4 ms·

I've been in that company. The problem is that without any leadership, every one is a leader. The practical result of this is that software gets partitioned in

by ascotan 10y ago

I've been in that company. The problem is that without any leadership, every one is a leader. The practical result of this is that software gets partitioned into the 'parts that the idiots work on' and the 'undervalued but core business logic'. I also feel that this model of hiring is emphasized by the craze over agile (and particular SAFE) where all the engineers are supposed to be like lemmings that take orders from product owners. If you get the right team I suppose this is possible to do, but the lack of senior leadership on a team (and it's deferral to non-technical people like scrum masters and product owners) leads to unnecessary bikering among engineers on the 'right' way to solve a problem.

alexbanks 10y ago
So I guess I don't mean "hire a bunch of devs and see who emerges as a leader." I guess in my head it works out like you already have a group of "seniors," "architects," etc. And when a new dev is hired, they don't get to just dive into the ranks of Sr/Arch. but should instead have to work to get there just like the original Sr/Arch devs did. But you're right, there is no perfect system.
nilkn 10y ago
I don't fully understand why what alexbanks wrote implies that there is no leadership. It just means that new hires are not placed in leadership positions right out of the gate. There will certainly still be a strong leadership structure in place. As far as I can tell, the company I'm at follows the model alexbanks described, and it seems to work quite well. We generally do not hire people on in senior or lead roles. If someone has 15 years of experience and they're a team lead at their previous job, the chances are still very high they'll have to start as a "normal" developer with us. (Notably, we do not tie salary to title. A "software developer" can have an arbitrarily high salary if needed.) If they demonstrate the capacity for leadership, we will identify that and very quickly offer them more responsibility and promotions whenever the opportunity arises.
- alexbanks 10y ago
  Hey! I'm glad you got what I was going for.
tamana 10y ago
Your description of agile/scrum reads like someone who has spent a lot of time reading complaints about agile/scrumfrom forum posters.

by ascotan 10y ago

alexbanks 10y ago

So I guess I don't mean "hire a bunch of devs and see who emerges as a leader." I guess in my head it works out like you already have a group of "seniors," "architects," etc. And when a new dev is hired, they don't get to just dive into the ranks of Sr/Arch. but should instead have to work to get there just like the original Sr/Arch devs did. But you're right, there is no perfect system.

nilkn 10y ago

I don't fully understand why what alexbanks wrote implies that there is no leadership. It just means that new hires are not placed in leadership positions right out of the gate. There will certainly still be a strong leadership structure in place. As far as I can tell, the company I'm at follows the model alexbanks described, and it seems to work quite well. We generally do not hire people on in senior or lead roles. If someone has 15 years of experience and they're a team lead at their previous job, the chances are still very high they'll have to start as a "normal" developer with us. (Notably, we do not tie salary to title. A "software developer" can have an arbitrarily high salary if needed.) If they demonstrate the capacity for leadership, we will identify that and very quickly offer them more responsibility and promotions whenever the opportunity arises.

alexbanks 10y ago
Hey! I'm glad you got what I was going for.

tamana 10y ago

Your description of agile/scrum reads like someone who has spent a lot of time reading complaints about agile/scrumfrom forum posters.