The reality is that the org structure for engineering companies is broken.
Reasons:
1. The org chart shows a tree with managers on top of engineers - Big mistake because the manager will not be able to accomplish anything without reports
2. People "promoted" into management are usually the ones who WANT to be a manager. Wanting to be one is good but the reasons for wanting it should align with the company. Far too many people want to become managers for the TITLE. These people are parasites and will destroy the whole team by virtue of insecurity and sycophantism.
3. Many senior engineers are quite capable of managing teams. They should be encouraged by directors to try becoming a team lead - focus on tech aspects of a larger team, keep people happy.
A better org structure for fast moving engineering companies could be something akin to European soccer clubs of high caliber
1. Director aka Technical director - Reports to VP - Has the power of the purse but is also deeply technical to understand what bets their group is taking. Responsible for hiring, projects, org structure, pay and culture
2. Engineering manager aka club manager - Reports to Director - Only responsible for coaching, mentoring and allocating resources to produce outcomes. Their key responsibility is outcomes and it requires keeping people happy, engaged and growing. They need to be deeply technical, much more so than directors to be effective in their job.
3. Senior/Team lead engineers aka coaches/leaders - Works with EM but reports to director - Responsible for driving their own area of expertise/projects. Much like a goalkeeping coach drives goalkeepers only. Only difference is that Senior/Team lead should also be expected to contribute directly to projects. These people are not responsible for happiness or cultivation of other skills or producing other opportunities
4. ICs aka the players themselves - Real MVPs of the team - Should be paid higher than EM because the EM is replaceable but the players often aren't. Should be shielded from politics but should be incentivized by money and status to remain ICs. This is how you get players like Cristiano Ronaldo not retiring too early to get into coaching.
I would be very inclined to join a company where ICs are treated better because I have seen management-heavy companies lose sight of what is really important for the company.
- Director should be technical / Team Leads should be technical, but the person between them shouldn't? That sounds like a recipe for going behind the EM's back at every possible junction.
- TLs reporting to the director? The analogy of goalkeepers coach does not make a lot of sense, because in a club, they report to the manager, not to the General Manager (Director in your example).
1. My mistake. EM needs to be strongly technical. Much more so than directors. I will edit the post.
2. The GK coach works with the manager/head coach to figure out the entire strategy and keep the training aligned with goals. But they are hired by the director (general manager), fired by the director, paid by the director, have status meetings with the director.
From the director's perspective, all coaches are at the same level. Each coach has a specialty and a role to fill e.g. GK coach, fitness coach etc. There is a head coach/manager whose job is to ensure that all other coaches and all players are happy and aligned. Let's call this person the alignment and happiness coach.
In a similar vein in tech companies, you'd have team leads specializing in tech areas and leading projects (as opposed to merely coaching), and a EM whose role is to keep everyone aligned and happy.
Reasons:
1. The org chart shows a tree with managers on top of engineers - Big mistake because the manager will not be able to accomplish anything without reports
2. People "promoted" into management are usually the ones who WANT to be a manager. Wanting to be one is good but the reasons for wanting it should align with the company. Far too many people want to become managers for the TITLE. These people are parasites and will destroy the whole team by virtue of insecurity and sycophantism.
3. Many senior engineers are quite capable of managing teams. They should be encouraged by directors to try becoming a team lead - focus on tech aspects of a larger team, keep people happy.
A better org structure for fast moving engineering companies could be something akin to European soccer clubs of high caliber
1. Director aka Technical director - Reports to VP - Has the power of the purse but is also deeply technical to understand what bets their group is taking. Responsible for hiring, projects, org structure, pay and culture
2. Engineering manager aka club manager - Reports to Director - Only responsible for coaching, mentoring and allocating resources to produce outcomes. Their key responsibility is outcomes and it requires keeping people happy, engaged and growing. They need to be deeply technical, much more so than directors to be effective in their job.
3. Senior/Team lead engineers aka coaches/leaders - Works with EM but reports to director - Responsible for driving their own area of expertise/projects. Much like a goalkeeping coach drives goalkeepers only. Only difference is that Senior/Team lead should also be expected to contribute directly to projects. These people are not responsible for happiness or cultivation of other skills or producing other opportunities
4. ICs aka the players themselves - Real MVPs of the team - Should be paid higher than EM because the EM is replaceable but the players often aren't. Should be shielded from politics but should be incentivized by money and status to remain ICs. This is how you get players like Cristiano Ronaldo not retiring too early to get into coaching.
I would be very inclined to join a company where ICs are treated better because I have seen management-heavy companies lose sight of what is really important for the company.