google, you're going to
| get hired at some ecom hotdog startup and not take a MASSIVE
| pay cut?
| Dowwie wrote:
| I'm curious what percentage of tech managers at FAANG were IC8
| prior to becoming managers
| abc_lisper wrote:
| That's easy. Its 0.00001%
| karmakaze wrote:
| _[disclamer: I 'm at Shopify and haven't read the post.]_
|
| I agree with that, but my experience has been on the flip-side.
| At other companies when I get beyond staff level I've been
| expected to manage people, when my strength is on the technical
| side. Being able to lead technically and elevate the tech level
| of teams is more effective and rewarding for me. There are
| other ways to force-multiply without being a chain-of-
| communication person:
|
| > Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you
| are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of
| "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the
| keyboard.
| jghn wrote:
| > Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you
| are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of
| "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the
| keyboard.
|
| This is the key statement. People don't like to hear this,
| but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult to
| move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level IC.
| There are people who can pull this off, but the number of
| people who believe they can are orders of magnitude different
| than those who actually can.
|
| For almost all people, all paths to be worth the lofty title
| involve being able to have an indirect influence on a larger
| sphere of influence as their hands on keyboard results only
| go so far. And however one wants to slice it, these paths
| start to sound like the types of things that people say they
| don't want to do when they decry "management". Influencing
| people, politics, mentorship, building trust & alignment,
| etc.
|
| Leadership roles provide a clear path forward for this, but
| while there are other ways they tend to still get poopoo'd by
| the "I just want to code!" crowd.
|
| Mind you, there's nothing wrong with "I just want to code!",
| I'm currently in such a phase myself. One just needs to be
| realistic about what that means for their progression.
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| > but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult
| to move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level
| IC.
|
| I think this is entirely dependent on industry and company
| size/stage.
|
| Anything from a well funded startup to a high-growth pre-
| IPO "unicorn" will likely gain much more from a very senior
| engineer than from a "leadership" hire.
|
| An existing fortune 500? Yeah you're probably right.
| jghn wrote:
| I'm more talking about personal growth, not hiring
| someone fresh. As an IC, it becomes hard for people to
| move the needle further and further *unless* they start
| taking on more interpersonal responsibilities.
|
| Even for hiring in the circumstances you describe, I
| don't think you're wrong per se. But there aren't many
| situations or people where I'd prefer someone who just
| wants to sit in a corner and code vs someone who can do
| all the other stuff at a high level too.
| paxys wrote:
| The reason for this is that the skills of an IC at that level
| are simply not needed at most companies outside of ones that
| have pure tech as their differentiator. What would a consulting
| body shop do with a rockstar engineer who invented a
| programming language or scaled a database to a load previously
| considered unachievable or created a new industry-standard
| cryptographic algorithm? A manager who can work a team of 5
| junior-mid level engineers to the bone to meet an arbitrary
| client deadline with "good enough" work is a lot more valuable.
| mox1 wrote:
| I would argue the high-end IC career path isn't really
| respected in general at F500. I have worked for multiple large
| public companies. Most of the time the highest tier IC role
| consisted of the grizzled veteran engineers who were there
| forever, but disliked managers (and management in general).
| They were usually a bit dis-disgruntled as well (probably
| because they were stuck in that role!). They were never
| promoted or moved into management, because they were too highly
| compensated to make it work.
|
| Basically if you dont "hop" to management in the first 1-6
| years into your career, it quickly becomes too late.
|
| After years of discussion about this with my manager, I
| recently accepted a low level managerial role at my current
| company. It was a large step down title wise (from highest
| level IC title to low level manager title). The only reason I
| did this was because HR agreed to let me keep my current salary
| (albeit "frozen" until I get promoted)..
|
| I found that in general the pay for entry level tech manager
| was a large pay-cut for me , but I was also under qualified for
| type of Director role.
| extr wrote:
| > Basically if you don't "hop" to management in the first 1-6
| years into your career, it quickly becomes too late.
|
| Agreed with this, but only for traditional management track.
| Like if you want to be a CEO of a F500, you need to hop on
| the management track early and spend the time rising through
| the ranks. But there is more flexibility in startup world. In
| a small growing company you can have 15+ of exp as IC but
| quickly become VP or C level if you show aptitude and the
| situation allows for it. And if you have success there, you
| have generalized management credibility.
