Why do some people say that technical talents are not as good as management talents?

Nowadays, many people are advocating what emotional intelligence is, saying that the low emotional intelligence of technicians leads to the status quo. This is nonsense. Most of them are actually encouraging flattery and the supremacy of human feelings. Most people's emotional intelligence is not much different. Emotional intelligence is very important, but it is far less important for institutionalized companies than some people advocate.

Mainly depends on the substitutability of the post. If you leave your job, it will have little impact on the company, and it will take a lot of money or a long time to find a successor, or even no successor, then such a technician will be NB, otherwise this technician will really be a fart.

Obviously, most employees are irreplaceable, especially technicians. For the technology of large companies with meticulous division of labor and complete data management, they are indeed irreplaceable, and even many management positions are irreplaceable, but for managers with teams and salespeople with access to channels, they are even more irreplaceable. This is the sorrow of technicians.

Besides, most technicians are coding/drawing/designing/conceiving ... where there is still time to monopolize and ponder other people's minds, while those in charge and sales people only think about other people's affairs all day. How do you surpass them in these aspects? This is the second sorrow. Of course, you can always ask yourself to let others ponder, instead of pondering others' NB yourself.

The third sorrow is that the design technology in your hand will be eliminated by the times. For example, you used to have more NB computers. What about now? But mind-reading will never go out of fashion.

Technician, I'm so sad! In online terms, "design is empty", it is really difficult to ensure the income and status of designers/developers in Guang Tai from the perspective of the whole social system design.

I have done technical work and management work, and I have some opinions on these two kinds of talents. Let's talk about some personal views, hoping to help you in your future choice.

Why do many people in China think technology is better than management? Why do you think senior engineers and technicians are not as good as supervisors?

The fundamental reason is that China people have an idea of official standard, official standard and official standard. They think that management is an official and should be superior. Technicians, like ordinary people, have to endure the bullying and oppression of officials. Because of this concept, the treatment of technicians is not as good as that of managers, which is mainly reflected in the difference in status and salary. Based on this social situation, many young people don't want to do technology, even those who have already done technology have sharpened their heads and squeezed in the direction of management. This abnormal social phenomenon will hinder the progress of science and technology.

Take my former employer for example, this unfairness also exists. Every time the company invites core personnel to dinner or an important event, all the managers above the director level in the company are invited to participate, except the technicians and even senior engineers in the company. As the head of the technical department, I feel deeply unfair. Why? Regardless of education, knowledge, value, contribution, performance, etc. Are not lower than managers, I dare to make a bold prediction here. If this kind of company does not change this official-oriented thinking, it will certainly not be able to become bigger and stronger, because this official-oriented approach will undoubtedly hurt the hearts of technicians, will certainly hinder the company's scientific and technological progress, and will also lead to the uncompetitive products it develops and produces. This is a vicious circle.

In addition to China people's concept of official position, there are other reasons that lead many people to think that the status of technicians is not as good as that of managers:

First, managers have the power to make rules, while technicians can only be the object of "rules", including the salary and rank of technicians, which are all made and controlled by managers. Every time the salary is adjusted, the salary of technicians is also controlled by others and held back by managers, for fear that the salary of technicians is higher than that of the people they manage. Under such a system, how can technicians get high salaries? In addition, including the setting of ranks, technicians always seem to be inferior to management positions, such as managers, directors, deputy general managers and general managers. Many technicians have reached the top level as engineers. In their eyes, the rank of engineers is only equivalent to the team leader of grass-roots management positions, so they look down on technicians. How can technicians have the same status as managers? I can only live under management.

Second, the quality of technical personnel is uneven. To tell the truth, many technicians are not really knowledgeable now. Two or three years after graduation, you can hold the title of "engineer", and some are still "becoming a monk halfway". Many people don't even know the basic technical knowledge. There are many problems with the products on the production line, so I dare not be talked back by the employees on the production line. Some technicians don't even know the drawings or processing technology.

I interviewed a development engineer the other day. The other party claims to be proficient in PROE drawing software for product design and familiar with the safety standards of small household appliances. But when I asked him if he would use the top-down method to design products, he looked puzzled. I asked him about the safety knowledge of the products he had made, but he couldn't even answer the most basic requirements, such as electrical clearance, creepage distance and temperature rise test. He also confidently said that this is the job of certified engineers. There are really many such technicians, so everyone will think that the current technicians are not rigorous and authoritative at all. How can such a technician have a position? In fact, a real technical expert is very important, and even the boss and customers will give him three points of courtesy. I met a great engineer. He seems to be born to solve problems and take pleasure in solving them. Many technical "incurable diseases" can be solved perfectly by looking for him. When he encounters a problem, he can quickly come up with several schemes A, B and C, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each scheme. When he designs a new product, he also considers the problem comprehensively. We examine him, he asks questions or questions, and he can immediately tell the solution (the solution that can be used if there is a problem), which makes people impeccable. Technicians like this certainly have authority and status.

