Slashdot Mirror


Tech Or Management Beyond Age 39?

relliker writes "So here I am at age 39 with two contractual possibilities, for practically the same pay. With one, I continue being a techie for the foreseeable future — always having to keep myself up-to-date on everything tech and re-inventing myself with each Web.x release to stay on top. With the other, I'm being offered a chance to get into management, something I also enjoy doing and am seriously considering for the rest of my working life. The issue here is the age of my grey matter. Will I still be employable in tech at this age and beyond? Or should I relinquish the struggle to keep up with progress and take the comfy 'old man' management route so that I can stay employable even in my twilight years? What would Slashdot veterans advise at this age?"

43 of 592 comments (clear)

  1. ...and the pursuit of happiness by Panzor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do what makes you happy, man. If you wanted to do management like you said, then go for it. The only reason people want money is for happiness. Getting happiness out of the job is a bonus.

    1. Re:...and the pursuit of happiness by bigbird · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good advice. Spending 8+ hours getting paid for doing what you love will help your life to be a happy one. Doing stuff you don't like for half of your waking hours will make life a misery.

      And it is hard to succeed if you don't love what you are doing.

      If you love coding, stick with it - there will always be a job for you. I'm in my 40's and have been coding for many years. There's nothing like getting paid to play, and there's no end in sight yet!

    2. Re:...and the pursuit of happiness by los+furtive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Getting happiness out of the job is a bonus.

      If getting happiness out of the job is a bonus, you've got the wrong job. Worse yet, your boss has the wrong employee.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    3. Re:...and the pursuit of happiness by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only reason people want money is for happiness.

      Sometimes it is for unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanisms, hollowed out magma lairs, and sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached their heads. Oh wait... that's happiness too. Nevermind.

  2. management by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ageism in tech is very real, and even if you're not seeing it yet, you will in another 10 years. By that time it will be too late. Get on the management track while you can.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    1. Re:management by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hear the irony in your comment: just trying to weed out the competition by sending them over the cliff that is management, ay? Pretty fiendish...

    2. Re:management by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Thirty-nine was so twenty years ago...

      I look at management - and consultancy, which is the same thing without the head count - as simply playing with lines of code that are much bigger. Bigger building blocks, if you will. Instead of data structures and algorithms I put together DBA's and network people and infrastructure agreements, and match people and tasks.

      The need for correct syntax and error correction applies at any level. But it certainly pays to have learned everything up to that point; there are fewer places where gremlins can hide & catch you unawares if you're not quite that easily fooled.

      Technology teaches you to think. The other stuff teaches you to value thinking correctly.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  3. Follow your passion by mzungu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Over the long haul, following your passion is the way to go.

    I have been at a similar crossroads, and went the management route. I am currently re-eavluating that decision since I get much more joy out of being hands-on and much less joy out of the routine administrivia that comes with being a manager.

    If you get more joy out of managing than you do as a tech, then that's likely the way you should go.

  4. go for management by davidone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think about how many young people are being graduated all over the world today.
    Think how are they eager to work for way less than you get.
    Think how faster than you they are at learning new things.
    Now where'd you put the only asset you have, i.e. experience?

    1. Re:go for management by jhoger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think about how many young people are being graduated all over the world today.

      Lots of green recruits that think they know everything but don't. Welcome to Software.

      Think how are they eager to work for way less than you get.

      Commensurate with the quality of their work (where quality includes correctness, time to completion, and maintainability at least) since they have no Experience...

      Think how faster than you they are at learning new things.

      Umm, Bullshit. You're telling me that after 25 some years of learning within this field I'll have a harder time learning new tech? There's really not much new under the sun, Son. Did you know C# just got Lambda expressions?

      Now where'd you put the only asset you have, i.e. experience?

      Pretty high... apparently you haven't read any job listings, since HR drones do too.

  5. You will have to know tech either way by five18pm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to know tech either way, whether you continue to be in tech or go in to management, you have to know the tech and update yourself continuously if you want to hold your own. With that in mind, if management does make you happy, go for it.

