The role of Director is really odd here. It does not require management skill and its a glorified title for engineers that want more money and benefits that come with higher titles. Directors at other similar companies are really good at managing people and projects which is the totally the opposite in Q.
6 replies (most recent on top)
BTW, Directors outside of engineering are not like this. most are good and good at managing people. it's the engineering side that has issues.
137917 - I saw this post and thought, wow that reads like my response.... wait that is my response...LOL.
@8124...the breakdown is quiet complex and not sure it is practical. I have seen a lot of big companies in SV and others follow this anonymous title for employees. Meaning, all engineers are given the same title: SW engineer, HW engineer, Test eng etc... Internally they maintain many levels that is not published to the mass. I think one needs to reach a specific level to be considered something like a director from SW eng. The Employee and only the employee is aware of his level (and has the option to display this in the company directory). That way no one is aware of the level of the performer and interactions are all the same regardless of titles... And folks are judged (if at all) based on their current performance and contribution. I think this annonimity of level reduces a lot of politics and unnecessary and sometimes unhealthy competition ( suck ups... Etc..). I am sure some folks may not like that their status is not flaunted... But I think these are the folks that cannot work in a collaborative equal environment and are the credit hungry people who will go to lengths to feel above others... Like the ones we currently have at Q who spend too much time trying to one up other and play dirty politics. Company would be a lot better without people of this mentality anyways...
Some companies actually put their managers/leads/directors through intensive training so they know how to deal effectively with people. One of my coworkers with was a manager at a major Silicon Valley company before deciding that he liked the creative aspects of engineering more than the politics (--and useless time spent in meetings--) required in management, and came to QC. He was consistently amazed at the total lack of support shown by management/directors, lack of coordination of project groups/divisions, and the ability of managers and directors to actually sit down with upper management and tell them that they will either have to provide more resources or come up with a more realistic timeline for a products launch--at least if they want a product that isn't full of bugs.
Probably need more titles. Jr. Director (0-2 report). Associate Director (3-5 reports), Sr. Associate Director (still 3-5 reports, but enables more political backstabbing to prove ready for Director title), Director (6-8 reports), Principal Director (9-15), Sr Director (16-25 reports), then Associate VP (26-50 reports).
Qualcomm has far too many titles. It leads to lots of politics, and it's generally the people who cause the most damage to company that get promoted.