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

"Good engineering management" is a fad

lethain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 121 posts

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#61

Post by Spooky23 »

robot-wrangler wrote: post #52
alphazard wrote: post #47

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…

This is probably one of the most cogent analysis/descriptions of this topic that I’ve read. Thank you.

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#62

Post by [deleted] »

jampa wrote: post #54

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…

[deleted]

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#63

Post by saghm »

tyleo wrote: post #56
jampa wrote: post #54

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 feel like a lot of leadership positions are like this. I was a Principal Tech Lead at a 300 personal company and I did everything from PMing large tech teams, to collecting info from top users in spreadsheets, to building demos directly for the CEO, to building a key part of our tech used by over 100 other engineers. I always told people I’d plunge the toilets myself if they were preventing the staff from working.…

> I always told people I’d plunge the toilets myself if they were preventing the staff from working.

This is a lot closer to a literal interpretation of "shit rolls downhill, so a good manager will be a shit umbrella to protect their team" than I thought I'd ever see.

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#64

Post by chickensong »

stavros wrote: post #60
WalterBright wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Dammit, Walter, did you not read any of the very extensive comment? It was an entire treatise about why that exact line is misleading and in bad faith, and you reply with it anyway?

FWIW, I enjoyed and agree with your thoughtful comment, and found the response disappointing. Having known privately-owned mom-and-pop businesses, I can confirm not everyone is out for profit at all costs, even in America. For some, it's enough to make ends meet doing something you're passionate about.

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#65

Post by zmmmmm »

tyleo wrote: post #56
jampa wrote: post #54

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 feel like a lot of leadership positions are like this. I was a Principal Tech Lead at a 300 personal company and I did everything from PMing large tech teams, to collecting info from top users in spreadsheets, to building demos directly for the CEO, to building a key part of our tech used by over 100 other engineers. I always told people I’d plunge the toilets myself if they were preventing the staff from working.…

> identifying and executing on whatever is highest value that you have the skills for

There's a hidden assumption there though, that you CAN actually do that. At least management skills mostly stick over time but even a year away from hands on technical work is going to leave you likely stranded and unable to execute on the technical aspects. Which is why I continue to push back against suggestions technical managers shouldn't be engaged hands on. Apart from being incredibly hostile to their own interests (it will be central to you getting hired to any future role), it also impairs one of the most strategic aspects of the role which can drastically affect the value you can deliver internally in the future as well.

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#66

Post by WalterBright »

stavros wrote: post #60
WalterBright wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Dammit, Walter, did you not read any of the very extensive comment? It was an entire treatise about why that exact line is misleading and in bad faith, and you reply with it anyway?

It's not at all in bad faith. Businesses are formed to make money. If the IRS discovers that your business is not intended to make money, they will re-define it as a "hobby" and will not let you deduct expenses.

Surely you can give an actual example of a business not formed to make money?

P.S. When you talk about bad faith, I recommend that you do not invent things I did not write, put those things in quotes pretending that I did write them, and then argue with that strawman.

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#67

Post by mcdeltat »

khaled_ismaeel wrote: post #28
bluGill wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If value can only be delivered by making a group of people miserable then maybe the definition of "value" is fundamentally wrong, like it was/is in the case of slavery.

So I'm guessing most people are downvoting this as a knee jerk reaction to the comparison with slavery, but I think the core point is quite valid.

At some point, if people are unhappy working towards some goal, you gotta re-evaluate if the goal is worthy. I consistently meet people in other industries who really enjoy their job, whereas in tech, most of the people I know consider their job to be one of the lowlights of their life. And I don't think it's a stretch to say many, many tech jobs are not serving a worthy goal.

So it's disappointing to see people who can't look past "but business value bro", as if we got where we are because capitalism is some holy, inevitable universal law.

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#68

Post by the_af »

an0malous wrote: post #41
torben-friis wrote: post #39

>Then think about our current era, that started in late 2022(...) We’ve flattened Engineering organizations where many roles that previously focused on coordination are now expected to be hands-on keyboard, working deep in the details Is this everyone's experience nowadays? Personally I haven't experienced such a big shift at all. Our C-suite is irrationally pushing AI-everything and eng culture is suffering a bit fr…

Yes I’ve noticed this change acutely, working at a couple Series A YC startups. I’ve been surprised there haven’t been more articles on this topic because it’s been a miserable shift from my perspective, and I agree with the author that the root cause is the end of the ZIRP era. Basically, in addition to the irrational AI-everything initiatives in spite of customers not wanting or using those features, as an engineer…

But is it universal for companies that aren't startups (or FAANG, where I hear they are also pushing for EMs to get their hands dirty or be fired -- or was that just Facebook)?

Like the comment you're replying to, I've also have NOT experienced this shift in EM skills. In my experience, they are still about making the team happy and productive, and definitely NOT coding or designing software (though I'll concede most seem technically minded and understand the details well enough to ask relevant questions and push back against bad takes).

But coding? Nope. EMs are still about the team, careers, hiring, alignment, etc.

C-levels forcing AI on everything, whether it makes sense or not, is definitely a symptom of the times.

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#69

Post by WalterBright »

chickensong wrote: post #64
stavros wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dammit, Walter, did you not read any of the very extensive comment? It was an entire treatise about why that exact line is misleading and in bad faith, and you reply with it anyway?

FWIW, I enjoyed and agree with your thoughtful comment, and found the response disappointing. Having known privately-owned mom-and-pop businesses, I can confirm not everyone is out for profit at all costs, even in America. For some, it's enough to make ends meet doing something you're passionate about.

You are arguing with "at all costs" which I never wrote, and so do not feel any need to reply to that.

Mom and pop businesses definitely do it to make money. They aren't charities. They pay taxes on the money they make. And if they don't make money, what are they going to live on?

Non-profits are not out to make money, but (again) they are not considered businesses.

Re: "Good engineering management" is a fad

#70

Post by the_af »

WalterBright wrote: post #66
stavros wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dammit, Walter, did you not read any of the very extensive comment? It was an entire treatise about why that exact line is misleading and in bad faith, and you reply with it anyway?

It's not at all in bad faith. Businesses are formed to make money. If the IRS discovers that your business is not intended to make money, they will re-define it as a "hobby" and will not let you deduct expenses. Surely you can give an actual example of a business not formed to make money? P.S. When you talk about bad faith, I recommend that you do not invent things I did not write, put those things in quotes pretendi…

Your answer seems in bad faith because it ignores parts of the answer like this:

> "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"

Those are not hobbies and will not be categorized as such.

The point is that the goal of making money is not necessarily meant at the cost of crushing employees or considering them disposable. The person you're replying to is saying that's a very US-centric way of looking at businesses (e.g. maximize shareholder value even if it costs happiness) but that's not necessarily the only way of making money. It's very cynical to think it's the only way, because it reinforces the status quo (what are you going to do if you don't like it? That's business, join a commune instead!).

Post reply on HN