[HN Gopher] How to Lead Your Team When the House Is on Fire
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How to Lead Your Team When the House Is on Fire
        
       Author : kiyanwang
       Score  : 86 points
       Date   : 2024-09-15 20:16 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (peterszasz.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (peterszasz.com)
        
       | candiddevmike wrote:
       | > One major pitfall to avoid is letting an "us vs. them"
       | mentality take hold on the team. Naturally, the stress of painful
       | decisions can erode trust in leadership and other departments,
       | but reinforcing a negative mindset will hurt you more than the
       | temporary warm camaraderie you'll enjoy by joining the chorus of
       | cynics.
       | 
       | Then proceeds to encourage managers to gaslight folks into
       | believing leadership is fine in the next paragraph.
       | 
       | In my experience, during this "wartime" the author discusses,
       | management knows the ship may be sinking/is sinking and are
       | making their way towards the lifeboats. They still need to be
       | seen as doing something though, so they string along the ICs
       | hoping they can keep being "productive" even though management is
       | completely checked out, and a lot of the ICs will be laid off or
       | not survive the upcoming aquihire/turn down.
        
         | lumost wrote:
         | on average, everyone will follow the path of maximum
         | reward/lowest risk. Management has a job to do, but is aware
         | that they may lack any choice or path to success. They still
         | have a job to do in e.g. allocating engineers work, managing
         | performance, promotions, and morale... so they do it, meanwhile
         | they may also be looking for the exit.
         | 
         | As an IC, never believe a manager at face value - they will
         | promote you if it's good for them, they will pacify your
         | concerns as it's what they are paid for, and they will fire you
         | if its good for them. This is the nature of the relationship.
        
           | Spivak wrote:
           | Wild, I would literally never work for a company where I had
           | this kind of relationship with my direct manager. My direct
           | manager should be in my corner and on my side always. They
           | will get me the highest pay, highest title, best perks,
           | lowest amount of stress and work, most time off, best
           | benefits they can and anything they ask me to do is in
           | service of that. If I find out that my direct manager is the
           | one gating a raise or promotion from me I'll just quit.
           | 
           | I had one manager like this after an acquisition, he
           | literally threw his head back laughing when I said I was up
           | for a promotion and raise (documented prior to the
           | acquisition) and said a number which was what everyone at
           | $ex_company with that title made. He said no, and that he was
           | the one who got to decide if I get a promotion-- I quit less
           | than a month later for an actually good manger.
           | 
           | They pay had better be incredible to make playing those kinds
           | of political games worth having your soul drained.
        
         | Simon_ORourke wrote:
         | Absolutely this - management will do whatever it takes to help
         | management get through whatever problem they currently have,
         | and if that's outright lying to IC's, or stringing them along
         | for a few months they will do that, and not even regret it for
         | an instant.
         | 
         | A really solid engineer I know was working with a failing
         | mobile payments company, got an offer somewhere else and like a
         | fool took it to his manager, who matched the new offer and the
         | guy accepted... for 2 months until the company went bankrupt
         | and he was back at square one looking for a job.
        
       | talkingtab wrote:
       | In my opinion there is a strong disconnect between the title and
       | the advice. If in fact your house is on fire, there is a decision
       | tree you can follow that goes something like this.
       | 
       | 1. Are you or others in immediate danger? If so, get out and help
       | others get out.
       | 
       | 2. If not, then determine if someone addressing the fire. One
       | would expect that higher ups are aware of the fire, but this is
       | not always the case. Sometimes the higher ups are not aware.
       | Sometimes they are too busy saving themselves to address the
       | fire.
       | 
       | 3. If someone is addressing the fire is there a way you can
       | assist?
       | 
       | I do not mean to be snarky in this- there are real people who
       | work for real companies that are not doing well. If you are a
       | manager, your team's well being should be high on your list.
        
         | Simon_ORourke wrote:
         | > 1. Are you or others in immediate danger? If so, get out and
         | help others get out.
         | 
         | Wanting to help folks out is great, but if there's one role
         | going in some related company, and there's a few on your team
         | who are going to be out of work, then I don't think there's
         | going to be too many advertising the job posting to others.
        
           | ryanmcbride wrote:
           | it's really common for people to form groups after a layoff
           | to help each other get hired.
        
