[rajvardhanraje]

Originally Posted by warrioraks

In my first job, one of the senior managers explained the hourglass model of career development within my first week of joining. The model essentially means that for majority of professionals (in my line of business), the experiences and expectations are going to follow the curve of an hourglass:

• At the base (career starting point), you are practically a generalist who is expected to pickup what comes your way. More breadth than depth.
• As you grow towards middle-management, you start specializing in a specific area and pickup more depth than breadth.
• Growing to middle-management and beyond requires you to become a generalist again. You end up being jack of many trades and master of only a few.

Hourglass model of career progression (Source: Google)
Attachment 2031122

The hourglass model of progression is excellent and relevant literally to all domains. Well explained. Currently I am at a point specializing is specific areas.

Originally Posted by warrioraks

In other words, a smaller organization would typically make a better generalist out of you. Based on multiple hats you would wear in a small time organization, you can decide on which one interests you most to the extent that you want to make a living out of it. At the end of the day, you want to work on something which creatively challenges you.

In a small organisation, you end up being a generalist inadvertently even if you do not wish to, mostly due to lack of specialized resources. The upside as you have mentioned, we get to know which hat would suit us best. Even in my case it was the best thing that happened. I could choose the path that suited me best. My counterparts from large organisations had no exposure to other layers of the pyramid which I had.

Originally Posted by warrioraks

The downside is that you still have to work around processes of a big organization which we all know tends to get bureaucratic. But you ignore these as minor niggles provided you have a good boss and a healthy work environment.

Yes. Every little change that you intend to bring on needs to go through a lengthy process. Depending on the multiple factors like your immediate boss and overall company working methodologies, it either gets propagated or scrapped. If you can somehow convince them of the benefits, things move ahead. Upper management guys averse to changes really pose hurdles in this. I have observed some with the motto - If it ain't faulty, why fix it.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Your manager was right. One should start as a generalist, and few years later can turn into a specialist in an area of interest. However, large IT services companies in India made it very hard by turning ON their recruitment vacuum cleaner at most colleges, and then turn them into specialists from day one. Had discussed this in a post in 2013.

Read your old post. What you did at HP is absolutely impressive. Similarly I have seen others come up with such brilliant ideas that did not enough support from the higher rungs to get implemented.

Originally Posted by warrioraks

Ironic as it may sound, if one wants to be a generalist, working hard and being talented actually goes against you most of the times in a large organisation. There are very few managers who would truly support their strong performers exploring outside world for the fear of losing them. Ultimately leading to cocooned employees.
On the other hand, few large organisations do exist which are able to propagate fungibility of skills in true spirit.

Fortunately, even after entering a large organisation, my immediate superior completely supports bringing in radical ideas to the table. Him being a technical virtuoso further assists the cause. We have a forum where we can bring in such ideas in front of an assessing panel. If they approve of it, things go through. Of course some one needs to put a really strong business case for things to go through.

[GutsyGibbon]

A company can be small, but big on ideas. Especially if the company is in its infancy/startup, the equity grant becomes a big motivating factor, and a driving force. In the couple startups I have joined as the first few software dudes, we had to create interviewing guidelines, cobble up a development environment, processes, and buy stuff (sw dev tools, racks, machines etc).

These initial days of a startup are close to my heart, and I would not trade it for anything. I was working directly with really sharp execs (worth hundreds of millions, in flip flops and scrappy clothes), sharing a desk, eating together and working on creating something big. Irrespective of such a startup succeeding, the relationships you build, and things you learn in such a small intimate setup, can be immensely useful in your life.

In today's world (generally speaking) it is hard for companies with good ideas to stay small forever, they will get gobbled up, and you are likely to end up working for a large organization. So, if a good opportunity in a small organization comes by, I would grab it. I would also point out that a startup in its absolute infancy may not welcome an absolute fresher. There needs to be some areas where you can go swim on your own.

