Archive of articles classified as' "Leadership"

Back home

Long live Slack, down with egotistical email

17/11/2014

We use Slack for team communication at Cozy. I struggled with the transition. When I reflected on my struggles, it made me better understand what a destructive format email is for workplace communication.

A quick disclaimer. This is only about work communication and not personal communication. I love email. I think email will be around for a long time and I will lament if and when it goes away. I just don’t think we should be using email for work.

Oration is the highest form of feeding an ego. You craft your message carefully. You research, write, and rehearse. Finally, you take the stage. You command everyone’s attention. And once you’re done, an important topic has been thoroughly addressed and everyone can go on with their lives, better off after hearing what you said.

Email is oratory without the speaking* (or skill). My problems with email stem from when it is used for one-way communication. I suspect that most emails I’ve ever received from anyone in management have been one-way. Generally these emails are meant to, first and foremost, communicate the sender/manager’s self-importance. Often the email contains a nugget of actual information which should be hosted elsewhere. Sometimes the email is an announcement no one understands. And as a rule, you can’t rely on people reading the email you send anyway.

When you craft a long email, like an orator crafts a speech, it is an ego boost. Each one is a masterpiece. You are proud of your fine writing. When you craft a long chat message, on the other hand, you look like a dramatic asshole. It puts in stark perspective how awful the written format is for important or high-bandwidth communication. I’ve never seen someone post a 300-word message to chat. How many 300-word emails do you have in your inbox?

Removing email also levels the playing field for communication. You don’t need to be a manager or orator. Everything you write has a visibility you can’t change. You choose your audience based on topic. Is there a question about a product’s design? Well, it goes into the product or design channel, whether you are Executive Emperor or QA Associate II. Also, no one really wants to read your dramatic flair so please keep it short and to the point.

I used to get frustrated when I’d write an excellent email, send it out, and within a few minutes someone would reply with a message like “Yeah, just to build on what Rob said, it’d be a good idea to do X.” You idiot! You are an Ice Cream Truck driving through the State of the Union. But of course, the problem was mine, playing a manipulative game, focusing too much on this amazing message I’d created. Sometimes these emails would be about the manipulative games people were playing and how we weren’t focused on the employees and customers and things that were actually important.

Email in the workplace is a systematic problem. We take it for granted. We use it constantly. We don’t question it. But email has a cost. It feeds into the already inflated ego of managers. It encourages one-way communication. It is wonderful for grandstanding. We spend a lot of time crafting museum-quality correspondence no one wants to read. And in the end, there are better ways to accomplish what we use it for.


* One of the greatest “speeches” of all time, Pro Milone by Cicero, was written, not spoken. We know great orators by their writing, not their speaking.

No Comments

If you hear “perception is reality” you’re probably being screwed

27/10/2014

I was once told in a performance review that “perception is reality.” I was infuriated, and the words stuck in my mind as the most toxic thing a manager could say to an employee. I have avoided writing about it, but the “This American Life” episode about Carmen Segarra’s recordings at the Fed has inspired me to change my mind. Here’s the relevant section, emphasis mine:

Jake Bernstein: Carmen says this wasn’t an isolated incident. In December– not even two months into her job– a business line specialist came to Carmen and told her that her minutes from a key meeting with Goldman executives were wrong, that people didn’t say some of the things Carmen noted in the minutes. The business line specialists wanted her to change them. Carmen didn’t.

That same day, Carmen was called into the office of a guy named Mike Silva. Silva had worked at the Fed for almost 20 years. He was now the senior Fed official stationed inside Goldman. What Mike Silva said to Carmen made her very uncomfortable. She scribbled notes as he talked to her.

Carmen Segarra: I mean, even looking at my own meeting minutes, I see that the handwriting is like nervous handwriting. It’s like you can tell. He started off by talking about he wanted to give me some mentoring feedback. And then he started talking about the importance of credibility. And he said, you know, credibility at the Fed is about subtleties and about perceptions as opposed to reality.

Well shit, if that doesn’t sound familiar. Here I was, doing work that was by all measures extremely successful, yet pulled into a feedback meeting to be told “perception is reality.”

Let me tell you what “perception is reality” means, and why you should plan on leaving your job the moment you hear it:

The arbitrary opinions of your manager’s manager defines your situation. And they don’t like what you’re doing.

Your manager may be well-meaning (mine was, as was Mike Silva), but at the point you get this “perception is reality” bullshit, you can be sure there’s nothing that they are going to do to help you. Someone above them has taken notice, your manager has probably heard hours of complaints, and you can either shut up or get out. Perception isn’t reality everywhere; it is only the mantra in sick organizations totally removed from reality.

1 Comment

Technical debt takes many forms

23/10/2014

Most people are familiar with “technical debt” in terms of code or architectural problems that slow down development. There are other forms of technical debt, though, that can be overlooked.

