<p>If solely people who had backgrounds in engineering/CS were to become the managers of tech companies, would the employees see any benefit?</p>
<p>If you count running the company into the ground as a benefit, then probably so.</p>
<p>You really need to sit down and think about why colleges have all these other majors, specifically business majors, if the degrees are worth less than nothing, as you seem convinced they are.</p>
<p>In my opinion, lower level managers should be more technically proficient, but as you move up the ladder, it becomes less important. Other skills are more critical such as sales, marketing and business development (not that these skills aren’t important closer to entry level).</p>
<p>I would say that many/most managers of tech corps already have technical backgrounds. Most large coporations are full of managers who have a technical background along with an MBA. Even if this were made into a requirement, I doubt you would see a whole lot of change from the way things are now.</p>
<p>Unless the engineers are slowly weaned into management/business positions, they would most likely make horrible businessmen. Don’t get me wrong that most managers within engineering companies were once engineers but once you focus on either management or technical skills, the other will suffer.</p>
<p>There are many experienced technical engineers who suddenly decided they want to be managers (probably due to the salaries) and fail horribly since they lack the people and business skills.</p>
<p>^You mean they fail even if they get an MBA?</p>
<p>By the time they get their MBA, I would assume they would’ve already had some management experience. Or they would be slowly developing into their new role.</p>
<p>In most engineering companies an MBA isn’t really a prerequisite for management. However the case I’m talking about is when you have a 15-20+ year experienced technical guy who suddenly wants to “go management”. The same argument could be said about an entrenched manager being stuck in a technical role. </p>
<p>My point is that engineers start out technical but if they want to end up in management, it’s a gradual process–you can’t expect the chief engineer or a technical guru to also magically be able to manage a business. Sure there are some cases but most managers start of taking roles of increasing responsibility.</p>
<p>Engineers can make great managers, and they can also make terrible, company-wrecking managers. Ken Kutaragi strikes me as a good example of an engineer who was given way too much managerial power.</p>
<p>I know a contractor who is a genius. One of the smartest engineers I know but he could care less about a budget and schedule when it comes to fixing things correctly. He wanted to manage a technical center but he wasn’t selected because he didn’t care about money. A coworker of mine is a 28 year engineer and is always stressed out because he doesn’t understand why managers won’t let him fix anything. These managers used to technical guys but they also understand that repairing equipment costs money and affects the bottom line. Therefore, the managers will let equipment basically run to failure or nearly to failure before repairing it. However, sometimes I think if you spend the money to fix it right before failure then you are better off. Not only will a failure cost more to fix, it can also happen when you don’t expect it or want it too. I am a fan of preventative maintenance but for a lot of equipment management would rather ignore problems for as long as possible.</p>
<p>I think the answer to your question is yes, the employees would definitely see a benefit. If an engineer works his way up into management, I would think he would easily be ahead of a business major that has no technical background and understands close to nothing of what the company does. Obviously you wouldn’t be able to pick an engineer at random to go into management though. An engineer with a business like mind would have to manage.</p>
<p>For the most part yes. Though it is important to note the scope and distinction between “tech” and “engineering” companies. I say that because in an engineering company such as Exxon, Bechtel or GE, the managers are typically engineers who rose up the ranks rather than just another MBA. However, I could see that start-ups or Facebook like companies could benefit from having a business only guy who could concentrate on marketing, investors or product delivery.</p>
<p>At smaller engineering design firms, everyone’s an engineer. Our CFO’s an accountant, but the President of the company on down to the CTO and business development guys all have their PEs. It’s how things are run in the architecture/engineering industry. My firm’s one of the good ones… the President and CFO give a rundown of financials every month, and they give a full seminar on what the financials mean every year. There’s essentially an in-house MBA program where you learn, both in practice and in lecture courses, how to manage engineering projects. Everyone’s taught how to deal with clients. Everyone’s taught how to manage project budgets and personnel. Everyone’s taught how to schedule things. Some people do business development and learn how to market the company. We’ve got some MBAs and Marketing gurus along the way to show us the ropes, but ours is truly an <em>engineer’s</em> company. Most of the design and diagnostics firms I know of are run this way. I feel pretty lucky that we’re run this way, too. It keeps management very flat (there are only two to four people between me and the President, and I talk with the guy on a regular basis), and it keeps things very transparent.</p>
<p>Student01: There’s no one answer to your question. Some managers will remind you exactly of Dilbert’s boss. Others may still be relatively clueless but have a greater appreciation for their technical employees, and if such individuals also have good organizational and “people” skills, an engineer can actually thrive under that person. In such cases a manager will appreciate the engineers’ roles and give them space to do their jobs while protecting them from administrative battles. However (and this is just my prejudice) I believe the more intelligent non-technical managers do tend to develop as good an understanding of the technical aspects of their misson as possible on an “OJT” basis. The very best managers in my experience have been engineers by training who over time (probably through varied assignments including technical leadership and program management) develop a natural interest in organizational management. It’s not correct to assume that to do this you need an MBA, although many of these people will receive business leadership training of some kind.</p>
<p>Look up stuff about an MBA. That is one of the 3 routes engineers take. You can either get an MBA and become a manager, get a Masters in your engineering field, or go to law school and become a patent lawyer. </p>
<p>Engineers with MBA’s are in growing demand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ditto for an engineering firm I used to work for as well. Everyone was either an engineer or urban planner except for the support staff.</p>
<p>I’m assuming that wherever someone mentioned “engineers” they also meant to include CS grads as well, right?</p>
<p>Not to sure about that student01, it would vary by the industry. Most of my examples and experience is with engineering firms, CS grads were usually involved in IT/implementation.</p>
<p>"I’m assuming that wherever someone mentioned “engineers” they also meant to include CS grads as well, right? "
- Possibly. I suppose it depends on the place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! While there are surely many engineers who would indeed be horrible managers/businessmen, let’s face it, there are also plenty of current managers who are horrible managers/businessmen. The real question is then: who would be less horrible.</p>