    1. Re:You will have to know tech either way by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You have to know tech either way, whether you continue to be in tech or go in to management

      I want to work where you do. My company hires management based on management experience, not experience in the field I work in. Then they quit after two months because they don't know what's going on and all the working stiffs are making fun of them. Hire new manager, rinse, and repeat.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    2. Re:You will have to know tech either way by samkass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot generally seems to consider tech something that requires cutting-edge skills but management as something anyone could do. I haven't found that to be the case. Being a good manager requires staying up on the management skills, techniques, and tools. It also often requires some politics, budget skills, and decisiveness. It's not something anyone can do well, and it's not something you can sit back and relax in and expect to stay good at it.

      Personally if I left tech I'd head for business development, but that's just me. You still get to play with all the latest toys that way. :)

      --
      E pluribus unum
    3. Re:You will have to know tech either way by pudro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If all other things are pretty much equal, I would consider these two things:

      1) If you aren't already including it in "how happy you are with either job", consider how much you have to put up with other peoples crap. Since you say that you enjoy management, do you really already understand how much more other people's ignorance and attitudes you will have to DEAL with (as opposed to just LIVING with it as non-management)?

      2) Where are you more needed? Often times management has more underqualified individuals in it. Or just people who are otherwise qualified but just lack the management skills. Or are you that good at the techie stuff that you are the one that really makes stuff happen most of the time? How many others are there that easily could fill your spot in either position, should you not take it? I don't mean this in a "for the good of the business sense" way, but rather in the sense that making a bigger difference in either role could add additional "happiness" to the basic aspects of the jobs themselves.

      --
      Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
    4. Re:You will have to know tech either way by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't sit back and relax and expect to be good. But you CAN sit back relax, be really bad, and not get fired.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    5. Re:You will have to know tech either way by whowantscream · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My company hires management based on management experience, not experience in the field I work in.

      Unfortunately I'm going to have to agree with this - especially in the higher levels of management. Sometimes it is the organization's lack of understanding of IT and need to relate to the IT manager that leads to someone with limited tech experience being hired. Other times a once tech savvy manager ends up getting further and further removed from operations - instead being forced to spend their time politicking and worrying about bottom lines.

      Ultimately you should make your decision based off of what makes you happiest - as others have said. Get an understanding of what your role in management will actually entail and determine the distance you'll be from operations.

      Being 39 doesn't make you 'too old for tech'... being lazy, unwilling to change, inexperienced and out of touch does. On the other side - some people are built for management and some aren't. Unfortunately a lot of people who aren't still end up in management positions.

      --
      Nobody? OK no cream.
    6. Re:You will have to know tech either way by ojustgiveitup · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi! (I'm trying to start with a friendly vibe because otherwise I'm afraid my comment might come off as sarcastic.) I think that the reason the slashdot community generally considers management to be a no-brainer (as evidenced very recently by your extremely underrated post) is that we all believe, often from first-hand experience, but also from hear-say, speculation, and exaggeration, that many of the "skills, techniques, and tools" that managers try to stay up on are merely bullshit to make them managers seem busy and justify their continued employment. I'm curious (seriously) what things you think managers need to keep up with that don't fall into that category.

    7. Re:You will have to know tech either way by fractoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot generally seems to consider tech something that requires cutting-edge skills but management as something anyone could do.

      I don't know about that - I'd say it's more that Slashdot just considers management as something not requiring cutting-edge skills. The problem is, of course, that tech doesn't have that much of a career path. You go from junior tech, to tech, to senior tech... and then if you want to go further, you go into management. Technical positions don't scale. Even in engineering, you'll be doing more management than design if you're in charge of something big.

      Personally, I'm aiming (eventually) for IT security. From what I've seen, security scales well. You can be in charge of just your web server, or you can be in charge of a multinational corporation's WAN infrastructure, and you're still using most of the same skillset.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    8. Re:You will have to know tech either way by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must be at a good company. I know of several companies which a degree in physical education is enough to secure a mid level management position.

      All those stories about the pointy hair bosses that could surf the interweb if you didn't show them how to didn't come from nowhere.

