Can't speak for your boss, but I definitely am sometimes a few abstraction layers further up in concepts than the ICs on the team, and it's a lot more frustrating to realise the others don't really know what I'm getting at because I didn't create clear enough goals than getting that feedback right away.

People in leadership usually get there because they value time and efficiency, and if you don't spin that as "your agenda is trash" but "I cannot contribute to this meeting and would like to pursue my other tasks", I doubt they will be mad at you.

It can also be worth it to bring this up with your team and establish a meeting culture, as suggested in TFA. That way, you can discuss this openly and everyone has a shared understanding of what is okay.

▲

9rx 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> it's a lot more frustrating to realise the others don't really know what I'm getting at

I understand why it may initially seem frustrating to realize that you are not offering value to the team, but us ICs are used to recognizing that and quickly cutting you out of the picture. It is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Don't worry.

▲

9dev 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure I understand your point. It's not like I do a poetry slam session in meetings, but work on the technical direction we're moving toward. I'm less worried about offering value than people not getting the information they need to do their job?

▲

fn-mote 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s a super cynical reply to a manager (engineering head) who said they would prefer people to tell them in the meeting what’s going wrong.

I would certainly be glad to have someone like that over my division.

▲

9rx 4 days ago | parent [-]

What is cynical about reassuring a leader that they aren't needed?

You've failed as a leader if you find yourself being needed.

▲

9dev 4 days ago | parent [-]

What do you mean by "needed" here? If leaders weren't needed in some capacity, they wouldn't exist. Teams definitely do need leaders, to simply agree on a direction to move into to begin with.

If you're of the opinion that management plays their politics game while ICs run the show, then I pity you for the work environment you're in. That isn't how it's supposed to work, and there are better places.

▲

9rx 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Teams definitely do need leaders

Do they? The entire Agile Manifesto was written about how teams don't need leaders. That doesn't automatically make it valid, of course, but industry was all over it for a time. An entire industry got it wrong? Yes, it wasn't long before "leaders" afraid of losing their job bastardized it into some kind of management framework with nonsense like Scrum[1], granted, but industry support for it also died in that moment. What does that tell you?

> If leaders weren't needed in some capacity, they wouldn't exist.

False premise. The world is full of all kinds of things that exist but aren't needed.

> If you're of the opinion that management plays their politics game while ICs run the show, then I pity you for the work environment you're in.

I'm not really sure what this means. It doesn't seem to have any connection to the original discussion. Where are you going with this?

> That isn't how it's supposed to work, and there are better places.

How is what supposed to work?

[1] To be fair, Scrum considers itself "training wheels" for Agile. It clearly indicates it is something to use for a short period of time to wean yourself off malformed leadership practices as you transition into Agile. If used as written, it may be a useful tool. But when have you ever seen that happen in practice? In reality, when you find it in use, "leadership" has enforced its use — often modified to their arbitrary fancy — and never let go like it suggests you need to.

▲

9dev 4 days ago | parent [-]

> The entire Agile Manifesto was written about how teams don't need leaders.

Have you read a different manifesto than I did? It spoke of empowered developers and self-organised teams, but never about leaders no longer being required. I'd even say it is directed at leaders to improve the structure of their development teams.

> I'm not really sure what this means. It doesn't seem to have any connection to the original discussion. Where are you going with this?

You seem to imply—at least that's how I understood it—that leaders aren't needed and ICs do their thing regardless of what managers do. Which to me sounds like plain ineffective leadership, not an inherent truth.

We may agree to disagree, but I don't see an entire organisation (not just a single team of developers within a larger organisation) to work completely devoid of leadership. My developers should not have to put up with customer success, or business requirements, or budget constraints. They should focus on working on the product as directed by the product owner. My role is clearing the path in front of the team, keeping distractions at bay, planning ahead for technological changes, and aligning the product trajectory with the company vision. These are things you just cannot do properly while simultaneously focusing on the finer details of application code. And even more importantly, most people I know appreciate good leadership that helps them perform well, and guides them forward. I realise that's subjective though.

	▲	9rx 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> My developers should not have to put up with customer success, or business requirements, or budget constraints. Au contraire. You are right that there is only so much time in the day and that not every IC can be deeply engrossed in this, but all should be involved in at least some surface capacity. This is the most important part of the software development process! To remove your software people from it is complete insanity. It being treated as something different under a "leadership" umbrella is the most horrid thing ever seen in the software industry. This is echoed in the Agile Manifest (Twelve Principles), as you know. And maybe that's what you really mean — that you're an IC who spends less time on code and more time on business problems? That's not what is usually implied by "leadership", but it is understood that anyone can make up random definitions on the spot.

▲

watwut 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> People in leadership usually get there because they value time and efficiency

Equally if not way more often they are there, because they like to control things or organize things or like having power or see it as career setup. Or they like working with people.

Time and efficiency is not something you get on these positions.

▲

theshrike79 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I had a deal with one engineer on my team, when I used to do that boss crap.

Their body had to be present in the meeting, but they could keep working on their laptop.

This was because WAAAY too much of the silent information about the company products was on their mind and it was by far the fastest way to get it out.

I could just quickly refer to them for 15 seconds to clarify how something actually worked and keep on with the meeting.

...also they once got bored during a sales meeting and coded a full-ass PoC about what the customer was asking during the meeting. That kind of person.