[am1m]

Don't think it's a straightforward answer. Not all of us will have the luxury of choice. I started off in a small company, not by choice, but because during the dot-com bust of 2001, that's the only job I managed to land. Was an awesome experience though. Since we were really small, I routinely got to do a lot of stuff that was way beyond my 'designation'. Got to meet clients directly, accompanied the sales guys when they went to coax payments out of clients (surprising how many 'brand name' MNCs are also tardy about making even small payments to vendors), helped out with HR functions, a lot of stuff. Haven't had that breadth of learning in any company since. Perhaps because of that start, I've never liked working for a large company. Have been in a couple and those have been my most boring job experiences. My wife on the other hand loves working for one of the international behemoths, what I jokingly refer to as the 'Indian Railways of the IT world' and she wouldn't have it any other way. Right now I'm in a mid-sized firm, seems to be working out well, I think I have the right balance here of being able to go beyond my job function while also enjoying the stability and resources required. But that could also be a factor of age, probably am just getting comfortable where I am!

[neeravnaik]

There are certain basic hygiene factors to look into any company you join whether big or small.
- Ethical and fair management which you can trust
- Performance rewarding culture
- Growth industry

IF these above are met then I would prefer to be in a smaller company. Long term opportunity to grow faster and learn more would be more where you face challanges earlier in your career. This is likely to happen in a smaller company.

These are obviously personal views based on personal experience and there will be obviously exceptions to this.

[RMN]

In my opinion, if you are not a person who knows exactly what you are doing or what you eventually want to be doing, its better to start off at a small but good organization. This will give you exposure to several roles & responsibilities and you will often have the opportunity to test waters and concentrate on what works for you.

The common problem with starting off at bigger companies is that, if you are one of those people who doesn't have a clear path or idea about your career, you will end up in processes or roles that aren't widely available and sometimes specific to that organization. They pay will still be decent though. This will hurt you when you try to move out since on paper you have a good pay and position but your skill sets wouldn't match to it.

[charanreddy]

Approx 13 Years experience spread across 2 companies only, here are my impressions of different companies:

1) The really large companies are a royal pain to work for. Employees are little more than glorified labor. Their login and log off times are tracked, too many artificial levels like associate software engineer -> software engineer -> Sr. Software Engineer -> Team Lead -> Sr. Team Lead -> Sr. Manager and so on.. with very small increments and small incremental levels of responsibilities.

2) Small but focused set of people working for large product MNCs are the sweet spot, IMHO. Employees get benefits associated with large companies and enough flexibility to pursue their learning and interests.

3) Start Ups give you a lot of responsibility, flexibility but not very organized interms of benefits. Also the "Impact" tends to be small / local and not sure it prepares us for better things across more mature organizations.

For me, As long as a company spends a lot of time thinking of employees as their key asset (Quality not Quantity) its a decent enough org to start working for. It is unlikely to come from our run of the mill 1 Lakh Employees + Service organizations.

[bosem123]

Firstly, a large part of the decision to continue in a big or a small company is the kind of manager one gets, at the start. Sometimes good managers are adequate for one to spend even 3-5 years in a company! You can probably understand what would happen if the reverse happens

As for the career trajectory, my own opinion is to to start out with a big company of 500 odd employees, gradually understand one's own specialization and move towards smaller ones while progressing in the career. However, this is assuming if one sticks to the same field. But what if one doesn't? I never did!

Moving to a new field means one has to be really motivated to make it big there. By now if you have already worked in a big company previously, you may want to stick to a smaller one that gives more peace!

[Jeroen]

I am not particular impressed by the hour glass career model. Intrinsically it suggests we all need to become managers. At the best of times, that is just not even realistic for a magnitude of reason.

In fact the whole notion that people need to move in a managerial role as part of their career is nonsense as far as I am concerned. However, the truth is that many companies tend to operate like that. Often, at some point in your career you might get stuck position and salary wise if you don’t take on a manager role.

Too often that means the company looses a real good specialist and gains a mediocre manager. So a good question during interviews is to understand what the company policy is on this. How far, career and money wise, can you grow in a specialised role. There is nothing wrong with being a technician, an engineer, an administrative specialist etc your whole life. But to what extend will an organisation support you (and can it realistically) in that ambition.

