One of the most important things about great performers in any discipline is to be adaptive. This also applies to engineering managers. I think the article is correct that it identifies that fads shifted. Great people were able to both adapt to new expectations while all the while adapting their approach to individual situations and people. If you are a one-trick pony sometimes your trick is in line with fads and expectations and you will do well. Sometimes it’s not in line and you will struggle. If you are adaptive you will do well in a changing landscape.
Make sure you get as far as the four core management skills and the four growth management skills, which are very clearly explained and make a ton of sense to me.
There is no absolute description of good leadership. But there is a relative one. It's about the degree of alignment with goals at the moment, at team level, and org level and being able to convince people about the achieved alignment.
Knowing what these goals are, is just as difficult or even harder, than achieving those goals. Most of these goals are not the ones that are written in big font.
I think my takeaway from this is there is no objective standard for good engineering management - whatever counts for good has to be contextualized within the culture and habits of the organization.
Right, implementation od policy is equal to policy itself. If an org draws up a policy of maximized productivity with minimal staff, good is preventing turnover.
I've been thinking lately a lot about this. What is it I do when I want to convince someone of something (i.e. "creating alignment" in corporate speak)? I listen to them, am empathic, ask meaningful questions etc. Afterwards, that opens a space for me to make a proposal that is well-received.
And more broadly, goals/interests/skills can align really well with company needs and priorities at a time--and then they don't. You may be able to adapt but when the whole reason you were hired basically goes away, maybe it's not a great fit any longer.
This is a good article that is critical of narratives around behaviour within organisations. I particularly enjoyed his criticism of the 'morality tale'.
The author then postulates some guidance for how to survive in organisations more generally, working above these strange social structures largely unique to silicon valley. It wasn't the purpose of the article, but I wish he was a bit more critical of these structures in general.
> The conclusion here is clear: the industry will want different things from you as it evolves, and it will tell you that each of those shifts is because of some complex moral change, but it’s pretty much always about business realities changing. If you take any current morality tale as true, then you’re setting yourself up to be severely out of position when the industry shifts again in a few years, because “good leadership” is just a fad.
Institutional rhetoric at high levels is always meant to manipulate labor markets, financial markets, popular opinion. This is basic worldly-wisdom. The question is how does one (who is not at a high level) survive the recurring institutional changes? There seem to be two approaches to an answer: Do one's professional best regardless of change, or try to anticipate changes and adjust with the wind. For the first, gods may bless you, but it is folly to think your bosses will respect you. For the second -- good luck, you're running with bulls. Either way, the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill.
A manager’s job isn’t to guide the company, it’s to make sure his team does the tasks they are assigned. Likewise, a worker’s job isn’t to “think about the big picture” and come up with a strategy for the organization.
So who is supposed to do it? Because executives sure aren’t.
One of the most important things about great performers in any discipline is to be adaptive. This also applies to engineering managers. I think the article is correct that it identifies that fads shifted. Great people were able to both adapt to new expectations while all the while adapting their approach to individual situations and people. If you are a one-trick pony sometimes your trick is in line with fads and expectations and you will do well. Sometimes it’s not in line and you will struggle. If you are adaptive you will do well in a changing landscape.
Sometimes the real deliverable is a happy team
Make sure you get as far as the four core management skills and the four growth management skills, which are very clearly explained and make a ton of sense to me.
There is no absolute description of good leadership. But there is a relative one. It's about the degree of alignment with goals at the moment, at team level, and org level and being able to convince people about the achieved alignment.
Knowing what these goals are, is just as difficult or even harder, than achieving those goals. Most of these goals are not the ones that are written in big font.
I think my takeaway from this is there is no objective standard for good engineering management - whatever counts for good has to be contextualized within the culture and habits of the organization.
Right, implementation od policy is equal to policy itself. If an org draws up a policy of maximized productivity with minimal staff, good is preventing turnover.
Every skill eventually boils down to empathy, alignment is just being empathic
I've been thinking lately a lot about this. What is it I do when I want to convince someone of something (i.e. "creating alignment" in corporate speak)? I listen to them, am empathic, ask meaningful questions etc. Afterwards, that opens a space for me to make a proposal that is well-received.
And more broadly, goals/interests/skills can align really well with company needs and priorities at a time--and then they don't. You may be able to adapt but when the whole reason you were hired basically goes away, maybe it's not a great fit any longer.
This is a good article that is critical of narratives around behaviour within organisations. I particularly enjoyed his criticism of the 'morality tale'.
The author then postulates some guidance for how to survive in organisations more generally, working above these strange social structures largely unique to silicon valley. It wasn't the purpose of the article, but I wish he was a bit more critical of these structures in general.
> The conclusion here is clear: the industry will want different things from you as it evolves, and it will tell you that each of those shifts is because of some complex moral change, but it’s pretty much always about business realities changing. If you take any current morality tale as true, then you’re setting yourself up to be severely out of position when the industry shifts again in a few years, because “good leadership” is just a fad.
Institutional rhetoric at high levels is always meant to manipulate labor markets, financial markets, popular opinion. This is basic worldly-wisdom. The question is how does one (who is not at a high level) survive the recurring institutional changes? There seem to be two approaches to an answer: Do one's professional best regardless of change, or try to anticipate changes and adjust with the wind. For the first, gods may bless you, but it is folly to think your bosses will respect you. For the second -- good luck, you're running with bulls. Either way, the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill.
> the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill
Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one!
For many workers, working towards the goal of making the company profitable would be an improvement.
Many workers primarily work towards helping the boss grow their head count, or helping the middle-manager with their emotional state.
> helping the middle-manager with their emotional state.
Hah, this is hilarious. So very "The Office".
That's not the only reason why businesses can exist. It's the most common reason in US culture, but there are other reasons and cultures.
A manager’s job isn’t to guide the company, it’s to make sure his team does the tasks they are assigned. Likewise, a worker’s job isn’t to “think about the big picture” and come up with a strategy for the organization.
So who is supposed to do it? Because executives sure aren’t.
The executives are supposed to, even if they aren't doing so.