| sfn42 wrote:
| > They were never promoted or moved into management, because
| they were too highly compensated to make it work.
|
| You're telling me these guys are making absolute shitloads of
| money doing what they are good at and you're saying it as if
| that's a bad thing.
|
| Sign me up. If I wanted to manage I'd have a business degree,
| not a CS degree.
| mox1 wrote:
| It is a bad thing from the companies perspective!
|
| Here you have motivated , respected, talented individuals
| who wants to take all of the things they have learned and
| apply it to a broader set of things across the company.
| They are literally asking to provide more value to the
| company by broadening the scope of their influence.
|
| For a crappy sports analogy, its like never letting the MVP
| become a coach.
| [deleted]
| _jal wrote:
| > Basically if you dont "hop" to management in the first 1-6
| years into your career
|
| I only recently became a manager. I'm somewhere around year
| 28 of my career, depending on how you want to count some
| early jobs.
|
| It happens.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| Same, my friends got into management after 20+ years. I'm
| still trying to avoid it
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _They were never promoted or moved into management, because
| they were too highly compensated to make it work._
|
| Or maybe because they had no interest in management work?
| p1necone wrote:
| Yeah I would never want to be a manager. My career is
| writing code/building software. I like doing that. Pay me
| according to my ability to ship good code and don't ever
| make me manage people please.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| The thing is that you are almost never compensated on
| your ability to ship good code, you're compensated on
| your ability to create business value. More business
| value usually means owning and leading more scope, not
| better/more code.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I'm not the person you responded to, but I realize this,
| and I realize that my career ambitions put a definite
| ceiling on my salary.
|
| Which is fine! I'd rather have my current salary and not
| have to manage people. I wouldn't want a manager's job
| for twice my salary. It would make me unhappy, and a
| spare salary wouldn't make it up to me.
| p1necone wrote:
| Sure but I can accomplish that by being a technical lead
| - planning architecture, reviewing code, mentoring junior
| devs, building libraries etc.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| All of which means shipping less code and managing people
| in some capacity.
| mox1 wrote:
| My point was that most corporations remove the option from
| high level individual contributors. The higher you go, the
| more the option is removed. I was directly told that I am
| more than qualified from a technical perspective to be a
| Director, but not qualified from an management perspective.
|
| Teaching people management skills is probably a whole heck
| of a lot easier than teaching them technical skills, but
| companies don't see it that way. Companies will pay top
| dollar for a fresh Harvard MBA, and put them in-charge of a
| large technology thing they know little about, but reject
| the idea of a IC8 moving into that role.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Why wouldn't they allow an IC8 to move into a lower-level
| management position? It sounds like the option isn't
| _removed_ , you just have to move downwards on the
| parallel track, to learn those things.
|
| Imagine it the other way around; I would not expect the
| head of HR at my employer to move directly into a Staff
| Engineering position if they expressed interest in moving
| towards a technical role.
| peoplearepeople wrote:
| I would however expect a Staff Engineer to make an
| entirely adequate head of HR
| [deleted]
| tacker2000 wrote:
| Great stuff!
|
| Now maybe one of these engineers that "love" to build "great"
| products could take a look at the "great" Shopify PHP SDK [1],
| where no issue or feedback is ever answered and the developers
| who use it (and who are actually promoting Shopify by using their
| API) are left in the dirt to fend for themselves.
|
| [1]https://github.com/Shopify/shopify-api-php
| no_wizard wrote:
| Shopify doesn't have the best developer relations across the
| board, not just their API packages. Advice I've gotten from
| others who have maintained Shopify integrations long term
| recommend that you use their GraphQL or REST APIs directly and
| build your own client.
| pmulard wrote:
| I'm curious how many opportunities the IC path has to lead and
| conduct "managerial" duties. I'm sure it varies by company, but
| I'd like to believe it's like how most research teams operate -
| leaders lead and organize meetings when necessary, but they are
| primarily responsible for the research at the end of the day.
|
| I've only been a low level IC, so I don't know what it looks
| like. Anyone care to share their experience?
| ptmcc wrote:
| My experience as a staff-level IC is that I end up doing a lot
| of project management, scoping, resource allocation,
| interacting & negotiating with business stakeholders, and
| defining & delegating work items. I meet often with my actual
| EM and work with him on strategic team direction. I still code
| but quite a bit less than as a senior IC, instead doing more
| oversight, review, and direction-setting across all the team's
| projects and work.
