4 ms·
There's a subtle but very important difference between making sure nobody is a "single point of failure" or bottleneck (heck, most great engineers will actively
by virgilp 2y ago
There's a subtle but very important difference between making sure nobody is a "single point of failure" or bottleneck (heck, most great engineers will actively work with management to make sure they're not single points of failure!), and recognizing that engineers are not fungible resources and should not be treated as such.
I do agree that it's simpler for management to pretend that they are, and that's why great management is insanely rare. But great management, like great engineers, can make a huge difference in the success of a company / project.
- blurker 2y ago> most great engineers will actively work with management to make sure they're not single points of failure! Sure, but that is a load bearing "great" for sure. Not every company is staffed with great, selfless engineers. I'm an engineer and I've worked at companies with engineers who actively resisted making themselves not a single point of failure because it gave them control and job security. I think it's not uncommon to have these types at companies and it really sucks when they have their management Stockholm syndromed because they make it hard for all the other "great" engineers to do their jobs.
- datadrivenangel 2y agoThe company not being able to run without you doesn't mean you have job security, it just makes the company hurt more when they fire you based on someone's spreadsheet.
- blurker 2y agoTell that to the gatekeeping engineers who think otherwise.
- virgilp 2y agoGood managers will recognize that and know what those kinds of engineers are doing. Every company should have at least some good managers - seek them out, it's worth it. If you can't find one in current company, try to switch company - again, it's worth it IMO.