undefined | Better HN

0 pointstfp1373y ago0 comments

The dual-ladder system exists to fix something that is broken but ends up breaking it more.

In essence, there's the E9/O1 problem. An elite engineer with 25 years of experience simply knows more than an entry-level manager. Organizations try to solve this by dual-laddering and saying that there are "Director-equivalent" engineers (e.g. Staff or Principal) and so on, to rectify the obvious injustice of a scenario where a fresh MBA is seen to outrank the best engineers because he manages a team and they don't. The problem is that this dual-laddering makes it worse, because it's so much harder to move up the engineering ladder. If you're a Software Manager I at Google, you have to shit five or six different beds not to make Director within ~6 years and VP within ~12. On the other hand, making Principal+ Engineer is quite difficult, especially if you're not in MTV. So it perpetuates a false equivalency in which the managerial and product folk are gods (because of their swift, easy promotions) while most of the engineers are leftovers.

0 comments

JJMcJ3y ago

In the military the E9/O1 issue is at least understood. Not so much in corporate life.

The parity between the two ladders is something of a myth. At most companies, you can see that clearly if you count heads.

A director might oversee 150 to 250 people. There will likely be five second level managers reporting to the director, and maybe twenty first level managers reporting to those second level managers. So 30 manager level people.

And there will be maybe four or five Staff and one Principal engineer in the same organization. Sometimes even fewer.

So the parity really isn't there.

samhw3y ago

Parity is not identity (nor equivalent to it, lol). The two jobs are importantly equal in their difficulty and (more directly) their value, and not - among the many other differences - the number of people they manage. This thinking is why valuable individual contributors move to companies where progression isn't defined in terms of the number of reports you have (respectfully).

JJMcJ3y ago

Late reply.

My point is not number of reports, but number of people.

A directorate might have 25 managers, and maybe 200 developers. Of those developers 4 or 5 might be staff/principal, and it might be as small as 1 or 2, or even zero.

So far fewer people move up the technical ladder than up the management ladder.

thewarrior3y ago

How can every single manager become a director ? That seems impossible.

nickm123y ago

It can happen for a while with large year-over-year headcount growth + manager attrition. But eventually, the music stops.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstfp1373y ago0 comments

The dual-ladder system exists to fix something that is broken but ends up breaking it more.

0 comments

JJMcJ3y ago

In the military the E9/O1 issue is at least understood. Not so much in corporate life.

The parity between the two ladders is something of a myth. At most companies, you can see that clearly if you count heads.

And there will be maybe four or five Staff and one Principal engineer in the same organization. Sometimes even fewer.

So the parity really isn't there.

samhw3y ago

JJMcJ3y ago

Late reply.

My point is not number of reports, but number of people.

A directorate might have 25 managers, and maybe 200 developers. Of those developers 4 or 5 might be staff/principal, and it might be as small as 1 or 2, or even zero.

So far fewer people move up the technical ladder than up the management ladder.

thewarrior3y ago

How can every single manager become a director ? That seems impossible.

nickm123y ago

It can happen for a while with large year-over-year headcount growth + manager attrition. But eventually, the music stops.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse