Mistakes as a new manager

This is just about the laziest and least trustworthy language possible to use. Your reports aren't going to know what they don't know and are just going to become paranoid and work slower. The code quality will likely not improve from a conversation prompted this way. This is also a continuous process, not a magic high stakes meeting. If you're in charge you should see patterns in the code reviews and know what their knowledge gaps are causing these issues. They're looking to you for help if you're the one bringing this up in the first place.

If that's too time consuming or over your head you should not be a manager. Leverage your own knowledge and use mentorship to avoid conflicts with your reports and the improved productivity will please the people above you as well. You aren't giving anyone what they need by merely communicating requirements. Your job is to fulfill those requirements with the team you have.

I would tend to even leave out the first part of that phrase. Focus on the actual objective measure: the rollbacks. They happened, and the goal is to figure out how to not have them happen in the future.

That isn't really enough in my experience. There are 3 questions - is the team happy? Are they shipping? Is what they are shipping valuable? - and I've seen a lot of new managers are so overwhelmed that they forget about number 3 and a fair chunk of people end up unemployed because sooner or later the bean counters figure out that the team isn't actually productive.

This article, overall, doesn't identify achieving excellent outcomes as something he got wrong at first. I suspect either he is a natural manager or it is a mistake that is still being made. Probably the latter based on the other mistakes identified. The journey I've seen usually goes from lost -> controlling external perceptions of success -> oh I need to actually succeed and it isn't what I thought.

Why is it always the report who is the source of the problem and not the manager?

How about "I've created a toxic work environment and put my reports under a lot of stress. And I have not given them any opportunities to grow and learn new skills. I am planning to do better..." Words that will never come from the mouth of a manager.

Have a hard conversation with yourself first before blaming the reports.

Overly empathetic companies end up with terrible junior managers because they can’t have any real direct conversations. Tough and demanding companies I have seen fair much better because no one can hide from tough conversations for too long.

Every manager I've had that used your example quote—almost verbatim—went on to be incredibly passive-aggressive, because they're trying too hard not to actually create conflict, they want to be liked more than they care about the result, they don't have that much innate confidence, or like the author of the article suggested, they want to see the results they would have produced when they were an IC, and haven't yet learned how to guide autonomy and relinquish a certain amount of control. These are perhaps the traits that led them to keeping their IC job all those years.

These people would turn 1-on-1s into 45 mins of beating around the bush, trying to get me to reveal myself as having insufficiently met the unspoken criteria they've been having internal anxiety attacks about, and maybe in the last few minutes when there's no room left for pushback they'd conjure the answer they wanted to hear and set that as the benchmark.

This failure on their part predictibly bled into other interactions and created toxicity and resentment, they couldn't yield control, and they couldn't have a real discussion that involved more than themselves manifesting as their overbearing mother waiting for their kid to implicate themselves for some petty wrongdoing. They couldn't clearly communicate priorities, or timelines, or requirements, and were starting in their new job with a skill issue of their own. They hadn't adapted to the role or developed a good personality for it, and apparently lacked an ability to reflect on their behavior or communication style.

I don't mean to extrapolate too far from this or in-turn attack you in any way, it's just a small quote, but in the past it's been telling.

"Can we talk about code quality issues" doesn't just avoid a character trait, which I agree should should never be the target, it leans into vague, soft, meek, intentionally indirect language that just creates undue anxiety and establishes an ambiguous context for whatever the problem might be, and was a dishonest pretext for for downstream attribution of fault, since they couldn't accept the possibility that the problem might be upstream (which it wasn't always, but if it had been, they weren't going to address it then). In these situations, sometimes I was struggling with purely my own productivity, having a bad couple weeks, but otherwise it was some other issue they weren't willing or able to genuinely help me with.

Do your best to be humble, learn to delegate and try to trust people, avoid thinking about character traits but don't avoid direct (and clear) language, and accept that your perception might be inaccurate. Get as far away as necessary from the dreaded "just checking in" or "is there anything we can do to improve (your problem)" as possible. What if their code is suffering because of noise in the office or someone's depressed because they're having relationship issues? What if it's because you keep coming over to their desk unannounced and asking diverting their attention?

If you can do that, you're on a good track.

Edit: it's worth noting that the underlying assumption in all of my comment is that people and their reasons and issues are often different, and likewise how they respond to this language may be different, and as such many might actually love the quoted phrases because they aren't imposing, and a good manager will do their best to communicate with people in a way that accepts that a variety of ways to address conflict is the right move, and sometimes less imposing language is viable.

One of the most stand-out moments of leadership I've ever witnessed was my boss protecting me and a colleague from another manager on a different team. He put his foot down and drew a line about what was to be expected of us (among our other competing responsibilities). Fight for me and I'll fight for you.

Some of the things you mention sound right for a team lead (i.e. single team) but not really for an EM where you might have 2+ teams. You need to be able to solve the problems the leaving teammates create for you, but stepping into the role is probably the last thing you should do. Don't get me wrong, you need to live the life to build credibility and empathy, but doing the job yourself is usually a substandard, unsustainable solution.

I think the way "experienced" managers do this is to not actually understand the technical work 100% but rather make your manager think you understand it 100%. Even as an individual contributor, I fail to fully understand all the changes my team is making. I can't imagine being 100% fully up to date with all the changes at are in flight, have landed, etc. and why. The best you can do is some kind of abstraction.

They call this "managing up" or something like that.

I’ve had many managers over the years, more and less successful, and this was possible just for one of them. And only because they were promoted to the position from a developer level on that team. They hated being a manager though and left the company promptly.

So I guess with the digging deep thing, be careful to not take up too much of people's time!

This is your team - you are managing them, not the other way around, so if they have expectations of you that are incorrect, then fix those expectations. If you are not technical, tell them so. Communicate your needs and expectations, and then let them do the work. If there is a bus factor that is too high of a risk for a sustainable team, cross-train the team to remove the bus factor. Have a sense of the priority of all the work so that if someone quits, you can re-arrange the schedule, not be forced to jump in and put out a fire.

At the same time, be building up your people so that they can jump in and replace you. After all, if you cannot be replaced, you cannot be promoted either. Don't pigeon-hole yourself into a front-line manager role unless you truly love it. Grow your team, but grow yourself at the same time.

I don't think that's the main goal for a manager (even technical). I'd say generally, the manager should understand why the team is building something, and the engineers should know how. The why includes who is going to use what was built, when do they need it, what trade-offs can be made, etc.

I can't read the article to tell if this is just an observation from you, or if you are responding to the article, because my DNS just broke for whatever reason.

> Frame it like this: if this report were to quit today, are you able to step in and complete their project?

That is not the manager's job. The real question here is, do you know the bus factor of your team and do you know what particular skills are most critical to replace?

Ah, I was wondering what was going on with my brain since I became a manager.

Seriously though, I've known some people who are managers and extremely fast/strong thinkers. Yes, the nature of the job requires more of the big picture and less of the details.

The difference is in how your performance is judged. ICs are judged by their individual contributions, hence the name. Managers are judged by the performance of their team/department/organization/company. It's not enough to say, as a manager, "I personally ran the sprint meetings and did 1:1s and performance reviews so therefore I'm doing a good job."

The individual work managers do is much harder to tangibly measure. Things like establishing a culture, balancing your roadmap between one-off customer requests and internal production vision (and hacking in some AI crap to make your CEO happy), hiring the right people. Just doing the table stakes individual work of managing your direct reports' vacation time, promotions, and running team meetings is really only good enough for beginner, first-level line managers at bigger companies, where they just need people to execute established processes.

> Also, it’s helpful to remember, when delegating, that one reason you’re probably managing is that you either have tired of running your brain in fifth gear or, at your age, can’t.

ehhhhh. Management is a lot more reactive, that's true, but saying it requires less brainpower isn't true. As a manager you're constantly context switching. You don't just care about the codebase and solving one specific problem, you also care about sales and marketing, your customer support team, the budget for next year. You're getting slack messages from executives who need an update right now on your project, at the same time as an engineer needing to talk because their partner just filed for divorce and they need mental health days (and you need to support them while also figuring out how to rebalance their workload). It's a very different way of working that uses very different parts of your brain. But it's not just sitting in the executive bathroom and delegating work while you smoke a cigar.

