6 ms·

Too Many Leaders Spoil the Group

36 points by bootload 11y ago

davidkellis 11y ago
My takeaway is that development managers shouldn't put a bunch of lead developers together on a project, unless the project is big enough that each leader could own an independent piece. Otherwise, toes get stepped on, folks start bickering, and progress grinds to a halt.
- mpdehaan2 11y ago
  I kind of feel much adoption of "microservices" is not for technological regions but for human ones - to increase separation in architectual and code choices where just dividing work up by component wasn't enough.
- jib 11y ago
  I think it is more about two things. 1. Learn to flex across roles 2. Be specific about roles in a project/team/task Sometimes you need a bunch of strong dudes working together on something. When you do, it is extra important to be specific about roles. Who decides when there is a tie or you are stalled? Who facilitates view points? etc. If you dont have the flexibility to gracefully and effectively not lead, you are pretty one-dimensional. That doesnt mean the passive aggressive "well it is X's project so I guess he decides" way, rather it means to fully support and believe in the group structure you've set up for this thing, whatever the thing is. Roles are something you flex into and out of, not something that defines you or is something "you are". If you let a role define you, you will be a lot less effective in getting stuff done.
mpdehaan2 11y ago
So many times. If we take the (cough) hackers and painters analogy to weird places, software is painting. Where when if you have everybody being creative, the vision can get watered down and not as good as it could be. Companies are the same thing, when different people have conflicting goals, and want to express their creativity, it breeds conflict. Some conflicts and checks and balances are good, but I believe the most creativity happens when groups are small, vision is unified, and everybody's more or less on the same page. Working with sharp people is great, but often there are multiple equivalent choices. Arguing over A and B, or compromising to do a little of both, is often way worse than going all in on A or B and then moving on to the next task.
ktRolster 11y ago
For a programmer team, I like to look at the ratio: people writing code/people not writing code The smaller the ratio, the less productive the team.
- hammock 11y ago
  All other things being equal. With the right leadership it's feasible that adding a manager to a team of two programmers could increase overall productivity (rather than decrease it 33%).
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    Maybe, but you'll do better with 3 programmers, assuming they can manage themselves reasonably well.
    - hammock 11y ago
      Yes, I suppose adding 1 programmer to a team of 2 would be the same as adding a manager who increases each programmer's productivity by 50%. Likewise for a team of 10 programmers, you can either add another programmer or a manager who increases existing productivity by 10%.
      - ktRolster 11y ago
        If you know a manager who can increase two programmer's productivity by 50%, I'd like to hear how he does it. It seems unlikely (assuming the programmers aren't doing something stupid, like spending all their time on Facebook).
- developer2 11y ago
  Tell me about it. Our team has 3 frontend developers and 5 backend developers. We also have 3 product owners, a scrum master, a heavily involved scrum master's manager, team manager, team manager's manager, team manager's manager's manager, then the CTO and higher. Ignoring CTO and higher who aren't directly involved in day-to-day operations, we have 8 management level positions managing 8 developers. Every sprint is a clusterfuck of confusion wherein those 8 managers can't agree on what should be worked on. It's absolutely stunning that 8 people cannot organize work for another 8 people.
0xADADA 11y ago
Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth.
fnbr 11y ago
The problem that I see is that people are heavily rewarded by being leaders, and so sell themselves as leaders even when the group incentive isn't there. I encountered this extensively in university, when seemingly every student was trying to be the president of their student group, or trying to found their own group of questionable value. I see the same issue in the work world- executives are so heavily compensated that there's a strong incentive to become an executive, which requires one to act as a leader. However, that's often not what's best for the group.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  Totally agree with that. The only way to get better pay for most people is to be a "leader" no matter you are suited for it or not. Especially in the US there seems to be this emphasis on leadership. There is not much respect for people who are doing a good job.
  - perseusprime11 11y ago
    I would say it is slowly changing with the Maker over Manager culture. Companies are valuing more makers and less managers.
    - maxxxxx 11y ago
      Maybe they say that. The pay is still with managers.
hacknat 11y ago
Sure, why not. The word "leadership" doesn't really mean anything anymore. I have met very few good leaders in my day. It definitely seems like most people leading companies are not any good at it. The best managers I've had haves simply gotten out of the way and defended us blindly. That's the best I've seen. I'd love it if we adopted a culture of service, rather than "leadership". How can you be a good servant to others? It'll probably take you far, or it might not, but it has the virtue of being the least bullshit thing to do.
- ProAm 11y ago
  > I have met very few good leaders in my day. This is true of anyone at any position. Most people are not good at what they do. In fact I'd say in any position in any company 70% are bad/less-than-good, 20-25% are just OK and 5-10% are actually great. It's just a fact of life, and almost unfair to pigeon hold 'leadership' in these types of articles when it really applies to everyone.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  Unfortunately all the money is in leadership. Servants get paid as little as possible.
mineshaftgap 11y ago
Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. We had a company called Four Chiefs, although that was mostly as a dodge because owners are treated different than employees insurance wise.
chrisseldo 11y ago
Wait.. am I reading the abstract of this study wrong or just misunderstanding what the author of the article is trying to say: [Abstract http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/110/2/261/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/110/2/261/] "However, high power individuals were more effective when working on tasks that required less coordination: they were more creative (Studies 1B and 4) and persisted longer on a difficult task than other groups" Then in the article: "The control groups and low power groups generated more creative ideas than the groups made up of high-power individuals."
- Terribledactyl 11y ago
  > "However, high power individuals... I think that's best read as an aside. Low coordination to me reads as not really a group task, or less so. Take someone used to being "high-power" let them work alone, magic happens. Put a bunch of high-power loners together and your in for a bad time. A governor being the most "powerful" person in a state can be very effectual, but a group of them together in some sort coordinated task may be a disaster fit for tv.
- bcbrown 11y ago
  > It was not that high power made people less creative, though. In a second study, the same power manipulation was used, but then people worked alone to generate a creative idea for a business. In this individual task, the high-power individuals were actually more creative than the low-power individuals.
bobby_9x 11y ago
I think the problem is that it divides your focus, which is bad for success. If an entire group can focus on one goal, they will be much more successful.
ktRolster 11y ago
Here is the stereotypical example of how too many non-programmers ruin the group: http://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2004/02/6a0120a85dcdae970b0120a85dd9b1970b-pi.png http://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2004/02/... Funny but true. If you have three people making decisions for one programmer, things are going to go bad.
- magic_beans 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's not the point of this comic...
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    What's the point of the comic?

