Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptero | Hacker News Reader

> If not, you’ll stagnate at a pretty high level, but stagnate none the less.

It may be semantics, but I think "stagnating at a pretty high level" may be a pretty good endgame for a smart engineer who does not want to go to either people or technology management.

If this means significant autonomy, mentoring role and decent compensation what is wrong with stagnating at this level? This is not for everyone, bit may be OK for some. An honest question.

View on HN

There is nothing wrong with stagnating but in a lot of companies the stagnation level for engineers is pretty low compared to management. You also have to deal with the fact management has decision power so you often get overridden by less qualified people who happen to be in management.

This is the biggest counterpoint to the article. I think a bad developer promoted to a position of management wreaks much more havoc than an unhappy good one.

True.. But engineers often have more knowledge than judgement. Engineers are often too cautious to run businesses successfully. This isn't a blanket statement, but engineering school does not make an entrepreneur or even create much business savvy.

Engineers are the most cautious lot I've ever worked with. Among the most intelligent, but I can't imagine them making ballsy market moves.

I am not talking about ballsy moves. I am talking about middle managers blocking things because they don’t understand them or they want to keep their own pet project relevant.

This is my plan. We'll see how it works out, but my endgame is a technical lead on a relatively small team.

I watched my father get promoted into unhappiness. He didn't realize it until it was too late. For his most recent promotion they had to threaten to fire him to get him to take it.

Not in my book. Don’t let yourself be peter principled if you know you’re exactly where you want to be. Not everyone is that self aware, but there’s no shame in choosing your own path.

Counter to my own point, I have had conversations with HR individuals who encourage managers to fire employees that don’t get promoted every ~2 years. Basically their thought is that is an easy way to identify “bottom” performers. I don’t agree with this sentiment, but it’s not an unheard of position.

The person who has “stagnated” while drawing a high salary will be the first one let go when the economy gets less rosy.

There’s nothing, or shouldn’t be anything, wrong with it. But this industry wants to push older people out if they don’t want to manage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com