4 ms·

And this is an organizational failure, because the organisation has just promoted, without training someone to be a leader. You wouldn't expect a manager (from

And this is an organizational failure, because the organisation has just promoted, without training someone to be a leader. You wouldn't expect a manager (from a non-technical background) to just start coding, so why would you expect a coder to just start managing.

giantg2 3y ago
Most places that "train" just have some online courses, maybe an in-person or two. I don't know of anywhere that has some sort of real training like apprentice program.
- xyst 3y ago
  lmao - this is what I have experienced as well. Somehow these online courses with no way to ask questions will magically contain everything you need to know! Who knew? An MBA mindset contained inside a 1 hour mindset!1 Why did these MBA guys spend $250K!?
- skeeter2020 3y ago
  I'll post this only because this is an area where I'm really passionate, and you're right and that the current state most places sucks. I've tried to address it as a manager who strongly believes that engineering management needs to be viewed as a discipline. I've implemented a Lead Mentorship Program at two places; one very successfully and the other with some progress (still hustling for engagement/commitment): https://www.codeleadmanage.com/articles/20230919-lead_mentorship_program.html https://www.codeleadmanage.com/articles/20230919-lead_mentor...
skeeter2020 3y ago
This happens all the time because management is viewed as a promotion so you reward your best developers by giving them a job where they might suck and/or hate it. I think there are 2 big levers you need to address it: 1. Dual career ladders. You should recognize/reward some level of technical role (i.e. staff or similar) the same as management. Every senior person is a leader; I argue ICs have a tougher job because they don't have the "because you report to me" hammer. 2. Lead mentorship program. Potential managers need experience; you need to coach and validate. They need a chance to manage a single person over time, do a performance review cycle, 1:1s, feedback conversations,etc. Co-ops/iterns are great for this because it's a fixed time period! You need 3 conditions to promote someone into management: 1. the need, 2. the individual's desire, 3. the individual's skills & experience. An LMP gives you signal on all. I'll add 1(b): People need to be able to move laterally between ladders. This is in everyone's best interest; having an amazing staff dev muddling through as a team lead just means they're going to quit soon. This is a REALLY LONG way of saying I agree with the parent, but the solution is both known and doable. I'll get down off my soapbox now.
- jampekka 3y ago
  Management of course thinks that management is promotion from non-management and they manage the promotions. They are managers because they are better. How would they otherwise rationalize their higher salaries and power over other people?
btilly 3y ago
Don't say "the organization has just promoted". That's taking the face off of where the blame belongs. Say, "the CEO". The same CEO who is trying to manage through deadline pressure, placed into leadership someone who could be managed through deadline pressure. And who would transmit that pressure down the chain. Why? Because the CEO believed that this is how people should be managed. Which means that a leader who refused to accept that pressure would have almost certainly resulted in the CEO replacing said leader with someone who is more compliant. And now that we're done placing blame in the right place, can we talk about the actual problem here? Which is that people really do wind up working under too much stress and pressure. And this comes with a huge and absolutely real cost.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > Say, "the CEO". The same CEO who is trying to manage through deadline pressure, I think this is a very broad principle that applies all over. For a very different example: I have seen police depts make dramatic turns - from pretty okay to dangerously awful to hugely better, entirely due to changes in sheriffs/chiefs. Usual caveats apply. Bigger orgs take more time+effort to turn. Down is easier than up.
- dasil003 3y ago
  Sure, the buck stops with the CEO. That said, if things are so dysfunctional that your only goal is to ascribe blame—which, incidentally, is a common behavior of bad managers—then you are already fucked. High performing teams require trust. Workers need to trust that management has a sense of what's reasonable, not take estimates out of context and generally listen to the pain points/challenges on the ground. Upper management needs to trust that teams understand the vision enough to make the right tradeoff, not sandbag every estimate or fixate on the wrong details (because ground-level details matter, but some more than others from the business perspective). I realize many people have spent their whole career in such adversarial circumstances between workers and management that the above sounds like a fairy tail. I will say though, that it is possible, but requires a healthy understanding of the limitations of human communication, and the recognition that good intent is necessary but not sufficient to avoid dysfunction. You need a critical mass of folks spread throughout the org, able to do the necessary bridge-building, and (at times) emotional labor to work through all the challenges and differences of opinion. It's very easy to describe a problem and solution from one person's perspective, but much harder to prioritize and solve the 10 most important problems out of a group of 100 people where viewpoints differ and cooperation is needed to improve anything.

