[smitec]

There was a time where I felt like this. Especially early as a founder as we began to bring on staff for the first time. I started to feel that if I wasn't building the things then someone would call me out for not being deserving of the founder title any more.

It took a long time to grow out of this feeling. These days I get a lot of joy from management. I try to look at myself like a coach on a sports team. I may not be on the field but I feel good when we win knowing the work I have done to help my team succeed.

I would agree with the author that the feedback loop is different. It is also often slower and more subtle. That doesn't however mean that it's not there. Perhaps the author is new to management, perhaps the author just really likes being an IC. Their journey is their own but I would certainly say there are many paths to endorphins as a manager, even as a manager of managers.

[cm11]

Genuine question because I think about it too: On (pro) sports teams, the coach is not the highest paid. The stars make far more. I think what's challenging is that managers (and founders) are paid similar and often more than the team. I think this changes the dynamic. Is it possible the feelings relate to that as much as not building? No doubt managing is different than IC'ing, but the sense of contribution relative to pay might play a role.

A head coach also has more impact on a team's outcome than many middle managers (but probably not a founder). Managing well is hard and can be a major multiplier, but there is room at many companies to be mediocre or worse (even when trying your best) and still pass. I'm talking mostly functional managers as in Engineering Manager, PMs (most of whom are ICs) are different. Being a functional manager would be more like being the running back coach in football, the big man coach in basketball, or the pitching coach in baseball. These are different than being head coach, they help those players be good at their role, but have much less impact on the team's bigger picture. Winning in this role is seeing a player grow more than it is seeing the team win the championship. These coaches make far less than the head coach and the players.

Ultimately, I think the manager role is diminished by modern org structure. One thing said about a good manager is they block and shield—which implies the report needs protection from the org's process/structure. So a good manager runs counter to the company reasonably often. Is the manager helping or hurting the company? Both I think, but on net I don't know. It feels oddly baked into the role.

[farley13]

Always interesting to compare how things work across industries, but comparing tech with sports I think is both common and problematic.

Problematic because it leads ICs to think of themselves as the quarterback throwing or wide receiver making the game winning catch with 1 minute left, getting lifted up into the air, renegotiating a contract for millions more, retiring early, getting inducted to the hall of fame etc.

Why is this so problematic? I think it leads engineers to overvalue the short term wins (getting a particularly tricky implementation correct) sometimes at the cost of their health and wellbeing if they work nights and weekends to get it done. And no one is watching it live at the edge of their seats. Even more distressing is that having more junior ICs have to pull heroics to keep the business alive is a tremendous anti-pattern. The point of management is make the right decisions so the organization steers clear of asking their least experienced contributors to damage their health on a regular basis (...really at all!).

A well run org couples decision making and seniority. If an IC is making a lot of org impacting decisions they are probably as senior or more-so than most line managers (or should be promoted to be if this happens regularly) and are comped the same way. Now it would be nice if decision making was as transparent as coaches making the right/wrong play (the offensive coordinator calling a running play no one watching thought was a good idea). In an ideal org failures or inaction would be more transparent. If a manager is basically not making any decisions (adding no value) there are certainly management failures at several levels (maybe up to the top) preventing folks from getting upset about it. Again ideally audibles are a very occasional exception.

Where does money comes from? In sports, teams competing are the product. Players are kinda like features and marketing all built into one. Companies spend a significant portion of all their money on building product and marketing it. I think IC engineers are probably closer to the support staff than the players on the field...the comparison is problematic.

And which hall of fame? - the engineers in our hall of fame are the folks doing things for the first time, trailblazing, largely researchers (Turing awards etc). There is no "got 4 hours of sleep for months delivering a poorly planned product and got an autoimmune disease" hall of fame.

[WWWMMMWWW]

On the subject of relative pay, we may see a change soon.

The IT industry is dominated by bad (and overpaid) managers, where the only useful function they provide is to aggregate information and pass it up the report chain.

If ever there was a role suitable for replacing with AI it is this one.

[tired_and_awake]

I came here to share this. My first 3 years of management I struggled with the reward system and lack of code submission highs. You can find sources of growth in soft skills it's just harder to find.

Management is a fundamentally different career from SW development. So are the reward functions. It takes years to master management and years to appreciate that you are in fact mastering it. This is, IMO, why it's so important to have a good coach during this transition, to help encourage growth and development and point out where you're improving. This in turns help you know you're improving and definitely gets you that endorphin rush.