I am saddened to read this. You are letting them get away with it and they'll extract completely the wrong idea out of your noble gesture.

You're also making a bad assumption. I'm just saying there should be multiple paths forward. You can promote in any direction you want as long as you decide that your employees can do that. In our fictitious scenario some could go to manage teams some not. Some could focus on their work being a team lead, some just continue doing their thing.

My point is literally at the arbitrariness of promotion and how biased it is. There's a very clear bias that being structured by business people who think business people are the most important. The classic "I do x, so x is more important" fallacy.

My point is to make people just question if what we do is actually reasonable, and if we could do things better.

Besides, I've worked with people who previously knew how to program but lost the skill when moving to management for a decade and they aren't really any better than the manager that never knew it. Neither of these results in smooth operation. But I think to see a solution we'd also need to reconsider the premise. That's what I'm getting at.

I think this is the case with real engineering companies. My wife works at Rijkswaterstaat, and there engineers bear direct responsibility for projects that are worth lives, and they can make important decisions about those projects for that reason. For example, a couple of years ago an engineer closed a bridge because of a lack of maintenance. Big scandal about the bridge getting closed, but the real scandal was that maintenance was so far behind. Turned out the engineer had warned about this several times before, but somehow those messages didn't arrive at the people in charge of planning and funding maintenance. So that was the process that really needed fixing (and the bridge, of course).

I think this is a good option. I also have no problem with experts being put in charge of people. Truthfully I think the bigger issue is that there's not more ways for growth. But at this point I'd settle for just ways to grow in the technical side without needing to move to management (being a group lead or having people under you is something I'd consider different when your main job is still doing technical work)

I hate to break it to you, but this also happens in the US - especially at huge companies.

The next step of my career progression at my current company is deciding whether I want to go into the continuing tech route as an architect or staff software engineer or if I want to go into the managerial / people leader route.

The later is quite more lucrative, but I would have to stop programming.

If I ever get in that position, I want an assistant to do all the paperwork, so I'll have time to code and talk to people.

Europe is egalitarian in the surface but class-based deep down. Your word is worth as much as your title.

Of course I can't speak for every country but that's the reality.

I'm not saying that anywhere else is better, but in other places I worked there was no such illusion.

> informally, we're all equals, etc. Except in pay.

arguably the most important part. :) 2nd being team and company culture imo.

> you're single-handedly pulling an important project

Never do it on employment contract in Europe. Even if you really are and then quit your job, from next Monday everything will operate as if you never had worked there.

> you're never going to make the same as people who push numbers, papers and money.

That's why the top EU companies are loathed ERP company, perfumes and purses company, and obesity drug for Americans company.

Then don't tell them you're a techie.

They need to maintain kayfabe, otherwise all the BAs, PMs, POs, EMs would become flight risks.