36 points by bootload 11y ago

My takeaway is that development managers shouldn't put a bunch of lead developers together on a project, unless the project is big enough that each leader could own an independent piece. Otherwise, toes get stepped on, folks start bickering, and progress grinds to a halt.

mpdehaan2 11y ago
I kind of feel much adoption of "microservices" is not for technological regions but for human ones - to increase separation in architectual and code choices where just dividing work up by component wasn't enough.
jib 11y ago
I think it is more about two things. 1. Learn to flex across roles 2. Be specific about roles in a project/team/task Sometimes you need a bunch of strong dudes working together on something. When you do, it is extra important to be specific about roles. Who decides when there is a tie or you are stalled? Who facilitates view points? etc. If you dont have the flexibility to gracefully and effectively not lead, you are pretty one-dimensional. That doesnt mean the passive aggressive "well it is X's project so I guess he decides" way, rather it means to fully support and believe in the group structure you've set up for this thing, whatever the thing is. Roles are something you flex into and out of, not something that defines you or is something "you are". If you let a role define you, you will be a lot less effective in getting stuff done.

mpdehaan2 11y ago

So many times. If we take the (cough) hackers and painters analogy to weird places, software is painting. Where when if you have everybody being creative, the vision can get watered down and not as good as it could be. Companies are the same thing, when different people have conflicting goals, and want to express their creativity, it breeds conflict. Some conflicts and checks and balances are good, but I believe the most creativity happens when groups are small, vision is unified, and everybody's more or less on the same page. Working with sharp people is great, but often there are multiple equivalent choices. Arguing over A and B, or compromising to do a little of both, is often way worse than going all in on A or B and then moving on to the next task.

ktRolster 11y ago

For a programmer team, I like to look at the ratio: people writing code/people not writing code The smaller the ratio, the less productive the team.