Third, it is caused by the deformed talent view. I believe everyone has heard a famous saying: "Talents may not be eloquent, but they must be eloquent." I think there is nothing wrong with this sentence. He explained the importance of eloquence, but I think it's a bit exaggerated. It seems that with good eloquence, everything will be available, which also leads to many professional and technical personnel who are not suitable for management. In order to sit in the management and become a talent in everyone's eyes, sharpen your head and study eloquence. Some of these people are lucky and really sit in the position of management, but because they are neither suitable nor good at management, they finally make a difference. At that time, their technology was abandoned, but the management work was not done well, which was not worth the loss. In addition, it is not appropriate to apply the phrase "talents are not necessarily eloquent, but must be eloquent" to technicians, because technicians rely on excellent professional skills to carry out their work If there are no two brushes in technology, even if the eloquence is good, it is impossible to solve technical problems. How can you call it a talent? I think when there is a saying that "talents don't necessarily have skills, people with skills must be talents", or when everyone really realizes the importance of technology.

The above factors lead to the status of technical personnel is not as high as that of management personnel, which also explains why the status of senior engineering and technical personnel is not as high as that of a supervisor.

What should a technician do in such a big environment? You know that you are not good at management and are not suitable for management, but do you have to crush your head to manage this wooden bridge? Of course not. The following are my views and suggestions on technical work for many years and then technical management for more than seven years.

If you, as a technician, are interested in management and are suitable for and good at it, you may wish to change to management at an appropriate time. Note that the management mentioned here is actually technical management, which is inseparable from technology, so you must have a solid technology as the foundation. Pay attention to this appropriate time is also very particular, the sooner the transformation, the better. Its prerequisite is that it must be technically independent and be able to handle all technical work of the project. This time node is usually 7- 10 years, because it is too early and not very good. Because of the lack of a solid technical foundation, it is difficult to bring a good technical team in the future.

If you are not passionate about management, but more interested in technology, then when you have certain qualifications and accumulated certain experience, you can choose a company with dual development channels and continue to take the professional route. In these companies, you will have the same development space and status as management channels. My former employer was such a company. In this company, technicians can develop in the following order: technician, assistant engineer, engineer, senior engineer, deputy chief engineer, chief engineer, senior chief engineer and technical expert. When you become a chief engineer, your income and status are equivalent to that of a department manager. When you become a technical expert, your income and status are equivalent to the general manager of the company. Therefore, if technicians want to have authority, status and money, they should go to such a company with dual development channels, so they don't have to live under the management.

The above is my personal opinion and some suggestions for technicians, I hope it will be useful to you! You are also welcome to point out criticism!

Because "science is the primary productive force" and technology is the first, but most "senior engineers" and "senior technicians" are not scarce.

From the perspective of the pyramid ladder:

Why, as a common sense, the income and status of basic technicians are good, because they need relatively good experience and threshold to do their work-so we can see that the position of technicians is higher than that of front-line business personnel in most cases.

But it reversed at the middle level. From junior technicians to senior technicians, the skills may be greatly improved, but the actual demand is reduced.

Generally speaking, enterprises only need a few senior technicians with a group of grassroots technicians to maintain the operation of a company, so at this time, the market demand for senior technicians is saturated.

But middle managers are different. When they reach this position, the market demand for middle managers is very strong:

So above the middle level, there is the status quo mentioned by the subject!

Finally, for senior staff, on the other hand:

Lenovo, for example, was still a small company at that time, and it didn't develop rapidly until Liu Chuanzhi invited Academician Ni Guangnan to join us. Later, because of Ni Guangnan's departure, he began to decline. Another example is Tencent Zhang Xiaolong. Because of his top technical level and market awareness, he was able to develop WeChat and make Tencent brilliant.

At this level, the value of top technicians is too great, and no amount of management can match it.

Technical talents who don't understand management are not talents. On the other hand, technical talents who don't understand management are not talents.

The "senior engineer" mentioned by the subject may be a more advanced grass-roots technician at best, but it is really not a very good technology.

