4 ms·

The alternative is to have engineering managers be the interface between engineers and business, product managers partner up with the engineering managers and t

by wreath 5y ago

The alternative is to have engineering managers be the interface between engineers and business, product managers partner up with the engineering managers and team leads do the project management part along with EM. Product tells the team what business problems are worth solving and then gets out of the way completely. EM and Team lead are who decide on timeline and deadlines after consulting with the rest.

ravenstine 5y ago
That's essentially what I'm arguing against, although what you are suggesting is somewhat common and is slightly better in that at least someone whom is supposedly an engineer is involved. My problem with your solution is that, practically speaking, engineering managers often end up being glorified vice project managers because of the number of meetings they end up in. As a result, they can be significantly disconnected from the actual technology being used and the perils they are fraught with that can cause complications when implementing even simple features. At least an EM knows something about engineering. And an EM is a role that indeed should exist in some capacity, whether or not that's the exact title they are given. What I believe would be better is for engineering teams to be involved in the early to middle stages of planning and pre-development, and for either an EM or team lead to have the authority to prevent product owners and other departments from applying undue pressure on individual engineers. That should be the primary role of a lead, and they should otherwise step out of the way and let engineers speak for themselves since they are the ones working directly with the software and APIs being used. Otherwise, we end up with a similar problem to the one I witness, which is that the EM in your approach would end up being incentivized towards diplomacy more so than serving the needs of either side. A leader-as-an-interface shields both parties from each other but also facilitates alienation. An EM that works in tandem with the engineering team can make sense, but standing between engineering and other company operations to me is an anti-pattern. Middle men are better off not existing at all even if it means having no EM or PM. All they do is remove power from both sides rather than become involved on an as-needed basis.
- wreath 5y ago
  Interesting, I guess I've been lucky in this configuration. PMs in this setup have no authority to apply pressure on delivery, thats expected from the EM though. I think a lot of it depends on the characters of people who take on these roles. The diplomacy part you're describing sounds very familiar too and i've seen the complete opposite.

by wreath 5y ago

ravenstine 5y ago

That's essentially what I'm arguing against, although what you are suggesting is somewhat common and is slightly better in that at least someone whom is supposedly an engineer is involved. My problem with your solution is that, practically speaking, engineering managers often end up being glorified vice project managers because of the number of meetings they end up in. As a result, they can be significantly disconnected from the actual technology being used and the perils they are fraught with that can cause complications when implementing even simple features. At least an EM knows something about engineering. And an EM is a role that indeed should exist in some capacity, whether or not that's the exact title they are given. What I believe would be better is for engineering teams to be involved in the early to middle stages of planning and pre-development, and for either an EM or team lead to have the authority to prevent product owners and other departments from applying undue pressure on individual engineers. That should be the primary role of a lead, and they should otherwise step out of the way and let engineers speak for themselves since they are the ones working directly with the software and APIs being used. Otherwise, we end up with a similar problem to the one I witness, which is that the EM in your approach would end up being incentivized towards diplomacy more so than serving the needs of either side. A leader-as-an-interface shields both parties from each other but also facilitates alienation. An EM that works in tandem with the engineering team can make sense, but standing between engineering and other company operations to me is an anti-pattern. Middle men are better off not existing at all even if it means having no EM or PM. All they do is remove power from both sides rather than become involved on an as-needed basis.

wreath 5y ago
Interesting, I guess I've been lucky in this configuration. PMs in this setup have no authority to apply pressure on delivery, thats expected from the EM though. I think a lot of it depends on the characters of people who take on these roles. The diplomacy part you're describing sounds very familiar too and i've seen the complete opposite.