       | johnea wrote:
       | Pull the fire alarm and evacuate the building?
       | 
       | Or, just stop using over-bloviated metaphors for first world
       | marketing creating fictional scheduling crises.
       | 
       | Not making you dev schedule is not a "fire", much less a "war".
       | 
       | Maybe try getting outside once in awhile and clearing your head
       | of this make believe bullshit...
        
         | TheAdamist wrote:
         | I was hoping it was actually a treatise on leadership by a
         | firefighter. But expecting it not to be.
        
       | wrs wrote:
       | I have a shelf full of histories of British science and
       | engineering during WW2, so I feel like I have some remote idea of
       | what being an engineer in an actual "wartime mode" is like. Think
       | about, e.g., working in the lab trying to improve radar to be
       | able to stop the daily bombing raids. It's hard to imagine
       | "wartime mode" as being an appropriate metaphor for any US
       | company, other than as a sort of fantasy role play.
       | 
       | I normally hate sports metaphors, but as an alternative to war,
       | framing a tough business situation as "fourth down and 10" or
       | whatever is a lot healthier way to think about it.
        
         | ddejohn wrote:
         | The phrase "in the trenches" is used often, too. Always grosses
         | me out.
        
         | bitwize wrote:
         | If you're 4th and 10, that's when you cut your losses and
         | attempt to kick a field goal so you can at least score
         | something before the ball changes hands. (My wife took me to a
         | Saints game for my birthday, so I'm actually learning stuff
         | about the game as she is actually played.)
         | 
         | I guess the equivalent in a software shop would be adjust
         | expectations way lower and focus on what's achievable without
         | running the team ragged and risking getting nothing done,
         | postponing loftier goals until the team/business is in a better
         | position to address them.
        
         | willturman wrote:
         | Those books about British science/engineering during WW2 sound
         | interesting. Any recommendations?
        
         | move-on-by wrote:
         | I have an (actual) engineering buddy who occasionally has small
         | fires flare up in the factory he works at. Ever since talking
         | with him about it, I'm very much off put when someone at my
         | cushy software company talks about 'a fire'. No, some system is
         | down or throwing errors- there is no fire.
        
           | Aeolun wrote:
           | The executive reaction is the same as when a factory is on
           | fire though. Whether we can't produce due to system down or
           | due to hazardous environment makes little difference.
        
         | giantg2 wrote:
         | Most of what comes out of executives mouths is fantasy role
         | play. It's always exaggerated to motivate.
        
       | debacle wrote:
       | > Decentralize decision-making authority as much as possible.
       | Remove barriers in their way, slash approval layers, attack
       | dependencies.
       | 
       | This is awful advice. You can only operate in this mode for at
       | best 2-3 months before your entire SDLC grinds to a halt because
       | it's been the wild west in github.
       | 
       | > Bias heavily toward action - it's better to decide and be wrong
       | sometimes than to paralyze the team with analysis.
       | 
       | This is...more awful advice. My startup has gone through COVID
       | and the financial slowdown and the only reason we've succeeded is
       | because we never stop measuring.
       | 
       | The very next paragraph after "decentralize everything and
       | communicate heavily" is "allow your team to focus and centralize
       | administrative duties."
       | 
       | And the the NEXT paragraph is "work closely with your team and
       | even write some code."
       | 
       | This entire blog post is all over the place. It reads like each
       | paragraph was written by a different person with completely
       | different experiences.
       | 
       | If you want to manage your team while the house is on fire, don't
       | change anything. Communicate clearly, ensure that the culture and
       | philosophy of the team bend when necessary but don't break, and
       | work on alleviating the real problem. One of: lack of product
       | market fit, burning cash like it's going out of style, or no
       | clear path to profitability or the next raise.
       | 
       | Your engineering team is probably not the problem if your startup
       | is failing.
        
         | herval wrote:
         | > You can only operate in this mode for at best 2-3 months
         | before your entire SDLC grinds to a halt because it's been the
         | wild west in github
         | 
         | FB is operating that way with tens of thousands of engineers.
         | More approval layers don't necessarily mean more order, but it
         | always means slower processes
        
           | debacle wrote:
           | Facebook has a very thorough code review process, and their
           | product is heavily data driven. They've even productized
           | their code review process internally, and that product is
           | also data driven.
        
