I think people often convince themselves that becoming a manager is a path for those who couldn’t hack it. In reality it’s a completely different set of problems. If you’re a decent developer with phenomenal soft skills, there is a very good chance you’d be better in management or sales than writing code.
My own observation is that it's more important for managers to be well-organized, remember details, and keep track of things
Not sure if that's what you mean by soft skills, but I generally think of soft skills as things like ability to communicate well, navigate conflict, and apply emotional intelligence to people management
The "soft skills" as I understand them are more important for roles like team lead/staff, whereas the organizational skills (and maybe even a willingness to be unlikeable at times) are more important for management.
That's why I think a lot of engineers prefer the IC track (I personally think my organizational skills and focus don't qualify me for management, although I enjoy being a lead)
> My own observation is that it's more important for managers to be well-organized, remember details, and keep track of things
It's interesting, I feel like this applies to a line manager. Once you get beyond that you can just hire to fill in your own weaknesses. If you're bad with organization, just hire a good project manager.
I guess that's how you end up with the Pareto principal. Even just moving from being a line manager to being a manager-of-managers is a different job that requires different skills, but the assumption is if you're a good line manager then the next step is to manage managers. There are probably plenty of people who there who would make fine directors but are bad managers so they don't get that chance. And then you have people who are good managers who end up as bad directors.
In my experience quite a few managers are there to do cargo cult activities mostly involving power point presentations and planning for their managers. In the worst situation it seemed like the vast majority of effort and salary spend went towards satisfying the VP’s appetite for reporting when engineers were very understaffed they focused on expanding to new layers of management instead of hiring ICs.
some of this management can be useful but often a lot of it is not, at best. As organizations age companies become mostly about advancing careers of middle management and the things the company actually does become secondary.
The sad part is they think that all the reporting and metrics, and the juking of the stats which goes along with it, is making things better. In reality it’s generally keeping things the same but with a pretty coat of paint.
My experience with good managers at large companies is they do a lot of work to make sure the rest of the company doesn’t get in the way of their developers. Which yes, mostly involves a lot of reporting and meetings with other people on the company. But it probably is more important for the productivity of their reports than what managers do at smaller companies, even if it seems like it accomplishes nothing.
I think they would spend their time better on improving processes and removing obstacles but that almost seems a taboo to point out. I have seen tons of scrum retrospectives that got ignored as soon as the problems were outside the reach of the immediate team. In the end you can do as much estimation and reporting as you want, but things still get done by doing them, not by talking about them
Management and Sales also don't usually end up on the on-call rotation. While there are exceptions, usually particularly key individuals, in general developers are at the bottom of the white collar company social ladder. Thus status conscious individuals will view management as an upgrade from development.
Your conclusion sounds an awful lot like the people in your first sentence are right. Anecdotally, this is what I’ve seen. As people progress on the engineering side and the work gets more demanding, increasingly people bail out and make the transition to management.
