Live data from Hacker News

An Engineering Team Where Everyone Is a Leader

blog.pragmaticengineer.com

61–64 of 64 posts

Re: An Engineering Team Where Everyone Is a Leader

#61
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this as an engineering director and someone who takes a lot of pride in my ability to do all the good things you describe: what's wrong with it is that bad management is hard to dislodge. Bad managers will never admit they're bad; they have bad employees. It's really hard for upper management to tell the difference. The early signs of bad management look a lot like bad employee performance. It takes time for a…

I have never seen a "bad" manager exist under a "good" manager/director. Every single "bad" manager was able to survive and thrive because the environment was set up to encourage and reward the "bad" behavior. If you are hiring and managing bad people, then the problem is not with them. It is with you. If you are unable to identify bad people under you, then you are failing at your most basic responsibility.

Taking your argument to its conclusion, if there's a bad manager, then the director is bad, then the VP is bad, all the way up to the CEO. A single bad employee means the CEO is bad. I think we can both agree that stretches the definition of bad so far as to be meaningless.

Personally, I've seen bad managers under good directors. It's complicated. Anyone can make a bad hiring decision. My point is that even if you are able to identity bad people under you, that identification process takes time. The higher you go in a hierarchy, the longer the time horizon you tend to be evaluated on. To say it should be obvious on a very short time horizon is disingenuous and only covers the most egregious cases.

Re: An Engineering Team Where Everyone Is a Leader

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make some good points about responsibility and accountability. But team members absolutely need to be, and feel, heard. Also, there's a world of difference between "managing" and "leading". Conflating the two is a root cause of many problems.

> Also, there's a world of difference between "managing" and "leading". Conflating the two is a root cause of many problems. Exactly. I think the military distinction between command (leadership) and control (management) is very relevant here. One is setting overall enterprise goals and defining personal missions in this context. The other is checking resources, constraints, reporting, etc. These two are very differe…

You could also say one is defining/policing parameters, and the other is being the designated representative of the team’s choices within those parameters.

The manager defines the “no” (boundaries of what’s acceptable) the leader defines the “yes” (what will the team do next given the demands).

People often try to do both, which means defining a very narrow “you do this now” which ends up feeling authoritarian.

Re: An Engineering Team Where Everyone Is a Leader

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of a quote from The Office: > Look, it doesn't take a genius to know that any organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn't have two presidents. A boat that set sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be...without the Popes. Notice that throughout the article, the author is still in charge of the overall strategy, granting each lead their authority, requir…

"name a country that doesn't have two presidents". A lot of countries are run by a government with a cabinet of ministers. There's a lot of negotiation. Many decisions are collective. In fact many governments are an example of what the article is taking about. The Catholic Church is an authoritarian organisation and that structure has caused it some extreme problems leading to its demise in many parts of the world. T…

However there is still a "Prime Minister" which picks the cabinet.

Re: An Engineering Team Where Everyone Is a Leader

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the counterargument that 10 heads are better than 1?

Not always. In many cases 10 heads = 9 people criticizing/undermining 1. Effective teams are built on people who trust and respect each other. Leadership must be recognized by a majority of group members for any person to take the lead - and any person can lead at any time if they have the group's best interests in mind and are able to demonstrate that.

I'm thinking of the scenario where 10 people all help solve the problems, vs when 1 person does all the thinking, and then hands out orders to the other 9.

Scenario 1 is obviously better, at least if the people are reasonably smart.

That doesn't mean all 10 are coequal leaders, and how to organize things so responsibility dynamics work well is... outside the scope of this comment. Also, I don't have a complete answer :)

Post reply on HN