    9. Re:You will have to know tech either way by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot generally seems to consider tech something that requires cutting-edge skills but management as something anyone could do. I haven't found that to be the case.

      Me either. Any project that I've worked on that was managed well always felt like the manager was meta-programming, if that makes sense to you. Seems to be a rare skill, much harder to pull off than just being a good programmer.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    10. Re:You will have to know tech either way by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one is saying that GOOD managers aren't skilled, just that they've never even heard of a good one.

    11. Re:You will have to know tech either way by guilliamo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a matter of your complete competency. Techies and management alike can get promoted with appropriate pay with most modern, small or large companies. I am 54 and have elected to spin the consulting trail. I did so out of need after 911 shut the doors down on many opportunities in 2001. Started on the consulting trail only to find that it works. I did not want to be a JAVA developer driving a cab. Bright nimble minds with the ability to traverse the political IT jungle will always be in the loop. Age means nothing.

    12. Re:You will have to know tech either way by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I want to work where you do. My company hires management based on management experience, not experience in the field I work in. Then they quit after two months because they don't know what's going on

      At least those managers had the grace to leave. At all too many of my clients, such managers don't care that they don't understand what their subordinates do.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    13. Re:You will have to know tech either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to know tech either way, whether you continue to be in tech or go in to management

      I want to work where you do. My company hires management based on management experience, not experience in the field I work in. Then they quit after two months because they don't know what's going on and all the working stiffs are making fun of them. Hire new manager, rinse, and repeat.

      This is going to sound more confrontational than I mean it, but when I hear that sort of comment in real life I immediately wonder whether the real problem is a bunch of immature employees who are too proud of their technical skills and unable to figure out what's actually needed in the work place.

      There are certainly a lot of bad managers, but there are far more mediocre ones who have some flaws, but more than enough skills to help a talented group succeed. Good employees figures out what those skills are and how to take advantage of them--and most managers appreciate that. Inexperienced ones say in their comfort zone, focus on management deficiencies, which lets them feel superior and complain to colleagues in the lunch room.

      Going out of your way to help find ways for a mediocre manager to succeed can make you start to feel really underpaid--isn't it supposed to be the other way around? Aren't you performing well above your pay grade? Well, yes; but in a halfway decent organization overperforming in this way gets rewarded, evenutally. Usually far faster than overperforming just on tech, which requires a technical manager to truly appreciate.

      I've never met you, so I have no opinion about whether this is the case in your organization. But if you've had a succession of bosses who are so bad you can't work with them, I'd really move on. Nearly all organizations are somewhat dysfunctional, but being that sort of magnet for bad managers means you can't help but to improve your situation by moving.

    14. Re:You will have to know tech either way by TheLink · · Score: 5, Informative

      In most companies you can get by with being a mediocre manager.

      It's hard to be a good manager but a good middle manager is very valuable to a company (even if not valued by it ;) ).

      For example, say the manager is managing a project and a team of programmers.

      1) When the Big Bosses ask the manager - hey when will the project be finished?

      A crappy manager might just pull a date out of thin air and give that to the Big Bosses.
      A mediocre manager might ask the programmers, and then give the resulting date to the bosses without any processing or safety margins.
      Whereas a good manager would know which programmers tend to underestimate and which overestimate, come up with the Manager's actual expected date, and then add a big safety margin and then give that to the bosses.

      A good manager will need to keep up with stuff enough to know when someone might be bullshitting him (and perhaps countercheck it with someone/a source he can trust).

      2) Stuff happens and the manager has some misc extra stuff to do and assigns it to the team.

      With a crappy manager, if the date was near ridiculous in the first place, some of the team might just start spending time preparing to leave (the top programmers can be quite re-employable). The project might then fail.
      With a mediocre manager, it means the team have to put in extra hours. Savvy members of the team would now start padding their future estimates by a LOT (instead of just a bit), if they haven't been doing that already. Future projects would be estimated to take X years rather than X months, or the mediocre manager would have to start pulling figures out of thin air and hoping for the best :).

      With a good manager, no changes. If the team starts trusting the manager's management skills more, they can start giving him/her less padded estimates.

