Not only does being an effective manager (not just a "boss" or "instruction-giver") require training, but also a certain kind of aptitude that is IMO hard to teach. The training can help provide language or tools to guide the management process, but it can't replace things like empathy, strategic thinking, etc., and in the worst case (without careful attention) there is a risk of the manager becoming a slave to those tools.
At the same time, it seems that in many cases recognition for really talented individual contributors just isn't there -- in many companies the Principal Scientist or Fellow role (or similar non-managerial high-level scientific track) no longer exists, in practice if not also in theory, and so the promotional track just ends. Frustrated people in those roles may end up in management, which is not necessarily the best place for them -- either for their own personalities or for the company.
I do agree with you that moving to find a place that "clicks" is important, and that it is even more important to look for that "click" when you can (when other aspects of life are more flexible).
I remember a friend telling me about starting at 3M and how the "fellow" position was seen as the ultimate/best role to get and that it was very safe from layoffs and overall macroeconomic forces.
A whole bunch of those fellow roles got eliminated within their first two years at 3M.
In a sense those types of positions don't necessarily even need to report to managers and could in theory report directly to an executive too.
Yes, I saw it too in my own career -- Principal Scientist and Fellow roles were seen to have low business value and were frequently a target for cost-cutting. But eventually they pretty much stopped being an option in any case -- and so people stagnated in individual contributor bench roles, or left.
In many cases those roles are indeed somewhat independent of management -- or they report in at a level similar to a low- or mid-level manager (perhaps to a director).
Not only does being an effective manager (not just a "boss" or "instruction-giver") require training, but also a certain kind of aptitude that is IMO hard to teach. The training can help provide language or tools to guide the management process, but it can't replace things like empathy, strategic thinking, etc., and in the worst case (without careful attention) there is a risk of the manager becoming a slave to those tools.
At the same time, it seems that in many cases recognition for really talented individual contributors just isn't there -- in many companies the Principal Scientist or Fellow role (or similar non-managerial high-level scientific track) no longer exists, in practice if not also in theory, and so the promotional track just ends. Frustrated people in those roles may end up in management, which is not necessarily the best place for them -- either for their own personalities or for the company.
I do agree with you that moving to find a place that "clicks" is important, and that it is even more important to look for that "click" when you can (when other aspects of life are more flexible).
I remember a friend telling me about starting at 3M and how the "fellow" position was seen as the ultimate/best role to get and that it was very safe from layoffs and overall macroeconomic forces.
A whole bunch of those fellow roles got eliminated within their first two years at 3M.
In a sense those types of positions don't necessarily even need to report to managers and could in theory report directly to an executive too.
Yes, I saw it too in my own career -- Principal Scientist and Fellow roles were seen to have low business value and were frequently a target for cost-cutting. But eventually they pretty much stopped being an option in any case -- and so people stagnated in individual contributor bench roles, or left.
In many cases those roles are indeed somewhat independent of management -- or they report in at a level similar to a low- or mid-level manager (perhaps to a director).