People in leadership usually get there because they value time and efficiency, and if you don't spin that as "your agenda is trash" but "I cannot contribute to this meeting and would like to pursue my other tasks", I doubt they will be mad at you.
It can also be worth it to bring this up with your team and establish a meeting culture, as suggested in TFA. That way, you can discuss this openly and everyone has a shared understanding of what is okay.
I understand why it may initially seem frustrating to realize that you are not offering value to the team, but us ICs are used to recognizing that and quickly cutting you out of the picture. It is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Don't worry.
I would certainly be glad to have someone like that over my division.
You've failed as a leader if you find yourself being needed.
If you're of the opinion that management plays their politics game while ICs run the show, then I pity you for the work environment you're in. That isn't how it's supposed to work, and there are better places.
Do they? The entire Agile Manifesto was written about how teams don't need leaders. That doesn't automatically make it valid, of course, but industry was all over it for a time. An entire industry got it wrong? Yes, it wasn't long before "leaders" afraid of losing their job bastardized it into some kind of management framework with nonsense like Scrum[1], granted, but industry support for it also died in that moment. What does that tell you?
> If leaders weren't needed in some capacity, they wouldn't exist.
False premise. The world is full of all kinds of things that exist but aren't needed.
> If you're of the opinion that management plays their politics game while ICs run the show, then I pity you for the work environment you're in.
I'm not really sure what this means. It doesn't seem to have any connection to the original discussion. Where are you going with this?
> That isn't how it's supposed to work, and there are better places.
How is what supposed to work?
--
[1] To be fair, Scrum considers itself "training wheels" for Agile. It clearly indicates it is something to use for a short period of time to wean yourself off malformed leadership practices as you transition into Agile. If used as written, it may be a useful tool. But when have you ever seen that happen in practice? In reality, when you find it in use, "leadership" has enforced its use — often modified to their arbitrary fancy — and never let go like it suggests you need to.
Have you read a different manifesto than I did? It spoke of empowered developers and self-organised teams, but never about leaders no longer being required. I'd even say it is directed at leaders to improve the structure of their development teams.
> I'm not really sure what this means. It doesn't seem to have any connection to the original discussion. Where are you going with this?
You seem to imply—at least that's how I understood it—that leaders aren't needed and ICs do their thing regardless of what managers do. Which to me sounds like plain ineffective leadership, not an inherent truth.
We may agree to disagree, but I don't see an entire organisation (not just a single team of developers within a larger organisation) to work completely devoid of leadership. My developers should not have to put up with customer success, or business requirements, or budget constraints. They should focus on working on the product as directed by the product owner. My role is clearing the path in front of the team, keeping distractions at bay, planning ahead for technological changes, and aligning the product trajectory with the company vision. These are things you just cannot do properly while simultaneously focusing on the finer details of application code. And even more importantly, most people I know appreciate good leadership that helps them perform well, and guides them forward. I realise that's subjective though.
Au contraire. You are right that there is only so much time in the day and that not every IC can be deeply engrossed in this, but all should be involved in at least some surface capacity. This is the most important part of the software development process! To remove your software people from it is complete insanity. It being treated as something different under a "leadership" umbrella is the most horrid thing ever seen in the software industry. This is echoed in the Agile Manifest (Twelve Principles), as you know.
And maybe that's what you really mean — that you're an IC who spends less time on code and more time on business problems? That's not what is usually implied by "leadership", but it is understood that anyone can make up random definitions on the spot.
Equally if not way more often they are there, because they like to control things or organize things or like having power or see it as career setup. Or they like working with people.
Time and efficiency is not something you get on these positions.
Their body had to be present in the meeting, but they could keep working on their laptop.
This was because WAAAY too much of the silent information about the company products was on their mind and it was by far the fastest way to get it out.
I could just quickly refer to them for 15 seconds to clarify how something actually worked and keep on with the meeting.
...also they once got bored during a sales meeting and coded a full-ass PoC about what the customer was asking during the meeting. That kind of person.
Or just counter-schedule a meeting in the same slot.
- "I have many meetings already and worry about not meeting deadline".
- "I do not have strong opinions either way, so am fine getting just outcome".
- "I do not have knowledge to be useful".
- "It seems like I wont be useful".
Basically, you can guess these from the topic alone. Most of the time, the response is something like "of course no problem" sometimes followed by short explanation why I was called in. Occasionally they say they indeed want me there.
Meeting culture is something that varies hugely between companies and industries and sectors. IMO that means that advice like this has limited utility unless you're aware of the differences. There are a few topics like this.
If the person you'd be telling it to is your boss, you probably don't have much sway to change the culture beyond regular feedback loops.
Not 100%, but seems to work.
But we've worked together for several years, so he trusts my judgment.