Stories with Tag organizational design

• What makes a good engineer also makes a good engineering organization (2024)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-05-19 05:26:32

  Verbose tl;dr

  Good engineering principles, like prioritizing simplicity, focusing on the user, and embracing iteration, apply equally to individuals and organizations. An engineer's effectiveness hinges on clear communication, understanding context, and building trust, just as an organization's success depends on efficient processes, shared understanding, and psychological safety. Essentially, the qualities that make a good engineer—curiosity, pragmatism, and a bias towards action—should be reflected in the organizational culture and processes to foster a productive and fulfilling engineering environment. By prioritizing these principles, both engineers and organizations can create better products and more satisfying experiences.

  In a 2024 blog post titled "What makes a good engineer also makes a good engineering organization," author Moxie Marlinspike posits that the qualities that distinguish an exceptional individual engineer are strikingly similar to the attributes that characterize a high-performing engineering organization. Marlinspike argues that the conventional wisdom, which often emphasizes process and structure as the keys to organizational success, overlooks the more fundamental elements that drive effective engineering, both at the individual and collective levels.

  He begins by elucidating the traits of a strong engineer, highlighting not just technical proficiency but also a deeper understanding of the underlying principles governing their work. This includes a grasp of the "why" behind technical decisions, a penchant for problem-solving that goes beyond merely addressing surface-level symptoms, and a proactive approach to identifying and mitigating potential issues before they escalate. This proactive nature is not merely about preventing bugs but about anticipating future needs and designing systems with flexibility and adaptability in mind. Marlinspike emphasizes the importance of a deep understanding of systems, recognizing the interconnectedness of various components and how modifications in one area can have cascading effects elsewhere. He suggests that this systems thinking allows engineers to make more informed decisions and anticipate potential pitfalls.

  The author then extends this analysis to the organizational level, arguing that successful engineering organizations mirror these individual characteristics. He contends that an organization that values deep understanding, proactive problem-solving, and systems thinking will cultivate an environment where engineers can thrive and produce exceptional results. Just as a good engineer doesn't simply follow instructions but seeks to understand the rationale behind them, a good engineering organization fosters a culture of inquiry and encourages its members to challenge assumptions and explore alternative approaches. This organizational embodiment of proactive thinking translates into a focus on long-term sustainability and resilience, anticipating future challenges and investing in solutions that can adapt to evolving circumstances.

  Furthermore, Marlinspike underscores the importance of organizational structure mirroring the interconnectedness of the systems being built. He argues that an organization with rigid hierarchies and siloed teams will struggle to replicate the holistic understanding that characterizes a proficient engineer’s approach to complex systems. Instead, he advocates for more fluid and adaptable structures that allow for cross-functional collaboration and knowledge sharing, enabling the organization as a whole to develop a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of its work. This approach facilitates the identification of potential conflicts and dependencies early in the development process, leading to more robust and resilient systems.

  In essence, Marlinspike’s argument centers on the idea that effective engineering, whether performed by an individual or an entire organization, stems from a fundamental commitment to understanding, proactivity, and a holistic systems perspective. By cultivating these core principles, organizations can create environments that empower engineers to excel and deliver exceptional results, mirroring the effectiveness of the most talented individual practitioners.

  • engineering management
  • engineering culture
  • organizational design
  • software engineering
  • teamwork
  • productivity
  • best practices
  • leadership
  • motivation
  • Communication
  • Good Engineer
  • Engineering Organization

  Summary of Comments ( 98 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44026703

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agreed with Moxie's points about the importance of individual engineers having ownership and agency. Several highlighted the damaging effects of excessive process and rigid hierarchies, echoing Moxie's emphasis on autonomy. Some discussed the challenges of scaling these principles, particularly in larger organizations, with suggestions like breaking down large teams into smaller, more independent units. A few commenters debated the definition of "good engineering," questioning whether focusing solely on speed and impact could lead to neglecting important factors like maintainability and code quality. The importance of clear communication and shared understanding within a team was also a recurring theme. Finally, some commenters pointed out the cyclical nature of these trends, noting that the pendulum often swings between centralized control and decentralized autonomy in engineering organizations.

  The Hacker News post discussing Moxie Marlinspike's blog post "A Good Engineer" has generated a substantial amount of discussion, with a diverse range of perspectives on the qualities that define both good engineers and effective engineering organizations.

  Several commenters agree with Marlinspike's central premise, highlighting the importance of curiosity, the ability to quickly learn and adapt, and a proactive approach to problem-solving. One commenter elaborates on this, stating that good engineers possess an "innate drive to understand how things work," which translates into a continuous quest for improvement and optimization. Another emphasizes the significance of "systems thinking," arguing that understanding the broader context in which a problem exists is crucial for developing effective solutions. They go further, suggesting that fostering an environment where engineers can explore and experiment, even if it leads to occasional failures, is essential for long-term growth.

  The discussion also touches upon the translation of individual qualities to the organizational level. Some commenters believe that organizations mirroring the characteristics of a good engineer—adaptability, a willingness to learn, and a focus on continuous improvement—tend to be more successful. One commenter specifically mentions the importance of "psychological safety," allowing engineers to voice their concerns and propose novel ideas without fear of reprisal. This sentiment is echoed by another who emphasizes the need for open communication and collaboration within the organization.

  However, not all comments are in complete agreement with Marlinspike. Some argue that while the qualities he mentions are valuable, they don't encompass the full spectrum of what makes a good engineer. One commenter points out the importance of domain expertise and experience, especially in complex fields, suggesting that a focus solely on adaptability can sometimes overlook the value of specialized knowledge. Another commenter highlights the importance of communication and teamwork, asserting that even the most brilliant individual can be ineffective if they struggle to collaborate with others.