Dead Code: There are endless “dead code as debt” scenarios. You have a “live” function that is only used from dead code, hiding the fact that this function is also dead (this situation is cancerous). Every time you grep, you have to wade through code that is dead. Every time someone stumbles across the dead code, they need to figure out if it’s dead or alive. There’s no reason for any of this (especially not “keep it around as reference”). Dead code is a debt, but it’s also easy to pay back. Remove your dead code.

Unused Repos or Branches: Every time a new person starts, they will ponder what code is dead and what is alive. This pondering includes code, issues, and documentation. It is sloppy and unnecessary. Put unused repositories in cold storage. Delete stale branches.

Large Backlog: The larger the backlog, the worse the experience of using it. It’s harder to find, reclassify, and prioritize. Some developers will not even bother. A backlog is not a place for everyone to list anything they think should ever be done. Close stale and low-priority tickets. Close “symptom” tickets that you know won’t be addressed until a system is rewritten. Close everything except 3 months of work (and manage further out work on your roadmap, which should not be in your backlog).

Dirty Wikis/Documentation: Why out of date documentation is harmful should be pretty self-explanatory. Don’t let it get that way (or just delete the documentation). Make documentation someone’s responsibility, or make it part of the “definition of done.”

Every organization has these things. By recognizing them as debt, and thus detrimental to development, it can perhaps simplify any argument about what to do.

3 Comments

High performance, poor morale, and the Niko-niko calendar

2/10/2014

I was introduced to Niko-niko calendars by Max Webster at Niko Niko. Basically, they are a way of tracking a team’s mood over time. At the end of the day, team members put in a smile/frown/whatever face indicating their mood. You can see when people were happy or sad and coordinate that with other events (what tasks they were working on, what happened at work, etc.).

Initially, I thought this was a pretty useless metric. What good leader or manager wouldn’t always know this information? I can tell if things are going well because I speak to the team regularly as I make changes. But it can be useful to track mood for when things get lost in the cracks or regress. It’s also useful as an outside-facing metric, to show people how their decisions impact the team. The more I thought about it, the more I wished I had known about Niko-niko calendars earlier!

I would only consider Niko-niko effective on an already well-performing and generally happy team. It is a pretty high-level metric, so if people are unhappy for many reasons, I doubt you’ll get much useful data. So, with that, how about some scenarios that I would have used a Niko-niko calendar for, had I known about them?

  • Process tweaks like shortening sprints or requiring more code reviews. People are resistant at first but usually accept it. Is this because they get happier over time? Or because they do not feel empowered to change things back?
  • Changing the branching/integration strategy. At previous jobs we seemed to have a new one every six months. At my current job there are fans and detractors of git flow. Does morale go down or stay the same when integrations happen more often? Is this better or worse depending on the branching/integration strategy?
  • How much do people actually hate planning days, and what can we do to improve them?
  • How painful are releases? People should be happiest, not unhappy, before and after a release!
  • Does a team hate what it’s doing? How much does dumping work on a team impact morale? Do they not believe in the product or are expectations out of whack? What can be done to help the team “own” the project rather than resent it?
  • How does changing team composition cause morale to be affected?

I’m sure there are more, but I thought the idea of using a Niko-niko chart could be interesting. I won’t have a chance to try one out for a while, but will post a followup after I do.


I wrote this draft a couple months ago and finished it recently. Since then I’ve seen a few other apps in a similar space, such as Know Your Company and Know My Team, that focus on tracking morale. I think it’s a good trend. And it’s a reminder that what may appear as a management fad can often have deep, established roots.

No Comments

Keeping talented employees

18/09/2014

I saw a tweet the other day about the eight things that keep talented employees:

I’m normally not a fan of reducing human behavior to a list like this, but it seems pretty complete, and the words resonated.

As a technical leader I am a fan of metrics and dashboards: tests passing, code coverage, static analysis and metrics, velocity, bugs, takt time, and other indicators that you wouldn’t focus on individually, but are very useful collectively.

I wonder if, as a manager, assuming trust is in place, is it worthwhile to go over these things explicitly? To make a “private dashboard” to cover in 1-on-1s, and see where the problems are?

  • If everyone is not feeling challenged, why is that? Is it because the work is boring? If so, why? Is it temporary grunt work that can be augmented with some side projects? Or is the product becoming less exciting to work on?
  • Who doesn’t feel like they’re on a mission? Is it because they are disillusioned, or is the mission bullshit. Are more people disillusioned each month?
  • Which individuals are trending up and down? Is the organization as a whole trending up or down? Which attributes are trending up and down? For all these questions, you must answer “why“!

