Live data from Hacker News

Is engineering management bullshit?

makeartwithpython.com

241–250 of 425 posts

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing. At the end of the day all of the "complexity and nuance" of running a business doesn't matter. The only way you even get to execute on that is if you're flanked by good engineers. All roads lead to the engineer. Bad managers can be worked around. Mindless PMs can be worked around. But if every engineer at apple suddenly stopped working there would be real economic consequences. If managers and PMs s…

> If managers and PMs stopped working they'd be replaced by engineers who are by and large more capable at adaptation anyway. It's funny how these ultracapable genius engineers don't just start their own company free of these bullshit manager and PM roles and just steamroll the competition, isn't it?

Avoid confusing sales with managers. Most "genius engineers" still need money, and they still need that fabled creature known as the salesman who can convince someone to pay for a software system he doesn't need.

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#242

This is such a tired take. It's part of a steady stream of commentary that reads something like "non-engineering-role X is bullshit." Here, we see engineers reduce the contributions of such common roles as: Product Manger, Program/Project Manager, Scrum Master, Marketer, CEO, etc., as fungible or run by the biggest boogeyman of all, the dreaded MBA. These arguments most typically result from not an inability, but an…

Heh, a bit harsher than I would have stated it but I can't help but agree. Of course, 30 years ago, I would have disagreed with you. Probably in a few decades the author of the article will agree with you too! So there's that.

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#243

This is such a tired take. It's part of a steady stream of commentary that reads something like "non-engineering-role X is bullshit." Here, we see engineers reduce the contributions of such common roles as: Product Manger, Program/Project Manager, Scrum Master, Marketer, CEO, etc., as fungible or run by the biggest boogeyman of all, the dreaded MBA. These arguments most typically result from not an inability, but an…

I believe the take you see is mostly coming from enterprise developers that have witnessed the immense inefficiency and waste of larger organisations. The solution to a non-engineering savvy manager in such organization is to add more people and more frameworks.

Mind you - to "them", these "dreaded MBAs", the development organization is a problem, often regarded as cost, and development is done by... developers. Sometimes the developers is the actual problem and they have gradually sunk the software in to a unmaintainable swamp of crappy code and debt - but this is a competency and hiring problem. It will not be solved by any framework or project manager. But you need the competency in your leadership to understand what's what and this is missing from pretty much any large org I've set foot in. The high functioning teams is these settings are more a stoke of luck, and they often have to utilize guerrilla tactics to keep delivering value.

I've seen my fair share of global CIO's talking us through cloud and blockchain, never have to actually deliver and move on to the next company or fancy role.

I've seen CIO/CTO not trusting developers and believing no-code and citizen development to be the end all. Guess what - more unmaintainable crazy stuff

I've seen large organizations falling in to the "one system" trap on all levels, even trickling down to the software teams - a dedicated 8 person jira team for the whole org! What could possibly go wrong.

I've also witnessed amazing autonomous development teams that move at amazing speed with quality. In these settings you have management that understands the process of supporting a business with valuable code.

Most of the time IMO it's the business themselves that cause a lot of the problems facing developers by not understanding that it's they who own the processes getting digitized.

They buy software from vendors, staff up a project team to integrate, fire and forget. This "fire and forget" project mentality is what accumulates in a shitty org, and shitty orgs start from the top.

If you haven't read "Turn the ship around" it embodies all of this. This condensed video is really worth a look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psAXMqxwol8

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, most doctors are independent providers for hospitals, they don't have a traditional 'manager' You are putting a round peg in a square hole. As I already stated, these are not the kind of managers we see in development where your manager is your "boss". Even as independent providers, doctors will have someone they are interfacing with who will see to the admin and other work so they are focused on medicin…

> As I already stated, these are not the kind of managers we see in development where your manager is your "boss". We're talking about the kind of managers software engineers have. Doctors don't have those kind of managers, that's entirely my point. > Again, this is very insulting to the people working these roles. They are not "subordinate". They are definitely subordinate in any patient-care scenario. Anyway, I fee…

You are simply refusing to accept the fact that doctors have managers and are simply labelling it "clerical". It is in no way simply clerical at all. These are people they report to regularly, who help manage their schedules, help with career growth, set priorities and targets, interface with upper management to avoid cruft coming down, dispel distractions to force their focus on what matters and so on. I will strongly state once again that this is in no way, shape, or form "secretarial". Often times, for junior doctors, they are most definitely superiors. The reason for the change in power balance from engineering organisations is because doctors have the significantly more challenging aspect that they are dealing with human lives so managers tend to stay out of their way more but their role is not diminished

Your analogy is bad only because you have no idea what you're talking about. Technical people need managers because technical people will do things other than their actual jobs and I say this very frankly as a developer. It is remarkable how similar doctors and engineers can be in that they are lost if left to their own devices. Just as an experienced engineer will wear many hats and can manage themselves, experienced doctors also successfully set up their own practices where they can manage themselves. But a good hospital manager can literally save and change lives

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#245
Cool it a notch HN!

The article is not anti-management or 31337157

——

Summary Paragraph:

what is Engineering Managment’s Job?