      People might say a top programmer is 10 to 100x more productive than an average programmer, but in the hands of a crappy/mediocre manager, the top programmer might be using his extra productivity doing more fun stuff like contributing to open source projects, writing some cool game, or just plain slacking off.

      So with a good manager the productivity of a team can actually be far higher. Same team, different levels of productivity. Because the good middle manager can actually _manage_ the team and the bosses.

      3) The bosses might then say, "hey can't you get stuff done earlier? We have to make an announcement to the press etc by Date XYZ, otherwise we'd look bad in comparison to the competitors."

      A crappy manager would just push the date earlier and give that to the bosses.
      A mediocre manager might do the same.
      A good manager would negotiate (could we just announce the product rather than _release_ the product?) or see what he can get in return, for example in future he'd say to the bosses "Hey the team is overloaded already, we can't give them more stuff unless you want the project to slip".

      If the big bosses are also good, after a while they will trust the good manager too - e.g. they can believe him when he says stuff can be done and by X, or it can't be done.

      Whereas in the other cases, they'll just have to make stuff up and hope their Golden Parachute is well packed (as you can see, Golden Parachute packing skills are very important to Big Bosses ;) ).

      Note: most coders are crap. There'll be a few not so bad ones (not worthy of "DailyWTF" ;) ). So most of them can barely be competent with existing stuff much less keep up with the latest tech.

      So being a good manager is a bit like playing an RTS well, when:
      1) you can't micromanage too much or you start having problems with your troops.
      2) your troops are not that consistent, or reliable.
      3) Most of your troops are crap, you have to figure out "which can do what", and which ones are just being lazy.

      A good manager is very valuable (whether middle or upper management). An organization can do great things when it has good top management, good middle management and not too bad "grunts" :).

      --
    15. Re:You will have to know tech either way by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The /.attitude in a nutshell:

      X is really hard.
      Anybody can do Y.

      Where X = what I do and Y = anything else.
             

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:You will have to know tech either way by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But if you've had a succession of bosses who are so bad you can't work with them, I'd really move on.

      Or better still, have a good long think about what you're doing wrong. Over the course of my life, I've come across any number of people who have a tendency towards sequential fallings-out with one person after another, who project the "fault" as being the other's.

    17. Re:You will have to know tech either way by WillKemp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being 39 doesn't make you 'too old for tech'... being lazy, unwilling to change, inexperienced and out of touch does.

      Conveniently, those are also required qualifications for being a manager!

    18. Re:You will have to know tech either way by realkiwi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Being 39 doesn't make you 'too old for tech'... being lazy, unwilling to change, inexperienced and out of touch does.

      Sometimes slashdot has comments that are based on common sense! Last year I found a web job. 15 people were interviewed before me. Many were in their 20s. I am 54...

      --
      realkiwi
    19. Re:You will have to know tech either way by mcvos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is, of course, that tech doesn't have that much of a career path. You go from junior tech, to tech, to senior tech... and then if you want to go further, you go into management. Technical positions don't scale.

      Depends on the company.

      My dad managed to stay a tech for his entire career. He's good at what he does, but he hates doing management stuff, and refused to be in charge of anybody else. He still got very big raises early in his career, and soon got a bigger salary than his boss. Occasionally he gets put in charge of a project, but mostly he's managed to just do his own thing. He never says anything during meetings, but when he does, people listen, because it's bound to be important.

      But it's probably a lot easier to advance that far in a management track. My dad's situation requires a boss who recognises and rewards talent, and a company that's willing to accommodate eccentric talent. But if my dad had even the slightest bit of talent and will to do management, he'd probably have made even more money. He didn't, but he's quite happy where he is.

      And if you go the tech route, you really do need to keep learning and improving. My dad was about 50 when he learned Java, and now he does most of his programming in Java, and does open source Java programming in his free time.

