Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#231

Post by dahauns »

throwaway729 wrote: post #67
dahauns wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the fundamental principles of software engineering haven't changed a whole lot since then. Not sure I agree with that. A lot of todays best practices and workflows (and the tech to go with it), especially considering team and release management, simply weren't around or at least widespread even twenty years ago. You know, stuff like CI, TDD, DVCS etc. etc.

> CI, TDD, DVCS Are any of these concepts particularly difficult to understand for a seasoned developer? I have a really hard time imagining that a C and SVN expert couldn't learn how to use git "well enough" in an afternoon, and effectively within a few days, for example. In particular, the freaking author of git is an 80's C programmer and SVN expert...

> Are any of these concepts particularly difficult to understand for a seasoned developer?

Depending on the personality of the developer: Absolutely. And most of the time it's not about the ability to understand, but the willingness to learn.

Yeah, it's a cliché, the old fart, set in their ways, "get off my lawn!1". I know, I'm guilty of it myself sometimes . :)

And it's one thing to learn some tech well enough to use it, and still another to grok the concepts and its ramifications, to actually get the whole picture of concepts, procedures and tools currently available to you, to be of help in higher-level planning and strategic decision-making. You know, all the stuff bosses are paid for. :)

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#232

Post by jderoner »

It seems many take the negative perspective of this finding - anecdotes about moments where management "doesn't get it" and tying that back to their lack of technical expertise.

What's missing from the discussion is the underlying foundation of the finding: in an average case, if your manager has technical expertise in your field, you're likely to learn a lot from them - that learning (and growth) is a major driver of job satisfaction. It creates closer relationships through shared understanding/experiences as well.

I'd also argue that simply being able to do the job and not developing the team in technical expertise yields similar job satisfaction as not having deep technical expertise at all.

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#233

Post by dagw »

dahauns wrote: post #229
dagw wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of todays best practices and workflows... Why does my boss have to know anything about that? The technical lead or senior developer(s) for each project should be the ones making decisions about those sorts of implementation details.

Those aren't mere "implementation details". Those are aspects that influence the whole process, up to strategic decisions.

How do you figure? Why should my boss care about unit test frameworks and the relative merits of various TDD strategies. If he has some useful advice from previous projects then great. But otherwise, as long has we aren't having major problems, I don't expect him to interfere with those sorts of decisions. And if we are having major problems I expect him to sit the relevant people down and go "look, we're having too many regression bugs. Whatever you are doing with regards to testing isn't working, so let's come up with something better".

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#234

Post by paulddraper »

collyw wrote: post #228
paulddraper wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually everything can be learned by reading.

I am pretty sure you couldn't learn whitewater kayaking or downhill skiing from reading.

You can learn an incredible amount about those through reading, though it's slower than just doing it so most people don't.

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#235

Post by dv_dt »

oculusthrift wrote: post #221
dv_dt wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Focus on is maybe slightly missing the point, they may not even have the background to appreciate or imagine the possibility of value creation that is not in their area of expertise. So certain possibilities are essentially invisible to those companies. It's made worse because it's the large successful corporations that actually have the resources to fix problems that few other players can even imagine (even with ven…

At points during the last decade, 40 pct of profits were made by the Finance sector. And companies like GE can make a billion dollars by lobbying for tax loopholes rather than creating new products. So this seems like the type of stuff they focus on.

GE gets too sweet of a tax deal, but out of many corporations to choose as an example, I don't think my comment applies as strongly to GE. Though they do work with financial matters, they've been backing away from finance as a central profit center, and refreshing their technology core (as exemplified by their divestment of a banking asset). Recently, GE is focused make strong investments in R&D and actually have been on a bit of a binge buying up many startups with advanced manufacturing capabilities. So they seem to have a strong technical vision that they're building towards.

Disclaimer: am an individual GE stock holder so that may color my view here.

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#236

Post by ucaetano »

sage76 wrote: post #227
_jgvg wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an undergrad in computer engineering, and an MBA from a top-10 or top-5 (depending who you ask) school. I learned a LOT from it, even though my experience after my undergrad degree was mostly in business. Businesses, finance markets are far more complex than people usually think, and if you like to learn, an MBA is a great way to build a solid base for being a product manager, or a director who actually unders…

Hate to be blunt, but first of all, the things you pointed out are really common knowledge/common sense, and secondly, most of these are not necessary to be an engineering manager at all. 'No alpha' is something that even Warren Buffet has been talking about, and it doesn't impact any EM's job day to day.

You'd be surprised how many great engineers I know don't actually follow that, either by believing they can pick stocks better than the market (false) or by thinking that you can derive economic profit simply by doing the same as everyone else in an industry.

There is a major difference between "knowing something" and having it ingrained in your thinking process so it happens seamlessly.

You don't need this to be an engineering manager, but you need this to be a good engineering manager. Knowing and dealing with your own (and other people's) biases, understanding how power works in organizations, how different pieces of an organization interact and how the products you are building impact the financials of the company are basic requirements (but not enough) to be a good engineering manager.

