3 ms·

Unfortunately it's more difficult for senior leaders to trust engineering because it's more difficult for most senior leaders to understand how effective their

Unfortunately it's more difficult for senior leaders to trust engineering because it's more difficult for most senior leaders to understand how effective their engineering team is versus how effective they should expect them to be. You would never expect this level of micromanagement for sales because it's clear when salespeople are or are not performing. Who cares if a salesperson is only working 10 hours a day if they're bringing in more revenue than any of their peers? Everyone in leadership can see that. However when an engineer is a top performer that's not necessarily clear. What people see are the bugs that get created, deadlines met vs not met, how quickly inquiries are responded to, etc...

lmilcin 5y ago
This sounds legit at first sight and I thought so in the past, but as I gain more experience I find it is just an excuse. I thought a lot about entire topic. I think excuse comes from our internal necessity to think as being better than others. I mean, if I was promoted to manager it must necessarily mean I am better than others? And so a lot of managers persist telling that excuse to themselves (even if not consciously) that they are better and so can be trusted to do things but other people that are "under" them aren't. Some other thoughts: * Trusting somebody necessarily means becoming vulnerable to them. Yes, if you trust an employee it is possible they are going to cause damage. The solution is not to stop trusting employees but rather fire employees who can't be trusted. * Trust does not mean blind trust. You can still trust people to make good decisions but then expect them to be able to explain it and to verify these decisions. An example of low trust: require lengthy process to approve software license for developer tools. High trust: allow developers to get any piece of software they need, automatically. As them to write down rationale when they request the license. If you request software honestly and can explain what it is needed for you don't have to worry and you can get it immediately. * I believe most people want to do good. But when they are not being trusted they rationalize doing bad work (and sometimes they are really prevented from doing good work altogether). * I have worked for a lot of companies, most with very low trust environments by some with high trust. Observing new employees joining taught me that people change when they join the company to fit the culture. People who join high trust environment mostly try to be have responsibly (within their abilities). People who join low trust environment mostly become automatons who feel they can't change anything (because they are not trusted/expected to do so). * If you are a senior leader of a non-trivial organization, you have no other way than to put trust in your employees because there is no way you can enforce/verify everything. In low trust environments leadership puts trust in their management. In high trust environments senior leaders put trust in all their employees and use managers to detect and remedy faults in the process.

lmilcin 5y ago

This sounds legit at first sight and I thought so in the past, but as I gain more experience I find it is just an excuse. I thought a lot about entire topic. I think excuse comes from our internal necessity to think as being better than others. I mean, if I was promoted to manager it must necessarily mean I am better than others? And so a lot of managers persist telling that excuse to themselves (even if not consciously) that they are better and so can be trusted to do things but other people that are "under" them aren't. Some other thoughts: * Trusting somebody necessarily means becoming vulnerable to them. Yes, if you trust an employee it is possible they are going to cause damage. The solution is not to stop trusting employees but rather fire employees who can't be trusted. * Trust does not mean blind trust. You can still trust people to make good decisions but then expect them to be able to explain it and to verify these decisions. An example of low trust: require lengthy process to approve software license for developer tools. High trust: allow developers to get any piece of software they need, automatically. As them to write down rationale when they request the license. If you request software honestly and can explain what it is needed for you don't have to worry and you can get it immediately. * I believe most people want to do good. But when they are not being trusted they rationalize doing bad work (and sometimes they are really prevented from doing good work altogether). * I have worked for a lot of companies, most with very low trust environments by some with high trust. Observing new employees joining taught me that people change when they join the company to fit the culture. People who join high trust environment mostly try to be have responsibly (within their abilities). People who join low trust environment mostly become automatons who feel they can't change anything (because they are not trusted/expected to do so). * If you are a senior leader of a non-trivial organization, you have no other way than to put trust in your employees because there is no way you can enforce/verify everything. In low trust environments leadership puts trust in their management. In high trust environments senior leaders put trust in all their employees and use managers to detect and remedy faults in the process.