We have systems that allows for specialist (non manager roles) to grown and reach to almost the highest salary scales we have.

It also requires an approach where line manager are younger and make less money than some of the individuals in their teams. That does not sit well with a certain type of managers at all. (Get rid of them, immediately)

A good indicator tends to be how project managers (typically neither a specialist nor a line manager) are positioned and to what salary scale can they climb?

Again, you should try and do thinks that you really enjoy doing. When you are enjoying yourself you are likely to be most effective and contributing the most to any organisation. Don’t let a career path take you into a direction that you don’t really want to go, but feel obliged to take. Because the money is better! It is a deadly combination. You won’t be happy, you are unlikely to be really successful at it.

Jeroen

[rajvardhanraje]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I am not particular impressed by the hour glass career model. Intrinsically it suggests we all need to become managers. At the best of times, that is just not even realistic for a magnitude of reason.

In fact the whole notion that people need to move in a managerial role as part of their career is nonsense as far as I am concerned. However, the truth is that many companies tend to operate like that. Often, at some point in your career you might get stuck position and salary wise if you don’t take on a manager role.

I agree with your thought process. But unfortunately in typical Indian large scale service based companies, the very structuring is done in such a way that in order to progress vertically, one has to take up a managerial role. A purely technical role gets stagnated after a decade or so.

This where product based companies excel. There is immense scope to grow up the rungs even in a purely technical role.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

It also requires an approach where line manager are younger and make less money than some of the individuals in their teams. That does not sit well with a certain type of managers at all. (Get rid of them, immediately)

I observed this during a short stint I had in the Netherlands for a year and half. The programmers were into their 50s reporting to a line manager in his 30s. The older guys in a technical role were making more money than the younger ones in managerial roles.

[low_rider]

I faced this question when I had to choose between an IT giant in Hyderabad vs a decent size IT product company in my hometown (Delhi-NCR).

One of my friends gave me a pointer that if you are looking to hire a pilot, where do you hire him from...say a small airline like MDLR or a Jet airways. Although the skill set and type rating for an aircraft as per regulations are same across industry, but the recruiter will prefer a bigger brand name.

Also, in my personal experience, I have observed that a bigger brand name gets you preference at the CV screening stage. If you tank up the interview is another matter, but atleast you reach to the interview stage.

If you see the recruitment ads, they say that they prefer people from Big 4, "leading" consultancy or IT firms etc.

Catch word is "Big" or "Leading".

Part of the issue is with the recruiter (inhouse HR or outsourced). They need to cover up their backs. So, they are comfortable in pushing the CVs of people with big brands. "The guy seemed to be good....he was with an XXXXX"

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I am not particular impressed by the hour glass career model. Intrinsically it suggests we all need to become managers. At the best of times, that is just not even realistic for a magnitude of reason.

I only commented on the starting as generalist part, because the rest of it is the doctrine in Indian corporate world. Manager is always the big dog who reigns over his/her team. It is unthinkable for a manager to make less than the team member.

I didn't want to be pure manager, I wanted to be hands-on engineer forever. I had worked in the model you described in AT&T, where few 60+ old engineers worked for 30+ old manager and made more money than the manager.

But to achieve that India, it is very hard. I had to start a company to keep the right to stay hands-on. But even when could I dictate terms, I could never get a senior technical person to be managed by a younger manager. It would potentially cause a revolt followed by resignation. Even if they are from the same batch, it would cause issues.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by rajvardhanraje

The programmers were into their 50s reporting to a line manager in his 30s. The older guys in a technical role were making more money than the younger ones in managerial roles.

Originally Posted by Samurai

But even when could I dictate terms, I could never get a senior technical person to be managed by a younger manager. It would potentially cause a revolt followed by resignation. Even if they are from the same batch, it would cause issues.