The best managers I've ever had saw it as their job to remove barriers and bullshit from my day. It's what I try to do as a leader as well. It serves the purpose of making their jobs easier, and also takes up your time which creates less opportunity for you to micromanage and forces you to delegate.

>Managing perception -> Which leads into, your role, well done, is invisible. Protect them from the bullshit politics that any org has and let them do what they do well.

This is SO important, and where I struggle the most. Your team won't appreciate it, but when they have the time, support, and resources they need, they'll notice.

It's hard to get a dopamine hit of a second-order signal though. When you're a developer there's a strong linkage between the work you complete and results. If you write code for a new feature, you get to see it take shape on your screen. When your team reaches a milestone, you see where you contributed and can often quantify your contributions.What happens after you move into management? Your day-to-day is no longer filled with relatively concrete tasks and goals. Your role is not to do the work yourself but guide and support a team doing the actual execution. How do you measure that?

People become jaded and start to tell you all the ways we can't do something, or it will take too long. They often don't realize what tools are at their disposal to help make change easier, and instead insist there is only one good path to a solution...

Fresh talent really helps get people excited again, after the initial shock of layoffs. Not to mention new talent always comes in excited for an opportunity.

It’s great at the beginning. We started with a team of mostly self-motivated people and the lack of upward review made technical decision-making easy.

Eventually, you hire someone who is not self motivated. Also, some existing people get wise to the fact that no one will check up on them, and read Reddit for half the day.

About 4 months in, every team had 1 person like that. They had to work around them - one team can’t ever get designs cause the designer is checked out, one team’s backend work takes 1.5x as long as everyone else.

People say things to the underperformers, but there’s no teeth to anything, no one is anyone’s manager, so it’s just suggestions. They get ignored. Resentment builds into each individual team’s culture. Deadlines start slipping.

1 year in, non technical leadership is fed up. They don’t see benefits from the flat structure, and hire a new CTO and new middle management layer.

The new managers come in briefed with “the team is lazy.” The underperformers get pushed out, and have trouble finding work because their skills have absolutely atrophied. Any remaining high performers are permanently tarred with the reputation of the org from the flat structure days, and get micromanaged. To the new managers, they are kids who will misbehave the second they aren’t watched (which, in fairness, is kinda what happened at the organizational level when they weren’t watched.)

Sone good middle management providing timely oversight and feedback could’ve avoided the whole situation.

It would be like golf swing or skiing mistakes. Every instructor knows em.

The lessons we learned:

1. "Manage or be managed...": your first lesson is people will try to manipulate those in positions of authority regardless of competency. i.e. the idea of "goodwill" being the true core product can escape the irrationally ambitious/sycophantic.

2. No amount of money can make someone care about company projects. The worker may be interested in the project, or is simply there for the wrong reasons. Remember you want to keep employees content, but a "kingdom of kings" is unsustainable.

3. People can postpone something until tomorrow indefinitely. Thus, pay very close attention to projected deliverable times.

4. Fire someone for being unproductive according to a defined workmanship-standard as soon as possible. It will notify the rest of staff you are not there to play games, and stupid behavior will have consequences. Mostly effective with Jr staff using ChatGPT to try and BS the world like any other con.

5. Delegation? Just initially run trial contracts with potential staff first for each project deliverable. Failure to deliver on time means they don't get another dime, or a second chance to be unaccountable for their behavior.

6. Entrenched incompetence: organizations have their own emergent structure, and it will usually drift back to the same dysfunctional patterns/designs.

7. Redacted

8. try to leave things slightly better than when you arrived.

9. Managers usually can never be a normal employee again. People subconsciously fear they cannot control authority, and will prefer to hire someone easier to "handle".

Best regards, =3