Matt Anderson’s Post

Is middle management still needed in software engineering? Facebook has flattened their org structure by removing layers of middle-management, and others are following suit. This new research led by Mukul C. Saha covers trends in middle-management in software engineering:

For anyone who has worked in Business Development or in Ops, they would be familiar with a tension that simmers all through the year. A tactic of BD to get Ops to put up a dog and pony show is to label an account strategic. This one simple trick does the job of getting Ops and other functions that have to do the work of serving the account to be at their absolute best. People who have to do the grunt work hardly ask what makes the target strategic. They’ve been fed all their lives that there’s something called strategy and knowing that, let alone understanding it, will just muddle up their detail-oriented brains. Their position doesn’t allow them to see the big picture, the mysterious interconnections that make strategy-building an art. Some of these Ops folks are probably also worried that if they don’t toe the line, it may signal to management that execution is the problem. So they zip up and ask no questions. Now, often such a strategy (pardon the pun) is not malicious. It is just too much work to share context, and for Ops people who are used to putting their head down and delivering, it may even be too much information for no good reason. The problem is not BD; it is not Ops either. The issue is one of org design, in my opinion. It is tenable to keep BD or corporate strategy sealed in a bottle, and to not let anyone near it, because the bottle has the business’s secret sauce. It would also then make sense that orgs that closely guard their strategy do a thorough examination of lifetime value of accounts acquired for strategic reasons, just to make sure that it is not being used as an excuse to meet numbers. I would be surprised if this is the norm though. To me, labeling accounts as worth pursuing because of strategic reasons and taking away the license of Ops to raise credible objections works well in orgs where the culture is one of information asymmetry. Also, at such a place, except for a select few in the upper echelons, no one can tell what the org strategy is. And what is strategy? Strategy is anything that leaves employees nowhere to hide when they’re explaining their choices. #strategy #businessdevelopment #curiosityovercertainty

The "Too Many Hats" Dilemma You know you've been in the tech industry for a while when your career starts to look like a buffet of roles. Technical implementations? Check. Solution design and architecture? Absolutely. Debugging and troubleshooting issues like a pro? You bet. Leadership? Nailed it! And let’s not forget being a role model for both the leadership and "street-smart" crowd — balancing countless things with a smile (and maybe a few cups of coffee). Then there's innovation, transformation, managing customer relationships, and showcasing the team's brilliance to secure more business. The list goes on, and somehow, you’ve checked every box. But here's the real kicker — after years of experience and all those achievements, when the time comes to take the next step, you’re left thinking, “Wait... which role should I apply for now?” It’s like standing at a crossroads where every sign points to something you’ve already done. A true dilemma for many tech leaders out there. But hey, with all this experience, we’re like Swiss Army knives — the all-rounders every organization needs! Tell me, have you ever faced this "too many hats" problem? Share your experience below! #TechLeadership #CareerDilemma #AllRounder #Innovation #SolutionArchitecture #LeadershipHumor #CareerGrowth

The 3 biggest pitfalls of technical leaders: 🚫 building rather than talking to customers 🚫 complicated architecture over getting things done 🚫 hiring only people like you Instead: ✅ talk to customers often ✅ value progress over perfection ✅ hire for skills you need

Here's why I think non-technical founders & leaders should be involved in technical decisions: It’s day one of your new company, and you’re planning your MVP with your top technical leader. You trust their expertise and believe in hiring smart people and letting them run. They present a plan, and you say “this sounds good - I trust you.” But what if everything doesn't go as planned? You might start wondering if your technical leader is all that good after all. In reality, they aren't the problem. The problem is a lack of shared responsibility for decision-making and outcomes. As a leader your involvement in foundational technical decisions is essential. The goal isn’t to make unilateral decisions or to micromanage but to foster a shared responsibility for the technical path. The alternative: a culture where the tech team treats the business team like a customer. A culture of blame and defensive "cover your ass" decisions. Success becomes about meeting requirements, not driving outcomes. Culture emanates from the top. Leaders sharing responsibility for technical decisions sets a standard of ownership and collaboration that permeates the organization and does wonders to align everyone around business outcomes. --- 🔍 For a more in-depth version of this post, head on over to krasny(dot)co 📅 Tomorrow I'll post part two: how to help make technical decisions as a nontechnical leader 📞 Want to have a no-strings-attached conversation with me about early-stage technical challenges, or other early-stage product challenges? Comment, DM, or head over to krasny(dot)co

In my early years at Microsoft, the annual performance review was an enigma wrapped up in stress. As I ascended to managerial roles, unveiling the mystery behind 'stack ranking' and 'forced curve', I realized something crucial - transparency isn't just okay; it's essential. Once I started sharing the process with my team, the taboo around performance reviews vanished. It reinforced a key lesson for me: trust is forged in the crucible of transparency. Whether it's about compensation, challenges, or personal flaws, being open paves the way for growth and authenticity. So here's your call to action: Embrace transparency. It might feel risky, even scary, but the reward is an empowered, trusting team. Remember, trust opens doors! If you got value from this, please follow me! I write daily about engineering management, team dynamics, and processes needed to build engaged and successful teams. #Transparency #Trust #Management #Growth ----------------------------------- Check out the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRZi8aDt

