What we've learned about hiring engineering managers • Hacker News Board

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#61

Post by bb88 » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:04 AM UTC

vecter wrote: post #57

> Engineering managers at CircleCI are now dedicated to people management: focused on development of a set of engineers, tech leads, and team leads. They hold regular 1:1s and career growth conversations with the engineers who report to them, and are responsible for goal setting, feedback, coaching, and mentoring for them. They also work across a set of teams to ensure team health, knowledge sharing, business value d…

So usually the EM is either "Technical" or "Non-Technical".

The Technical EM is more about design, architecture and progress, and sometimes helping the team to get code out the door.

The Non Technical EM is more about this. The technical EM would communicate through a PR, say instead of having 1-on-1's.

Edit: They said in the article they used to give coding problems to engineering manager candidates, and then in the onsite interview, they found their managing ability is so far off of what they were expecting.

So they're making a shift from a Technical Managers to Non Technical Managers.

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#62

Post by wolco » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:15 AM UTC

jiveturkey wrote: post #35

trhway wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you are stuck on the model of manager-as-boss. in order to create a true engineering ladder that is separate but equal to the management ladder it will be equal only when the people on the technical ladder start to take hiring and firing decisions. Until that - the "parallel" ladder is just a pipe dream and the manager is the boss.

hiring decisions are made by the team, not the "hiring manager". putting the responsibility of "tie breaking" votes onto the HM is a reasonable thing. generally, employees fire themselves ... But I mean, you're not wrong. In the environment you're thinking of, the "tech ladder" is a farce. Which is why the parent, as he said, left that company. CircleCI has made the claim that they have a true tech ladder, and there'…

Hiring decisions made by the team are short sighted. They tend to hire people like themselves with similiar ideas. If you are looking for a balanced diverse team group think will not replace a hiring authority.

It is probably the best way to find someone likable by all. But bad for someone who might challenge ideas. Unless they find someone that has traits that everyone is in awe of but usually that only happens when there is a single person role with no other developers working in that layer or silo of the stack.

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#63

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

codegrappler wrote: post #60

stronglikedan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, like me, they love development and don't find it frustrating, but they would rather follow the money.

This is my struggle. Do you go the management route for the money or stay in development where the pressure, and pay, is lower...

[deleted]

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#64

Post by chrisseaton » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

vecter wrote: post #57

> Engineering managers at CircleCI are now dedicated to people management: focused on development of a set of engineers, tech leads, and team leads. They hold regular 1:1s and career growth conversations with the engineers who report to them, and are responsible for goal setting, feedback, coaching, and mentoring for them. They also work across a set of teams to ensure team health, knowledge sharing, business value d…

You can be managing the engineers (your definition) or managing the engineering (another definition). You could describe both as an ‘engineering manager.’

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#65

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 2:03 AM UTC

ionforce wrote: post #45

simpixelated wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an introvert who was a manager for several years, I agree that it is very difficult and draining. I believe that I have the skills to be a good manager (empathy, EQ, organization), but I did find it extremely draining. Towards the end of my experience I could tell I wasn't giving my best to my direct reports and so I've gone back to being an individual contributor. I still entertain the idea of getting back into m…

What specifically was draining about it? What drained you? Why?

Because that's basically the definition of the difference between introversion and extroversion: introverts "recharge" by being alone, while extroverts "recharge" by being around people. If you are an introvert and forced to have lots of people interaction daily, you basically don't have a chance to recharge.

My experience was basically exactly the same as subpixelated.

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#66

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #64

vecter wrote: post #57

> Engineering managers at CircleCI are now dedicated to people management: focused on development of a set of engineers, tech leads, and team leads. They hold regular 1:1s and career growth conversations with the engineers who report to them, and are responsible for goal setting, feedback, coaching, and mentoring for them. They also work across a set of teams to ensure team health, knowledge sharing, business value d…

You can be managing the engineers (your definition) or managing the engineering (another definition). You could describe both as an ‘engineering manager.’

[deleted]

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#67

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 2:49 AM UTC

Moto7451 wrote: post #58

vecter wrote: post #57

> Engineering managers at CircleCI are now dedicated to people management: focused on development of a set of engineers, tech leads, and team leads. They hold regular 1:1s and career growth conversations with the engineers who report to them, and are responsible for goal setting, feedback, coaching, and mentoring for them. They also work across a set of teams to ensure team health, knowledge sharing, business value d…

I've worked at companies, and know others who work at companies, where being an Engineering Managers means you're 90% developer and 10% manager. You're expected to do one on ones, assign work, but mostly code.

I would expect that to be called tech lead. Though probably closer to 80/20 (or lower) than 90/10 by the time you include all the extra work and meetings he or she has to go to by dint of being in that role (vs say the next most senior engineer).

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#68

Post by sa46 » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

PKop wrote: post #11

yingw787 wrote: post #7

I've been fortunate to have two great direct managers at the prior companies I've worked at, and one common thread they have is they've both been developers. I think working in the field before you command people who do so helps build empathy and understanding of the problem at hand, as well as how it all ties into the bigger picture. I've heard in the military officers that served in the enlisted ranks before commis…

> I've heard in the military officers that served in the enlisted ranks before commissioning are more effective and supported by their troops than those that come straight out of OCS 100% true. The difference is night and day. Both with their own self confidence to lead a group of enlisted and specifically senior enlisted who in my unit, almost always would have had more front line combat experience than the officers…

I agree with the sentiment but I'm not so sure about 100% and calling it night and day is exaggerated. I've had anecdotes both ways. I think there's some important factors to consider:

- Units send their best enlisted folks to become officers.

- For entry officer jobs like a platoon leader, the prior enlisted will have a massive knowledge advantage. Once an officer hits company command (~5-6 years), I'd say the difference evaporates as the focus should be at a higher level.

Some of the downsides of prior-enlisted officers are:

- Leaning to much on their experience and micromanaging enlisted subordinates.

- Focusing on low-level details rather than "officer-business" like long term training plans and orders preparation.

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#69

Post by twright0 » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 3:06 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #61

vecter wrote: post #57

> Engineering managers at CircleCI are now dedicated to people management: focused on development of a set of engineers, tech leads, and team leads. They hold regular 1:1s and career growth conversations with the engineers who report to them, and are responsible for goal setting, feedback, coaching, and mentoring for them. They also work across a set of teams to ensure team health, knowledge sharing, business value d…

So usually the EM is either "Technical" or "Non-Technical". The Technical EM is more about design, architecture and progress, and sometimes helping the team to get code out the door. The Non Technical EM is more about this. The technical EM would communicate through a PR, say instead of having 1-on-1's. Edit: They said in the article they used to give coding problems to engineering manager candidates, and then in the…

This isn't the nomenclature I'd use. What you describe as a "Technical EM" is what I'd call a "Tech Lead", who doesn't have people management responsibilities (things like 1:1s, recruiting, growth and success of the team, etc) and focuses solely on the technical execution of a team. In my book an EM is always responsible for those people management things, and I'd use "Technical EM" to describe an EM who secondarily takes on some or all Tech Lead responsibilities, directly contributes code, etc.

Re: What we've learned about hiring engineering managers

#70

Post by fijiaarone » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 3:09 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #15

gwbas1c wrote: post #9

I firmly believe great software engineering managers are people who are adequate developers, but have excellent people skills. Why? They need to understand enough software at a high level to be able to manage, instead of turning lower-level details into management problems. But, they also need to find software development frustrating enough that they are happy to not have to do it every day.

The best engineering managers I've worked with still code every day or at least every other day. They are more than adequate as developers and they also have people skills.

But people skills is herein defined as lack of technical skills.