3 ms·

I'd argue it's part of everyone's job on the team (including the manager). Management is a specialist job. Just as software development is. (For me managers a

I'd argue it's part of everyone's job on the team (including the manager). Management is a specialist job. Just as software development is. (For me managers are about two things; people leadership [inspiring the best in people, leading their personal growth] and communication [between team and others]). What you describe sounds like a scrum master/project management role. Ultimately if the team are not engaged in the direction then no amount of manager-direction will help.

orestes910 7y ago
This is weird thought where your solution to the problem is just "have the people on the team be better." The entire phenomena exists because people that see how important these things are end up on teams led by and staffed by people who either don't see how important they are, or aren't competent enough to do the glue work.
jrochkind1 7y ago
Except a large part of the OP was about someone _informally_ taking on a _specialist job_, even though it's not specially in their job description, and then getting penalized for it career-wise. It was a specialist job. It apparently wasn't one anyone else was doing. It was a job that someone(s) _did_ have to do to make the work go right. Shouldn't someone have that, indeed, specialist job, and do it? Whether you call them a "project manager" (that's got "manager" in it), a "scrum master", or some other kind of "manager" -- why are these crucial _coordination_ tasks being left to whatever developer happens to step up to do them, at cost to their career? I've always thought it was the manager's job to do things like, especially, "updating the roadmap, talking to the [stakeholders], noticing the things that got dropped, asking questions on design documents, and making sure that everyone's going roughly in the same direction." Many of those things can be categorized as either removing barriers to implementers getting work done, or making sure the implementers are getting the right work done. Isn't that what (various kinds, including "project") managers are for? Indeed it is a specialist job. If they aren't doing that -- what are they doing?
- ErrantX 7y ago
  I just struggle to see how a team in which everyone is not on the ball over e.g "noticing the things that might have been dropped" can ever be high performing. Its a managers job to train and build their teams skills in these areas, not to be the grunt... (agreed on the project managers; but it wasnt clear if thats what you meant in your initial post)
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    Is it "grunt work", or is it a "specialist job"? I don't think it's grunt work. I think it's work that requires skill, professional judgement, finesse, continual learning, consistent attention over time, is crucially important, and can be very rewarding. To bring it back to the OP, disrespecting it as "grunt work" is what gave the hypothetical character portrayed in the OP a career dead-end as a reward for performing vitally important skilled work well, and on their own initiative since the organization hadn't provided for it.

orestes910 7y ago

This is weird thought where your solution to the problem is just "have the people on the team be better." The entire phenomena exists because people that see how important these things are end up on teams led by and staffed by people who either don't see how important they are, or aren't competent enough to do the glue work.

jrochkind1 7y ago

Except a large part of the OP was about someone _informally_ taking on a _specialist job_, even though it's not specially in their job description, and then getting penalized for it career-wise. It was a specialist job. It apparently wasn't one anyone else was doing. It was a job that someone(s) _did_ have to do to make the work go right. Shouldn't someone have that, indeed, specialist job, and do it? Whether you call them a "project manager" (that's got "manager" in it), a "scrum master", or some other kind of "manager" -- why are these crucial _coordination_ tasks being left to whatever developer happens to step up to do them, at cost to their career? I've always thought it was the manager's job to do things like, especially, "updating the roadmap, talking to the [stakeholders], noticing the things that got dropped, asking questions on design documents, and making sure that everyone's going roughly in the same direction." Many of those things can be categorized as either removing barriers to implementers getting work done, or making sure the implementers are getting the right work done. Isn't that what (various kinds, including "project") managers are for? Indeed it is a specialist job. If they aren't doing that -- what are they doing?

ErrantX 7y ago
I just struggle to see how a team in which everyone is not on the ball over e.g "noticing the things that might have been dropped" can ever be high performing. Its a managers job to train and build their teams skills in these areas, not to be the grunt... (agreed on the project managers; but it wasnt clear if thats what you meant in your initial post)
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  Is it "grunt work", or is it a "specialist job"? I don't think it's grunt work. I think it's work that requires skill, professional judgement, finesse, continual learning, consistent attention over time, is crucially important, and can be very rewarding. To bring it back to the OP, disrespecting it as "grunt work" is what gave the hypothetical character portrayed in the OP a career dead-end as a reward for performing vitally important skilled work well, and on their own initiative since the organization hadn't provided for it.