This feels like less of an engineer vs management conflict, and more of a technically-focused vs organization-focused management conflict. The nuance, of course, is that in smaller orgs and startups, technical expertise is by far the most important element, but in larger groups, both are needed, in different quantities at different levels of organizational abstraction.
From what I’ve seen, there are different balances even across similar-seeming orgs, but at lower levels, technical expertise dominates, at the VERY top, social and organizational expertise dominates, and there’s a gradient in between. NOBODY gets very far without understanding elements of both, and without being able to communicate well in both domains. Those who rise (in org level) are generally engineers (or at least engineering-competent) who learn to excel in the other domains—the reverse is much less common.
I think a lot of this kind of analysis makes a big mistake to think of people and roles as static, with a simple(-ish) sortation to how much respect/compensation they get. In fact, individuals grow and change over time (with some intent to be more useful or a better fit to the job(s) they want), and organizations change their culture and needs to fit with their changing personnel. Both of these are relatively slow, but they really do matter.
in smaller orgs and startups, technical expertise is by far the most important element
Not necessarily. It depends on the organization. For example, consider a small lobbying company in Washington DC.
at lower levels, technical expertise dominates, at the VERY top, social and organizational expertise dominates, and there’s a gradient in between
Part of the point of my post was that those aren’t actual categories that exist. “Social expertise” is something that exists in a certain context and culture. There are different groups that communicate well internally, but each consider the others to have “poor social skills”. You can’t just treat cultures and expertise like they’re stat points in an RPG.
This feels like less of an engineer vs management conflict, and more of a technically-focused vs organization-focused management conflict. The nuance, of course, is that in smaller orgs and startups, technical expertise is by far the most important element, but in larger groups, both are needed, in different quantities at different levels of organizational abstraction.
From what I’ve seen, there are different balances even across similar-seeming orgs, but at lower levels, technical expertise dominates, at the VERY top, social and organizational expertise dominates, and there’s a gradient in between. NOBODY gets very far without understanding elements of both, and without being able to communicate well in both domains. Those who rise (in org level) are generally engineers (or at least engineering-competent) who learn to excel in the other domains—the reverse is much less common.
I think a lot of this kind of analysis makes a big mistake to think of people and roles as static, with a simple(-ish) sortation to how much respect/compensation they get. In fact, individuals grow and change over time (with some intent to be more useful or a better fit to the job(s) they want), and organizations change their culture and needs to fit with their changing personnel. Both of these are relatively slow, but they really do matter.
Not necessarily. It depends on the organization. For example, consider a small lobbying company in Washington DC.
Part of the point of my post was that those aren’t actual categories that exist. “Social expertise” is something that exists in a certain context and culture. There are different groups that communicate well internally, but each consider the others to have “poor social skills”. You can’t just treat cultures and expertise like they’re stat points in an RPG.