I’m not sure this is something I will start using immediately, since I am just getting to know my team and I don’t want overly formal process to get in the way of a human connection. But it’s certainly something I would have done at CCP. It’s very convenient for bad managers to rationalize poor ratings, but perhaps some tracking on these eight points can be a start towards providing quantitative evidence of employee satisfaction.

1 Comment

Japanese vs. Western models of decision making

11/09/2014

I was reading a book about The Toyota Way last year (sorry, can’t remember which) and something that stuck with me was a section on Japanese versus Western decision making*. The diagram was something like this:

japanese-vs-western-decisionmaking

The crux of it is, Japanese companies like Toyota spend more time preparing for a decision, and less time executing. Western companies reach a decision earlier, and then execution has all sorts of problems. It’s also important to note that Japanese companies often reach the “end goal” sooner.

Preparation involves building consensus, but that doesn’t mean it’s all talk. Japanese companies pioneered set based design and prototyping, which allows them to try out a huge number of ideas cheaply. By the time a decision is made, they’ve “thrown out” about 90% of the work they’ve done!** However, once the decision is made the execution goes smoothly.

It is easy to see how Japanese decision making maps to businesses with a clear distinction between preparation/pre-production and execution/production, such as traditional manufacturing. It can be difficult to map to pure product development. Keep a few things in mind.

  • Consensus isn’t just discussion and design. Big-Design-Up-Front is not preparing for execution. BDUF is a woefully incomplete form of execution. Building consensus means actually implementing things in order to rapidly learn.

  • Consensus isn’t a democracy. Toyota has a very hierarchical structure and people have very clear responsibilities. The goal of consensus-based decisions is to make better decisions, not to achieve some Platonic ideal. Difficult decisions are still made, but the role of the executive is to manage the consensus-building process, rather than “just hurry up and making a decision.”

The Japanese model is built in to cross-functional teams. Consensus isn’t achieved by the heads of Engineering and QA signing some agreement in blood. If that agreement ends up not being a good idea- and it almost never is!- you end up with the Western execution experience. On the other hand, cross-functional teams have much more interactivity and iteration going on, and overall execution is much faster.

People will get upset. Take responsibility for your decisions, and acknowledge some people will get upset by them. However by making sure their concerns are thoroughly heard and discussed before execution, you will make sure they don’t keep pulling things off-track.

Anyway, there’s lots of good writing on this topic, and I highly suggest checking some of it out if it interests you. This is just my software development-centric take.


* I’m just calling these the Western and Japanese models of decision making. They are clearly not the way all decisions are reached in the respective countries. In fact these generalizations may not even be true anymore. Whether Japanese or American companies behave this way is irrelevant. The names are just proxies for different types of decision making.

** Obviously the work isn’t thrown out, since they’ve learned so much from it. But if the effort were raw materials, I suspect 90% of it would end up in the trash, depending on how a set is developed and culled.

5 Comments

Can you quantify trust?

4/09/2014

In a previous article, commenter Robert Kist asked:

How are you going to judge if people trust you – what would your indicators be, if you decide to treat it as a metric?

This is tricky. I don’t think there’s a good answer. Bad managers, who are by definition less trusted, can easily rationalize away any attempt at quantification. One quantifiable measure would be employee turnover. However turnover tends to be ignored in the aggregate, since the sample size is necessarily small. Individual departures are blamed on “incompatibility” or “burnout,” when it is without exception due to mismanagement.

Another potentially useful metric is the employee survey. This is an unequivocal disaster, because there are just endless ways to explain away poor ratings. I’ve heard bad ratings blamed on bad weather!

What about the venerable “360 review”, where your direct reports and peers give feedback? This would require some sort of survey, and we know how that goes.

In the end, bad managers will be able to rationalize away poor trust metrics. Unfortunately they are also universally unable to qualitatively identify a lack of trust. Good managers, on the other hand, intuitively know whether trust is getting better or worse. They should make sure there are many avenues of feedback to inform this intuition, but I’m not sure any are worth quantifying, if they are quantifiable in the first place.

Someone please tell me when I start to become a bad manager, please.

No Comments

Hire talented people and get out of their way?

28/08/2014

Whenever I need inspiration for a blog post, I check my LinkedIn feed. I am bound to find a stupid inspirational quote. Today’s is:

In most cases being a good boss means hiring talented people and then getting out of their way.

This advice (hire smart, don’t micromanage) is so simplistic, it’s hardly worth saying. The profound stupidity is equating this with “being a good boss“.

No, hiring smart people and not micromanaging them is the absolute, bare minimum you should be doing as a boss. Basically, if you call it a day there, you are a worthless, paper pushing, pointed headed body in a seat. If not today, then soon.

