3 ms·

As a manager, a big part of our job is to mitigate risk and single points of failure. If enabling someone to work like this increases risk and creates SPOF in o

As a manager, a big part of our job is to mitigate risk and single points of failure. If enabling someone to work like this increases risk and creates SPOF in our teams, we're screwing up letting them do it.

suls 7y ago
Absolutely agree. This point however is generally only understood by a previously engineer-turned-manager.
lixtra 7y ago
> As a manager, a big part of our job is to mitigate risk and single points of failure. No, your job as a manager is to understand the trade-offs of taking such risks and make a decision that fits your situation. I.e. your competitor may capture your market with a single engaged risky engineer before you can produce anything usable with your best practice low risk team. Once they capture the market, they can stabilize later and hire your team, because you went out of business.
- ameixaseca 7y ago
  That is one of the very important points a lot of people are missing here, and a key argument of the article: a fast rendering engine was a requirement for quake to be as popular as it was and it was a product of a brilliant engineer doing something innovative. More often then not, innovation comes from a reduced number of people doing things differently, and it's very hard to assemble a team of engineers which is willing or even capable of doing this sort of work. This also comes back to the "decision shielding" from working different hours: it's very common for managers or people averse to risks to try to stick to solutions they know, even if they are suboptimal or do not fit the problem very nicely. Anyone capable of doing more will soon realize they are spending most of their time solving mismatches between what solution was used/implemented and the problem they were trying to solve. If they don't find an alternative or a way around these limitations, they will leave.
  - fuzzfactor 7y ago
    With real rock stars, or movie stars, the manager of course reports to the star and serves at their disposal. Manager may have some challenging performances lined up and the creative operator has to really toe the line, but the purpose of the team is to support that to the best of their ability. Anything less, and the desired expression of talent might be dampened. If this is too severe expect the star to move away toward a more functional arrangement.
krageon 7y ago
Your job as a manager is to make corporate life tolerable for your minions. The storyline you present here sounds very dehumanising, and in my experience all of my worst managers have been like that.

suls 7y ago

Absolutely agree. This point however is generally only understood by a previously engineer-turned-manager.

lixtra 7y ago

> As a manager, a big part of our job is to mitigate risk and single points of failure. No, your job as a manager is to understand the trade-offs of taking such risks and make a decision that fits your situation. I.e. your competitor may capture your market with a single engaged risky engineer before you can produce anything usable with your best practice low risk team. Once they capture the market, they can stabilize later and hire your team, because you went out of business.

ameixaseca 7y ago
That is one of the very important points a lot of people are missing here, and a key argument of the article: a fast rendering engine was a requirement for quake to be as popular as it was and it was a product of a brilliant engineer doing something innovative. More often then not, innovation comes from a reduced number of people doing things differently, and it's very hard to assemble a team of engineers which is willing or even capable of doing this sort of work. This also comes back to the "decision shielding" from working different hours: it's very common for managers or people averse to risks to try to stick to solutions they know, even if they are suboptimal or do not fit the problem very nicely. Anyone capable of doing more will soon realize they are spending most of their time solving mismatches between what solution was used/implemented and the problem they were trying to solve. If they don't find an alternative or a way around these limitations, they will leave.
- fuzzfactor 7y ago
  With real rock stars, or movie stars, the manager of course reports to the star and serves at their disposal. Manager may have some challenging performances lined up and the creative operator has to really toe the line, but the purpose of the team is to support that to the best of their ability. Anything less, and the desired expression of talent might be dampened. If this is too severe expect the star to move away toward a more functional arrangement.

krageon 7y ago

Your job as a manager is to make corporate life tolerable for your minions. The storyline you present here sounds very dehumanising, and in my experience all of my worst managers have been like that.