I have to wonder how much of this middle management heavy organizational structure was introduced by cultures that place undue significance to 'becoming a manager' in computing success in profession.
> how much of this middle management heavy organizational structure was introduced by cultures that place undue significance to 'becoming a manager'
Big teams need management. Small teams, less so. The largest tech companies are larger today than ever before. And there are more tech companies above virtually any threshold now than there were then. It follows that the average person in tech now works at a larger company than previously.
The number of people in small start-ups may be larger than ever before. But, because of the distribution, they're outnumbered still by those in large organizations that require bureaucracy to stay aligned.
My team is full of it. People that needed to be catered with useless titles just to retain them. We have like 40 Head of XYZ for 10 Senior Devs, it's insanity. The thing is they don't even care about the money if they get a fancy title they would do it for the same money.
I am an engineer and I will work on a project from conceptualization to production and there are a dozen 'Project managers' and 'Program managers' who come out of the woodwork to take credit at launch. I've never seen them in a single meeting. What the hell do they do?
People are optimizing for what the businesses value. If you make these titles attractive, why wouldn't you expect people to optimize for them? It's not the people's fault; it's the company leadership. Couple that with companies that don't care about the employees, of course, titles will matter. Say what you want, but someone with only a history of Junior Engineer on their CV will get looked at differently when they have to find a new job.
> If you make these titles attractive, why wouldn't you expect people to optimize for them?
There is a cultural component to it, and it travels. People coming from a corporate culture attach value to these titles in a way we traditionally did not in Silicon Valley. The interesting thing is seeing how they then breathe power into those words; I remember one senior-ish person who proceeded to attempt pulling rank on her peers on the back of the new title. In most cases, it didn't work. But in some cases, it did, including with people who were otherwise insensitive to titles.
My broad takeaway is trading titles for money is a deal with the devil. Eventually, the thing you're giving away gains animation.
I agree. But the mentality of SV is essentially winner take all. People talk a good game, but everyone is really out for themselves. You see this all the time here on HN, this mentality. Everyone is happy to deal with the devil.
I don't think that's the case. I think there is an aspect of shame if you don't get increasingly senior roles as you advance in a career. The pay is secondary for these people.
My previous employer was so top heavy it was unreal.
I counted maybe 4-5 managers with some variation of Director/VP of Software/Engineering/SWE/SWEProject and yet more kept getting promoted into that echelon over my time there, with no clear indication of what most of them did. For a 400 person operation that did two giant layoffs.
On my end though, management was worse than useless and did absolutely none of the things that good managers I’ve had previously (or subsequently) have done.
Big teams need management. Small teams, less so. The largest tech companies are larger today than ever before. And there are more tech companies above virtually any threshold now than there were then. It follows that the average person in tech now works at a larger company than previously.
The number of people in small start-ups may be larger than ever before. But, because of the distribution, they're outnumbered still by those in large organizations that require bureaucracy to stay aligned.