←back to thread

574 points frays | 10 comments | | HN request time: 0.544s | source | bottom
Show context
AnotherGoodName ◴[] No.45045883[source]
This was called the TLM role at google. Technical Lead/Manager. You were expected to code and manage a couple of more junior engineers.

It’s part of an effort to have dedicated managers and dedicated engineers instead of hybrid roles.

This is being sold as an efficiency win for the sake of the stock price but it’s really just moved a few people around with the TLMs now 100% focused on programming.

replies(15): >>45045891 #>>45046165 #>>45046216 #>>45046446 #>>45046469 #>>45046545 #>>45046627 #>>45046811 #>>45047198 #>>45047268 #>>45048052 #>>45048255 #>>45048293 #>>45048558 #>>45049014 #
lanthissa ◴[] No.45046216[source]
we had this in my company it was pretty hit miss. Almost always the 'TLM' was someone who was in the role for a really long time and it warranted a second person, so it ended up being a 1-2 junior reporting in absorbing the knowledge that the tlm had.

If you were in a growing domain, and the TLM stayed engaged with the code it worked really well, but as soon as one of those failed it was a bad roi for the company and a pretty terrible experience for everyone. the juniors were never getting promoted since there was only room for 1 expert on the small domain. The TLM was just chilling getting 5-10% raises a year without going outside of their little kingdom, but making sure their domain worked well.

As their junior got better they coded less but their juniors couldn't grow as long as they were there because the niche didn't need that many people.

I don't think its a coincidence that all these companies eliminated these rolls after 2022. When you have unlimited money and massive headcount growth these roles can exist and give your good but not exceptional people room for career growth. At static headcount, you basically need to do what banks do -- yearly cuts or no one can be promoted or hired.

replies(3): >>45046480 #>>45046525 #>>45046557 #
1. greesil ◴[] No.45046480[source]
This reads like "get rid of the old experienced people so I can get promoted".
replies(3): >>45046529 #>>45046532 #>>45046586 #
2. Spivak ◴[] No.45046529[source]
If your position has no upward mobility juniors will change jobs, likely change companies, once they have the experience and all the effort you spent training them will be wasted.
replies(2): >>45046596 #>>45047765 #
3. lanthissa ◴[] No.45046532[source]
only if you're cynical, google found a much better solution though, make them IC's again and redistribute the junior talent to places they can grow and offer buyouts for anyone who feels like they're not into it anymore.
replies(1): >>45047915 #
4. mpyne ◴[] No.45046586[source]
The U.S. military actually uses precisely that system for officer promotions. And in practice most of the U.S. military branches do essentially the same thing for their enlisted force too, deliberately allowing high attrition for the sake of frequent promotions.

Given a fixed headcount, you can't have frequent promotions without either personnel turnover or allowing for employees to be routinely demoted.

5. gedy ◴[] No.45046596[source]
If your position has no authority seniors will change jobs, likely change companies, and all the effort you spent on them will be wasted.
replies(1): >>45047832 #
6. JustExAWS ◴[] No.45047765[source]
Statistically you should charge companies. Even if you get promoted, you’ll make less than someone hired in at the same level. Even if you like the company, it’s best to “boomerang”
replies(1): >>45050796 #
7. Spivak ◴[] No.45047832{3}[source]
I don't know why you think this is an either or situation. Not being a junior doesn't stop you from having a manger.
8. greesil ◴[] No.45047915[source]
I am cynical. Better for what? I can only interpret moves made by large companies across the board as ways to move the stock price and consolidate control.
9. Scea91 ◴[] No.45050796{3}[source]
Its tricky to use statistics for personal decisions. In general something might be correct but not for your specific subgroup. I know many people who changed for worse.

If you are in a bad position then change, but if you like the company and role, don’t take it for granted and think carefully.

This advice is consistent with the broad statistic if more than half of the sample is currently in “bad position”.

replies(1): >>45051711 #
10. JustExAWS ◴[] No.45051711{4}[source]
Since we are talking about BigTech, I can’t imagine to a first approximation any IC up to and including senior or a low level manager being at any BigTech company for a reason besides wanting to maximize their income via cash and RSUs.

Does anyone stay in the same position/team for more than two or three years even at the same company?