Factors In Tech Career Progression (Part 1/2)

In a departure from code and workforce politics, let's examine the subject of career progression in tech.

Career progress, to most laypeople, has a formula: start as a peon, work your way up, get a Senior title (and a pay raise), get into Management (with another pay raise). I've lost count of the number of people that have repeatedly advised me to get into Management, because, to them, that is career progress.

With due respect, these people are talking out of their asses exhibiting a significant (but understandable) amount of ignorance. That's not how the tech industry works.

Sure, that might be how some tech firms work. But bear in mind that the tech scene in Singapore is hardly at maturation point and many companies still adopt the traditional structures that older companies have used over the decades. While that's how it currently works now at some places, that's not how it's supposed to work.

How people tend to measure career progress

There are some metrics that are often used outside of the tech industry. And while to some industries they may be a decent gauge of how far you've come, tech hirers generally know better. And here's why.

Titles. Fancy titles don't mean anything. And any organization that thinks they mean something, or tries to force them to mean something, has a lot of catching up to do. If someone wanted a fancy title, all they have to do is register a company (which will cost all of what? Fifty bucks?) and declare themselves CEO or something.

Here's a nice title...

What does a title mean, really? A title is just a one (or two, or three) word phrase that describes what your job is as accurately as possible.

Engineer.

System Architect.

Technical Officer.

Web Application Developer.

Adding "Chief" or "Senior" to the title looks nice on a business card and even better on a resume. Sure, I get that. But what does it actually say about what you do? A bit fat nothing - because "Senior" or even "Manager" means different things in different firms and different contexts. If you were doing a basic job and the title got a bit too fancy, a few pertinent questions would get you found out in a hurry. Long story short, no interviewing Manager who knows anything is going to use that as a gauge for determining your worth to his company.

And speaking of "Manager"...

Management. Let's assume the word "Manager" on your resume is honestly earned. You are a Manager. You have at least one or two people taking orders from you, and you perform organizational delegation. But bear in mind that where you are a Manager at, is also pertinent. Being a Manager in some kuching kurap operation is worlds apart from being a Manager in a legit tech firm of a reasonable size. Also, what were you managing? If you were a Database System Manager, that doesn't instantly qualify you to be a Web Operations Team Manager... unless you're some kind of genius that thinks that anything under "Information Technology" is automatically related.

There's more to be said for aspiring to Management. In many factory settings, if you do one job long enough, you get enough experience in it to be able to supervise and train others. Ergo, you get promoted. You're now a Manager, or at least higher up the pecking order. Trying to apply this approach wholesale to the tech industry is incredibly naive. Management in tech is more about people skills and organizational savvy than technical skills. In fact, the longer you've been in Management, the more you can expect your tech skills to degrade because you don't exercise them often enough. And there is no guarantee you would be a better Manager than developer - you could become a walking, breathing example of The Peter Principle. There are plenty of very talented engineers and developers who won't survive in a Management capacity simply because people skills aren't their thing. Should this talent not be promoted? Well, if being in Management was the only way for their careers to progress, many tech workers would be screwed. Because, as much as I detest the stereotype that techies are antisocial geeks, there's an uncomfortable amount of truth in it.

Less space at the top.

The thing is, being promoted to Manager carries a certain amount of risk - most of which have to do with job security. Once you get to that level, there is no going back. There are always openings for developers - but a lot less for Managers. Why's that? Simple. Corporate structure can be represented as a triangle. The further up the pecking order you are, the less space there is to move. If you are a Manager and you ever lose your job, you can expect to take a lot longer than the average grunt finding another one. Because Managers generally don't obligingly vacate their positions for you unless there's space further up the pecking order for them.

Pay. Now we're getting warmer. Pay is a pretty good benchmark for determining how far your career has progressed. Generally, the longer you've been doing this job, the better your chances of getting a decent salary. That said, there's a ceiling. Grunt work developers are always in demand, but that's because they generally come cheap. If an employer is willing to pay more, that usually means they expect a certain amount of expertise to be in your resume. So, in that sense, you're not just a grunt.

Has your salary grown?

Pay is a decent benchmark, but it's almost useless unless you couple it with other metrics. In fact, I would even say that other metrics are more indicative of career progress, and pay is simply a by-product of that progress. However, pay is very relevant in the sense that everybody, to some degree or other, does it for the money. There are people who don't care about titles, or rank. I confess to being one of them. But there's exceedingly few people who don't care about money at all. Of course, it takes all sorts to make a world and sometimes you may encounter people who don't mind getting less money if they have a nice senior title... all in the name of career progress. I find this patently absurd, but to each his own.

What really determines career progress in the tech industry

Having taken a look at some of the things people use to measure career progress, I think it's safe to say I've adequately explained why those metrics don't work that well in the tech industry.

How about skillsets then? Surely acquired skills determines career progress? Well... not so much.

We're talking about an industry where things get outdated quickly and change happens at a breakneck pace. Thus, the ability to learn, unlearn and relearn is vital. Sure, some things are timeless and even industry-agnostic - properly structured programming, cleanliness of code and ability to work with others are just a few things to come to mind - but tools change, and they change frequently.

So knowing the latest tools, or even a wide repertoire of tools, is nice. It's certainly kept me employable. But it's not wholly responsible for any sort of progress I may have enjoyed. No, we're measured by what value we bring to the table. The greater the value, the higher the remuneration. Being in Management is one type of value, but it's not the only type of value.

Not convinced? Allow me to illustrate...

Next

Let's look at my career trajectory and see what we can learn from this. In particular, I want to look at the skills I've had to pick up over the years, and how they were picked up from one job and transferred over to subsequent jobs, and even more importantly, what I did in those jobs.