4 ms·

Can I just throw in a wrinkle, I'm what could be described (from this list) as an Engineering Manager and Tech Lead. I architect and implement solutions while a

Can I just throw in a wrinkle, I'm what could be described (from this list) as an Engineering Manager and Tech Lead. I architect and implement solutions while also doing all the traditional managerial duties. I feel like I've been eaten alive lately on HN that this arrangement isn't possible and you cannot do both well, but I beg to differ.

sanderjd 6y ago
What I would say is that it's possible but very rare to do this well, and furthermore that people often don't have an accurate sense of how well they're doing at it. The individuals on the team might know but might not want to say, but an even bigger problem is the individuals on the team not being aware there is a better way. I was about a decade into my career before I had an experienced dedicated engineering manager. I had already spent time as a tech lead / manager myself by then, and thought I had done ok, but experiencing a dedicated engineering manager made me see that I had actually done the job quite poorly. You may be doing it extremely well! It does happen. But I can understand why you're getting skepticism.
- camjohnson26 6y ago
  A lot of us have been an engineer on a team where the dev manager thought they were contributing but were actually taking all the interesting architectural problems for themselves and making all the decisions, which quickly becomes extremely demotivating since the opportunities to advance your own skills quickly dry up and you’re left just mindlessly cranking out code. The worst is when an abstraction is imposed on the team that doesn’t adequately cover the problem, so you have to spend twice as much time bending the code to make the dev manager happy instead of doing it the way you think is best. Granted this is just one way that situation can go, I’m sure there’s plenty of effective dev managers who still write code regularly, just hasn’t been my experience.
bzzt 6y ago
I don't doubt that it's possible. Except from having these creepy "one-on-ones" and review meetings, I have no idea what the engineering manager is even doing all day, never seen any transparency around this. "attending meetings" is what they say, but what meetings and why, I have no idea. Nothing is delivered and nothing comes out of it, I really think it's a bullshit job. "Sets tone, handles career growth, shielding the team" lol, do some coding instead.
- binarytox1n 6y ago
  One on one meetings are not "creepy" - they are a chance to have an open conversation about your goals; your concerns; and anything else that needs to be discussed about your career, the organization, etc. Do you know what the sales people in your organization do? What about the legal department? Procurement? HR? Your lack of knowledge is not evidence. "lol, do some coding instead"? And what should I code? How do you know what _you_ should be coding? Where does that work come from? Who makes sure that you're writing quality code and not some shit spaghetti mess? When the lawyers come knocking who answers the questions about security and compliance? You're just going to write some code for that? Your myopic complaints do nothing to further your own goals - rather than make baseless accusations, look into the problems yourself and try to solve them. You might get some career growth out of it. At the very least you'll understand that not all problems can be solved with code.
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    > One on one meetings are not "creepy" Actually, who decides this, and how? I mean, I understand why 1:1 are considered necessary, but I still get the creepy vibe. It's probably mostly my introversion speaking, but this is honestly how I feel about it. > conversation about your goals; your concerns; and anything else that needs to be discussed about your career What goals exactly? We do sprint planning every spring, plus all that backlog refinement and other stuff. Long-term goals? Well, they don't change that often (that's what "long-term" means). Neither does my career. So having this kind of debate once or twice a year would be quite enough.
    - binarytox1n 6y ago
      The two people in the meeting decide it. I'm sure if either of them are creepy then you will end up with a creepy meeting. Otherwise it's just a professional meeting with an agenda and a desired outcome, like any other. If you have no goals that's your failing, not the meeting's. If you lack the imagination to see where you want your career to go or the introspection to see where it's headed then, again, your fault - not the meeting. Questions I get in my one on one's with people who care and are going places: -Why is the organization failing at x/y/z? How can I make that better? Is it worth fixing? -I am having trouble accomplishing e/f/g goal - I've hit q/r/s roadblock. What do you recommend I do about this? -I want your job, how can I change what I am doing to get me closer to what you do? I also use them to get information I need from these people: -How is your team doing? Is anyone under/overvalued? -Are your commitments on track? -Is there anything I can do to make you or your team more effective? I mostly have these meetings monthly. A month is long enough for things to change. 6 months is too long - too many things have changed, too many have been forgotten.
gen220 6y ago
Sometimes the interests of the TL contradict the interests of the EM. Circumstances like those are usually brought on by strong budget or roadmap constraints. Usually, people in your position will systematically wear one hat at the expense of the other, leading to long-term retention or code quality problems. It's a delicate balancing act, that isn't easy for most people to pull off. It's not impossible, I've seen it done well. But it's a lot easier when "times are good", and you are not consistently tested by hard decisions where the EM and TL hats would disagree.

