Post: #1

Why does it seem as though the only way to advance in organisations (financially) is to take on positions of leadership? I'm not complaining about it, but it just seems to be something I've noticed. You start out as a grunt, then (if you get lucky) you get to have a team of your own grunts to look after and take care of. But that seems to be the case in virtually every organisation.

There doesn't seem to be a route for people who have no interest in leading a team. Whenever I go into a job interview and ask the generic, "how will my responsibilities evolve question" it always turns back to how they're trying to train someone to lead their other employees. It always seems to come back to managing other people.

Are their any fields out there where this isn't the case? I enjoy working with people, but I have no desire to have my own team or lead other people. It almost seems like organisations look down upon people who would openly admit that they're not interested in leading a team. Whatever happened to just enjoying the position you play?

Thanks guys

Post: #2

Would guess perceived value to the company. Leading a team of 10 people might let you do things about 10 times as valuable as a single person. If you're a super honcho whose fully capable worth is let's say 3 times a newbie as far as whatever technical competency, then a law of diminishing returns makes your actual value somewhat less than 3 times (you still get sick, entitled, whatever productivity killer). Also leading a team lets you do more than the sum of the parts, now you're a mini organization with advantages and disadvantages that come from that.

I've seen 3 people over my career who are natural charismatic leaders, with a minimum amount of training. Two are very successful at their technical jobs compared to the sheep and one is a red pill options trader who has almost achieved fuck you money.

Where I work is big enough to have a technical non-management track, management track, and some support function track. The managers get paid the most, it's not even close.

Also, a good leader is a motivator/force multiplier for those 10 subordinates, raising the efficiency for the entire group. Conversely for a poor leader.

Post: #3

Yeah Engineer is right the leader is of more aggregate value to the organization than a grunt would ever be, with there being little variance to this fact when just talking about how competent or skilled the grunt is.

I imagine the only places where individual people are less valuable leading than being led would be organizations that focus on extremely elite, extremely high-level tasks, where the tasks themselves are worth so much and/or so rarely accomplished that the leader can't pragmatically guide each individual subordinate to a significant degree due to each individual having so much responsibility for himself.

Post: #4

(09-09-2014 08:41 PM)Engineer Wrote:  Would guess perceived value to the company. Leading a team of 10 people might let you do things about 10 times as valuable as a single person. If you're a super honcho whose fully capable worth is let's say 3 times a newbie as far as whatever technical competency, then a law of diminishing returns makes your actual value somewhat less than 3 times (you still get sick, entitled, whatever productivity killer). Also leading a team lets you do more than the sum of the parts, now you're a mini organization with advantages and disadvantages that come from that.

...

There are some organizations where the front line employees make more than or a fairly close amount as the immediate supervisor, sales forces mainly, and the legal function at some companies.

Take those exceptions out, and it becomes something along the lines of the following:
1. The superior(s) must make more than the subordinates.
2. The superior ranking individual is worth more because we pay them more.
3. Managers with more access to an organization's resources have more opportunities to gain personal access to more of the resources, usually in the form of compensation packages, travel opportunities, and status symbols (the famous "Corner Office).

There's a real split in the printed theories on the subject, concept 1 is probably the only safe one to discuss if the topic ever comes up, concept 2 is at least consistent with how organizations work, and concept 3...well, that one probably shouldn't be mentioned at all, no matter how drunk everyone might be.

Post: #5

At my oil company the senior technical engineers (principal engineers) are making 500k+
More than the team leaders, the area leaders, and I believe the managers. On almost the same level as VPs. Yes they "lead" a team, but <10% of their time is dealing with management BS. The rest is purely technical.

Generally the only reason a manager makes more than a similarly experienced technical guy is because they got "high" performance ratings over the years. And once in management they all give each other good reviews and big raises.

It's is very possible to stay technical and avoid management. If you are above competent and can provide input to influence the company in important ways you will be highly compensated and be able to avoid much of the soul crushing BS of being a manager.

Post: #6

I am in the tech field and I have three people who report to me. However, my function is a senior engineer, so they only report to me for techincal things. It's pretty good. I still get to lead without having to babysit and deal with all the HR crap. The only downside though is, sometimes they start to rely on you for all the answers and not figure out things on their own. I try to nip that in the bud though.

So basically, you can still make good money, be a leader, and not necessarily have to be a "manager".

Edit: Just wanted to point out though, mine is still a corporate job where you will always have shit to deal with. So be aware.

Post: #7

The value of a manager and the value of a professional probably depend on the industry. It is not universal that 'leadership' is the best way to advance, sometimes it can be through increasing professional value.

If the industry is such that it uses large numbers of low value professionals (more supply, less demand), management is going to be more valuable. There is more value to be gained through superior management of the 'mass of grunts'.

If the industry uses limited numbers of high value professionals (less supply, more demand), the professionals themselves will be more valuable. There is less value to be gained through the management of these few high-skilled professionals.

The first example might be a supermarket, the second might be a private hospital.