I just finished reading this article about the jobless recovery. It's full of depressing quotes like these:
I was discussing this article with some coworkers, when I had an idea.
Until now, I had assumed that the most obvious way to save my job, were it to become threatened, would be to take on my boss's job: engineering manager. I would be moving up the food chain, as it were. But I couldn't quiet the voice in the back of my head asking, "whom do you intend to manage if all the engineers are gone?" It seems likely that the manager would get outsourced the same as the engineers themselves.
So then, assume that the entire engineering department is outsourced. Someone's still got to tell them what to do, right? Someone has to come up with the ideas for all the new features, prioritize them, write requirements specifications, and so on. And who's that? Why, product management!
I had been assuming that moving up the food chain meant moving up the chain of authority. But it really means moving laterally, into the group of "people who program the programmers". Merely moving up the chain of command is like responding to the loss of farming jobs by starting your own farm, when you should have been opening a bakery.
Posted on December 12, 2003 08:49 PM
More programming articles
That's a pretty content-free statement. If you bother to take the time to think about it a little, you'll realize that managers are not all-powerful. They have managers of their own. It's not uncommon to have a hierarchy that looks like: worker, manager, director, VP, officer, president. That is: programmer, manager, director of engineering, VP of development, CTO, president. And there might be a team lead in there, between programmer and manager.
The whole purpose of a front-line manager is to manage those directly beneath him. If all of those people are remote, then he has no job. I'd have to move all the way up to VP or CTO to be safe in a world where most engineering happens in another country.
Wow, that's a fairly flat organization you describe there. When I worked at IBM I had a team leader, then my first line manager, then the second line manager, then the third line manager (whom I don't think I met), then fourth line. Fifth line and higher were stationed in Armonk, New York, corporate headquarters of IBM (I think CEO was about seventh or eighth level).
It was pretty deep when I worked at Verio. I had my direct boss (only IBM uses line managers), then his boss, then the site director, then it picks up in Colorado (or Utah, I forgot exactly were the Verio main offices were) for a few levels, and then it picks up a few more levels in Japan (since NT&T bought out Verio). So you're talking a stacking as deep as IBM, maybe a level or two deeper. And to somewhat backup Ignag's point, the department I worked in was *solely* created to keep a manager around; it was a pretty redundant department.
Posted by: Sean Conner at December 16, 2003 01:26 AMI've worked for seven different companies in my life, but I've never worked anywhere with more than 250 employees, so really deep hierarchies are pretty foreign to me.
I don't think Ignag's point was that a whole department would be created just to keep a manager around. If the manager is important enough to bring a whole department into being, then they aren't what I refer to as a "manager" -- when I say manager, I mean what you're calling first-line manager.
Posted by: kim at December 16, 2003 11:35 AM