9 ms·

I like the comparison of content over process. In my experience a small team full of highly skilled engineers that are motivated to get stuff done don't need mu

by starky 3y ago

I like the comparison of content over process. In my experience a small team full of highly skilled engineers that are motivated to get stuff done don't need much process because they will do the right thing. But once the team gets to a size where that isn't possible, you have to implement and enforce process in order to make sure that those who don't have that skill can be effective at their jobs. Nothing drives me crazier than working with people that are solely focused on process (and reporting), than considering the process in the context of getting the job done properly and efficiently.

kevmo314 3y ago
> But once the team gets to a size where that isn't possible, you have to implement and enforce process in order to make sure that those who don't have that skill can be effective at their jobs. But why did the team need to grow to that size if they were highly effective before that? Doesn't the growth and the adoption of those that don't have the skill handicap everyone else? I've seen quite a few teams kneecap themselves this way by essentially hiring and growing: the team would've been, net-output-wise, more effective staying as a small team and not hiring.
- starky 3y ago
  Capitalism assumes a company will always be growing. If you are stagnant or shrinking your company is "failing". If your company is growing, you either need to hire more people to produce more product (lest your competitor jump in and meet your customers needs), or your high performing team will get burnt out trying to do more and more. If your company is stagnant or shrinking, the high performers will have options to do something that has a better future or is more exciting. The small high-performing team is a fleeting state that will eventually be infiltrated by the average performer. Ideally you recognize when this is happening, implement the required processes and push through it to come out the other side as a slightly less efficient team that still gets more done because there is enough personnel to make up for the efficiency loss.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  > But why did the team need to grow to that size if they were highly effective before that? Because that team got stuck with all the work.
- NickC25 3y ago
  >But why did the team need to grow to that size if they were highly effective before that? Having seen this firsthand, (in my experience) it's been that executives or higher-ups decide that this team is working, and because they want to increase the company's bottom line, they will grow that team come hell or high water because in their minds, that team is correlated with results. >Doesn't the growth and the adoption of those that don't have the skill handicap everyone else? Considerably.
  - ochoseis 3y ago
    The question naturally becomes: how do you find a small, high performing team in the first place? I think maintaining a good network (previous colleagues, involvement in a broader community) will lead to opportunities, but then you have to distill the best ones.
    - NickC25 3y ago
      I would think that would be industry specific, but maybe a decent standardized way of doing so would be finding the people who made it to industry titans (elite tech firms or trading firms) and left for whatever reason who then went off and did their own thing but still managed to reach a specific level of success. And example of this is (in finance) if some team at a bank or whatever all left as a group founded a small hedge fund or prop trading fund, yet were still able to make a great return.
- aardvark179 3y ago
  Sometimes there is just more work to be done than that small team can handle. It’s often extremely effective to have a small highly skilled team explore an area and chart out a path, and then expand that team so the core won’t be working on the problem for the next ten years.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    I think an underrated skill is the ability to say no to work that "has to be done." You're maybe taking it as a given that there is this list of -stuff- that simply has to be done, and therefore we need a bigger team to do it. Often that -stuff- are features nobody wants, UI re-designs for their own sake, and adding metrics nobody is going to look at. Many companies lack this ability to curate so we get the software we have today. A good eng manager or product owner says NO to a lot of crap. Bad ones triple their team size, hire managers of other managers to deal with the huge org, implement process to keep things sane, all to cram stuff into the product that should not even be written in the first place.
    - srj 3y ago
      My lens on this is colored through my own big company experience, but I've found it is the bad manager in this scenario who would be promoted. After all, they're managing such a large org - they have to be promoted.

by starky 3y ago

kevmo314 3y ago

> But once the team gets to a size where that isn't possible, you have to implement and enforce process in order to make sure that those who don't have that skill can be effective at their jobs. But why did the team need to grow to that size if they were highly effective before that? Doesn't the growth and the adoption of those that don't have the skill handicap everyone else? I've seen quite a few teams kneecap themselves this way by essentially hiring and growing: the team would've been, net-output-wise, more effective staying as a small team and not hiring.

starky 3y ago
Capitalism assumes a company will always be growing. If you are stagnant or shrinking your company is "failing". If your company is growing, you either need to hire more people to produce more product (lest your competitor jump in and meet your customers needs), or your high performing team will get burnt out trying to do more and more. If your company is stagnant or shrinking, the high performers will have options to do something that has a better future or is more exciting. The small high-performing team is a fleeting state that will eventually be infiltrated by the average performer. Ideally you recognize when this is happening, implement the required processes and push through it to come out the other side as a slightly less efficient team that still gets more done because there is enough personnel to make up for the efficiency loss.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
> But why did the team need to grow to that size if they were highly effective before that? Because that team got stuck with all the work.
NickC25 3y ago
>But why did the team need to grow to that size if they were highly effective before that? Having seen this firsthand, (in my experience) it's been that executives or higher-ups decide that this team is working, and because they want to increase the company's bottom line, they will grow that team come hell or high water because in their minds, that team is correlated with results. >Doesn't the growth and the adoption of those that don't have the skill handicap everyone else? Considerably.
- ochoseis 3y ago
  The question naturally becomes: how do you find a small, high performing team in the first place? I think maintaining a good network (previous colleagues, involvement in a broader community) will lead to opportunities, but then you have to distill the best ones.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    I would think that would be industry specific, but maybe a decent standardized way of doing so would be finding the people who made it to industry titans (elite tech firms or trading firms) and left for whatever reason who then went off and did their own thing but still managed to reach a specific level of success. And example of this is (in finance) if some team at a bank or whatever all left as a group founded a small hedge fund or prop trading fund, yet were still able to make a great return.
aardvark179 3y ago
Sometimes there is just more work to be done than that small team can handle. It’s often extremely effective to have a small highly skilled team explore an area and chart out a path, and then expand that team so the core won’t be working on the problem for the next ten years.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  I think an underrated skill is the ability to say no to work that "has to be done." You're maybe taking it as a given that there is this list of -stuff- that simply has to be done, and therefore we need a bigger team to do it. Often that -stuff- are features nobody wants, UI re-designs for their own sake, and adding metrics nobody is going to look at. Many companies lack this ability to curate so we get the software we have today. A good eng manager or product owner says NO to a lot of crap. Bad ones triple their team size, hire managers of other managers to deal with the huge org, implement process to keep things sane, all to cram stuff into the product that should not even be written in the first place.
  - srj 3y ago
    My lens on this is colored through my own big company experience, but I've found it is the bad manager in this scenario who would be promoted. After all, they're managing such a large org - they have to be promoted.