> Middle management (eng. managers) is by far the worst role in software engineering

Like most middle manager roles, I think it's only good as long as you have a good team and a decent support from the company. If the team I work with is going to be bad I'd rather be the IC than PM 100%, at least I can get some stuff done and have a level of control.

The smart move is to run a small startup and then either make that very successful or go back to industry as somebody that can actually run a company instead of just a little team. Even the failure modes here are quite alright (freelancing, consulting, etc.). You learn a lot trying to make a startup work. And there's nobody else to blame except yourself. Whether or not you are a good manager is of course a different matter. There are a lot of mediocre managers out there; especially in big companies. The Peter principle is the sad reality of middle management.

My experience working as a principal engineer in a large multinational was pretty good. Even though there was a lot of pressure for me to stop engineering and start joining the power point brigade. I once did a headcount between me and the CEO. The number was 7. Three layers up, management was so detached from reality that it's not surprising that they ran the company into the ground. That company was Nokia. I learned a lot about how not to manage a company. My direct managers were excellent but generally powerless.

I became my own boss after that. I've learned a thing or two since then about managing other people and getting results from them.

> I've learned a thing or two since then about managing other people and getting results from them.

What did you learn?

Personally I think it may be the other way around: When you’re a first line manager you still have 1-on-1s with people who do real work and you can spend a lot of your days “connecting the dots” and really making a difference. One you get to the second level it’s essentially 100% politics. For me the next level where it gets interesting again is when you get to the strategic level: board or C-suite.

Still mostly politics at that level too, unfortunately.

But I agree at least there’s a chance to do something worthwhile.

How will you ensure you have the skills to be manager of managers without every managing people before?

"Generally, management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization. And to control many is the same as to control few. This is a matter of formations and signals."

Sun Tzu

Most managers I worked for in corporate setting didn’t really care for people. They were loyal to their superiors. And their subordinates were more or less tools for a goal. Most absurd situation was in my previous job where the company hired experienced manager as a developer and suppressed him on every occasion. My precursor and I left that place very quickly. So the people skills from my single data point are not the prerequisite for becoming manager. But again. I am single data point. Maybe there are places where managers care about something else than budgets, timelines and their own bonuses.

That's kind of beside the point - for the sake of argument, let's say managers only care about "budgets, timelines". It would still be a stretch to switch from an IC role to suddenly managing the "budgets, timelines" not only of a team but of a whole department

I am convinced, that the guys, who got promoted, know how to manage things. Even in toxic place I worked as an important IC I assisted doing project plans and technology roadmaps. The department things were same charts, but without technical slang and absolutely anonymized threading workers as an abstract number “headcount”.

writing more code

I agree but some people seem to thrive on managing people or on the status upgrade of being called a manager that its worth it for them. Really depends on the personality. Overall though you're right - the pay gap isn't significant in most places and there's a bit more stress in being a manager I think. I'm sticking to IC till AI takes my job :)

Middle management IS about managing the managers - hence the "middle".

The name is meaningless and what you say is 100% untrue in my experience across banking, telco, government, retail, car manufacturers, insurance or energy distribution.

In same vein say Vice President in banks is no (vice) president of anything, just above Assistant VP (who is not assistant to anyone). Meaningless words on their own.

I guess its down to ego game - nobody ambitious would like to be called ie 'low manager' or 'assistant manager', that sounds like proper secretary position.

I think it’s the other way.

As an EM you’re closer to the product and the team that builds it. You have direct influence on the success and failure of the product and the team and it’s where most of the fun is. It’s a truly fulfilling role for those who are hands-on and love the wholistic experience.

Managers of manager and above are often in rarified air and have to cast their nets wide and farther to make decisions.

You have an illusion that you have direct influence. But the reality is you can replace the EM with a rubber duck and the engineers would still build the product.

On the other hand replace the engineers with a rubber duck and there is no product.