3 ms·

> How can a manager evaluate another person's skills when he doesn't have the knowledge in the first place? As a Manager, I am not measuring your performance b

> How can a manager evaluate another person's skills when he doesn't have the knowledge in the first place? As a Manager, I am not measuring your performance based on your skill, but on the tangible output of solutions that provide value to the business that you produce. Your skills and knowledge are your own tools that you can use to produce such output in less time or with better quality.

closeparen 9y ago
As an IC, managers exist to set me in a direction and then free me from the political wrangling necessary to deliver (recognized) business value: stakeholder management, scoping, sufficient resourcing, realistic timelines, cooperation and prioritization from teams we depend on, air cover while I deal with unexpected setbacks, upward/outward/inbound communication about the project, etc. We're a team on this, but I have my area of responsibility and you have yours. It's on you to replace me if I'm not doing my part; I have no such option. If I'm accountable to (recognized) business value, something is deeply wrong. The whole reason we have you is to shoulder that responsibility, and to insulate developers so that we're only accountable for/thinking about architecture and implementation. If I have to do the job of both engineering manager and engineer, I'll find somewhere to pay me both compensation packages (i.e. consulting), or (more likely) somewhere I can do just one. As an aside, even if all your projects are successful, comparing ICs on business value created only tells you who you gave the most impactful projects to. Sometimes your best engineers are stuck doing unsexy, low-impact but necessary maintenance. They create no business value, but prevent existing business value from being destroyed by bit-rot. Sometimes your weakest engineers get a low-hanging-fruit project that's impossible to screw up and immensely valuable to the business. That does not make them ready to take a larger role in more difficult problems, which is typically what a high performance rating entails.
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  > ...managers exist to set me in a direction and then free me from the political wrangling necessary to deliver (recognized) business value... I think that's most applicable to large orgs with hundreds of people, but it breaks down in small shops. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that measuring performance is a complex activity.

closeparen 9y ago

As an IC, managers exist to set me in a direction and then free me from the political wrangling necessary to deliver (recognized) business value: stakeholder management, scoping, sufficient resourcing, realistic timelines, cooperation and prioritization from teams we depend on, air cover while I deal with unexpected setbacks, upward/outward/inbound communication about the project, etc. We're a team on this, but I have my area of responsibility and you have yours. It's on you to replace me if I'm not doing my part; I have no such option. If I'm accountable to (recognized) business value, something is deeply wrong. The whole reason we have you is to shoulder that responsibility, and to insulate developers so that we're only accountable for/thinking about architecture and implementation. If I have to do the job of both engineering manager and engineer, I'll find somewhere to pay me both compensation packages (i.e. consulting), or (more likely) somewhere I can do just one. As an aside, even if all your projects are successful, comparing ICs on business value created only tells you who you gave the most impactful projects to. Sometimes your best engineers are stuck doing unsexy, low-impact but necessary maintenance. They create no business value, but prevent existing business value from being destroyed by bit-rot. Sometimes your weakest engineers get a low-hanging-fruit project that's impossible to screw up and immensely valuable to the business. That does not make them ready to take a larger role in more difficult problems, which is typically what a high performance rating entails.

crispyambulance 9y ago
> ...managers exist to set me in a direction and then free me from the political wrangling necessary to deliver (recognized) business value... I think that's most applicable to large orgs with hundreds of people, but it breaks down in small shops. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that measuring performance is a complex activity.