3 ms·

> We have a strong culture, but it is widely felt by the rest of the company that the engineering team doesn't adhere to it. What do you mean "doesn't adhere t

> We have a strong culture, but it is widely felt by the rest of the company that the engineering team doesn't adhere to it. What do you mean "doesn't adhere to it"? Culture isn't a policy document that you can shove down people's throats and expect compliance. Culture is much more organic than that. > Complaints from other workers range from the decision they made to isolate themselves in their own building And there are good reasons for that. Engineering requires focus and discipline and therefore usually has a very different subculture from the rest of the company. > how they actively engage in bickering and in-fighting between their own teams, how they have extremely limited communication to the rest of the company (users of their products), and reports of sexual harassment and racism. And what did management do about these issues? Did management shut down the infighting? Is management accessible and responsive to users? Did management fire people who were found guilty of fireable offenses? > There's zero consistency between the message they're sending. Some engineers believe the team is moving too fast, while a different group believes they're moving too slow. In the exit interviews we had complaints of micromanaging mixed with complaints of lack of management. The new flagship application we're building is extremely simple, but has way too many lines of code compared to all our other (more complex) applications. The development process is indeed slow and full of fail-safes, but there's still an astounding number of bug reports for a simple app. Why did management hire every engineer who walked in for an interview? Go find some competent engineering management.

thrwwyngnr 8y ago
> What do you mean "doesn't adhere to it"? Culture isn't a policy document that you can shove down people's throats and expect compliance. Culture is much more organic than that. Maybe "fit" is a better word? Point is, engineers are different and aren't too comfortable around the other employees. > And there are good reasons for that. Engineering requires focus and discipline and therefore usually has a very different subculture from the rest of the company. I agree, you have a valid point here. > And what did management do about these issues? Did management shut down the infighting? Is management accessible and responsive to users? Did management fire people who were found guilty of fireable offenses? Issues stemming from individuals were treated accordingly. Problem is, the in-fighting and bickering is happening with pretty much the whole team. > Why did management hire every engineer who walked in for an interview? Other people have made similar points about our hiring process and lack of consistent between engineers.
- solatic 8y ago
  > Maybe "fit" is a better word? Point is, engineers are different and aren't too comfortable around the other employees. But that's the point. Why do you need the same "cultural fit" between engineering and non-engineering employees? Why does that matter when requests from users should always be funneled through management (so that it can be triaged) and never go straight to the engineers (where it disrupts focus)? If engineering were internally cohesive and harmonious in your company, even if abrasive vs. non-engineering, this wouldn't be considered to be much of an issue. > Problem is, the in-fighting and bickering is happening with pretty much the whole team. So, divide and conquer. Split people up and put them with people they don't know. Subject them to strong authority in their new place and watch them fall in line. If they continue to be abrasive, you probably have cause to fire them, but that won't be the case in most circumstances.

thrwwyngnr 8y ago

> What do you mean "doesn't adhere to it"? Culture isn't a policy document that you can shove down people's throats and expect compliance. Culture is much more organic than that. Maybe "fit" is a better word? Point is, engineers are different and aren't too comfortable around the other employees. > And there are good reasons for that. Engineering requires focus and discipline and therefore usually has a very different subculture from the rest of the company. I agree, you have a valid point here. > And what did management do about these issues? Did management shut down the infighting? Is management accessible and responsive to users? Did management fire people who were found guilty of fireable offenses? Issues stemming from individuals were treated accordingly. Problem is, the in-fighting and bickering is happening with pretty much the whole team. > Why did management hire every engineer who walked in for an interview? Other people have made similar points about our hiring process and lack of consistent between engineers.

solatic 8y ago
> Maybe "fit" is a better word? Point is, engineers are different and aren't too comfortable around the other employees. But that's the point. Why do you need the same "cultural fit" between engineering and non-engineering employees? Why does that matter when requests from users should always be funneled through management (so that it can be triaged) and never go straight to the engineers (where it disrupts focus)? If engineering were internally cohesive and harmonious in your company, even if abrasive vs. non-engineering, this wouldn't be considered to be much of an issue. > Problem is, the in-fighting and bickering is happening with pretty much the whole team. So, divide and conquer. Split people up and put them with people they don't know. Subject them to strong authority in their new place and watch them fall in line. If they continue to be abrasive, you probably have cause to fire them, but that won't be the case in most circumstances.