We’ve touched upon a vague set of goals, but haven’t really settled on what an effective manager’s daily job really is.

Going back to Drucker, a manager’s job is to prepare people to perform, and to give them freedom to do so.

Creative people need psychological safety in order to perform. An effective manager provides this, along with coaching to help reports become more effective versions of themselves. This should then allow them to reap long term rewards.

An effective manager builds trust and space for their reports to execute, along with guidance for where their efforts will have the largest impact, helping them to continue growing in their career.

An effective manager cares for their team, their work, and its effect beyond the immediate organization. They are stewards first, realizing that much is beyond their control.

The ones who care are just trying to keep the bullshit at bay.

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#246
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing. At the end of the day all of the "complexity and nuance" of running a business doesn't matter. The only way you even get to execute on that is if you're flanked by good engineers. All roads lead to the engineer. Bad managers can be worked around. Mindless PMs can be worked around. But if every engineer at apple suddenly stopped working there would be real economic consequences. If managers and PMs s…

> much like the kid engineer coming out of school who believes he's legitimately God's gift to man (other people doing stuff, inducing mild amounts of accountability) > This is borderline tyranny to someone who is creative. > most engineers should go back for their MBA. Not to get better at business but to understand their enemy. That's an incredibly adversarial attitude severely lacking in self-reflection and empath…

It's weird you assume I openly post this where people know my face.

I play ball at work because if I play ball I continue to make enough money where at the end of the day I don't care. I'm fully capable of reading a room and know full well the consequences of stepping out of line. Frankly a manager "helping you find empathy" strikes me as a form of indoctrination.

But thank you for the deep psychological analysis. Frankly I'm glad you're not my manager because the saccharin nature of your psuedo intellectual post would probably have me quitting anyway. It's always the "empaths" who are the first to fire the shots across the bow in the face of valid (albeit direct) criticism.

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#247

I think a lot here miss the main point of the article. Managers used to be smarter than their subordinates, so they could steer the work. With knowledge work, as soon as you turn manager, you're away from the knowledge. That means all of a sudden your subordinates are smarter than you. So where does that leave the manager? Well, as the article also kind of concludes, the manager is now at the service of the team. Big…

>I think a lot here miss the main point of the article.

People are very, very clearly reacting to the headline and making the same comments we've seen 1000 times before.

It's a shame since the article itself is interesting and could stimulate actual novel conversation, but the chance for that is gone.

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#248
Being in Engineering Management, I agree 1000%.

My advice to anyone feeling the pains of that article ... work for smaller companies. The 'operational overhead' of smaller companies is much much smaller.

Let me add, ive spent a lot of time thinking about what advice to give my children about their first job in real world. As someone in management, here is my advice to them:

Don't choose your first job based on salary, title, or company prestige. All of those can and will come with time. Choose your first job based on who you will be reporting to and what type of person they are. Will they understand you? Will you understand them? Will they support you? Can you trust them?

The spirit of this advice is that if you have a bad boss, most likely your day, each day, most likely will suck. Sure, twice a month your check will look nice, or maybe your business card will have impressive branding on it, but will you be happy? My wife gave me an article once, it was something like "you spend 1/3 of your waking life at work". Don't hate 1/3 of your waking life. Enjoy it. I believe the best way to enjoy each and every day of work is to have a boss that gets you, supports you, and empowers you.

Re: Is engineering management bullshit?

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing. At the end of the day all of the "complexity and nuance" of running a business doesn't matter. The only way you even get to execute on that is if you're flanked by good engineers. All roads lead to the engineer. Bad managers can be worked around. Mindless PMs can be worked around. But if every engineer at apple suddenly stopped working there would be real economic consequences. If managers and PMs s…

> If managers and PMs stopped working they'd be replaced by engineers who are by and large more capable at adaptation anyway. It's funny how these ultracapable genius engineers don't just start their own company free of these bullshit manager and PM roles and just steamroll the competition, isn't it?

A few reasons:

1. They would rather be building cool things than doing all the other things involved in running a company. Nobody said managers are doing literally nothing, just that they're generally not very good and they really don't deserve or earn the authority they have. Their role is a support role, like a typist or a document manager or something. They should be considered basically secretaries to the engineers, so your question is "why don't the engineers all go become secretaries then?". Not to bash secretaries, but rather to give you the point that their authority comes not from what they do, but rather from the caste they were born into and/or the college they graduated from.

2. Many of them would go and start their own (likely very successful) companies, if doing so weren't a gated community open only to either (A) those who already have lots of connections and lots of family money to fall back on as a safety net if they fail, and (B) those who are willing to subsist on dry Top Ramen and live out of their car for years while they devote 100% of their time to their startup. Most of the good engineers out there have responsibilities like kids and/or mortgages, because it takes a long time to become a good engineer. And most people aren't born into the "business caste" that starts companies and becomes high-level managers at companies in the US.

3. They do. When it does happen, they become wildly successful and do completely fucking steamroll the competition, because the competition actually truly veritably is garbage run by chucklefucks who are only there because they were born into the Business Caste.

Post reply on HN