Great technology must be a management talent who knows how to manage.

Under such a fine division of labor, a technician who doesn't understand management can't achieve results!

Therefore, from this perspective, at the level of the supervisor, the boundary between "technology" and "management" is blurred, and the technology of pure thinking is still guarded. Can you be considered a talent?

Such a "senior engineer" is just a seemingly awesome "super soldier". Is it a technical talent?

Summary: The statement that "technical talents are not as good as management talents" is one-sided, and the market determines what talents are in great demand.

And who says that technology does not need to know management, and management does not need to know technology-people who think that "technical talents are not as good as management talents" are useless!

Why are technical talents inferior to management talents now? Actually, it's not. As an enterprise's HR, from the perspective of talent management, both technical talents and management talents are the wealth of the enterprise, and the palms of the hands are all meat. From the point of view of post setting, their job responsibilities and contents are slightly different, one is an expert in management and the other is an expert in business. However, individual enterprises overemphasize the difference between talent management and post setting, over-amplify the decision-making power of managers and deprive technicians of the right to speak in business. Indirectly led to the decline of the status of senior engineers and technicians, even worse than a supervisor. Let's make a concrete analysis based on the problems below, hoping to help you!

1. What's the difference between technical talents and management talents? (A) different job responsibilities

1. Technical personnel. For professional and technical personnel, it belongs to the professional technical sequence and is mainly engaged in professional and technical work. Focus on implementation, give professional advice on specific business and projects, and undertake the obligation to make suggestions to the competent leaders.

2. Management talents. For professional management talents, they belong to the sequence of professional management and are mainly engaged in professional management. Work is decision-making, which plays a decisive role in specific business and projects, and also bears the risks brought by decision-making.

(2) Different promotion methods.

1. Technical personnel. The promotion channels of technical talents are generally: assistant engineer-engineer-senior engineer-researcher-level engineer. Mainly close to the field of professional technology, and finally developed into a technical "great god."

2. Management talents. The promotion channels of management talents are generally: Commissioner-supervisor-senior supervisor-senior supervisor. Mainly close to the field of administrative management, and finally developed into an "elite" in management.

It can be seen that technical talents are the main business and management talents are the management. Technical personnel provide advice and management personnel provide decision-making. Without the professional advice of technical talents, the decision-making of management talents will lose its theoretical support; Without the decision-making of managerial talents, the suggestions of technical talents will lose their direction. The two complement each other and are indispensable.

Second, why are technical talents not as good as management talents now? (A) in terms of talent development orientation, the rights and obligations of technical and management talents are not equal.

At present, many enterprises are building talent growth channels. The purpose of the beginning is to open up career development channels for all kinds of talents and avoid premature ceiling effect. Stimulate the potential of all kinds of talents and put the right talents in the right positions. However, after the construction, I forgot my original intention. Management talents concentrate on management, while technical talents concentrate on technology, leaving only the relationship between the leader and the led. In the decision-making of important business and projects, managers often have the final say, overemphasizing the decision-making power of managers and ignoring the suggestion right of technicians in professional fields. However, once a business or project goes wrong, managers become shopkeepers and need technicians to clean up the mess.

(3) In terms of remuneration, technical personnel and management personnel are unequal.

Although in the professional sequence, technical talents and management talents can enjoy the salary of the same position. The performance pay of technical talents mainly depends on the business, while the performance pay of management talents depends on the position, especially when they are promoted to a certain rank. Management talents are paid annually. Relatively speaking, in the enterprise team, the salary of management talents is generally better than that of technical talents.

(3) Individual enterprises value management over technology, and technicians have no right to speak.

In the culture of individual enterprises, power is particularly respected, and everyone is vying to be a cadre, especially some state-owned enterprises. For the position of a section chief, you will also spell "broken head" Because the manager's position is "responsible person", that is, right. The positioning of technicians is "managed people", that is, obedience. In this kind of enterprise, the rights of managers are over-amplified, and technicians are deprived of the right to speak in business.

Write it at the end 1. There are three main reasons why technical talents are inferior to management talents: first, the rights and obligations of technical talents and management talents are not equal, and technical talents do more and have less rights. Second, the remuneration of technical talents and management talents is not equal. Technical talents are paid less than management talents. Third, the recognition of enterprises and society is not high. Within the enterprise, management is more important than technology, and technical talents have no right to speak.