    20. Re:You will have to know tech either way by eudaemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been an unabashed computer nerd since the word go - taught myself programming, worked in
      the field even during high-school and college, and never looked back. But at some point,
      somewhere around a 3 AM disaster involving a failed firehose controller, I decided the
      classic UNIX SA/DBA role - at least in frontline support - was wearing thin. I took a
      job as an architect instead, but at least I mostly got to sleep nights. Then I switched jobs
      again about 5 years ago and started in a role that was prod support and team lead. 5 years later
      I manage 30'sh people - a mix of j2ee server admins and dba's and I still need to be somewhat
      technical but I don't have to log into a console anywhere and deploy code or debug anything any more.

      The years of technical experience mean I'm still driving troubleshooting when it gets really bad.
      I still bang out perl scripts when I need to, and I still get into architectural discussions with
      the application development teams who want to do stupid things because it's easy or cheap for them.

      Being a manager (at least in my world) means dealing with an entirely different layer of issues, though.
      You have to be able to influence people and coerce them into doing what they should be doing anyway:
      No you can't have all the available memory for your JVM cache, no you can't have 6 TB of disk space
      to keep online backups "just in case", yes you really have to make your code clustered and resilient. Yes
      you really have to give the prod support guys real docs and a way to recover if something fails. I feel
      like my title should be "Master of stating the obvious" and if we're ever allowed to pick our titles that will
      be on my business card. But the point is - you still need (and will have) the technical skills you accrued
      and you'll be using them.

      Some orgs look for people who have "pure" management backgrounds and can't wield a screwdriver, but they usually
      suffer from management myopia "anything I don't understand must be easy to do." My personal opinion is the
      best managers of tech organizations are those who have some sort of technical background, even if it's no longer
      current - the problem-solving mindset remains.

    21. Re:You will have to know tech either way by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative
      "Reasonable advice, except for the part about incorporating. As an individual consultant it will make little or no difference in taxes or retirement plans whether you incorporate or not. And incorporating just adds another layer of paperwork."

      I have to strongly disagree with you. Incorporating does MANY things for you. First, your personal assets are shielded from liability from business problems you might encounter, this is a litigious society after all.

      But the biggest is financial.

      I have a subchapter "S" corporation. One of the best tax benefits is that I can legally cut my SS and medicare taxation by a huge amount. All I have to do, is pay myself a reasonable salary...as sole shareholder and owner of the company. For example. Let's say the company bills out and makes $100K one year. I pay myself a 'reasonable salary' of say $30K. Now, with this set up, I only have to pay FICA and medicare on that $30K. The remaining $70K falls through to my personal taxes at EOY, and I only have to pay regular state and federal income taxes on that. That adds up quickly.

      Not only that...I can write off all my mileage driving for anything work related. That is $0.55/mile. That adds up quickly, I can just re-imburse myself through out the year for that mileage tax free. You can write off purchases for business. I can write off my internet connection (business connection to the home), cell phone, books, software, hardware.

      By the end of the year, I write off a pretty decent amount of that remaining $70K so that it is not taxable.

      Not to mention it opens you up to new health care options (ok, you don't have to incorp for this). I just go with a high deductible private policy ($1200 deduct). that I keep only for emergencies. That qualifies me to set up a HSA (health savings account) that this year I believe you can load down with $3000 pre-tax. I use that to pay for my routine medical visits, meds, glasses, contacts, etc. It isn't a use it or lose it thing either like W2 people get with a FSA.

      I really wish they'd make it EASIER to do the HSA thing for everyone, but, that would put people in charge of their medical care, not the govt...so...

      But anyway, if you're gonna contract/consult...I'd HIGHLY recommend looking into forming an "S" corp. Just follow the rules, and it is all perfectly legal. Hell, is about the only way to keep you hard earned cash these days. I'm guessing tho...the govt will eventually try to can this as that with this scenario, you get your money first and they get their cut later. They really DO like getting money out of W2 paychecks (often more than they need, hence the 'refund') before YOU can touch your own money.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  6. Diversify by madcat2c · · Score: 5, Informative

    Diversify to stay alive. Move into management, but keep current on tech. You will be much more valuable and more employable.

