51–60 of 121 posts
A manager’s job isn’t to guide the company, it’s to make sure his team does the tasks they are assigned. Likewise, a worker’s job isn’t to “think about the big picture” and come up with a strategy for the organization. So who is supposed to do it? Because executives sure aren’t.
There are components of management culture which are fads, like the idea that one could be an effective manager, while not understanding what one's reports are doing, through some management-foo learned from books and blogs. The success of that fad is no doubt partially due to the economic climate. People want the tech industry money, but don't have the tech industry skills. Leadership is timeless, humans have always…
The fad is non-technical management, and the result is a general crisis in leadership that you can see everywhere across tech, politics, entertainment, whatever. Top leadership is out of ideas and just looking around for others to copy, or cruising on extraction/exploitation of value-creation that came before. It's a slow-motion disaster that's been picking up speed, which is why consumers, workers, and constituents are all pissed off. Seems like the shareholders will be effected soon, so then maybe it starts to change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes the real deliverable is a happy team
Only to the extent that a happy team delivers something of value. Teams can be happy doing things that will drive the company bankrupt. there is only so much unhappiness they can stand
In the end, engineering management basically requires you to counter-balance whichever of the four pillars your team needs most: Product, Process, People, and Programming.
- Too few people? You'll work on scope to make the deliverables meet reality. Since there's not much communication overhead, you'll be able to program.
- No PM? You now own the product pillar entirely. This takes a lot of your time: You'll need to validate features, prioritize the roadmap, and even talk directly with clients. None of the rest matters if your team is shipping features with no user value.
- Too many people in the team/company? Say goodbye to programming. You'll be responsible for careers, making everyone work cohesively, and navigating the org to get the right resources and support for your team.
- Reporting close to the CEO? You'll handle the bridge between sales, operations, client communications, and other functions.
The common thread is that your focus constantly shifts based on where your team's bottlenecks are. The key is identifying which pillar needs attention and adapting accordingly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one!
That's not the only reason why businesses can exist. It's the most common reason in US culture, but there are other reasons and cultures.
I've worked as an EM at four different companies, from large enterprises to small startups, and I think "the role of engineering manager" is a myth. Your role varies wildly from one company to another. In every company I've worked at, my job has never been the same: In the end, engineering management basically requires you to counter-balance whichever of the four pillars your team needs most: Product, Process, People…
I always told people I’d plunge the toilets myself if they were preventing the staff from working. I feel like the closer you get to top leadership the more your job becomes identifying and executing on whatever is highest value that you have the skills for.
There are components of management culture which are fads, like the idea that one could be an effective manager, while not understanding what one's reports are doing, through some management-foo learned from books and blogs. The success of that fad is no doubt partially due to the economic climate. People want the tech industry money, but don't have the tech industry skills. Leadership is timeless, humans have always…
Yes. All leadership is supposed to be technical leadership. Outside of engineering-management, technical just means significant actual domain expertise. If you want an organization that can do stuff, you have to know stuff, there's just no substitute and everything else is basically fake. The "visionary", the "idea person", the experts at alignment / people / processes / ceremonies were always kind of mythical but to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the only reason why businesses can exist. It's the most common reason in US culture, but there are other reasons and cultures.
Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money.
> the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill
Meaning that employees are disposable, and their only purpose is to produce value for the business.
Your reply:
> Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one!
Thus agreeing with the parent that the sole purpose of a business is to make money above all else.
My reply:
> That's not the only reason why businesses can exist.
Your reply:
> Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money.
This is rhetorical sleight-of-hand to change the counterpoint from "prove me wrong by showing me a business whose purpose is not to maximally exploit employees to maximize the amount of money it makes" to "prove me wrong by showing me a business that does not make money".
I could respond to the latter with an easy "some businesses lose money and exist because the owner finds the process fun", but you could counter with the No True Scotsman of "a business that doesn't make money is a hobby, not a business".
Instead, I will respond to the former, which is the original point, and say that there are plenty of mom-and-pop (or larger) businesses, as well as cooperatives, whose goals are not actually to exploit the worker to maximize the amount of money they make, but is primarily to give the owners a good work/life balance, or to help their community, or to be owned collectively by all workers.
The American-style "walk over anyone to make money" isn't actually the only way to do business, but the kind of person who thinks it is will generally make the tautological argument of "if you aren't maximizing your profits, you aren't a real business".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money.
First post: > the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill Meaning that employees are disposable, and their only purpose is to produce value for the business. Your reply: > Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one! Thus agreeing with the parent that the sole purpose of a business is to make money above all else. My reply: > That's not the only reas…
If you run a business that loses money, who is going to pay for those losses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First post: > the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill Meaning that employees are disposable, and their only purpose is to produce value for the business. Your reply: > Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one! Thus agreeing with the parent that the sole purpose of a business is to make money above all else. My reply: > That's not the only reas…
I infer you don't know of any particular business that does not exist to make money? If you run a business that loses money, who is going to pay for those losses?