Slowly changing here in India too I think. At my present and past job, as soon as I hit a certain 'experience' level, my manager started having chats with me about 'moving to the next level' which invariably meant a people management role. Successfully resisted because I'm pretty sure I'd make a lousy people manager and would end up proving the Peter principle! But over the past 5 years I've seen several companies make the effort to define career tracks for people who want to remain technical and individual contributors. For the first time in my 2-decade (almost) career I now have a manager who's younger than me and it's working great!

But yes, not just from the org perspective, the majority of employees too still see a transition to management as very desirable, not just for the money, but because not being a manager after x years is considered a 'failure'. They don't see it as a role that some people are just better suited for than most others. Which also explains why we have so many lousy people managers in Indian IT!

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by warrioraks

The model essentially means that for majority of professionals (in my line of business), the experiences and expectations are going to follow the curve of an hourglass

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I am not particular impressed by the hour glass career model.

Resharing the original version of the image I posted on last page. Had cropped out the inverted funnel model earlier because it was not important for the point I was trying to make (one is expected to be a generalist at the starting point of professional life).

But since we are now talking about different models of career growth, reproducing the pic in it’s entirety becomes relevant to the conversation and providing justice to author’s efforts.

[rajvardhanraje]

Originally Posted by low_rider

Also, in my personal experience, I have observed that a bigger brand name gets you preference at the CV screening stage.

If you see the recruitment ads, they say that they prefer people from Big 4, "leading" consultancy or IT firms etc.

So, they are comfortable in pushing the CVs of people with big brands. "The guy seemed to be good....he was with an XXXXX"

This phenomenon is hugely seen with the recruiters. Their approach is, 'This candidate belongs to ABC organisation. Since he works there, he must be good. Should be a safe bet'. It also does continue with further rounds down the line. Many a times when it comes to a selection choice between two candidates with identical capabilities one from a small and one from the big entity, mostly the latter ends up bagging the offer.

Originally Posted by Samurai

But to achieve that India, it is very hard. I had to start a company to keep the right to stay hands-on. But even when could I dictate terms, I could never get a senior technical person to be managed by a younger manager. It would potentially cause a revolt followed by resignation. Even if they are from the same batch, it would cause issues.

Considering the prevailing 'typical' mindset, working for a junior would be taboo. 'Why was he promoted when I am the senior one?' would be the question asked by the rebellious one.

Originally Posted by am1m

Peter principle!

But yes, not just from the org perspective, the majority of employees too still see a transition to management as very desirable, not just for the money, but because not being a manager after x years is considered a 'failure'. They don't see it as a role that some people are just better suited for than most others. Which also explains why we have so many lousy people managers in Indian IT!

That is how the whole structure is setup. If you don't reach a particular designation in a given time frame, it is attributed as lack of performance and skills. Also, people somehow feel they are entitled to be promoted irrespective of their contributions just based on the years of experience.

[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

...
Too often that means the company looses a real good specialist and gains a mediocre manager. So a good question during interviews is to understand what the company policy is on this. How far, career and money wise, can you grow in a specialised role. There is nothing wrong with being a technician, an engineer, an administrative specialist etc your whole life. But to what extend will an organisation support you (and can it realistically) in that ambition.
...

Jeroen

Well said. But how do you find this out? During interview? Online? We had one dutch colleague who for his whole life 43 years, was a subsystem specialist and retired as one but his word was taken quite seriously even our top management listened to him! Not because of his age or seniority but because his experience and his analysis skills were right almost always in his subject matter. He openly rejected several offers to climb the ladder.

Originally Posted by Samurai

...
...
But to achieve that India, it is very hard. I had to start a company to keep the right to stay hands-on. But even when could I dictate terms, I could never get a senior technical person to be managed by a younger manager. It would potentially cause a revolt followed by resignation. Even if they are from the same batch, it would cause issues.

Everytime I read your post, I learn something new. The Maslow's hierarchy of need and Theory Z are stuff I always was hoping to find!

Some organisations in India do follow this but in general our culture is to climb the ladder always. Sometimes, in our social system an electrician or a plumber is still seen as a menial work/job. There is a cultural change that is necessary to be able accept any job. We still haven't let go of the fact that everyone doesn't need a degree or an MBA to live a happy life!