by czep on 1/14/20, 12:18 AM with 15 comments
by muzani on 1/14/20, 3:28 AM
It's similar to sports team management - sure the manager is rare and more experienced, but they're not burning their mind off trying to meet irrational deadlines. The stress of management mostly comes from team issues, so I'd think paying them more would solve a lot of problems.
But it's also sort of a hierarchy thing.
by lucozade on 1/14/20, 5:31 PM
The money side didn't bother me because they were more experienced and in specialist roles that I definitely couldn't do (at least when I took over the team). If anything it worked out to my benefit as my boss felt a bit guilty about it so I received a promotion and a hefty pay rise at the next year end.
It also helped that none of the team had wanted the role so there was no slight implied.
There were some odd moments. At one point one of the team, with more than 10 years more experience than me, asked me for career advice. But mostly it wasn't much different from other team lead roles I've had.
by gshdg on 1/14/20, 9:36 PM
ICs can be specialists, and there are rare / valuable specialist skills that can command far higher comp than a generic manager or director.
There's nothing about comp itself that would cause a report making higher comp to undermine a manager making less. And a good manager will defer to the report on the topics the report is an expert on.
(Tho in a pathological organization or if the report is an asshole, it might be an indicator that the report is more valuable to the organization and could go over the manager's head to undermine the manager if they wanted to.)
by downerending on 1/14/20, 7:12 PM
Life is short--I moved on.
by antongribok on 1/14/20, 10:59 AM
Essentially you have a very valuable individual contributor who is good at what he does, and he wouldn't be as valuable if he was forced to be a manager.
The manager above him understands this.
by amerkhalid on 1/14/20, 3:38 PM
by Haxker on 1/14/20, 1:10 AM