What are you doing once you get out of the way? Meetings? And how can you be sure you’re hiring good people, if you’re not closely engaged with the work? Should you offload that to your team? And then what is left to do as a “good boss“, by your definition?

In reality, where being a good boss is incredibly difficult and rare, being a good boss means:

  • Earning trust, and learning to trust others.
  • Improving how decisions are made.
  • Making sure people are learning, challenged, and growing.
  • Mediating business pressures with craftsmanship.
  • Creating a greater context for the work of employees.
  • Fighting fires and doing drudgery without becoming a bottleneck.
  • A thousand other things that don’t make good motivational posters.

You work on these things every day. It’s slow and painful. There’s no secret algorithm or technique. You could take all of these cute little quotes about how to be a good boss, and it’d cover maybe 1% of what actually goes into being a good boss.

5 Comments

A manager’s primary job is to build trust

14/08/2014

While interviewing for my new position at Cozy, I was repeatedly asked what the job of an Engineering Manager is.* By the end of the day, I had decided (for myself, anyway) that the most important job of an Engineering Manager** is building trust.

  • Senior engineers must trust you. They can succeed without you, but you can’t succeed without them. Why does your job exist? It isn’t enough for you to trust them; that’s a prerequisite. If you don’t trust them, that needs to be rectified first. If they do not vehemently trust you, your role is not just worthless, but a net negative.

  • Junior engineers must trust you. They need to have a reason to stick around. They must trust that you are giving them opportunities, and they don’t need to leave to be treated better. They need to trust that they are learning, growing, advancing. Finally, they need to believe that if and when they leave to see what else the world has to offer, they will be welcomed back. If junior engineers do not trust you, they will leave, and take their ideas and passion with them.

  • Design must trust you. They must believe you when you present estimates or assessments from engineers. They must believe that they are getting good information from you, and you aren’t an out of touch middle manager. They must see continuous improvement and engagement from the engineers. They need to trust that you and the engineers are working towards the same goals as they are, with fire and passion. If design does not trust you, you are damaging engineers and company and should just get out of the way.

  • Management must trust you. This is generally an easy one, because if they don’t trust you, they should fix it or remove you.

  • Finally, one that cuts across roles: malcontents and metathinkers must trust you. Many people (especially engineers) just want to avoid politics and are happy to work on on their tasks and not ask questions. As long as you don’t actively screw up, these people will usually trust you. Much more difficult are the critics. They come in all shapes and sizes. It’s not that they need to agree with you, but they do need to trust you. These people often have big ideas and cultural influence. Distrust will drain your organization of talent. As a member of this category, I take this very seriously. When I’ve actively distrusted management, and subsequently left, there’s been a flight of talent afterwards as problems get worse. I’ve written about the importance of the malcontents on this blog before, and as a manager it’s always been a yardstick. If malcontents and metathinkers are leaving, something is going very wrong.

Trust is probably the most important metric for whether you’re doing a good job and your organization is healthy. It is a product of some actions, and a foundation of others. If it’s going up, your organization is getting stronger. If it’s going down, you need to get to work.


* I really enjoy interviews, especially in-person interviews, because it really helps me clarify my beliefs. This can lead to a high bounce-rate, but generally I’m left with culturally compatible companies after that. I consider this a benefit but YMMV.
** Any manager, really.

6 Comments

“Do you expect too much from people?”

11/08/2014

Last year, a coworker asked me if perhaps I expect too much from other people. I thought about it a moment and said:

No. I do not accept the argument that I’m somehow inherently superior to most others. In fact it is because I know I am not superior that I have high expectations of others.

In the intervening year, I’ve come to see that this belief drives a lot of my management philosophy. In general, I assume the best of people I work with. If someone is not performing, I do not blame them; I blame myself (or whoever their manager is) and systematic problems that they are not in control of (but hopefully ones I am).

Of course people have different innate abilities and experiences. Some people have a high aptitude for certain types of work, and some have chosen a path that may not be a good fit. But the realities of business are that these things can quickly change, and an asset one day can be a liability the next. When a company has grown past a dozen people, I believe its time to start favoring nurture over nature. If someone isn’t performing, it is management’s problem.

This is true of not just employees, but other managers, and it was specifically about two other managers that this question was posed. The times were a-changin’, but these individuals were in roles they were ill suited for. They simply did not have the experience or competence to drive through the changes that needed to happen. It was up to their (our) management to take responsibility, but instead I heard apologies that “maybe they aren’t the best suited” and other meaningless explanations. I didn’t expect them to magically change; I expected management to do their job: get involved and well, manage!

If I expect something, it’s that people can both teach and learn. If the ability of people to grow is not an organization’s chief expectation- if management is not set up to grow employees, or management is not prepared to mature itself- I can’t imagine what they think their long-term prospects are. Perhaps they aren’t expecting much.

No Comments