  7. Run Like Your Hair Is On Fire... by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... back to the Technical Side. Management is a task that has no upside. If you suck at managing people, they're fire you. If you're great at managing people, they will increase your responsibilities, inching you closer to your Peter Point. (See "The Peter Principle" for context.) If you handle the heightened expectations, they will raise you to a higher management level, thereby eliminating your chance to contribute in your old way, or they will reassign you to fix some ailing project.

    If you have made it this far in the technical world, it means you are competent at it. If you were a bozo, they wouldn't be discussing an alleged promotion. By all means get into management if you hate the technical stuff. That is your choice. But I would say--if you're hankering for management--that you take the safe road: become a software architect. This involves so much politics and human engineering that you might as well be a manager.

    1. Re:Run Like Your Hair Is On Fire... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...your staff is your tools...

      Yeah, I felt that way about some of mine too. But there were a few good ones.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  8. You need to find an exit strategy by adamkennedy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's nearly impossible to maintain the energy and volume of coding that you do in your 20s.

    As you get older, your energy and raw intelligence is going to fall, but your experience and wisdom is going to increase.

    If you can, you need to find some way to channel and adapt to this change.

    On the pure technical side, that is going to mean heading up from coding into higher level design and architecture, solving the conceptual level problems (with a reliably high level of correctness) of how a big system will work and then steering teams of people for the implementation. You'll still be coding semi-regularly, but if you're lucky you will only have to step in to solve the REALLY hard/interesting bits that the lower level people can't handle. Sometimes this means picking a specialisation and sticking with it, certainly.

    If you aren't one of the technical elites in this way, management can be another way to utilise your experience and wisdom. This is especially the case if you've worked a lot with medium to large teams on projects, and you've gained an understanding of how to set up effective development teams. Management also carries with it a political/social/personality requirement. If you've got enough geek cred to know your field, but you can hang out with the sales and marketing people and be comfortable, then perhaps that is your direction.

  9. Go the management route by kiwimate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Same age as you, and firstly I should say how fortunate you are to have this choice in the context of the current economy. Nice position to be in :)

    My perspective: there are definite niches in tech, and if you find one you can become virtually irreplaceable. But if your skills are more generic (no matter how good), then ageism is a very real danger, as your experience and longevity become more expensive.

    Most people on /. seem to have a different problem. They have someone trying to push them into management and they have no desire to go that route. But you say you enjoy it. So, in your position, I'd be going the management route. With a strong technical background and some management skills/business knowledge, you become a very valuable manager, and that will only increase.

    One final point: if you try management full time for six months and find it's not really what you expected, will your company let you go back to the technical track? If so, then I'd say the choice writes itself. What have you got to lose?

  10. Check your pulse by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What sort of books do you prefer to buy? Does your buying strategy include more "Minimal Perl" than "Blue Ocean Strategy? Do you prefer to spend on "The Definitive Guide to MySQL" or "Good to Great"? Which ones do you prefer to read nowdays? The answer to that question could point to the answer to your larger question.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  11. Like many others.... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am in your age group. Having turned 50 recently, I look ahead to what is the next Big Thing for me. I did the management tour early on in my late 30's and found it distasteful since it involves trying to motivate people to get the job done and coddling upper management.

    As one poster said, It is trying to get adults who act like children to act like adults, and dealing with squabbles between developers, one who is is bound and determined to use Ruby and another who is just as determined to use something else, and trying to make everyone happy and productive and satisfy the sales weenies.

    Although i hate to say it because it makes me sound like more of a gray hair then I am, it is really time to sit back and take stock. I don't know if you have a family or not but this is a crucial decision and they have to be taken into account since your decision ultimately effects them as well.

    There is no pat answer for this, the answer has to come from you and your desires for your future. Although I am not sure I recommend it, if you are well known enough and have the hutspa to really sell yourself, do the ultimate sell out and become a consultant, it has worked for me.

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  12. This is easy in your case by istartedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just read your own post as if it were written by somebody else. You can tell by the tone that you want to take the management job. A techie who is expressing reluctance about "having to keep up" is not going to be a happy techie.

    If you aren't going to be happy doing it, you won't be successful.

