4 ms·

I actually think current "leadership" is on its way to being extinct. It will be replaced by algorithms and best practices, along with better tools. If you're n

by proc0 7y ago

I actually think current "leadership" is on its way to being extinct. It will be replaced by algorithms and best practices, along with better tools. If you're not contributing to code, there will be very little room for them in the software company of the future. The concepts that non-technical leaders have to learn are trivial compared to the advanced techniques of software development.

james_s_tayler 7y ago
You're joking right?
- proc0 7y ago
  No, but I did leave out some important clarifications. It's not that leaders will go away, but that I think leaders will also be required to contribute to some code. Also this isn't in the near future either, but just like many roles (i.e. QA), leadership will slowly become absorbed by developers who will have multiple specializations along with knowing how to code.
  - james_s_tayler 7y ago
    No.
henrikschroder 7y ago
If leading people is so goddamn easy compared to software engineering, why do so few engineers want to move into people leadership, and why do so many of them absolutely suck at it? I think you are severely discounting the skills it takes to lead people, and you are also making an extremely optimistic assumption that companies in the future somehow would be magically more meritocratic than existing companies, when there's no evidence of the sort. On the contrary, people with great interpersonal skills will continue to advance off of the labour of the people with only great technical skill. Your glorious engineer's revolution will probably not come to pass if history is any indication.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- summerdown2 7y ago
  I don't disagree with you about leadership being hard. But the argument you use to get there is easily rebuttable: > If leading people is so goddamn easy compared to software engineering, why do so few engineers want to move into people leadership, a) because they wouldn't enjoy it as much as their current job? b) because for engineers, being a manager does not give them status amongst their peer group. > and why do so many of them absolutely suck at it? a) citation needed. Is it provable that engineers are particularly worse at leadership than the rest of the population per capita? b) if engineers tend to suck at being managers, it doesn't show that managerial roles are harder than engineering ones. How good are managers at attempting engineering roles, for comparison?
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "b) because for engineers, being a manager does not give them status amongst their peer group." I am so reminded of Brave New World... "Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki...I'm so glad I'm a Beta"
- proc0 7y ago
  Maybe I should have clarified, but leadership will have to be an additional requirement on top of knowing how to develop. If you look at the history of software development in enterprise, software developers have increasingly had to work multiple overlapping roles, the more recent of which, in my experience, is making developers be testers as well. It used be QA was a separate role, but now it has evaporated because there are so many tools surrounding this discipline that require knowing how to code, so exclusive testing roles are not favored as much anymore. I don't how many years from now this is, but I really believe that everyone will have to know how to code to a great extent in order to use the software tools of the discipline.
yawz 7y ago
It will happen in the future, but we need algorithms capable of empathy to replace human leaders. Let’s say we’re not close.
bcassedy 7y ago
That's why CEOs make less $ than software engineers right?
- kornakiewicz 7y ago
  I don't really agree with commenter above, but this argument is blatantly wrong. Executives are paid the way they are just because they are in charge of, among other things, compensations.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    An explanation that contains circular logic is not an explanation.
  - wool_gather 7y ago
    The executive is not choosing their own pay. The CEO's "boss" is generally a board representing the owners of the company.
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
You are an optimist in a way. What you seem to be forgetting is that the leadership does make the decisions. What do you think are the odds of making a decision hurting their bottom line? It is a rhetorical question.

by proc0 7y ago

james_s_tayler 7y ago

You're joking right?

proc0 7y ago
No, but I did leave out some important clarifications. It's not that leaders will go away, but that I think leaders will also be required to contribute to some code. Also this isn't in the near future either, but just like many roles (i.e. QA), leadership will slowly become absorbed by developers who will have multiple specializations along with knowing how to code.
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  No.

henrikschroder 7y ago

If leading people is so goddamn easy compared to software engineering, why do so few engineers want to move into people leadership, and why do so many of them absolutely suck at it? I think you are severely discounting the skills it takes to lead people, and you are also making an extremely optimistic assumption that companies in the future somehow would be magically more meritocratic than existing companies, when there's no evidence of the sort. On the contrary, people with great interpersonal skills will continue to advance off of the labour of the people with only great technical skill. Your glorious engineer's revolution will probably not come to pass if history is any indication.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
summerdown2 7y ago
I don't disagree with you about leadership being hard. But the argument you use to get there is easily rebuttable: > If leading people is so goddamn easy compared to software engineering, why do so few engineers want to move into people leadership, a) because they wouldn't enjoy it as much as their current job? b) because for engineers, being a manager does not give them status amongst their peer group. > and why do so many of them absolutely suck at it? a) citation needed. Is it provable that engineers are particularly worse at leadership than the rest of the population per capita? b) if engineers tend to suck at being managers, it doesn't show that managerial roles are harder than engineering ones. How good are managers at attempting engineering roles, for comparison?
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "b) because for engineers, being a manager does not give them status amongst their peer group." I am so reminded of Brave New World... "Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki...I'm so glad I'm a Beta"
proc0 7y ago
Maybe I should have clarified, but leadership will have to be an additional requirement on top of knowing how to develop. If you look at the history of software development in enterprise, software developers have increasingly had to work multiple overlapping roles, the more recent of which, in my experience, is making developers be testers as well. It used be QA was a separate role, but now it has evaporated because there are so many tools surrounding this discipline that require knowing how to code, so exclusive testing roles are not favored as much anymore. I don't how many years from now this is, but I really believe that everyone will have to know how to code to a great extent in order to use the software tools of the discipline.

yawz 7y ago

It will happen in the future, but we need algorithms capable of empathy to replace human leaders. Let’s say we’re not close.

bcassedy 7y ago

That's why CEOs make less $ than software engineers right?

kornakiewicz 7y ago
I don't really agree with commenter above, but this argument is blatantly wrong. Executives are paid the way they are just because they are in charge of, among other things, compensations.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  An explanation that contains circular logic is not an explanation.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  The executive is not choosing their own pay. The CEO's "boss" is generally a board representing the owners of the company.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago

You are an optimist in a way. What you seem to be forgetting is that the leadership does make the decisions. What do you think are the odds of making a decision hurting their bottom line? It is a rhetorical question.