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#237

Post by edblarney »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #153
edblarney wrote: post #73

Missing from this study is the fact that we tend to project confidence, intelligence and wisdom on those that we like. A staffers perception of the competence of their boss may mostly be a function of how much they like their boss. Also - staffers may have no ability to judge the competence of a boss. Example: boss is highly technical, nice, gives you good feedback, stays 'out of your hair' - and 'let's you do your j…

>"staffers may have no ability to judge the competence of a boss" They often do. The biggest indicator is one you touched on... 'let's you do your job'. A good manager sets clear but fair expectations, and then works to shield you from roadblocks so you can get the job done as promptly as possible. In my experience it's easy to see this in action.

I agree that a worker can often reasonably evaluate their boss.

But unless you've been a director level person - with 'managers of people' working for you, it's easy to see how a 'well liked boss, who lets's their workers do their jobs' is often not the best manager.

Team staffers may think their job is to do ABC, but really it's XYZ. A dev may think it's his job to write 'quality software'. But the business objective may call for 'a quick iteration for demonstrative purposes'.

The staffer thinks he's 'doing his job', his boss lets him, but the business objectives are totally off.

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#238

Post by sage76 »

ucaetano wrote: post #236
sage76 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to be blunt, but first of all, the things you pointed out are really common knowledge/common sense, and secondly, most of these are not necessary to be an engineering manager at all. 'No alpha' is something that even Warren Buffet has been talking about, and it doesn't impact any EM's job day to day.

You'd be surprised how many great engineers I know don't actually follow that, either by believing they can pick stocks better than the market (false) or by thinking that you can derive economic profit simply by doing the same as everyone else in an industry. There is a major difference between "knowing something" and having it ingrained in your thinking process so it happens seamlessly. You don't need this to be an…

Agree to disagree I suppose. Engineers have the technical skills to look into basic financial and budgeting, and there are financial planning guys involved in big projects to do the really in depth stuff if required. A degree will not fix their unwillingness to learn, MBAs can be earned by going through the motions of the coursework. It happens in more technical degrees all the time.

As for the power dynamics stuff, firms in other professional fields do it all the time, and they don't seem to care about MBAs at all.

Lastly, a lot can be learnt on the job too. Maybe, statistically, engineers are more unlikely to show interest in this stuff, and that makes an MBA a "signal" that this person is interested in management.

It's a bloody expensive signal though, and it just saddens me that my career options and advancement might be limited because of it.

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#239

Post by ucaetano »

sage76 wrote: post #238
ucaetano wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised how many great engineers I know don't actually follow that, either by believing they can pick stocks better than the market (false) or by thinking that you can derive economic profit simply by doing the same as everyone else in an industry. There is a major difference between "knowing something" and having it ingrained in your thinking process so it happens seamlessly. You don't need this to be an…

Agree to disagree I suppose. Engineers have the technical skills to look into basic financial and budgeting, and there are financial planning guys involved in big projects to do the really in depth stuff if required. A degree will not fix their unwillingness to learn, MBAs can be earned by going through the motions of the coursework. It happens in more technical degrees all the time. As for the power dynamics stuff,…

> Engineers have the technical skills to look into basic financial and budgeting, and there are financial planning guys involved in big projects to do the really in depth stuff if required.

If by "technical skills" you mean "being able do to math", you're as far away from finance as "pressing keys on the keyboard" is from "coding".

You don't need a degree to be an engineer, and you don't need a degree to be in "management". But that's not the point.

Re: Employees are happier when led by people with deep expertise

#240

Post by ZenoArrow »

edblarney wrote: post #237
ZenoArrow wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"staffers may have no ability to judge the competence of a boss" They often do. The biggest indicator is one you touched on... 'let's you do your job'. A good manager sets clear but fair expectations, and then works to shield you from roadblocks so you can get the job done as promptly as possible. In my experience it's easy to see this in action.

I agree that a worker can often reasonably evaluate their boss. But unless you've been a director level person - with 'managers of people' working for you, it's easy to see how a 'well liked boss, who lets's their workers do their jobs' is often not the best manager. Team staffers may think their job is to do ABC, but really it's XYZ. A dev may think it's his job to write 'quality software'. But the business objectiv…

>"But the business objective may call for 'a quick iteration for demonstrative purposes'."

Most developers I've worked with are smart enough to know quick hacks are fine in small doses, but if they become the norm you end up with a great deal of technical debt, which can ultimately cripple the productivity of a company.

From the perspective of managers who aren't familiar with technical debt, the 'quick win' is always going to seem like the best option. It's up to the development team to strike a balance between 'the quick way' and 'the right way', and whilst some managers may get frustrated on the occasions when 'the right way' wins out, in the mid to long term they benefit too, though they may not understand why.

Post reply on HN