[yingw787]

I've been fortunate to have two great direct managers at the prior companies I've worked at, and one common thread they have is they've both been developers. I think working in the field before you command people who do so helps build empathy and understanding of the problem at hand, as well as how it all ties into the bigger picture.

I've heard in the military officers that served in the enlisted ranks before commissioning are more effective and supported by their troops than those that come straight out of OCS; but this is just anecdotal. If it is true, I think engr/mgmt relationships operate quite the same way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustang_(military_officer)

[hn_throwaway_99]

Not sure if this is a counterpoint, but pretty much every direct manager I've had (except for one, and she was awesome) started their career as a programmer, and I was also a manager that went from programming->management.

While I agree that it's best to have an expert in the field managing you, from my time as a manager I believe the "soft skills" of communication, emotional intelligence, empathy, organization, etc. are much more important. The reason it's so hard to find great engineering managers is that it's difficult to find a "programmer's mind" and a "people-person mind" in the same person.

For one, I think it is extremely difficult to be a manager if you are an introvert. A huge part of your day as a manager is meeting and conversing with other people. If those interactions all take energy from you instead of give energy, it's going to be hugely draining to deal with that much interaction all day. At least that was what it was like for me, so I could just be projecting my experience onto others.

[munchbunny]

I think there's something about programming day to day that actually makes it harder to manage. I used to be a PM and a people manager, IC engineer now, and I've found that my ability to convey concepts clearly has degraded because I spend a lot of time in the weeds. I have to purposefully step back to think about framing because I don't automatically have to do it.

I am an introvert, and dealing with people (as a manager) was mostly neutral, not really draining or energizing. That part wasn't a big deal and I enjoyed it enough. The draining part is when you have to make tough calls, when you have to tell people things they don't want to hear, or when you have to handle HR issues. That part is draining, but I'm pretty sure extroverted managers find that draining too.

I don't doubt that extroversion helps, but I certainly don't think introversion is an actual stopper.

[simpixelated]

As an introvert who was a manager for several years, I agree that it is very difficult and draining. I believe that I have the skills to be a good manager (empathy, EQ, organization), but I did find it extremely draining. Towards the end of my experience I could tell I wasn't giving my best to my direct reports and so I've gone back to being an individual contributor.

I still entertain the idea of getting back into management, but I'll have to figure out how to offset that drain, or even gain energy from personal interactions, as you said, in order to sustain it for more than a few months/years.

[ionforce]

What specifically was draining about it? What drained you? Why?

[hn_throwaway_99]

Because that's basically the definition of the difference between introversion and extroversion: introverts "recharge" by being alone, while extroverts "recharge" by being around people. If you are an introvert and forced to have lots of people interaction daily, you basically don't have a chance to recharge.

My experience was basically exactly the same as subpixelated.

[taurath]

> If those interactions all take energy from you instead of give energy

Just to point out even for extroverts a difficult conversation is still draining. The regular conversations should at least be neutral though.

[PKop]

> I've heard in the military officers that served in the enlisted ranks before commissioning are more effective and supported by their troops than those that come straight out of OCS

100% true. The difference is night and day.

Both with their own self confidence to lead a group of enlisted and specifically senior enlisted who in my unit, almost always would have had more front line combat experience than the officers, which meant knowing when to overrule and when to defer to their judgement.

And simply the day to day small and large decisions/choices both during training & deployment were always more informed when backed up with prior enlisted experience.

[sa46]

I agree with the sentiment but I'm not so sure about 100% and calling it night and day is exaggerated. I've had anecdotes both ways. I think there's some important factors to consider:

- Units send their best enlisted folks to become officers.

- For entry officer jobs like a platoon leader, the prior enlisted will have a massive knowledge advantage. Once an officer hits company command (~5-6 years), I'd say the difference evaporates as the focus should be at a higher level.

Some of the downsides of prior-enlisted officers are:

- Leaning to much on their experience and micromanaging enlisted subordinates.

- Focusing on low-level details rather than "officer-business" like long term training plans and orders preparation.

[ryanmarsh]

I've heard in the military officers that served in the enlisted ranks before commissioning are more effective and supported by their troops than those that come straight out of OCS; but this is just anecdotal.

This is a solid truth. Officers who were enlisted are more well liked by their subordinates. This is not just because they've been in enlisted shoes before. Officers who were prior enlisted are often older and much more mature than fresh faced LT's straight out of college.

[indymike]

Can confirm that Mustangs were highly preferred by those that reported to them over academy grads in the Navy.