2 ms·
I wouldn't describe that as being "absolutely" right. A team is more productive when its individuals' strengths are pooled together, and there's no sense in ref
by BHSPitMonkey 6y ago
I wouldn't describe that as being "absolutely" right. A team is more productive when its individuals' strengths are pooled together, and there's no sense in refusing to make use of a specialist's skills (within reason).
Yes, you want people to learn and become more self-sufficient over time, but not at the cost of finishing projects in double the time.
- WalterBright 6y agoConstantly interrupting a specialist when you could instead pick up the data book is abusing him.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoDepends. It was “the boss.” If they are a critical-path engineer (which, in my experience, is a very bad idea for managers), then they shouldn’t be used as a StackOverflow board. However, if they are a true manager, then they work on “interrupt,” anyway, and their quick answers may improve the performance of the team, which is really Job One for any manager. I say this, having been a manager for many years. It sucked. I hated it, which is why I am pivoting back into engineering. I was a damn good manager, though. If you go to my LinkedIn profile, you’ll see lots of testimonials from former employees. One reason I was good, was because I kept myself out of the critical path.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y agoI generally agree with you here, but there is still a limit to what extent and over what it is reasonable to interrupt a manager - given enough interruptions, they won't have any capacity left over at all!