             | herval wrote:
             | The code review process is quite literally "you need a
             | stamp from anyone because of some regulations we follow".
             | Definitely nothing thorough.
        
               | XorNot wrote:
               | The seriousness of any code review process can be
               | determined by whether it diffuses liability from the
               | original code author for any bugs.
               | 
               | So far in my career this has never been the case.
        
           | toast0 wrote:
           | You can operate anyway you want if you have a printing press
           | for money in the back. It's not a model to follow when you've
           | got constraints.
        
         | jajko wrote:
         | > You can only operate in this mode for at best 2-3 months
         | 
         | While article is named "How to Lead Your Team When the House Is
         | on Fire" - if your business is constantly on fire you are doing
         | something terribly wrong, I don't think you understood the main
         | points.
        
         | halfcat wrote:
         | All the advice is very similar to the leadership advice that
         | comes out of military special forces, like decentralized
         | command, prioritize and execute, cover and move, and so on.
         | 
         | With the point being, if all of your team members are elite,
         | then everyone _'yeeting into main'_ can be wildly productive.
         | But it's not good general advice, as you say, where most
         | organizations have a range of talent.
        
         | afro88 wrote:
         | >> Decentralize decision-making authority as much as possible.
         | Remove barriers in their way, slash approval layers, attack
         | dependencies. > This is awful advice. You can only operate in
         | this mode for at best 2-3 months before your entire SDLC grinds
         | to a halt because it's been the wild west in github.
         | 
         | If that happens, you decentralised more than was possible ("as
         | much as possible" doesn't mean "completely"). You removed too
         | many important barriers. A bit more concretely, you gave
         | authority to those that weren't capable of handling it, or
         | weren't supported properly. You removed an approval layer
         | without supporting your team to check these things for
         | themselves.
        
           | AdrianB1 wrote:
           | The idea is that you should already have the decision in the
           | right way, if you push more towards decentralization then you
           | are already in the danger zone. Yes, you should not do that.
        
       | drekipus wrote:
       | That actually reminds me of a great story, for when I had to do
       | exactly what the title is suggesting.. back when I worked at
       | Amazon as a software engineer, the CRAZIEST thing happened to me.
       | Here's the story... I was working from home with my girlfriend
       | (at the time), when suddenly I get an urgent ping from my
       | coworker: "Our service is experiencing a SEV 2! We need all hands
       | on deck!" Uh oh, our team's application has gone down! However,
       | as I scrambled to figure out how to fix the issue, I smelled
       | something burning from another room and heard a fire alarm go
       | off. "Will! There's a fire! Help!" I heard my girlfriend shout.
       | Now I was stuck in a conundrum -- restore a critical Amazon
       | service, or put out the fire in my apartment? It was at that time
       | I remembered Amazon's famous leadership principle "Customer
       | Obsession". There are customers who depend on my team's
       | application -- I can't let them down! So I ignored the fire and
       | my girlfriend's pleas, and started debugging the production
       | issue. But all of a sudden, the smoke in my apartment cleared and
       | the fire alarm fell silent. My girlfriend walked into the room,
       | and to my astonishment, peeled off a wig and revealed herself to
       | be Jeff Bezos himself! "I'm proud of you for being obsessed with
       | our customers," he said, and gave me a $5 Amazon gift card. He
       | then leaped out of my window and hopped into a waiting Amazon
       | Prime delivery van that quickly peeled away. Even though I no
       | longer work at Amazon, I'm so grateful for these experiences that
       | taught me lessons I'll never forget. Agree?
        
       | trhway wrote:
       | At the top we have 2 management posts - this and MrBeast. One is
       | very specific and another is typical management bs-bingo.
        
       | dakiol wrote:
       | It all feels like theatre. Been working in many companies in "war
       | mode" and they all think that in order to become profitable (none
       | of them were) you need to push the most "important" features out
       | of the door asap, otherwise your competitors will eat you alive.
       | 
       | It's a lie. Executives and VPs and all those folks that earn 5x
       | what a normal engineer earns, don't really care about the company
       | they work for. All they care about is to keep receiving the big
       | pay checks until the ship sinks. Obviously you cannot just
       | mandate "normal mode", otherwise it wouldn't look as if everyone
       | is doing their best to keep the company afloat.
       | 
       | I hope in 10 years or so, we'll see "wartime software
       | engineering" with the same eyes we see today Agile and Scrum
       | masters: snake oil.
        
         | imetatroll wrote:
         | Where do you work that you get to avoid agile, scrum, and war
         | mode? I'm jealous. Then again I've always just been stuck
         | working for startups my entire career. I have a family and
         | desperately need something more stable.
        
           | Aeolun wrote:
           | Are BigCos any more stable in the US? At least in a startup
           | they probably actually need _you_ because you already know
           | their system.
           | 
           | Overseas BigCo means permanent contracts and being very hard
           | to let go, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the US
           | (e.g. Elon Musk Twitter).
        
       | benreesman wrote:
       | Wartime software is a disaster unless you mean it, and should be
       | treated with extreme caution even if you do.
       | 
       | Wartime is an in house propaganda shop running posters that say
       | Carthago Delenda Est, mid-level product managers discreetly but
       | reliably dispensing Adderal, Ritalin, and Modafinil, open disdain
       | for people who leave the office two days in a row, and paying
       | enough that your people are just in a meaningful sense smarter
       | than anyone else.
       | 
       | Every company gets to pull that maybe once, so it has to count.
       | And it's a hell of a place and time to see.
       | 
       | But if you're not going the whole way, you're far better off
       | doing reliably good engineering in a repeatable way and poorly
       | served by analogies to war.
        
       | neilv wrote:
       | > _" Perfection is the enemy of done" [...] It's important to
       | note that these wartime actions will probably increase tech debt
       | in your code. With the emphasis on velocity over quality,
       | architectural compromises and maintenance shortcuts are often
       | taken._
       | 
       | All those years of ZIRP investment scams, and sprint theatre, the
       | industry generally wasn't doing "quality" (and, on average,
       | wasn't capable of quality), so we were already posturing about
       | "getting it done"...
       | 
       | Don't you need to tell a lot of people something *different* than
       | before?
       | 
       | Maybe, when you have to deliver and can't afford huge mess-ups
       | and delays and inefficient boondoggles, and people can't job-hop
       | fast enough to escape their roosting chickens, what you actually
       | need is *smart, aligned people*?
       | 
       | Not to give people permission to flail around incompetently, and
       | make huge messes, pretty much just like before, but now
       | rationalize it as "Getting It Done: Wartime Edition".
       | 
       | > _[...] due to the current job market you have more luxury now
       | than a few years ago. Consider allowing 2-3 candidates to pass
       | through all rounds, and choose the best fit from them._
       | 
       | If that's what you need to hire smart, aligned people, then OK.
       | 
       | If it's just most of the same techbro flakiness, now dressed up
       | as "Wartime", then not OK.
        
       | 0xbadcafebee wrote:
       | The "Wartime Software" concept is bogus, and this article
       | casually tosses out that you should have a high-performing team,
       | which companies spend _years_ trying to achieve and still not
       | doing it.
       | 
       | How do you lead your team when the house is on fire? However the
       | hell you can. I'm sure a firefighter can chime in here and tell
       | you that if you aren't trained for firefighting, you sure as hell
       | won't learn how to do it right when the roof is caving in on you.
        
       | getnormality wrote:
       | > For EMs, wartime means leading low-morale teams through
       | ambiguity, hard constraints, frequently changing goals, and
       | intense pressure to perform.
       | 
       | Why the assumption that goals are frequently changing? If you're
       | making something that's actually valuable and not just looking
       | good by surfing trends, I would think that the virtue would lie
       | in having a clear vision and sticking to it.
        
       | neilv wrote:
       | > _Identify on-the-job learning opportunities, like giving
       | someone the chance to lead an incident response or a high-
       | visibility project. Critical mistakes can still be catastrophic,
       | but because of the fast-changing nature of wartime work, it 's
       | easier to process smaller errors with a healthy learning
       | mindset._
       | 
       | I don't understand how wartime makes this easier.
       | 
       | Pre-wartime, you could've also had short-turnaround tasks, and
       | the realities of generous funding of nonviable businesses mean
       | you'd have _more_ luxury to rollback dropped balls.
       | 
       | Seems like wartime means that you have to be more responsive _and
       | successfully_.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-09-15 23:00 UTC)