2. Technical talents and management talents are the two wings of the enterprise. Technical talents determine how high an enterprise can fly, and management talents determine how far an enterprise can fly. In fact, the two are just different in career orientation and division of labor. The two complement each other and should not be overemphasized. If outsiders are forced to lead insiders, it will only get more and more chaotic.

At present, many skilled workers in manufacturing enterprises have serious faults. Even high-paying recruitment will not help. Many parents encourage their children to take the civil service exam, and even prefer to be an supernumerary rather than let their children enter the factory. What do you think of this?

Like in stages.

Speeding up a sports car is an important indicator of car performance, but when the speed goes up, the braking system becomes particularly important. The better the car, the more willing to spend money on the safety system.

0 1 The enterprise is in the stage of a start-up enterprise starting with technology. It's your angel's turn to talk to him about management. Either he is sick or you are out of your mind. Start-ups are often poorly managed and have almost no management system.

When the enterprise has reached a mature stage similar to Alibaba Tencent, the management is equivalent to the security system, and its position is very important. Ma Yun often talks about vision, mission and values. Which of these three points is related to technology?

The party's mastery of guns is the key. Even in the initial stage of an enterprise, management is not unnecessary, but management temporarily gives way to business and technology to provide convenience. But the boss knows very well how convenient it is. Because in start-ups, the founders themselves are often technicians, salespeople and programmers.

The boss is the first person to transform from technology to management. As a founder, he started as a code writer or salesman. When the enterprise grows bigger, he must learn to manage. The boss needs to focus on integrating resources and optimizing talents, which is the so-called transition from general to Shuai Shuai.

If he indulges in such a comfortable circle, he will not seek transformation and change his management role before the age of 35. Then, the peak of his career will appear around the age of 35, and then the probability will decline all the way. One is physical reasons, and the other is that the ability to accept new things is weakening, and new college students are constantly challenging his position.

Adding three words to your question will make people understand "managers who know technology" Similarly, there are managers who know the market. They agreed that the name is * * * director. In the early days, they played technology, ran the market and wrote code, and later they successfully transformed into managers. This is the best career path.

Technicians are not as good as managers, mainly because of the dislocation of social values. People are used to hypocrisy and exaggeration, only looking at the surface, not the essence, so that artists are better than scientists.

The work of technicians is "phased", and some cycles are still very long, not "day by day" work-the boss only watches you do things on the day when you produce results, and the rest of the time is a raise, which is not worth it! Managers have to report every day, not to mention whether their reports will be exaggerated.

I exchanged cultural ideas with people the other day. Some people say that the practice of entrepreneurs in a certain country is:

If others do it for one day, you need to do it for two days, and the boss doesn't blame you;

You do it halfway, you won't do it when you encounter difficulties, and you don't blame you for stopping, as long as you report it in time;

If you rework, you will be severely punished or even get out of here at once!

Because the latter person lost resources. The first two kinds of people earn a little less at most. This has caused the whole society to respect craftsmen and created pragmatic social values.

As a management talent working in a management position, my admiration for technical skills is almost endless.

Let's talk about the position of technical talents in the company first.

Dual track system is very important.

In the previous system, management talents were paid more attention.

But the competitiveness of a company depends more on the competitiveness of its products. A competitive product must come from specialized technicians.

In order to solve the problem of lack of development path for technicians, the dual-track system came into being.

Technical talents can also get the same development opportunities as management talents. Even in many companies, high-level technical experts have higher status than many department heads.

The substitutability of technical talents is far lower than that of management talents.

The word "replaceable low management talents" sounds tall, but only you know the bitterness.

The substitutability of people in management positions in the company is far higher than that of technical talents. This is especially true in the high-end talent market.

Many companies are willing to spend a lot of money to tap the technology in the industry, but few companies spend a lot of money to tap the management talents in the industry.

Let me give you an example around me. In the past two years, new energy vehicles and autonomous driving have been very popular. A while ago, headhunters contacted before came to me, hoping that I could help them introduce some candidates for software development positions related to new energy vehicles and autonomous driving.

I learned from the chat that the salary increase of such candidates in the market is 100%, and it is still in short supply.

Everyone should know that the salary increase of all job-hopping in the automobile industry is below 30%, not to mention that the current economic environment is far worse than in previous years.

I really regret switching from a software development position to a management position.

Friends who take the technical route, please don't sell yourself short, stick to what you are good at, and your career development will not be bad.

In most industries, the contribution of technicians to the company is not as great as that of management talents, which is an objective fact that technicians are unwilling to admit.

However, in some industries, such as software development, such as doctors, and high-tech R&D positions such as military and aerospace, the status of local technical talents can actually be higher than that of management talents.