    Take the management job. It's plainly what you want.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  13. My mirror career by freedom_india · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, you seem to mirror my career although you are older by 5 years.
    I was a techie in my early years of my 14 years of IT career. Cut my teeth on JDK 1.0.2 and was the one of the first to introduce Java to Citibank via a working prototype that used RMI/JRMP: won an award for the same.
    Over the years as i got promoted beyond my capabilities, i realized two things: I was a leader, not a manager. I created and built teams that were fiercely loyal and extremely professional. But like me, they too hated the Administrivia of Management and refused to enter "Management".
    I also recognized a truth: The MBAs in suits look down upon techies. The Techies look down upon MBAs as paper pushers. You need someone who has the confidence of techies BUT also has an MBA under his belt to talk sense to the management.
    Someone who can talk to Clients directly on their business needs, understand their business problems on Compliance, Dealer Management, Funds Treasury investment across borders, EoD transaction nettings, etc and then turn around talk to the techies about EJB Entity Beans, Message Driven Beans, WebSphere 5.1.3 to WebSphere 6.0 AS migration to achieve the same.
    I realized that such people are far and very few. Most take to Management after the required years as a techie and lose touch with technology. Some stay with technology and refuse to understand the business reasons and concerns that put food on their plates.
    You need to be the one who bridges both and has the confidence of both.
    I can walk up to any Bank and talk sense to their suits: Corporate Actions payouts, T+2 settlements, Securities Loans, etc. Why? I have a PG in Banking under my belt. But i can also come back to my teams and talk to them about evaluating their architecture via SAAM rather than ATAM, mathematically evaluating a design for fitness for purpose, not preferring AJAX for security reasons, architecture patterns, etc. Why? Because i daily go through the grind and understand their difficulties. FYI Its not easy to migrate from WAS 5.1.3 to WAS 6.0 on OS/390 when you have session beans invoking MDBs and you are using SQLJ.
    In short, you need to be a master of both.
    You need to wear two faces: one face which understands that the cold fork is for Salads and one who understands IE 7.0 DOM model.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  14. You already know the answer. by Pahalial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but this is plainly obvious. Now there are a lot of useful comments in this thread about IT ageism and all that, but the wording of the submission is plain as day to anyone who cares to read between the lines: For continuing in IT you mention no particular positives, and harp on the negative aspect of having to stay up to date and 're-invent yourself'. Whereas w.r.t. management you only say that you seriously enjoy doing it and are seriously considering spending the rest of your working life on it.

    Ermmmm....

    Granted, you then go on to imply that management is for senile old men, but this only serves to clarify to your audience why you're having this issue: you have deep-seated preconceptions as to what type of people actually go into management, and while you respect the work itself and would like to shine in that respect, you can't get past your own mental blocks of seeing them all as Dilbert-styled PHBs.

    Well, by the power vested in me by Slashdot, I officially set you free. Go forth and manage, AND stay up to date on tech, and be the good manager that will render Dilbert obsolete. Use all the grey matter you have - and frankly you will need to - to properly challenge your talented techie workers while using them to the best of their abilities and making the latter obvious to those above you.

    I wish you all the best in your management career. Remember, while it's not the same as tech work, don't be afraid to treat it the same when it comes to research - there are innumerable useful books written to help ease you into management coming from any techie standpoint.

    --
    Stuff.
  15. age is not the issue. by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have had lots of coworkers over 50 who are software or hardware engineers. And they are all great engineers. Some of them work full time, some run their own consultant companies.

    If you enjoy management, then the choice is pretty easy. Short term the pay is the same, but generally the limit for a tech guy is principle engineer, which is a director level position at pretty much any company. Beyond that you can only move "up" to CTO, where you usually don't get any salary and have to make due with stock options and selling your share of the company. In management you can move into a VP role, although it helps a great deal if you get an MBA. Without an MBA you probably can't easily rise past a director anyways. You're age is pretty "average" for people starting for an MBA, so it's not entirely out of the question if you have some long-term career plans.

    It is especially important to consider your long term path when you have another 15-25 years of career left to complete.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire