A few years back, on this board, 996 was something people made fun of when it was reported that some Chinese companies did it [1].
And now, the strongest claim this blog can make is that some engineers in the US would disengage from recruiting? That the issue with working on saturdays is daily standup? What happened in these years for such a change to happen?!
Americans often remind me of Steve Jobs trying to cure cancer using diets & acupuncture. You know what the solutions are, you just don’t like them.
One of them even tried striking a couple years ago, quite publicly. They ended the strike a couple days later without gaining anything.
I think American engineers know their situation and options better than you think.
- 30 people between the ages of 18 and 25 sharing a tiny, single office room working on folding tables and CAT 7 cables hanging from the ceiling
- Whiteboards from floor to ceiling on every wall covered in scribbles and diagrams in red, black, and blue pen, half-erased with some "SAVE FOREVER" circled parts
- Typing really fast on loud, clicky keyboards
- Doing nothing but coding or working 18 hours/day with no life at all
- Living at work in sleeping bags
- Surviving on cold delivered pizza, hot instant ramen, and coffee with only a mini fridge, a microwave, and a coffee pot
- Spending absurdly little money on everything
The problem is that if even one gigabusiness began vaguely in such a manner, someone will declare some aspect(s) were "essential" and try to cargo cult the "hard work" pseudo-signals without considering sustainability or that it's even necessary. There are far too many engineers who will overwork themselves until they reach burn out or will not maximize real productivity by working less and taking breaks/vacations, and then won't want to work on a venture at all anymore.
PSA: Don't be a sucker and don't work for below market rates. Eschew working for other people and megacorps when possible; form unions, worker-owned co-ops, and/or get significant amounts of preferred liquidation-preference shares.
Prior to that it was cracked (née 10x (née ninja)) engineers or sigma grindset or whatever.
It's performative. If you bring people together to build something that they actually give a shit about, you'll out-perform a group of people who are grinding out of fear. And you'll _definitely_ out-perform the kinds of people who are buzzword heavy.
the idea that an engineer can be a ninja, 10x or unicorn independent of the processes of their environment and working group is laughable. i have known several people who were identified as "highly productive" and they all had some individual traits like a) they were very good with individual time management, b) were not afraid to say when they didn't understand something and c) were all pretty smart. (and d, knew how to give good code review comments without pissing people off.)
but... they also needed an environment where they could push back and say things like "i do not feel participating in today's 1-on-1 meeting (or meeting with product management) is a good use of my time", where task design gave them chunks of work that were appropriate and they were given the freedom to identify (and avoid) "wicked" problems.
which is to say... i don't think the story of the ninja/unicorn is complete fantasy, but management has to understand how it's real and craft an environment where an engineer's inner-unicorn can emerge.
I've been around long enough in this industry to see the pendulum swing back and forth a few times. The peak of 2020/2021 was the epitome of "spoiled tech worker" but now we're well on our way the other side, I'd say.
The statement was specifically about top 1% engineers in Silicon Valley. That’s a very, very small subset of all engineers in the US.
The pointy end of the talent spectrum in SV is a very weird place because it has had a lot of engineers for whom work is life. Living at the office and having coworkers working 24/7 might be something they like.
I’m not condoning this or saying it’s common. It’s not common. However, once you narrow down to the extreme outliers in the long tail of talent distribution you will find a lot of people who are downright obsessive about their work. Their jobs also pay north of $1mm including equity, so spending a few years of their life 996ing on a topic they love with energized people isn’t exactly a bad deal for them.
In general, if a recruiter told an average engineer that 996 was expected that would be the end of that conversation. Average US engineers are not signing up for 996 for average compensation.
If you had enough time to look back through my post history, you’ll find back in 2021 2022 I was loud as hell Screaming from as high as I could on this board primarily that we need to be doing everything we possibly could do to unionize, build labor cooperatives etc. and absolutely nobody gave a shit.
I would get roasted every time and that’s fine I know what I’m doing.
but the attitudes are changing and while it’s frustrating to have to deal with that I feel like being a Hector on this topic is just the entry fee.
I’m extremely dissatisfied at the pace and scale and lack of leaders and organization and push back and etc… so I expect the next two years to be really really really bad and the hope is that people wake up at a large enough scale that they actually are able to affect something but I don’t have a lot of hope for that.
What I describe is not real activism imo but at least I can tell you from first hand documentation that sentiment is changing.
This seems entirely false to me. To be honest it is so incorrect it significantly puts into question the rest of the article.
1. I have absolutely had managers motivate me to work harder. I have also had managers completely demotivate me and cause me to quit. How on earth can anyone who has worked in the industry for any amount of time say that "The only place where managers motivate people is in management books"?
2. Of course most of the facile strategies mentioned in the article (like 996, micromanaging, etc) won't work. The article then generalizes this to all strategies - but "if terrible methods can't solve it, nothing possibly can" feels like a shaky argument at best. A good manager understands this, and motivates by helping you understand how the things you are doing are actually critical to the success of the team and the company. (If success of the company isn't something you're interested in, then yes, it's going to be hard to motivate you.) A poor manager sabotages motivation in a hundred different ways - he makes you feel like your efforts are totally wasted, or fails to articulate why they are important.
Being a manager myself, I never got to motivate anybody do anything they didn’t want to. If they wanted to, it worked, but the motivation AFAIK was internal.
Of course that is one person speaking. Milage can vary.
It’s a difficult idea to accept but once you accept it, it’s kind of liberating. It follows that hiring and then work-assignments during roadmapping are the two points of highest leverage in making a mutually-successful employee-manager relationship.
The problem you’re solving there is a search problem. You’re trying to discover if the employee’s motivation landscape peaks in any dimensions that align with the roadmap. They can be the most skilled person in the world, but if the peaks don’t overlap, the project will never run smoothly. It also follows that in extreme cases where you have a tenured employee that you want to retain for future work, you should absolutely let them drive and shape the roadmap.
I'd be willing to bet that as a manager you've gotten people to do the shit work no one wants to though, mostly by explaining why & how it's important, sharing it across the entire team, working to eliminate dumb parts of it and stepping in to do some of it yourself - and yes, occasionally assigning it directly. To me, that's motivation: sustainably coordinating energies in a shared direction for the greater good.
Your definition of a "good manager" is essentially "does not actively sabotage work of subordinates". That's not motivation, that's merely absence of active demotivation. A person knowing how and in what ways their work contributes to the success of the unit and the whole are absolute basics and if a person is not aware of those either their manager is incompetent as hell or actively hostile.
Reminds me of those job ads where "benefits" section contains gems like "salary paid on time". That is not a benefit, that is such a basic that even mentioning it puts into question everything about such company.
This is not even remotely what that person said. They said "motivates by helping you understand how the things you are doing are actually critical to the success of the team and the company". That is not nearly "does not actively sabotage".
> A person knowing how and in what ways their work contributes to the success of the unit and the whole are absolute basics
Oh please. If you reject every single thing good managers do to motivate people as "does not count" then of course you will end up with nothing. It is super easy to not see how this or that contributes to the success of a thing. It is also possible to be in position where you are in fact not contributing to the success - while you created an illusion in your head about how important you are.
The author is trying to argue for hiring early engineers who have exhibited ownership values and who want to take ownership for their work. These are the people for whom you establish "extreme transparency" (see: late in the post), a Google Doc for them to help align with others on high-level plans, a kitchen for people to informally talk in, and then get out of their way. That kind of environment is indeed in and of itself quite motivating for a certain kind of engineer.
Of course, it doesn't scale to BigCorp-size. Eventually you have too many cooks in the kitchen. The truth is that the vast majority of engineers really do want someone to tell them exactly what to do, so that they can come in to a highly structured 9-5 job and earn a paycheck that pays their mortgage and feeds their family. Author's prescriptions do not apply to large companies or to most engineers, and Author makes it clear as such.
You can de-motivate me in a lot of ways, some examples:
- throwing me or a coworker under the bus for your mistakes
- crediting yourself for the work of someone else
- attempting to "motivate" me when I'm already motivated
- manufacturing a sense of urgency, this is especially bad if you try to sustain this state all indefinitely
- using AI or market conditions as a fear tactic to motivate the team
- visibly engaging in any kind of nepotism
Honestly this list could go on and on, but those are some that come to mind.
Sadly, I have seen this in almost every startup led by founders without an engineering background I've ever been a part of.
In my personal experience, this is often caused by overeager sales team promising the world for the next deal, only to fob it off to the engineering team who now "urgently" need to build "features" and "work hard" to make it happen. This is when your intrinsically motivated engineers start looking for the exit.
- not letting me have ownership of what I build and dictating features
- not giving me autonomy of how to solve a problem
I d argue its not the manager that motivates people that can only be found inbooks. Its the manager that can come in and mend a toxic and dysfunctional team.
The toxic teams end up breaking good managers in the end and they either become part of the problem or leave.
The hero manager described in the phoenix project is a myth.
The motivational one imho is very real but they need a good platform just like everyone else.
That team is doomed and the best course of action is to disband it and let the worst people go.
1. Share a cohesive and inspiring vision for the project.
2. Understand your skills, strengths/weaknesses etc and try to give you work that challenges you / help you grow / are interesting.
I think these are rare and can be hard to do (I'm now trying to do it myself!), but when it happens it's very motivating.
I am aware that all of those things may not be in their power to give, but some combination of that in any org that is somewhat functional would be motivating.
I had another boss, a founder, who had a difficult relationship with engineering but was extremely gifted and had a great vision. I found myself highly motivated at this company as well, but for wholly different reasons. There are many paths to success.
Both startups had successful exits, and I felt as though I contributed meaningfully to both.
But if someone has a high ceiling, the most a manager can do is create an environment that allows the employee to achieve their max potential. A bad manager on the other hand, can very easily bring a normally high-potential motivated employee down to mediocre levels.
If you are one of those self-aware leaders that knows how to create an environment where people can excel, then hiring highly motivated people is the winning strategy.
Motivation is a whimsical thing.
The fantastic element that explains the appeal of games to many developers is neither the fire-breathing monsters nor the milky-skinned, semi-clad sirens; it is the experience of carrying out a task from start to finish without any change in the user requirements.
(a) make sure that the goals are set to stone and crystal clear
(b) the team can do their work without any unnecessary distractions
(c) try to remove some of these "necessary" distractions as well
It can be really hard. And it can very ungrateful. I aim to be a nightwatchman, and I'm really proud of myself when the team thinks I'm getting paid for nothing. The bigger the structure the bigger the drama and I don't want them to be any part of it.
Meanwhile I struggle with stakeholders who are like "c'mon, you already build the skyscraper, we just want you to move the parking lot from the underground to second story, how hard can it be, you have all the parts in place, just move them around".
Initial motivation is the hired trait. It’s very easy to demotivate people. The trick is to not do that.
One of my core philosophies as a manager is that by default I should get the fuck out of the way. From there, identify the biggest issues and solve them.
If you're successful hiring great people, I really don't understand the desire to micromanage them. Or do silly things that are demotivating, like 996 or trying to mislead them / market things / hide the bad stuff.
Treating people like adults is that One Neat Trick that influencer bloggers don't want you to know.
In the companies below Big Tech in valuation at least, having been in the room with drunken executives speaking their real thoughts multiple times, I’ve found it’s because they don’t want to treat people like adults.
They want serfs to order around because they have some cultural value around being “the boss” and you can’t be “the boss” if you aren’t telling people what to do. The more things you tell them to do, the more of a boss you are.
It’s how you get executives crowing to you about all of these faang ideas like google’s 20% time back in the day, or engineers being able to vote with their feet and only attend meetings they found useful, but then have people on pips because they were consistently 30-60 seconds late to daily standups.
It’s not the only failure mode by far, but having leadership like that seems like a cause for companies getting hard stuck below a billion in profit
maybe they were trying to get me to quit. maybe that area's director was incompetent. maybe both.
Of course there's also the problem that you can find and hire people who are motivated people but there's absolutely no guarantee people are going to be motivated for your specific problem.
Commonly in the cultures that end up this way, leadership blames / gaslights the ICs. It's toxic and honestly kind of heartbreaking.
So true. And really hard to reverse
No one plans to hire their assistant based on how much they will motivate the other people that are going to deal with the assistant. Sure, it is important that they are pleasant, but that's it. Their role is actually an administrative one of brokering information. Managers are essentially the same role with higher stakes, trying to make it about anything deeper seems to be main character syndrome in full effect.
Is motivation intrinsic to a person.
Or is it a person plus situation.
Ot is it person, situation and reason (reason given in interview)
I have been most motivated when there was an aha in the interview process. Or a "cooll!" feeling. For me usually about the end product over the tech stack. I like to work on things I like to use myself.
There's a trifecta that works well:
1. The job is what the employee wants to be doing (IC, manager, FE/BE, end product or mission, whatever).
2. It's what the company needs. (Don't let a high performer do something that's Priority 10 just to keep them.)
3. It's what the employee is good at. (This includes areas of growth that they have aptitude for!)
People in those situations, in my experience, tend to thrive. It's great that you've recognized the kinds of products (ones you use) that give you that.
Something I don't think hiring managers do enough is convince applicants not to work there. Have a conversation to discover what the person wants. If it's not this role, that's totally fine! It's far better to help someone discover what they love than hire someone into something they won't.
Setting this expectation early seems honest and the best thing to do. The worst is when companies sell people on WLB but then flip it to 996 -- you end up with all the wrong people and no one wins. Best to be transparent from the onset.
I always encourage candidates to go visit the company several times if possible, including a visit at 5:30pm or 6:30pm to see the state of the office and attendance. There is no right or wrong answer --
As an academic, I used to work 11am-8pm many days when I was younger thanks to flexible working hours, and I wasn’t the only one working late but not early. I realize this is probably more rare in corporate settings, but keep in mind if the place has flexible hours you might see more people at 6pm despite people not doing 996.
What i'd assess at 6:30 is whether people are on meetings or on focus time. If you have monitors with zooms full of 5-6 people, I wouldn't think that is flex hours, i'd assume that is a meeting being scheduled at 6:30.
On the other hand, if you have people focus working, you cannot draw any conclusions from that.
Personally, I stay at work late. But there is a difference between me being obsessed with a problem and working thru the evening trying to solve it (awesome for me) vs meetings that are being scheduled at 6:30pm or 7pm
I have a very tough time in the morning convincing myself to go to work, and a very tough time at work tearing myself away from something in an intermediate state. Things at work are always in an intermediate state at 5:00, unless you stopped working well before then (or got very lucky), so I always end up working late whether I come in on time or come in late.
So I'm always trying to get to the point where management lets me get there when I get there, and trusts me to be productive. It's a mental thing. I get up early and do a lot in the morning; I'm a morning person. Maybe too much so. The time between getting off work and going to bed is garbage time for me; a long annoying commute and a meal. When I leave at 5:00 I just fall asleep by 9:00.
Nobody wants a "visit" from the founder, anyway. They want timely two-way flow of information, access and guidance on the occasions when they need it, and maybe (maybe) an occasional chance to hang out socially as a group with no reference to work. Nobody wants the founder randomly dropping by during work hours to assess morale.
I'll dedicate a post to specific ways you can identify motivation
during hiring, but in short, look for: the obvious one: evidence that
they indeed exhibited these external signs of motivation (in an
unforced way!) in past jobs; signs of grit in their career and life
paths (how did they respond to adversity, how have they put their past
successes or reputation on the line for some new challenge);
intellectual curiosity in the form of hobbies, nerdy interests that
they can talk about with passion
> though it's a great way to keep your Slack channels full of zesty, nerdy, non-remunerative enterprise during the core hours everyone has to actually ship code together.
Spicy take, but that's 100% consistent with my experience. Hire a lot of people for their nerdy interests and hobbies and your company comms become full of chatter about nerdy interests and hobbies. Meanwhile the "boring" people who ship code and then go home to their families (or pets, or anything) are trying to ship code and get the job done.
Nerdy interests and hobbies is not a good proxy for work ability. Hiring someone primarily for nerdy interests and hobbies is probably a red herring. Focus on what matters.
>Nerdy interests and hobbies is not a good proxy for work ability.
Aren't you actually describing a great proxy?
All my past experience disagrees. Sure you have 15 engineers, but you're supporting a business of 150 people. This is a pretty common ratio.
The noise gets very loud at that scale and it becomes almost impossible for self-managed engineers to make forward progress. At the very least you need super clearly defined ownership boundaries. That means business process and workstream ownership, not code ownership.
Concretely, managing 12 ICs on a well defined platform team w/ a single PM is much easier than managing 6 people working across 6 businesses, as is more common when managing a team of data scientists.
I don't believe a manager can be effective at 15 direct reports. I think it's possible to keep things afloat, but split that team in half and hire another manager and you'll be in a much better position.
What usually happens here is that your most senior members of the team are picking up management responsibilities instead of doing IC ones. By all means they should contribute to mentorship, direction, culture, etc. but there is way too much going on to have a deep understanding of those 15 engineers.
The only times I think this work is when the leader sucks, so swamping them with reports means they have a more difficult time micro-managing. But they're probably getting in the way in some other fashion.
> I'll dedicate a post to specific ways you can identify motivation during hiring, but in short, look for
All will be gamed by interviewees, by the afternoon this hits the HN front page.
(And, for example, tech interview prep has already been telling people to fake passion and curiosity, for many years now.)
Here's what you do:
1. Consider that the early startup also belongs to the early hires. It's their startup too. You're the last-word decider, but it's not only your startup. You want it to also be theirs. Believe this, and act like it.
2. Reflect that in the equity sharing. "0.5%", to be diluted, as options, with ISO rules that discourage exercising at all... while co-founders divide up 70% of founder real shares between themselves... is nonsense, for that founding engineer, who you should want to be as motivated as you, and contributing as much as you do.
3. With equity like you're serious, make the salaries low-ish. Not so low that it's nonviable for modest family cost of living, but low enough to self-select out the people who aren't committed to the company being successful, or who don't actually believe in the company.
4. Have an actually promising company and founding team, or you won't get many experienced people biting.
Modest compensation with good equity sharing is hard for candidates to game too.
This is how you select for anyone that cannot land a better payrate. There are startups that get better funding and can pay real salaries.
The context on this one is that we've gone from an environment in which kids were mocked for having curiosity and passion about nerdy things like systems, and it didn't pay that well as an adult, and those people would go home at the end of the day and also write open source code...
To one in which it's now a high-paying career, and a bunch of interview prep manuals coach on faking that, doing open source to promote your career, etc.
So if OG nerds look around at the environment and see the dynamics, of people who just want well-paying jobs (nothing wrong with that) seeming to do a performative dance with interviewers who also just want well-paying jobs (nothing wrong with that), and everyone is being told to project passion and curiosity (when they really just want well-paying jobs) and to look for it in others...
You think the problem is that OG nerds, for example, feel that they do not naturally signal that?
They may signal that just fine, but merely be questioning all the performative theater by people who aren't here for that, but some management fashion told them they should pretend to be.
1. Motivation is a feeling, it's an emotion, it comes and goes, it's a bonus. It's discipline and professionalism that make the huge difference. Many people have the motivation and dream to "create their own programming language", "launch their startup", "make it to the NBA", "lose 40 pounds and get fitter" but this motivation, a feeling, will consistently fight the emotions telling you to have fun, relax, go out with friends, play video games to relieve stress. Motivation is a great boost to discipline and professionalism, but those two survive even when motivation goes off, whereas won't take you anywhere.
2. You cannot hire for motivation and if you're looking for that trait you'll likely projecting your own biases. I suspect that the author of the blog post has nerdy hobbits so he projects himself on candidates. Non sense. Yes, nerdier engineers are likely more interested in the craft and in overall engineering, but that says absolutely nothing about them being motivated in building yet another B2B SaaS.
3. A very good engineer joining a startup, should have the implicit motivation of wanting to get rich in few years, otherwise he/she's be joining a cushier job that pays better.
I find the work itself rewarding and I find world improvement results reinforcing of my enjoyment. I want to code and I'm happy to direct that energy largely according to my employer's needs and our shared benefit. I can be given high level directives and refinement feedback over time. My observed results are faster, more effective progress as reported by internal and external stakeholders. I haven't minded becoming wealthier but it was never my primary motive.
As you note, there are other approaches.
Desires change as we grow up and life changes us.
The people you hire today, aren't going to be the same 3/6/9/12 months from now when a parent gets sick, a partner leaves, a child is born, when something suddenly changes their priority, etc.
Overwork culture is also present here and exploited by a lot of companies.
Scandals in the papers around the crazy hours workers at big-4 consultancies in Vienna typically do, which again went unpunished by labor agencies, since there were no written orders from management imposing those long hours but workers just tactilely accepted it as part of the work culture there.
Similarly, a mate of mine at major finance gig in Frankfurt noticed that they were working longer hours than their colleagues from NY. Heard similar stories from colleagues from Italy and France.
So work hours are super dependent on local culture and industry. The meme about everyone in the EU being paid to slack off all day is not as common as people imagine, unless maybe you work for the government or got lucky to score a great gig in some dysfunctional monopolistic megacorp.
just keep in mind that American tech startups are often just vehicles to evade estate tax. and certainly vehicles for converting VC money into more VC money by selling dreams to greater fools. there's also a down side.
> So you have a good work/life balance. I currently work 4 hours a week.
And this is why when I was a PM, we shut down our Amsterdam office and shifted it to Praha, Bucharest, and Warsaw. You won't find as many people who will complain about a 40 hour workweek while earning €80k TCs
The reason Europeans don't want to do 996 is because the extra effort isn't fairly compensated.
You don't need to push yourself into burnout as an employee in order to participate in an early stage startup.
> earning €80k
80k€ gross is not a lot for a decent SWE in western europe. The reason people complain in Amsterdam is not the hours, it's that your comp is shit.
Most engineers in the US work normal 40 hour work weeks, too.
For one company I log on once a month, I start a Renovate process which generates pull-requests for updated dependencies. Patch-versions get auto-merged after tests succeed, minor and major need approval of the current lead. Sometimes I need to manually tweak the code a bit because of API changes or to get tests to pass. I'm allowed to bill them four hours on it regardless of actual work, which is between five minutes (no manual intervention required) and two hours (need to rewrite some code).
For another company I create a report once a month for all outages and which errors frequently show up in logging. I automated this to be a five minute task and it generates a Wiki page. I review the page to see if everything is ok. I bill an hour on this.
The company is happy to not have to allocate engineer hours on maintenance so they can continue pumping out new features.
I'd say that on average I work 4 hours and bill 12 hours. This is comparable to the income of someone in employment working around 24 hours. But I do run a significant risk obviously.
Which employers hand out 4h contracts?
I guess either you have wealth, very low costs or a great hourly rate, or you are the one person who got that Tim Ferriss book to work.
It was once said of the Roman legions "The Legion is not composed of heroes. Heroes are what the Legion kills." Field Marshall the Viscount Slim, who commanded in the China-Burma-India theater in WWII, once wrote "Wars are won by the average performance of the line units." He wrote negatively on various special forces type units, preferring to use regular infantry and training them up to a good, but not superhuman, standard. Arthur Imperatore, who had a unionized trucking company in New Jersey, is profiled in "Perfecting a Piece of the World" (1993) for how he made his trucking company successful despite a very ordinary workforce.
There's an argument for winning by steady competently managed plodding. The competently managed part is hard. Steve Bechtel, head of the big construction company that bears his name, once said that the limit on how many projects they could take on was finding bosses able to go out to a job site and make it happen. Failure is a management problem, not a worker problem.
If you have 15 people, you can hire 15 people and they will be able to organically organize if you hire well. If they have a question, they know what everyone is working on. The code base is small enough that everyone can just figure it out even if the documentation is bad.
The larger that group is, the more effort it takes to make sure everyone has the context they need to get their job done. That's where management matters.
And honestly, when I was the first manager (team of 17) brought in, I was writing code and on my own project in addition to starting to build up the "what do we need to do to scale?" You bring someone like me in at 17 people because you're going to need to scale soon and someone needs to build the first set of processes that solve the problems of the next stage, and figure out the onramp because done wrong, they make everything worse.
to put it in marketing manager speak, for many tasks in a combat arms unit, individual performance is a satisfier, not a a delighter. if one person in the unit does a bad job, the unit will fail. if everyone in a unit does an "okay" job, the unit will not fail. the outcome between the two cases is dramatic. but if you have a unit where everyone is "okay" and then expend effort to make everyone in the unit exceptional, you will not notice a concomitant increase in performance.
flipping this over to software development... you have a lot more control over whom you hire to be in your unit. but everyone has a bad week or a skills gap, so training (which could be as simple as giving people time to read up on a subject or write a few test programs) will eventually be important. like line military units, everyone needs to be hitting on all cylinders for the dev team to work in accordance with plan. investing in upskilling existing developers who are competent but underperforming may be a better strategy than uber-skilling your best developers or firing them and hoping you can replace them with someone with better ability to figure out how to be productive on the team.
as a humourous aside... at amazon my manager discovered i was prior-service, saying "Oh! You were a MARINE!? I want to manage my team like a military outfit." unfortunately, my response was "WHAT!? You want to spend 80% of your budget on training and logistics!?" that was probably not the best thing to say in that situation.
also... if we're talking about applying military metaphors to product development, it's worth it to look up the various OODA talks by John Boyd. i don't know if i agree with all of it, and it's not directly applicable. but there's enough there to justify at least reading about it. Boyd was a friend of my dad's, so i remember thinking he was crazy when i met him as a child, but again, he may have been crazy, but he was definitely an intellectual outsider who hit more than he missed.
Boyd had a lot of influence on the design of the F-16, the fighter jock's dream airplane. He also pushed for, of all things, the A-10 Warthog, hated by fighter jocks, loved by ground troops who really needed close air support.
Reading up on the OODA loop is useful. Boyd himself barely wrote anything about it. Others have written volumes.
That doesn't mean that motivating people is also easy. They're not equivalent.
Motivating people requires understanding their psychology, their values, what they want from their life, etc, and then applying that knowledge to create a workplace culture that feeds all of that. Demotivating them just requires not understanding any of that, or ignoring it in favour of feeding your own ego or psychology. It's a lot easier to demotivate.
No, motivating people simply requires giving them more money (performance bonuses, stock options, thirteenth salary/end-of-year bonus...). DUH. OBVIOUSLY.
People in management positions always try to weasel their way out of paying their people more. (Well, not always, not all of them do, but you get my point.)
Unless you work on truly cutting edge stuff (by which I mean the likes of SpaceX and its equivalents in different industries), motivation is money.
It's as simple as that. No need to twist yourself into all kinds of pretzels.
No, it's not the coworkers (which, by the way, are not your friends unless you meet outside of work), it's not the job as such (very few people outside of art actually enjoy doing their job as an activity after say 10 years of doing it), it's money.
Money is the primary motivator (by far). You work for money. End of story. Anyone saying otherwise is a bs artist.
and if you could only de-motivate people, eventually everyone in your team would be de-motivated.
There are all sorts of things like depression, cynicism, past experiences, etc. that can lead to someone have a lower baseline of motivation. It's also highly contextual, which I think is what you're saying and I 100% agree with. Some people thrive in role A and would want to bang their head against a wall for 40 hours in role B. Others vice versa, others would be meh in either, etc.
If you don’t know what good people look like you can’t win.
People want to work hard and they want to do good - but they're scared. They're scared that working hard will only be to their detriment and, well, can you blame them? When managers create an almost adversarial relationship, it can feel like doing your best is setting yourself up for failure.
People need to get on the same page. You don't need to be (shouldn't be) process insane or go SCRUM or whatever to do that. But having regular organized interactions and task definitions is absolutely imperative even early on when you don't know for sure what you'll be doing.
as for ticket management. JIRA is not your friend. i would rather go with a stack of post-its than JIRA. JIRA does not help you understand what you are trying to do (in my experience.) once you've figured out specific tasks, JIRA can track those tasks, but so can BugZilla or (as my teams are using increasingly) text files checked into the repo.
people often confuse the tool with the process and confuse following the process with making progress. the first rule of issue tracking systems is they should not get in the way of making tasks you need to do visible. JIRA routinely violates this rule.
hmm... maybe i should write my own blog post.
We just rolled out Linear, and I'm gauging how I feel about it. GitHub / GitLab issues I don't find useful. Linear seems like a middle ground. And it's nice and fast. It also doesn't seem to let PMs go apeshit with custom fields and workflows, so that's good.
I always crave for something closer to Buganizer we had internally at Google, which was just nice and minimal and not invasive. At least in its V1 form.
https://www.personalkanban.com/pk/personal-kanban-101/
I recommend Sunsama:
If you are an early stage startup and your founders have a habit of talking about "competitors", run like hell.
Why? Comparing what the competitors are doing can be a great way to come up with new ideas
Not to say the article is so wrong. I think their advice to consider elevating a few engineers into informal tech leads is a great answer. We went with the path of hiring one dedicated "manager" of all engineers and that worked pretty well too.
> consider elevating a few engineers into informal tech leads
It is potentially risky - I've seen plenty of talented engineers flounder because they were thrust into an ill-suited management role too soon, but I think if someone is motivated and eased into the role they tend to be superior to an outside hire.
Although I know that a lot of people would argue for "what's wrong with doing your day job well and going home to your family, friends, etc?", in my experience, it is also true that the best software engineers I've seen during my 25 year career are the ones that made their job also their passion and hobby. I think intellectual curiosity and being a 9-5 person are inversely correlated, again in my experience.
There is a place for this kind of people, among which I count myself nowadays -- I used to be way nerdier, learning new programming languages and embarking on projects just because, until life got in the way, my interests shifted, etc.
> I think intellectual curiosity and being a 9-5 person are inversely correlated, again in my experience.
I think this is objectively false. I've seen plenty of terrible coworkers -- terrible at their jobs, that is -- who I later found to have hobbies they were passionate about. One was an excellent standup comedian in her spare time. Another did lots of sports and took them seriously. They just weren't very good at software, and they also "phoned it in". One was essentially a "used car salesman" personality, I'm sure he would have excelled at selling used cars! But his code was awful, and he was very combative towards the rest of the team during code reviews, resisted testing his stuff in any way, shape or form, etc. A friend of mine is a middling developer (not bad, but he's the first to admit he's average), but is an awesome guy, funny, and also an outstanding magician.
I would never argue for that. My meaning was more about having a passion/hobby in the field that you are working in.
But I think some of the management and team stuff is much more complicated in B2B or B2B2C situations, regulated industries, or cases where there are substantial non-engineering employees, perhaps doing sales, onboarding, or things related to the "offline" world (if there are physical aspects to the business).
In particular, I don't think you can have a super flat eng structure run out of a few docs if eng needs to be working with one or more teams larger than the eng team itself unless there's some kind of separate interface to large outside teams.
If you end up with a significant sales team, account management team, support team, significant numbers of contractors, or other categories of workers because of the nature of the business, you will have to be more regimented about how things are structured. In companies that face this issue, it's often one of their major challenges and not avoidable compared to other kinds of startups - your sales team may have all kinds of ideas and some of them may even be good, and some may even want to sell them before you've built them. And if your sales team is 2x the size of product and engineering... it's not easy to run out of one document. (Note that I don't love or endorse this, but in certain kind of markets and products it seems like a bit of an unavoidable issue.)
The only quibble I'd have is with "1:1's happen organically and infrequently" - I think this is based on a misunderstanding about what 1:1's are for.
Regular, formal, 1:1's are the opportunity to get above the work and talk about meta stuff - career direction, morale, interpersonal issues, etc. It's the founder/manager's chance to check if the employee is happy and thriving, or if there's something that needs to change.
These sorts of conversations can happen organically, but often don't, and can be awkward if they do happen organically. Getting the awkward out of the way with a formal agenda can really help to get into the guts of it. Rather than having to manipulate the conversation to get to an emotional item, the manager can just flat-out ask the question because it's on the agenda.
Obviously, you can overdo this, and it can turn into a nightmare for folks so I can see why TFA proposes eliminating them. But properly done, formal 1:1's are really valuable even in small teams.
Who on EARTH would opt in to a system like that imposed by your management? (Barring the obvious compensation-related encouragement)
Bad managers also exist, and can reduce performance, which can be fatal to a startup. But that’s not a reason to avoid having management functions assigned to employees.
I've now seriously approached vibecoding two nontrivial projects, and in each case using "safe tools" was a good way to get to a working stage, faster:
- in one I insisted on typescript early and found it to be more of a hurdle than letting the LLM cobble js learning in and address bugs in a way an engineer might find uncivilized (trial and error over bulletproof typing).
- in another, I found that using react was not offering much benefit to a given project, and asked the llm to rewrite in vanilla. while this mostly worked, it introduced new bugs that were not present when using react. switching BACK to react eliminated these and enabled the LLM to continue writing features at no (current) technical or performance cost!
You dont necessarily need managers but you do need someone to set expectations and keep the team accountable. Otherwise its a race to the bottom. There's no way for me as a single engineer to undo slop faster than its generated.
I couldn't disagree more. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but when standups are done synchronously, everyone actually pays attention, notices blocks and helps with them. Things get surfaced and quickly addressed that simply wouldn't otherwise, which is the purpose of standups. When it's async, people just put in what they're working on and mostly ignore everyone else. Standups need to be about 2-way communication, not 1-way.
And retrospectives are about improving how the team works. Every team has challenges of every kind. Retrospectives are for surfacing those and addressing them. They take up a couple hours a week, but the idea is that after several months the team is more productive and it pays for itself in time.
> Organic 1:1s (as opposed to recurring ones): keep them topic-heavy and ad-hoc, as opposed to relationship maintenance like in the corporate world.
Also disagree. 1-1's aren't about "relationship maintenance", again they're about surfacing issues that wouldn't arise organically -- all the little things that aren't worth scheduling a conversation over, but which need to be addressed for smooth functioning.
At the end of the day, managing a team is managing a team. In terms of managing people, it's not fundamentally that different if you're a 10-engineer startup or a team of 10 engineers at a megacorp. These things aren't "anti-patterns" or "rituals". When done correctly, they work. (Obviously, if done badly, they don't -- so if you're managing a team, do them correctly.)
In a large org where the most senior IC and the manager are both in 35 hours of meetings a week while the rest have 20 a week you need rituals. When all they are focused on in engineering then you don't.
Teams don't just work together magically and "organically". They're made of diverse human beings, every one of us, who come from different backgrounds with different expectations about when and what to communicate and when and what not to and around what is who's responsibility when. Different levels of experience, having worked at different places with different practices, and different preferences about how to do things. This is a recipe for a hundred miscommunications and inefficiences and misunderstandings a day.
These processes exist to surface the most important things not being surfaced, and to identify and fix problems that affect the team but which nobody is understanding in full because everyone only knows their own perspective.
Again, these aren't "rituals". They're processes that are proven because they work. Including with 5-6 engineers.
but... if you're going to do standups and retrospectives... i agree with you. do them synchronously. the idea is to get everyone to listen to everyone else. the reason they're STAND-ups is 'cause everyone's supposed to be standing so there's motivation to keep them short. this often makes it difficult to do "follow the sun" development. i quit a job a couple years back because my management insisted my engineers on the US west coast be included in standups for teams in Pune (India).
and that 1-on-1's are for surfacing issues that haven't come up elsewhere seems like received wisdom among my peer group. it seems to work well for me, so +1 on that too.
the phrase "when done correctly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. i bet people who have bad experience with these practices were in situations where they weren't done correctly.
one of my problems with environments where management thinks devs are interchangeable bots motivated only by money is that there is zero motivation for management to change their approach when it doesn't work. if they think the only thing that motivates people is money, they think they have to add more money or fire their devs and get devs that are appropriately motivated by cash.
Source?
When they see results deteriorating, "managers" think the solution is "more management," which is never, ever the solution.