sanderjd 6y ago

What I would say is that it's possible but very rare to do this well, and furthermore that people often don't have an accurate sense of how well they're doing at it. The individuals on the team might know but might not want to say, but an even bigger problem is the individuals on the team not being aware there is a better way. I was about a decade into my career before I had an experienced dedicated engineering manager. I had already spent time as a tech lead / manager myself by then, and thought I had done ok, but experiencing a dedicated engineering manager made me see that I had actually done the job quite poorly. You may be doing it extremely well! It does happen. But I can understand why you're getting skepticism.

camjohnson26 6y ago
A lot of us have been an engineer on a team where the dev manager thought they were contributing but were actually taking all the interesting architectural problems for themselves and making all the decisions, which quickly becomes extremely demotivating since the opportunities to advance your own skills quickly dry up and you’re left just mindlessly cranking out code. The worst is when an abstraction is imposed on the team that doesn’t adequately cover the problem, so you have to spend twice as much time bending the code to make the dev manager happy instead of doing it the way you think is best. Granted this is just one way that situation can go, I’m sure there’s plenty of effective dev managers who still write code regularly, just hasn’t been my experience.

bzzt 6y ago

I don't doubt that it's possible. Except from having these creepy "one-on-ones" and review meetings, I have no idea what the engineering manager is even doing all day, never seen any transparency around this. "attending meetings" is what they say, but what meetings and why, I have no idea. Nothing is delivered and nothing comes out of it, I really think it's a bullshit job. "Sets tone, handles career growth, shielding the team" lol, do some coding instead.

binarytox1n 6y ago
One on one meetings are not "creepy" - they are a chance to have an open conversation about your goals; your concerns; and anything else that needs to be discussed about your career, the organization, etc. Do you know what the sales people in your organization do? What about the legal department? Procurement? HR? Your lack of knowledge is not evidence. "lol, do some coding instead"? And what should I code? How do you know what _you_ should be coding? Where does that work come from? Who makes sure that you're writing quality code and not some shit spaghetti mess? When the lawyers come knocking who answers the questions about security and compliance? You're just going to write some code for that? Your myopic complaints do nothing to further your own goals - rather than make baseless accusations, look into the problems yourself and try to solve them. You might get some career growth out of it. At the very least you'll understand that not all problems can be solved with code.
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  > One on one meetings are not "creepy" Actually, who decides this, and how? I mean, I understand why 1:1 are considered necessary, but I still get the creepy vibe. It's probably mostly my introversion speaking, but this is honestly how I feel about it. > conversation about your goals; your concerns; and anything else that needs to be discussed about your career What goals exactly? We do sprint planning every spring, plus all that backlog refinement and other stuff. Long-term goals? Well, they don't change that often (that's what "long-term" means). Neither does my career. So having this kind of debate once or twice a year would be quite enough.
  - binarytox1n 6y ago
    The two people in the meeting decide it. I'm sure if either of them are creepy then you will end up with a creepy meeting. Otherwise it's just a professional meeting with an agenda and a desired outcome, like any other. If you have no goals that's your failing, not the meeting's. If you lack the imagination to see where you want your career to go or the introspection to see where it's headed then, again, your fault - not the meeting. Questions I get in my one on one's with people who care and are going places: -Why is the organization failing at x/y/z? How can I make that better? Is it worth fixing? -I am having trouble accomplishing e/f/g goal - I've hit q/r/s roadblock. What do you recommend I do about this? -I want your job, how can I change what I am doing to get me closer to what you do? I also use them to get information I need from these people: -How is your team doing? Is anyone under/overvalued? -Are your commitments on track? -Is there anything I can do to make you or your team more effective? I mostly have these meetings monthly. A month is long enough for things to change. 6 months is too long - too many things have changed, too many have been forgotten.

gen220 6y ago

Sometimes the interests of the TL contradict the interests of the EM. Circumstances like those are usually brought on by strong budget or roadmap constraints. Usually, people in your position will systematically wear one hat at the expense of the other, leading to long-term retention or code quality problems. It's a delicate balancing act, that isn't easy for most people to pull off. It's not impossible, I've seen it done well. But it's a lot easier when "times are good", and you are not consistently tested by hard decisions where the EM and TL hats would disagree.