Pros
Once upon a time in Washington DC, there was a special startup. Its founders believed that mixing engineering know-how with good management could lead to great innovation. This startup stood out because it valued input from engineers in every decision. In the early days, things worked brilliantly. Project managers, with their engineering backgrounds, understood the technical details. They didn't just set deadlines and budgets; they got hands-on and talked tech with engineers. Their goal was to make things simple and innovate for the people's benefit. Success followed. They tackled problems creatively, streamlined processes, and made products that improved lives. Top engineering talent from various backgrounds flocked to join.
Cons
However, as the company grew, things changed. Founders stepped back and were replaced by professional managers more focused on their job security and their place within the hierarchy. Promotions favored business-minded or diverse good-looking folks over long-standing engineers. Decision-making became bureaucratic, filled with red tape. Engineers had less say. Exit interviews for engineers leaving, once valuable, disappeared. Peer reviews, once a way to nurture talent, faded. Social gatherings, where engineers and managers used to bond over shared passion and innovation, diminished. The gap between engineers and managers grew, and the company that had once smashed bureaucracy became one itself. It was a sad change. Engineers missed being part of decisions, and their expertise wasn't as valued as before. The startup that aimed to revolutionize by promoting engineers in management roles became a bureaucracy, stifling innovation.
