Hacker News Reader

Comment by danielvaughn | Hacker News Reader

I began my first management role a few years ago (through the "successor" path outlined in the article). My manager left for another company, and since I'd been with the team for 4 years at that point, I was asked if I wanted to take over.

I agreed, not realizing how much of a shift it was. It's an entirely different profession, and it's made me wonder how realistic the notion of an Engineering Manager is. It's sort of like the "full stack" engineer - yes you may have baseline competency across disciplines, but you're not going to excel at all of them.

Sometimes I wonder if engineering teams would best be served by someone who actually went to business school for management. Likely there would be tension as this person is very unlikely to have anything beyond conversational technical knowledge, but I'm not sure what we're doing right now is any better.

View on HN

I've had the misfortune on being on a highly technical team where a thoroughly business minded manager was hired. Most of the team including myself was gone within 6 months. Absolute disaster.

Arguably they weren't 'business minded' if that was the outcome. I know what you mean, but at the same time understanding what the technical members of the team do and how they get that work done is an essential part of succeeding as a manager.

The only way that your manager could be classed as a success is if you and the others who left were not necessary to the business. As mercenary as that sounds, we are talking pure business outcomes here.

But did the assembly line become more efficient?

Nah, turned to hell. I still talk with the remaining team members.

I don't necessarily mean that they need to be thoroughly business minded, just professionally trained as a manager.

As a technical person the thing I hope for most is that my direct manager does not try to get involved in technical topics. They need to understand the nature of the labor of course, but they do not need to be thinking about which DB we use or trying to interpret log messages. They are my interface to other managers and other parts of the business. I can and will talk to the other technical people myself.

> who actually went to business school for management.

Are these actually good? Sometimes I feel like education has such a large disconnect from reality. Especially true in corporate fields. There is also the meme of MBAs showing up and ruining everything. I also went to business school for undergrad, idk if any of it is useful. though it was a while ago now

That's my general perception as well, but I'm not sure what the alternatives are. I suppose I shouldn't have narrowly focused on business school - what I really mean is just what the author describes. Someone who has specifically trained to become a manager.

Do attorneys have managers? No, they have senior partners, that are also attorneys. They have clerks to handle the mundane stuff.

The wrong model is being applied to software. Managers are redundant.

But attorneys usually don't work in large teams.

> The wrong model is being applied to software. Managers are redundant.

> But attorneys usually don't work in large teams.

You are both onto something. Tech managers have to manage/support entire teams - like sports teams. Any single individual is not as relevant as the systems governing their work together. Often those are technical systems, and often those are day-to-day systems.

But most managers treat management like they need to manage individual people. They over-index on people behaviors and outcomes instead of the team together. This shows up in performance reviews, stack ranking, a culture of nitpicking and fear instead of blameless growth.

Ultimately even the business just wants good outcomes and it is in the best interest of companies that managers help their team produce outcomes instead of managers spending time managing each individual.

Perhaps the title of managers should be changed to executive assistants. They should be removed from front-line engineering and should only do the mundane work. And they should not be responsible for performance reviews or stack ranking.

If you're looking for other models, I recommend reading Artful Making: https://www.amazon.com/Artful-Making-Managers-About-Artists/...

For me it was a nice contrast to the "industrial age corporation" and "widget factory" models that are in common use.

Sometimes. The best manager I've had was business trained with no technical background at all. However I've had many very bad managers who didn't have a technical background.

Note that I don't think MBA really gives someone the right background to be a good people manager.

A lot of MBA material is intentionally geared towards roles in senior management, so while there's some material that would be practically useful for someone like an engineering manager, that's definitely not the focus. There are other programs that are optimized for technical management roles, e.g. https://eecs.berkeley.edu/academics/graduate/industry-progra...

I think the material itself is useful, and that the MBAs who show up and ruin everything would be even more likely to ruin everything if you put them in the same positions without the knowledge from their MBAs. But the barrier to entry for even elite MBA programs frankly isn't that high, so if you treat an elite MBA as a sufficient condition for a leadership hire, you're gonna have a bad time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com