Disagreement is a powerful tool for engineering great products. How we handle our disagreements in the decision-making process will have a bearing on successful outcomes, and even affect our culture. There are many situations where a team needs to make a decision, for example, a hiring team decides to make a job offer, or a development team decides on building code versus buying, or an internal process is proposed that will impact team productivity or quality. Let’s assume a very straightforward process, where a proposal with relevant background information is brought to a team, and the team uses a simple majority vote to make the approval decision. In many cases this may work just fine, but what happens when the voting result is a slight majority win? Effectively, the team is split in their collective viewpoint, but the decision came down to one person’s perspective. If you are wondering about the issue of having an even number of voters, this can be handled by having the team leader, or the proposal presenter, abstain from voting unless they are needed to break the tie. On the positive, notice how this process delegates decision-making from the leader in positional authority to the team, enabling complete team buy-in and ownership of the decision. However, consider how fragile this process is. One person determined the outcome, but the team may not even be sure whether that person, or several of the voters, were considering seemingly unrelated factors or even may have a conflict of interest. Why did you have a team vote in the first place, instead of just letting the team leader decide? You were probably looking to get better results, and in this case it seems no more rational. Consider further the impact on the team. After the decision, half of the team is in full agreement with the decision but half are in disagreement and are unhappy with the results. That disagreement could fester, such as those team members being less enthusiastic or productive, or even show conflict in future situations. A majority-vote decision process may seem like the easiest or fairest way to arrive at a decision, but be careful because the likelihood of split decisions could prove to be the worst outcome for team dynamics and culture. Click to keep reading this topic: Exposing Dissension | Driving to Consensus | Just, Wait | Finding Bias in the Proposal | Big Decisions, Little Decisions | Where Are Those Disagreements, Anyway? https://lnkd.in/ecdzERca

👉 There are 3 types of decision-making styles as a leader - have you mastered them all? There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to complex matters, and leadership is definitely one of these. Depending on the circumstances, a different decision-making style might be required, but to truly thrive in the role, you must master all three of them: 👉 Decisions by Policy - best fit for recurring decisions that require consistency within the organization. It's about documenting the decisions and rolling them out as a policy. Example: spending 20% of each sprint on technical debt. 👉 Decisions by Consensus - works best for infrequent decisions where multiple stakeholders are involved, especially when each of them holds some part of the context that is necessary to make the right decision. Example: setting strategic priorities for the company, choosing between Apache Kafka vs. AWS Kinsesis when building a distributed system when there is no one in the company that knows both of them well. 👉 Decisions by Conviction - it's about getting as much relevant context as you can, analyzing trade-offs and making the final decision by yourself. It requires a significant involvement of the leader, and while it's not suitable for most decisions, it's particularly useful when there is no clear agreement between stakeholders how to move on and/or it's a decision with serious and long-lasting consequences. Example: deciding on the layoffs and the way to restructure teams afterward during tough financial times. This topic was brilliantly described by Will Larson as Leadership Styles, I would highly recommend to go more in depth and read it. Link in the comment. --- 👉 Follow me to get regular insights about leadership and engineering in tech, software architecture, AI and productivity hints.

Sometimes, #truth doesn't matter. As lovingly as possible, I make my clients really hear this. Because when I'm sharing my findings back from a #PulseCheck, I prepare leaders to hear findings that are not validated facts, but qualitative descriptions of an #employeeexperience. Clients sometimes want to argue with me. "But that's not true!" they say. "We've communicated that a dozen times - how could they say they're missing that information?" they say. "That piece of technology was down for a week - not 6 months!" they say. But it doesn't matter. What your teams perceive, what they remember - this is what defines their employee experience. Their reality. Our experiences don't always promise factual accuracy. Leaders, just because you have all the "facts" doesn't mean you're armed with all the insight you need. Ask. Listen without defense. And understand where a perception is coming from. There's always insight within...

💬 Discussion Time! 💬 Came across this classic email exchange between Steve Jobs and Adobe's CEO Bruce Chizen. Talk about a power move 😅 "Please let me know who." This got me thinking about corporate recruiting ethics and the competitive nature of the tech industry. 🌍💼 What do you think? - Should companies have no-poaching agreements, or does it stifle competition? - How should leaders handle situations like this? - Have you ever experienced or witnessed similar scenarios in your career? Let’s hear your thoughts and experiences. #Leadership #Recruitment #TechIndustry #SteveJobs #CorporateEthics #CareerDevelopment #Hiring #WorkplaceCulture #TechLeadership #IndustryInsights