Is Management Inevitable

What a wonderful question!  Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this topic!  If you're interested in opening up to the rest of the Community may I recommend the Business of Engineering group?

Hi Andy,

All engineers reach a point where this question needs to be answered.

For me, I chose the management route because I wanted to control my career within the company.  Yes, I had to do a lot of non-engineering tasks, but then I got to choose the projects that I worked on.

I also found that I could direct young engineers to the point where they could become an extension of my skill by directing their hands and minds.  We did a lot of incredible projects.

I also have a close friend who just said no.  He finally retired a few years ago with no regrets.  To him, smelling the solder smoke and chasing signals through a circuit was his idea of fun.  So he just continued to do that.  Yes, he sometimes had to do some unpleasant jobs, but to him, it was fun.  I fully understood his position and he was good enough that his employer was smart enough to just use him for his strength rather than risk losing him to another company if they forced him into a management job.

My advice to anyone facing this decision is to ask yourself one basic question.  What do you want to do?  If you love doing technology at the hands on level, stay an engineer.

If you want to work closely with people and mentor others, go into management.  Whichever way you go, do what makes you happy.  There is no dollar figure that will compensate you if you hate to go into work every morning.

So make the decision that benefits you most personally. 

DAB

I think it really depends on the company you are working for.

I started my career in software as an engineer and was assigned to all of the most recent new technologies (Apple Newton, Palm, and Java when it first started, for example). So my skills progressed constantly, and it was very interesting work.

Then I worked for a different company as a manager and I felt that my software engineering skills really stagnated as I didn't get to do much "real" hands-on work. But I did enjoy the management work too.

Now I'm self-employed so I guess I'm still a manager in a way, and the nice thing is that now I am able to choose what I want to work on. Of course it helps that my choice also happens to be a popular thing these days!

If you're thinking in terms of paycheque, then the steps to management and self-employment did progress my career significantly. For me it also increased my enjoyment

For me the best situation would be to be a manager with the time and resources to keep exploring all the latest funnest technologies!

Cheers,

-Nico

It seems we are all in agreement so far, yo have to choose where you want to go. In my experience, this typically leads to management but it does not have to. There are fewer opportunities to stay technical but they do exist.

A classic and exemplary example is Bob Pease a staff scientist for National Semiconductors. he stayed hands on all the way to his death in 2011 (Car Crash) at eh age of 70, if it was not for the crash I am sure he would be still making videos on YouTube and teaching us young folks how to build real analog circuits, he was truly amazing and probably went as High in his career as possible without being a manager and that was High.

From what I have discovered, several companies have roles like the "Staff Scientist" created specifically to allow people who excel at the technology but don't want to become a manager to continue to grow in the company.

So don't think you have to become a manager, you dont. It may be the easier route to fame and fortune but if the passion is there, there are alternatives.

btw, f this is the first time your hearing about Bob, you have to go check out his videos, for the subjects he talks about (He Hated Digital) he is absolutely unique and gifted.

Bob Pease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remembering Bob Pease - TI.com

proof there are choices

Thanks guys, I'll let you know in 20 years which way I went.

n.b. obviously there is no "right" answer to such a question but I did not want to leave it as a hanging unanswered question

Sorry to whinge but:

from Analog engineering legend Bob Pease killed in car crash | EDN

Bob was loved by the analog community. After getting a degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1961, Bob worked at Philbrick Researches, designing vacuum tube amplifiers and voltage-to-frequency converters. He considered working at Analog Devices, in the Boston area, but instead came out to Silicon Valley to work at National Semiconductor. He lived in San Francisco with his wife Nancy, in part so his sons could avail themselves of the choir venues where they loved to sing.

As far as I can tell BP never worked for Analog Devices.

I suspect that Bob did a lot of managing in a guerrilla sort of way. I think it was the ability to make use of mavericks like Bob that made the early semi conductor companies like National so good.

I've done a good bit of managing but now I work on my own - very hands on and I definately I  want to go back to worrying about defending my team from the PHB. (Not all mamaging is like that, of course, but it seems to be increasingly so in larger companies.)

MK

Updated , it was a miss read, sorry

There are a few organizations where you can stay in the "technical stream" to fairly senior positions, but it is pretty rare.

Every job has has many aspects that are not interesting, unpleasant or even just plain drudgery whether it is a technical job or a management job - for me, it is  good job if drudgery isn't the dominant aspect. However, it is not always necessary to choose management or technical streams.

I have had positions at many levels, from solo engineer to managing small groups to managing departments to director and even VP/CTO. However I have been (very) fortunate to always retain a significant level of technical contribution. In some jobs I achieved this simply because I had the power to structure my group and its task assignments. When the job becomes a little less technically satisfying or fulfilling, I tend to increase my involvement in technical hobbies. In this way I have continued to contribute and produce as much technical content as any purely technical stream engineer. It isn't for everyone, since it often requires large amounts of overtime, but if you really want to keep your "hand in" with technology while still taking advantage of the benefits of managing a team, you can usually find a way. In my experience, if you are a manager and your job description doesn't include hands-on design but you "happen" to come up with a technical breakthrough after hours, nobody is going to complain too much.

Andy,

The vast majority of my experience has been in the polytechnic academic realm which offers a roughly parallel track to corporate engineering.  Instructors at my institute often develop their own boards and circuits or embedded code to teach electronic concepts - so they practice some engineering, though usually not aggressively innovative engineering.  At some point in the career of an instructor an opportunity will come up to consider moving into a leadership stream or stay on in the classroom.  The money is better at the leadership level and once the threshold has been crossed into leadership, pathways to management and beyond open up.

In my experience not every instructor is suited to the leadership path.  The opportunity may be candidate agnostic, but the role is not.  Strong technical skills do not automatically morph into strong leadership or management skills.  I have known many instructors that had brilliant skills as lecturers or curriculum developers or lab designers, but give them a problem that involves managing unpleasant people problems and they freeze, panic, or make utterly baffling decisions that often confound the problem.  I always volunteer to sit on interview panels when openings come up for leadership positions as I am very interested in seeking out and nurturing new leadership talent.  My perspective may be narrow, but it seems to me that the combination of strong technical ability and superior soft skills savvy seldom appear naturally together.  Usually one or the other is dominant, and it is often easier to implant and grow technical skills than people skills.