11 ms·
I think the most salient point of this blog is pretty much buried as the closing thought. It’s pretty hard to be a good engineering manager when you also have p
by burlesona 6y ago
I think the most salient point of this blog is pretty much buried as the closing thought. It’s pretty hard to be a good engineering manager when you also have programming responsibilities (IC work). Sure, you can debate about what the different hacks are to try and work around this and do a good job in spite of the difficulty, but it’s a lot easier to just go full-time managing.
In my experience it takes six or more people to fully occupy a manager. Ten seems to be about perfect. You can go higher than that (and many do) but at a certain point you’re not evenly investing in all your people anymore, you’re mostly focusing on a few at a time.
Obviously the hardest part of this is if you don’t have 6+ people to manage. My answer to very small teams is not to have a manager at all, just have a technical lead and trust that a group of 1-5 people can work out their own crap.
- justicezyx 6y agoAgree The more I move away engineering, the more I feel the unreliability of human beings, and its stark contraction to machines. Of cuz, machines, when sufficiently complex, becomes unreliable as well. But by operating still within that boundary, one can already do exceptionally things. People managers essentially are dealing with a completely different entities than machines. Rarely one can operate on 2 different entities and still perform exceptionally.
- an_opabinia 6y agoY’all might not be machines but you’re definitely cogs.
- justicezyx 6y agoI dont think human are cogs, at least not swes, they are more like little electronic controller...
- cheschire 6y agoAnd a sigmoid function isn't a boolean switch but you still get more or less the same result regardless of how complex the definition is. Ultimately employees move the company machine, whether their job is to code, sell, manage, or clean toilets.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- amelius 6y ago> In my experience it takes six or more people to fully occupy a manager. Ten seems to be about perfect. Aha, so it takes one full-time manager to manage one 10x programmer ...
- alexchamberlain 6y agoIs that a team of 10 without the communication overhead? In all seriousness, is it time to get rid of the 10x meme? People have strengths and weaknesses; people have areas they've experienced before and things they've never done. Some people are going to work faster than other people on certain tasks - that's life.
- cschep 6y agoIs it time? Absolutely, yes. Will it die? Unfortunately, never.
- fxtentacle 6y agoAs long as some companies can get away with replacing an entire team (including managers) with 1-4 highly skilled developers, the myth will remain. As a practical example, consider 4 people beating Windows Mobile with what later became Android.
- techbio 6y agoThere are still plenty of places with 1/10X programmers.
- aynsof 6y agoI've worked with at least three people who were -x programmers. That is, they produced negative value to the organisation. They did this by breaking systems (DNS, build pipelines, etc), producing code so bad that it had to be rewritten from scratch, and distracting everyone on the team through drama. They also did it through endless requests for help - not the kind where they learn from it, though. The kind where they ask the exact same question next week of someone else. They would cycle through asking everyone on the team about the minutiae of their job, because they had no idea how to do it themselves. I realise that the idea of the '10x rockstar' is an unpleasant one. But I also know that the best people I've worked with over the years were at least ten times better than the worst.
- sandermvanvliet 6y agoFrom experience I’d say it’s near impossible to combine the two roles. Especially if the company is small there is just too much: “we just need to get this done yesterday”, but at this point I guess that’s startup life. Yes you could argue that it’s about priorities and that’s true. However I do find that this only works when you don’t have people sick, on holiday or whatever. The ideal situation just breaks down way too quickly
- lumost 6y agono manager management works ok at a small company without career progression options. But in any shop where there is a standardized performance review you'll need a manager who can represent the team and individuals.
- qznc 6y ago> It’s not uncommon to find engineering managers with 30 direct reports. Flatt says that’s by design, to prevent micromanaging. “There is only so much you can meddle when you have 30 people on your team, so you have to focus on creating the best environment for engineers to make things happen,” he notes. Source: How Google Sold Its Engineers on Management https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-management https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-man...
- Aeolun 6y agoAh, it seems we are following the Google way then! I was wondering why my manager had some 100 direct reports. I guess it’s just to prevent meddling.
- burlesona 6y agoThat sounds to me like middle management, not front-line technical management. At 30 people you can indeed only focus on the big picture strategy and process, and you really can’t help anyone with their technical issues. If there is no layer of senior technical leadership between that manager and the newer/junior ICs, that would be a disaster.
- whirlaway 6y agoI'm currently a 60% programmer, 40% manager, and can confirm that I am doing a terrible job as both a manager and as a programmer right now. I'm managing four people, three of whom have been hired in the past year. I get lots of complaints about tasks not being clear enough for them and not spending enough time on code review. But I'm also far, far behind on a major project where I have to do the majority of the programming. What I thought would be a simple task I could finish in a month has turned into a death march from all of the interruptions; weekends and holidays like this one are the only time I can get work done. I figure it's only a matter of time before I'm let go. Five years of equity down the drain, but I've already tried to fix the situation and upper management just doesn't care. The new CTO doesn't know me well enough to care about the past, when times were good.
- warent 6y agoThis is really sad to hear. I'm curious to know why you have to do the majority of the programming?
- whirlaway 6y agoIt's a security-related task that required deep knowledge of how various parts of the monolith fit together. Half my team -- the side with the other senior dev -- is busy on another even higher priority project. Which leaves me with the choice of explaining to new hires how the system works, or doing it myself. Or really, which takes longer to do. Because of the security implications, I didn't want to take the risk with people who, well, don't have my level of paranoia. Maybe I should have gone the teaching route, I'd have other people to blame. But a good manager should protect their employees, not the other way around. Thanks for listening. I guess I'm just complaining on a throwaway because I don't have anyone else to talk to.