4 ms·

>>I see it daily:if your manager is programming, he’s not managing. Management does not have to be an “active” job. Great managers find out what obstacles are

>>I see it daily:if your manager is programming, he’s not managing. Management does not have to be an “active” job. Great managers find out what obstacles are standing in the way of their team members, then figure out how to remove those obstacles. How much time this takes greatly depends on the company. IMO a senior dev is different than a manager. Senior devs mentor junior devs; that is where their team productivity multiplier comes from.

watwut 8y ago
> Management does not have to be an “active” job. > Great managers find out what obstacles are standing in the way of their team members, then figure out how to remove those obstacles. Finding out obstacles and removing them is an active job. But also, the saying about merely "removing obstacles" is not really correct. I am not even sure it is so in the happy flow where every employee is super great and full of initiative and is at exactly the right position. Managers are expected to coordinate, set priorities, negotiate about deadlines and scope of project, plan and re-plan, explain why we are going to be late, handle communication outside of team, clean up tracker, make sure testers are available, collect reports about who worked on what. If all manager is focusing on is "finding out obstacles and removing them", you all have high chance of ending up in long term crunch and chaos.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  >>Managers are expected to coordinate, set priorities, negotiate about deadlines and scope of project, plan and re-plan, explain why we are going to be late You are describing a Project Manager. It’s a different role than a department manager.
  - sidlls 8y ago
    I (EM, coming on the end of my first year as such) have these negotiations with PMs and POs all the time. They'll ask for the world and need the technical guidance I provide to understand why they can't have it and to effectively communicate that to their leadership.
- lmm 8y ago
  > Managers are expected to coordinate, set priorities, negotiate about deadlines and scope of project, plan and re-plan, explain why we are going to be late, handle communication outside of team, clean up tracker, make sure testers are available, collect reports about who worked on what. Much of that can and maybe should be done reactively. Set priorities when your employees need them. Negotiate deadlines and scope when they're needed for a decision. Communicate when it's needed. Etc. You may not be literally twiddling your thumbs - I'm sure there's always something to be improved even in the quietest periods - but IMO the most important part of the manager role is to be available to resolve issues that do come up, and I'd take a manager who can do that well over one who's great at planning but can't react. As a technical analogy it's more like sysadmin/ops than development.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Ideally, deadlines and scope are negotiated continuously as the pressure on typical team is constant and as there is constant flow of incoming requirements. Being unprepared means higher chance of crunch or buggy releases (as team cant cope with what becomes expectation). Same with priorities. Those are not just for employees, but also for people outside the team. When you are asked about priorities and future, it is best to have reasonable answer at that time - not two weeks later when you finally reactively done reading and thinking. Employees often dont really ask about priorities. They assume priorities based on their previous experience/opinions, everyone different which leads to misunderstandings and waste of time. You have to sync them before they ask. If the primary role of manager is to constantly react at suddenly appearing problems, then the company needs more planning and more organization. Those suddenly appearing problems are consequence of chaotic environment. Good manager reorganize so that they don't appear anymore or looks for them before they grow big and sudden.
    - lmm 8y ago
      > deadlines and scope are negotiated continuously as the pressure on typical team is constant and as there is constant flow of incoming requirements. Incoming requirements aren't actually continuous; indeed in practice they tend to be quite bursty. When you get a new batch of requirements is the best time to evaluate their priorities and schedules. > When you are asked about priorities and future, it is best to have reasonable answer at that time - not two weeks later when you finally reactively done reading and thinking. Two weeks later the priorities will likely be different. Long-term planning is usually wasted effort. > Employees often dont really ask about priorities. They assume priorities based on their previous experience/opinions, everyone different which leads to misunderstandings and waste of time. You have to sync them before they ask. If employees don't know where to look for priority information that's a problem to be fixed. > If the primary role of manager is to constantly react at suddenly appearing problems, then the company needs more planning and more organization. Those suddenly appearing problems are consequence of chaotic environment. The world is chaotic. Reacting to change is often cheaper and more effective than planning and organisation.

watwut 8y ago

> Management does not have to be an “active” job. > Great managers find out what obstacles are standing in the way of their team members, then figure out how to remove those obstacles. Finding out obstacles and removing them is an active job. But also, the saying about merely "removing obstacles" is not really correct. I am not even sure it is so in the happy flow where every employee is super great and full of initiative and is at exactly the right position. Managers are expected to coordinate, set priorities, negotiate about deadlines and scope of project, plan and re-plan, explain why we are going to be late, handle communication outside of team, clean up tracker, make sure testers are available, collect reports about who worked on what. If all manager is focusing on is "finding out obstacles and removing them", you all have high chance of ending up in long term crunch and chaos.

enraged_camel 8y ago
>>Managers are expected to coordinate, set priorities, negotiate about deadlines and scope of project, plan and re-plan, explain why we are going to be late You are describing a Project Manager. It’s a different role than a department manager.
- sidlls 8y ago
  I (EM, coming on the end of my first year as such) have these negotiations with PMs and POs all the time. They'll ask for the world and need the technical guidance I provide to understand why they can't have it and to effectively communicate that to their leadership.
lmm 8y ago
> Managers are expected to coordinate, set priorities, negotiate about deadlines and scope of project, plan and re-plan, explain why we are going to be late, handle communication outside of team, clean up tracker, make sure testers are available, collect reports about who worked on what. Much of that can and maybe should be done reactively. Set priorities when your employees need them. Negotiate deadlines and scope when they're needed for a decision. Communicate when it's needed. Etc. You may not be literally twiddling your thumbs - I'm sure there's always something to be improved even in the quietest periods - but IMO the most important part of the manager role is to be available to resolve issues that do come up, and I'd take a manager who can do that well over one who's great at planning but can't react. As a technical analogy it's more like sysadmin/ops than development.
- watwut 8y ago
  Ideally, deadlines and scope are negotiated continuously as the pressure on typical team is constant and as there is constant flow of incoming requirements. Being unprepared means higher chance of crunch or buggy releases (as team cant cope with what becomes expectation). Same with priorities. Those are not just for employees, but also for people outside the team. When you are asked about priorities and future, it is best to have reasonable answer at that time - not two weeks later when you finally reactively done reading and thinking. Employees often dont really ask about priorities. They assume priorities based on their previous experience/opinions, everyone different which leads to misunderstandings and waste of time. You have to sync them before they ask. If the primary role of manager is to constantly react at suddenly appearing problems, then the company needs more planning and more organization. Those suddenly appearing problems are consequence of chaotic environment. Good manager reorganize so that they don't appear anymore or looks for them before they grow big and sudden.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > deadlines and scope are negotiated continuously as the pressure on typical team is constant and as there is constant flow of incoming requirements. Incoming requirements aren't actually continuous; indeed in practice they tend to be quite bursty. When you get a new batch of requirements is the best time to evaluate their priorities and schedules. > When you are asked about priorities and future, it is best to have reasonable answer at that time - not two weeks later when you finally reactively done reading and thinking. Two weeks later the priorities will likely be different. Long-term planning is usually wasted effort. > Employees often dont really ask about priorities. They assume priorities based on their previous experience/opinions, everyone different which leads to misunderstandings and waste of time. You have to sync them before they ask. If employees don't know where to look for priority information that's a problem to be fixed. > If the primary role of manager is to constantly react at suddenly appearing problems, then the company needs more planning and more organization. Those suddenly appearing problems are consequence of chaotic environment. The world is chaotic. Reacting to change is often cheaper and more effective than planning and organisation.