hammock 11y ago
All other things being equal. With the right leadership it's feasible that adding a manager to a team of two programmers could increase overall productivity (rather than decrease it 33%).
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Maybe, but you'll do better with 3 programmers, assuming they can manage themselves reasonably well.
  - hammock 11y ago
    Yes, I suppose adding 1 programmer to a team of 2 would be the same as adding a manager who increases each programmer's productivity by 50%. Likewise for a team of 10 programmers, you can either add another programmer or a manager who increases existing productivity by 10%.
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      If you know a manager who can increase two programmer's productivity by 50%, I'd like to hear how he does it. It seems unlikely (assuming the programmers aren't doing something stupid, like spending all their time on Facebook).
developer2 11y ago
Tell me about it. Our team has 3 frontend developers and 5 backend developers. We also have 3 product owners, a scrum master, a heavily involved scrum master's manager, team manager, team manager's manager, team manager's manager's manager, then the CTO and higher. Ignoring CTO and higher who aren't directly involved in day-to-day operations, we have 8 management level positions managing 8 developers. Every sprint is a clusterfuck of confusion wherein those 8 managers can't agree on what should be worked on. It's absolutely stunning that 8 people cannot organize work for another 8 people.

0xADADA 11y ago

Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth.

fnbr 11y ago

The problem that I see is that people are heavily rewarded by being leaders, and so sell themselves as leaders even when the group incentive isn't there. I encountered this extensively in university, when seemingly every student was trying to be the president of their student group, or trying to found their own group of questionable value. I see the same issue in the work world- executives are so heavily compensated that there's a strong incentive to become an executive, which requires one to act as a leader. However, that's often not what's best for the group.

maxxxxx 11y ago
Totally agree with that. The only way to get better pay for most people is to be a "leader" no matter you are suited for it or not. Especially in the US there seems to be this emphasis on leadership. There is not much respect for people who are doing a good job.
- perseusprime11 11y ago
  I would say it is slowly changing with the Maker over Manager culture. Companies are valuing more makers and less managers.
  - maxxxxx 11y ago
    Maybe they say that. The pay is still with managers.

hacknat 11y ago

Sure, why not. The word "leadership" doesn't really mean anything anymore. I have met very few good leaders in my day. It definitely seems like most people leading companies are not any good at it. The best managers I've had haves simply gotten out of the way and defended us blindly. That's the best I've seen. I'd love it if we adopted a culture of service, rather than "leadership". How can you be a good servant to others? It'll probably take you far, or it might not, but it has the virtue of being the least bullshit thing to do.

ProAm 11y ago
> I have met very few good leaders in my day. This is true of anyone at any position. Most people are not good at what they do. In fact I'd say in any position in any company 70% are bad/less-than-good, 20-25% are just OK and 5-10% are actually great. It's just a fact of life, and almost unfair to pigeon hold 'leadership' in these types of articles when it really applies to everyone.
maxxxxx 11y ago
Unfortunately all the money is in leadership. Servants get paid as little as possible.

mineshaftgap 11y ago

Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. We had a company called Four Chiefs, although that was mostly as a dodge because owners are treated different than employees insurance wise.

chrisseldo 11y ago

Wait.. am I reading the abstract of this study wrong or just misunderstanding what the author of the article is trying to say: [Abstract http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/110/2/261/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/110/2/261/] "However, high power individuals were more effective when working on tasks that required less coordination: they were more creative (Studies 1B and 4) and persisted longer on a difficult task than other groups" Then in the article: "The control groups and low power groups generated more creative ideas than the groups made up of high-power individuals."

Terribledactyl 11y ago
> "However, high power individuals... I think that's best read as an aside. Low coordination to me reads as not really a group task, or less so. Take someone used to being "high-power" let them work alone, magic happens. Put a bunch of high-power loners together and your in for a bad time. A governor being the most "powerful" person in a state can be very effectual, but a group of them together in some sort coordinated task may be a disaster fit for tv.
bcbrown 11y ago
> It was not that high power made people less creative, though. In a second study, the same power manipulation was used, but then people worked alone to generate a creative idea for a business. In this individual task, the high-power individuals were actually more creative than the low-power individuals.

bobby_9x 11y ago

I think the problem is that it divides your focus, which is bad for success. If an entire group can focus on one goal, they will be much more successful.

ktRolster 11y ago

Here is the stereotypical example of how too many non-programmers ruin the group: http://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2004/02/6a0120a85dcdae970b0120a85dd9b1970b-pi.png http://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2004/02/... Funny but true. If you have three people making decisions for one programmer, things are going to go bad.

magic_beans 11y ago
I'm pretty sure that's not the point of this comic...
- ktRolster 11y ago
  What's the point of the comic?