Moreover, in this case, technicians have already undertaken part of the management work. In other words, in these industries with particularly high technical requirements, if you don't know technology, if you are not a technical talent, there is actually no way to manage it.

I have a cousin, whose company business is amazing, specializing in management design and management training for hospitals. According to my cousin, almost 100% of hospitals are technical personnel. They don't understand management, are too lazy to manage, and don't want to focus on these places, so they outsource management, planning and training.

On the other hand, the contribution of technical talents to the company is really not as great as that of management talents. Because technical talents generally consider the technical problem at hand, just fix it. However, management talents often need to integrate the achievements of many technical talents to form a system and a whole, and finally they can be transformed into actual achievements.

The most difficult part of management is dealing with people, and it is dealing with many people with different personalities and backgrounds. As we all know, many technical talents are a little aloof, and their personalities will be "a little strange" and difficult to manage. In fact, the task of managing talents at this time is very heavy, and his responsibility is also great. Once the project is screwed up, it is easy for technicians to find ways to get rid of it, but it is difficult for the project leader to find the reason.

Another reason is that everyone mentioned that China has a class tradition and class products, that is, scholars, farmers, workers and businessmen. You see, bachelor platoon 1, and workers rank third. Please experience it. As far as status is concerned, the innate cognition of ordinary people is different. Until today, taking an examination of civil servants, entering central enterprises and entering state-owned enterprises are the preferred employment directions.

These are roughly the reasons. Generally speaking, senior technicians and senior engineers are not as high as management talents. The main reason is that technical talents do difficult work, while management talents do complicated work. Complexity is more difficult to solve than difficulty. In addition, China has a tradition of "delivering goods" for thousands of years, so the status of managers is generally high.

In China's traditional cultural concept and social cognition, thousands of years ago, people divided different grades according to scholars, farmers, workers and businessmen. With the development of history and social progress, the hierarchical order has undergone some changes, even reversed. For example, once humble actors have turned into stars sought after by thousands of people, earning both fame and fortune. Look at China decades ago. Farmers who have been exploited and oppressed for a long time have turned over and become the masters of Hong Miao and the root of society.

As the saying goes, thirty years in Hedong, thirty years in Hexi. Judging from the length of history, things have changed for hundreds of years, and what remains unchanged is the supreme position of the "scholar" class in the hearts of China people. At any time, a "scholar" who has a part-time job will be highly valued by the society and have a social status envied by others. With the development of industrialized society and the prosperity of business, the ecology of social organizations such as companies and enterprises came into being, subdividing more professional fields and more professional titles and titles.

At the same time, the traditional official-oriented thought has penetrated into various social organizations. In addition, some enterprises have outdated concepts and rigid systems, blindly copying the organizational structure and management model of ancient yamen, and their administrative positions have greater power and higher treatment. Some people who study technology hard, even if they have obtained various technical titles, are not as good as those who hold administrative positions. I think this is the fundamental reason why technical talents are not as high as management talents.

First, bragging is the basic skill of management talents. When the boss talked about a job, A knew it was an impossible task, but he dared to clap his chest to ensure that he would resolutely complete the task. A is management talent. After hearing the task, B will resolutely oppose it as if the end of the world is coming, and even find out a series of data and theories to support himself. B is a technical talent. As can be seen from the above cases, management talents prefer to brag and show off their golden words, and it is easier to please bosses and colleagues.

Second, it is not an overnight event for technical talents to make achievements. An enterprise needs long-term capital investment and a large amount of technical human resources investment to achieve technological achievements, and it can't see the results immediately after investment, which is the fundamental reason why many enterprises don't pay much attention to technical talents. The best case is the comparison between Huawei and Lenovo. After years of capital and manpower investment, Huawei has found a way out in the field of technology. Lenovo, on the other hand, pays little attention to technical input and wants to succeed by means of assembly. If everything goes well, both methods are likely to succeed, so many enterprises like to choose the method that is easy to succeed, but when it comes to the critical special period, they will stand up and compete.

Third, technical talents burn more money. Generally speaking, the report of management talents is an internal affair. Today, a salary system reform and tomorrow's KPI assessment system are all things with small input and large output. However, the responsibilities of technical talents are different, and opening the mouth is a big project, and there is no guarantee that any definite results will be given at every turn. Therefore, the boss will have a headache when he listens to the technical personnel report, and it is inevitable to avoid it. That's why it seems that management talents are more popular.