Pretty much every company I’ve been in or know of values a vertical trajectory instead of a horizontal one for its employees i.e becoming a manager nearly always means a faster salary progression than becoming an expert in one or multiple fields.

Why is expertise valued less?

  • atro_city@fedia.ioOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other. I’m not talking about technical people going up the ladder. I’m asking why going up the ladder is valued more than becoming or being an expert on the ground.

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Impact and risk.

      Farther up the chain your decisions have broader impact, good or bad. Those kinds decisions have more value than decisions that have a much narrower range of effect.

      As what my industry calls an SME(subject matter expert), at most my decisions effect one or two systems at a time, while a leadership decision impacts 10 or 100 (or more) people’s focus/direction. This includes the risks - so their decisions have a much broader scope.

    • boob_warbler@fedinsfw.app
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      2 things come to my mind

      1. Social pressure - There’s a need to be “seen”. Being a technical expert on ground doesn’t make you " seen".
      2. Money - The higher you go, the more money you make.
      • atro_city@fedia.ioOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago
        1. Social pressure - There’s a need to be “seen”. Being a technical expert on ground doesn’t make you " seen".

        Ah yes, exposure 🤔 So maybe by making technical experts seen, it would normalise increasing their salary.

        1. Money - The higher you go, the more money you make.

        I’m questioning why this is the case ;)

        • boob_warbler@fedinsfw.app
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          Its just too many things packaged and loaded in that question. Haha

          If you are a brilliant engineer, you might build an amazing feature. But if you are a director managing 5 teams of 8 engineers, your decisions affect the output of 40 people. Even a small 1% improvement in their efficiency multiplies across the whole group, resulting in massive financial impact.

          If a VP makes a strategic mistake, an entire product line gets canceled, and 200 people lose their jobs. Higher pay is often a premium for taking on that personal and financial risk.

          On the flip side, traditional corporate structure puts a cap on individual value. They operate like early 20th century assembly line, where a deeply technical engineer is seen no different than a blue collar drone.

          As for the “being seen” situation, its not about being seen by your bosses. Its more about being seen by your family and friends. At least in certain cultures, “man of the house” is expected to weild power over others outside their house too. While some are OK being called potty as long as they’re paid forty, not everyone subscribes to it.