giantg2 3y ago

Most places that "train" just have some online courses, maybe an in-person or two. I don't know of anywhere that has some sort of real training like apprentice program.

xyst 3y ago
lmao - this is what I have experienced as well. Somehow these online courses with no way to ask questions will magically contain everything you need to know! Who knew? An MBA mindset contained inside a 1 hour mindset!1 Why did these MBA guys spend $250K!?
skeeter2020 3y ago
I'll post this only because this is an area where I'm really passionate, and you're right and that the current state most places sucks. I've tried to address it as a manager who strongly believes that engineering management needs to be viewed as a discipline. I've implemented a Lead Mentorship Program at two places; one very successfully and the other with some progress (still hustling for engagement/commitment): https://www.codeleadmanage.com/articles/20230919-lead_mentorship_program.html https://www.codeleadmanage.com/articles/20230919-lead_mentor...

skeeter2020 3y ago

This happens all the time because management is viewed as a promotion so you reward your best developers by giving them a job where they might suck and/or hate it. I think there are 2 big levers you need to address it: 1. Dual career ladders. You should recognize/reward some level of technical role (i.e. staff or similar) the same as management. Every senior person is a leader; I argue ICs have a tougher job because they don't have the "because you report to me" hammer. 2. Lead mentorship program. Potential managers need experience; you need to coach and validate. They need a chance to manage a single person over time, do a performance review cycle, 1:1s, feedback conversations,etc. Co-ops/iterns are great for this because it's a fixed time period! You need 3 conditions to promote someone into management: 1. the need, 2. the individual's desire, 3. the individual's skills & experience. An LMP gives you signal on all. I'll add 1(b): People need to be able to move laterally between ladders. This is in everyone's best interest; having an amazing staff dev muddling through as a team lead just means they're going to quit soon. This is a REALLY LONG way of saying I agree with the parent, but the solution is both known and doable. I'll get down off my soapbox now.

jampekka 3y ago
Management of course thinks that management is promotion from non-management and they manage the promotions. They are managers because they are better. How would they otherwise rationalize their higher salaries and power over other people?

btilly 3y ago

Don't say "the organization has just promoted". That's taking the face off of where the blame belongs. Say, "the CEO". The same CEO who is trying to manage through deadline pressure, placed into leadership someone who could be managed through deadline pressure. And who would transmit that pressure down the chain. Why? Because the CEO believed that this is how people should be managed. Which means that a leader who refused to accept that pressure would have almost certainly resulted in the CEO replacing said leader with someone who is more compliant. And now that we're done placing blame in the right place, can we talk about the actual problem here? Which is that people really do wind up working under too much stress and pressure. And this comes with a huge and absolutely real cost.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Say, "the CEO". The same CEO who is trying to manage through deadline pressure, I think this is a very broad principle that applies all over. For a very different example: I have seen police depts make dramatic turns - from pretty okay to dangerously awful to hugely better, entirely due to changes in sheriffs/chiefs. Usual caveats apply. Bigger orgs take more time+effort to turn. Down is easier than up.
dasil003 3y ago
Sure, the buck stops with the CEO. That said, if things are so dysfunctional that your only goal is to ascribe blame—which, incidentally, is a common behavior of bad managers—then you are already fucked. High performing teams require trust. Workers need to trust that management has a sense of what's reasonable, not take estimates out of context and generally listen to the pain points/challenges on the ground. Upper management needs to trust that teams understand the vision enough to make the right tradeoff, not sandbag every estimate or fixate on the wrong details (because ground-level details matter, but some more than others from the business perspective). I realize many people have spent their whole career in such adversarial circumstances between workers and management that the above sounds like a fairy tail. I will say though, that it is possible, but requires a healthy understanding of the limitations of human communication, and the recognition that good intent is necessary but not sufficient to avoid dysfunction. You need a critical mass of folks spread throughout the org, able to do the necessary bridge-building, and (at times) emotional labor to work through all the challenges and differences of opinion. It's very easy to describe a problem and solution from one person's perspective, but much harder to prioritize and solve the 10 most important problems out of a group of 100 people where viewpoints differ and cooperation is needed to improve anything.