6 ms·

This is practically impossible advice. Hero engineers can't stand sitting back watching things fail because no one else on the team cares enough to succeed. Fo

This is practically impossible advice. Hero engineers can't stand sitting back watching things fail because no one else on the team cares enough to succeed. For the hero, either the project succeeds or fails. Step up! But non heros instead look for a target to blame and then proceed to sabotage that person and the project to ensure they don't get the blame themselves. Their job is to find ways to work as little as possible. The hero's job is a successful project. If it fails the hero is to blame. At the end of the day, it's always the engineers' fault if it fails. I can't believe this article blames the problems on those who step up to fix them. Better just to ignore the problems? Reminds me of the folks who say, "don't work so hard! You're making the rest of us look bad! "

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
t0mbstone 7y ago
No, the article is about the fact that when "heroes" stand up and "save" a poorly managed project, it creates a negative feedback loop that validates the poor management style and lack of planning. The "hero" also devalues themselves and their teammates by allowing management to abuse them and violate everyone's work-life balance. If this behavior is not nipped in the bud, it creates a toxic culture where projects are always being planned poorly, management's expectations are always misaligned with reality, and all of the engineers are burned out.
- rubin55 7y ago
  Right, the issue here is that 1: a project is poorly managed and 2: that an individual decided to take up the banner and by sheer force of will (however unreasonable) "saves the project". I would say that if 1 is the case, then 2 might not be the best way to deal with it, but: What if a project is not particularly poorly managed? What if you simply have an ambitious deadline that the team as a whole tries to make, whereby different individuals probably perform differently? Is the "hero" or heroes, defined implicitly (in the article) by a higher pace, still to blame for a "toxic culture" as you call it? While you go ahead and nip that in the bud and make sure your teams are as average as possible, I'd go work somewhere where going the extra mile is actually appreciated.
  - laughingbovine 7y ago
    "Ambitious" deadline a.k.a. crunch time required to meet deadline == poorly managed While you're working unpaid overtime, I'll go work somewhere where "work life balance" is not just something they put in the company description.
    - rubin55 7y ago
      What if you have an autonomous team that set the ambitious deadline themselves? What if the deadline initially seemed realistic but later became more questionable? My point is, the option and choice to work harder is one of a few options that can be chosen. That choice should never be forced upon the team or individual members, but if done freely it can work out great. And who said anything about unpaid overtime?
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  Then the title is a lie because it's not the hero engineers who are deadly. It's crappy managers but, "poor project management can be deadly to your project" is obvious and resulted in low click rates.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

t0mbstone 7y ago

No, the article is about the fact that when "heroes" stand up and "save" a poorly managed project, it creates a negative feedback loop that validates the poor management style and lack of planning. The "hero" also devalues themselves and their teammates by allowing management to abuse them and violate everyone's work-life balance. If this behavior is not nipped in the bud, it creates a toxic culture where projects are always being planned poorly, management's expectations are always misaligned with reality, and all of the engineers are burned out.

rubin55 7y ago
Right, the issue here is that 1: a project is poorly managed and 2: that an individual decided to take up the banner and by sheer force of will (however unreasonable) "saves the project". I would say that if 1 is the case, then 2 might not be the best way to deal with it, but: What if a project is not particularly poorly managed? What if you simply have an ambitious deadline that the team as a whole tries to make, whereby different individuals probably perform differently? Is the "hero" or heroes, defined implicitly (in the article) by a higher pace, still to blame for a "toxic culture" as you call it? While you go ahead and nip that in the bud and make sure your teams are as average as possible, I'd go work somewhere where going the extra mile is actually appreciated.
- laughingbovine 7y ago
  "Ambitious" deadline a.k.a. crunch time required to meet deadline == poorly managed While you're working unpaid overtime, I'll go work somewhere where "work life balance" is not just something they put in the company description.
  - rubin55 7y ago
    What if you have an autonomous team that set the ambitious deadline themselves? What if the deadline initially seemed realistic but later became more questionable? My point is, the option and choice to work harder is one of a few options that can be chosen. That choice should never be forced upon the team or individual members, but if done freely it can work out great. And who said anything about unpaid overtime?
yeahitslikethat 7y ago
Then the title is a lie because it's not the hero engineers who are deadly. It's crappy managers but, "poor project management can be deadly to your project" is obvious and resulted in low click rates.