Related Posts
Subject Expert
If I had a nickel
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That was just a preview…
Sign Up to see all discussions
Sign Up to see all discussions
- Discover what it’s like to work at companies from real professionals
- Get candid advice from people in your field in a safe space
- Chat and network with other professionals in your field
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Share
Embed this post
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Preview
Download the
Fishbowl app
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Sign up for free to view this conversation on Fishbowl
Sign up for free to continue using Fishbowl
Messaging rates may apply
Mentor
Which ever pays more.
Very valid point!
Ultimately it's the difference between managing tasks and people. Managers of individual contributors are focused on the output primarily, because that's what they have to bring to their director. Obviously good managers also care about their people, but even for the best it's secondary to the tasks.
Directors get the bird's-eye view and feel the impact of change at scale, and they should be leading managers rather than managing them.
This isn't really a choice of preference, it's a skill and personality thing. Some people thrive on detailed task management so they should be managers. They should NOT be directors. Others lead well and are very comfortable leaving the minutiae to those best suited to the task while they handle more unwieldy strategy stuff -- those are good directors and poor managers.
I’d rather be a director to focus more on strategy and process and less on day-to-day execution. The skills needed for each role are slightly different.
A director drives the objectives for the department and aligns with managers on how to execute to achieve them. A good director is, thus, a strategic big picture thinker who develops a vision and works through others to implement it.
A manager of ICs is involved at a more tactical level. They need a stronger understanding of the day-to-day work to coach ICs on prioritization, problem-solving, and skill development.
Detailed oriented practitioner types can thrive as managers but often struggle as directors. Less technical, big picture leaders would encounter the reverse.
Coach
As an individual contributor with a new manager who has no idea what I do, it’s kind of frustrating because he can very rarely help with anything at all. Although, it is nice not to be micromanaged and to be trusted to do my work… there’s very little support. The previous manager had too much knowledge and micromanaged the shit out of us and basically tried to just do our jobs for us at all times. He was more helpful at shielding us from his manager… whereas my new manager just sends us into meetings with his manager without any context because he doesn’t know what is going on.
All of that to say, if you are considering managing individual contributors, it’s helpful if you understand their work and are able to shield them from upper management while not micromanaging them.
Great perspective, thanks!
It would be nice to be the director- most directors are so removed only the bottom line is passed through lower management. It would be nice to see the changes impacted from a director who managed all facets of company objectives through empowerment and positive motivation.