Ask HN: Staying in an Incompetent Engineering Org | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Staying in an Incompetent Engineering Org

2 points81redonion7 comments

We're a start-up with 50 engineers. Business is great. We're the leaders in our niche market and the sales team constantly sign up new deals. We have an actual product that solves a real problem, and our customers love using it.

Engineering and management wise however, it's a total shit show. Our CTO has no previous management experience and no vision of how to build a functioning engineering organization. We grew from 10 engs to 50 in a year in the hopes of adding new products/features quickly, but the new teams had no direction and had to come up with their own way of working. So now the infra is fragmented, each team has its own task management tool and pulls in a different direction, and shipping the simplest feature takes months instead of days. Things like effective 1:1s, personal growth plans and improving dev experience are obviously on no one's mind. Most engineers and managers are good people and I believe they have good intentions, but no one has a real incentive to rock the boat.

It's frustrating to see the amount of waste and the engineering bar being so low.

My position is a hands-on team lead, reporting to the CTO. I am well respected in the company, but wasn't able to influence the CTO to take significant actions. I occasionally talk to the CEO and the founders, and they don't seem to be very concerned about it. I'm truly baffled by it. It seems it can take years before anyone will question the situation.

I joined early and have good salary and good amount of equity. It would have been easier to leave if I didn't believe in the business long term, but I think it's going to continue doing great.

I'm an engineer at heart and enjoy solving complex problems and being a part of an enthusiast team. It saddens me being in a mediocre organization that doesn't want to improve. I have no problem finding another job (20 years of experience, good network), but I wonder maybe I should just take a step back and stop worrying so much - let it play itself out and focus more on my personal life.

What would you do?

Can you deal with the chaos without it becoming too stressful?

It is incredible and terrifying how much harm stress can cause an individual, and how much the individual may appear to change when only the stress is removed.

CTOs that have no business being CTOs are interesting creatures to watch, but can be very hazardous to your health.

That's a good question. It's not exactly stress what I'm feeling. More of an embarrassment, since I usually take pride in my work.

It's hard to advocate for good engineering practices in my team when I don't get org support. We have a junior joined our team, and I think it's best for them to start their career elsewhere. I don't bad-mouth the company and I feel dishonest when I need to play along and justify the way our organization works.

Maybe it will convert to stress with time, and I hope I will be able to recognize it early to leave immediately.

This might be presumptuous or misreading your comment, but… Is justifying the way the org works necessary? Can you support “the business” without justifying the way it works?

If I had to justify every bad order I have received, every bad process, etc, I would be incoherently babbling in a corner rather than typing on a phone.

Yeah, I guess I can do it to a lesser extent. Most teams were formed "organically" with no direction, and in my team I try to get us to work with higher standards than the rest of the org. What I need to justify to my team is things like "How is it acceptable that other teams connecting to the prod db on a regular basis? How come we're the only ones rotating our secrets after CircleCI's breach?". My debate is whether I should/can just chill and not worry about it too much (build shittier software) while it's not in my nature.

Cut first the corners that hurt the least to cut. You may not need to cut as many as you fear.

Just don’t cut the non-negotiable ones.

This sounds awful, but to what extent does a mediocre yet functioning engineering org affect the company's bottom line? Does the bar having been set low actually matter?

We were more productive when we were only 10. Now that we're 50 everything not only moves so much slower, but the codebase and infra degrade very fast in a snowball effect where new engineers joining the company adopt the existing low eng bar and culture.

I believe management when they say the company is still profitable, but I'm sure the bottom line could have been 20x or more in the short term if we didn't increase the headcount at all. And I don't see how the bottom line would improve in the long term as we're really slow in shipping new features, not to talk about new products. Maybe it would be better if our competitors start innovating and taking some of our market share.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com