|
| But I don't have to do the real people management stuff like
| perf reviews, dealing with personal issues, hiring/firing,
| reporting to the execs/board, etc.
|
| I have some previous "real" management experience from a prior
| job but I noped out of it for staff+ IC, for now.
| paxys wrote:
| Interesting discussion. Every tech company I know of has a career
| path for engineers who don't want to get into management (with
| roles like staff, senior staff, principal, distinguished
| engineer, technical fellow etc.) and so you can keep progressing
| basically indefinitely as an IC. I have never seen this done on
| the product side, however. After a point every product manager
| has to start to focus on people management to get ahead, which
| undoubtedly has a negative effect on the product itself. I wonder
| if more companies will start following this approach for non-
| technical roles as well.
| jehb wrote:
| It's also missing from the marketing side of the house. I've
| jumped between technical marketing (being an expert on the
| software we sell) and marketing technology (being an expert in
| the tools we use to power our marketing stack). In both types
| of roles, I've found it difficult to find career progression
| without a move into management. So I guess now I'm in middle
| management, and struggling with this for helping my own
| employees along their career paths.
|
| There sadly doesn't seem to be much appetite for finding parity
| with the product engineering side of the house, even when the
| work is quite similar. A principal architect is a principal
| architect, whether the systems they are tying together are
| Istio and Redis and Kubernetes or Salesforce and Marketo and
| Tableau. A Senior Developer is a Senior Developer whether the
| code they're writing is for our product or for the backend of
| our CMS.
| spandrew wrote:
| This is my experience as well. In most companies I've worked at
| (non-FAANG) the product team just isn't really large enough to
| support a more variable career chart. You have 8-10 PMs. You
| promote 1 to manager and another to principal. So does the one
| manager have 9 reports? You end up with a strange org chart
| where some director's at facilitating work, and others are
| doing more strategic stuff. Ultimately some manager is going to
| be over burdened with days full of 1:1's and that's it.
|
| Interested in hearing other's experience with this!
| travem wrote:
| I agree this is a big issue. I liked the article written by Ken
| Norton about this issue (in Product Management) at
| https://www.bringthedonuts.com/essays/dual-product-managemen...
|
| I have seen a "Principal" Product Manager role at some
| companies I have worked at, but the Distinguished Product
| Manager level role is not one that I have seen in practice
| unfortunately.
| jasonsync wrote:
| Peter principle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
| Gareth321 wrote:
| I work for a global top 100 and while I can't vouch for every
| department, ours offers product progression. Senior, Lead, etc.
| It's relatively new.
| kpw94 wrote:
| > We built an operating system called GSD (get shit done). This
| internal tool emphasizes frequent written updates, which are much
| easier to digest than constant meetings
|
| Curious what this mean/what this actually looks like
| jacques_chester wrote:
| It's nothing too fancy. A Rails app with some text boxes and
| nice styling.
| OJFord wrote:
| Sounds to me like a Slack bot (or whatever they use) that
| prompts you to provide an update to a couple of questions, like
| a text-based 'stand-up', at a scheduled time or manually
| triggered.
|
| But I may just be overfitting to my own experience with
| something like that (not at Shopify) and don't know why that
| couldn't just be Jira (or whatever) comments. To have a more
| product-oriented than ticket-micro-managing view perhaps?
| spandrew wrote:
| I know people at this company. The Slack channel purge coupled
| with a move to Facebook Workplace to "shake up productivity" was
| disastrous for most productivity during the month of January.
|
| They did it right after the holidays too -- when many employees
| are just reacquainting themselves with channels and comms again.
|
| Despite some wisdom in the idea of promoting crafters over
| meetings this isn't some genius mantra of productivity. It was
| just poor systems neglected by the company being cleaned up in
| the dumbest way possible. A poor management sandwich.
| [deleted]
| hypnotechno9a wrote:
| "elevated the non-manager career path"
|
| This is misleading.
|
| They opened up the doors to move up as Product Manager without
| needing to manage others. In other words MBA's and not the highly
| technical people (engineers - which is much harder to do). This
| isn't hard to do and shouldn't be treated as some significant
| accomplishment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-12 23:01 UTC)