  Several comments also delve into the practical aspects of building good engineering organizations. One commenter discusses the challenges of hiring and retaining talent, emphasizing the importance of creating a culture that attracts and nurtures individuals with the desired qualities. Another commenter highlights the role of leadership in fostering a positive and productive engineering environment, suggesting that effective leaders empower their teams and provide them with the resources they need to succeed.

  Finally, a few commenters provide anecdotal evidence from their own experiences, sharing stories of both successful and unsuccessful engineering teams and the factors that contributed to their respective outcomes. These personal accounts add a layer of practical insight to the more theoretical aspects of the discussion. Overall, the Hacker News comments provide a rich and multifaceted perspective on the characteristics of good engineers and the organizational structures that support their success.

• Accountability Sinks

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-05-03 06:45:00

  Verbose tl;dr

  "Accountability Sinks" describes how certain individuals or organizational structures absorb blame without consequence, hindering true accountability. These "sinks" can be individuals, like a perpetually apologetic middle manager, or systems, like bureaucratic processes or complex software. They create an illusion of accountability by seemingly accepting responsibility, but prevent real change because the root causes of problems remain unaddressed. This ultimately protects those truly responsible and perpetuates dysfunctional behaviors, leading to decreased efficiency, lower morale, and a culture of learned helplessness. Instead of relying on accountability sinks, organizations should prioritize identifying and addressing systemic issues and cultivating a culture of genuine responsibility.

  The Substack post entitled "Accountability Sinks" by 250bpm explores the pervasive phenomenon of accountability structures failing to achieve their intended purpose. The author posits that instead of fostering genuine responsibility and driving progress, these structures frequently devolve into what they term "accountability sinks," entities that absorb effort and attention without producing commensurate outcomes. This occurs because the emphasis shifts from the core objective of the accountability structure to the mere act of engaging with the structure itself.

  The author meticulously dissects the mechanics of this process, illustrating how seemingly innocuous practices like regular meetings, detailed reports, and complex tracking systems can inadvertently contribute to the problem. These mechanisms, initially designed to facilitate progress tracking and enhance responsibility, become ends in themselves. Individuals within the accountability structure, rather than focusing on achieving the desired goals, become preoccupied with meeting the demands of the structure itself. This can manifest in meticulous documentation of activities, extensive preparation for meetings, and careful curation of progress reports, all of which consume valuable time and energy that could be directed towards actual productive work.

  Furthermore, the post delves into the psychological underpinnings of this phenomenon. The author argues that the act of participating in the accountability structure provides a false sense of progress and accomplishment. By diligently engaging with the prescribed procedures and rituals of the structure, individuals experience a sense of having fulfilled their obligations, even in the absence of tangible results. This creates a feedback loop where the appearance of progress supplants actual progress, further entrenching the accountability sink.

  The author also examines the role of power dynamics within these structures, suggesting that accountability mechanisms can be wielded as tools of control and surveillance. Superiors may utilize them to monitor subordinates, fostering an environment of performative compliance rather than genuine ownership. This dynamic can stifle creativity and innovation, as individuals prioritize adherence to the prescribed processes over exploring new approaches or taking risks.

  Ultimately, the post argues that effective accountability requires a shift in focus from the structure itself to the underlying goals it is meant to serve. Genuine accountability, according to the author, arises from intrinsic motivation and a shared commitment to achieving meaningful outcomes, not from elaborate tracking systems or frequent progress reports. The post concludes with a call for a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to accountability, emphasizing the importance of aligning structures with purpose and prioritizing genuine progress over the mere appearance of it.

  • accountability
  • responsibility
  • organizational structure
  • management
  • bureaucracy
  • process
  • Efficiency
  • workplace dynamics
  • organizational behavior
  • systems thinking
  • complexity
  • sinks
  • organizational design
  • leadership

  Summary of Comments ( 317 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43877301

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the concept of "accountability sinks," where individuals or teams are burdened with responsibility but lack the authority to effect change. Several commenters shared personal experiences with this phenomenon, particularly in corporate settings. Some highlighted the frustration and burnout that can result from being held accountable for outcomes they cannot control. Others discussed the difficulty of identifying these sinks, suggesting they often arise from unclear organizational structures or power imbalances. The idea of "responsibility without authority" resonated with many, with some proposing strategies for navigating these situations, including clearly defining roles and responsibilities, escalating issues to higher levels of authority, and documenting the disconnect between accountability and control. A few commenters questioned the overall premise of the article, arguing that true accountability necessitates some level of authority.

  The Hacker News post titled "Accountability Sinks" discussing the Substack article of the same name generated a robust discussion with a variety of viewpoints. Several commenters found the core concept of "accountability sinks"—organizations or projects where accountability disappears—resonant with their own experiences.

  One commenter discussed their experience with open-source projects, noting how easily responsibility can diffuse and tasks can be dropped without consequence. They highlighted the difference between contributing to a project as a hobby versus a professional setting where accountability structures are more formally defined. This commenter also appreciated the article's analogy of accountability sinks to heat sinks, finding it a useful mental model for understanding how accountability can dissipate.

  Another commenter expanded on the idea by suggesting that the size of the organization or project plays a crucial role. Smaller teams, they argued, inherently have more built-in accountability due to closer relationships and greater visibility of individual contributions. In larger organizations, however, the complexity and diffuse nature of responsibilities can lead to the formation of accountability sinks.

  Building on this, a separate comment thread explored the influence of organizational structure and corporate culture on accountability. One participant posited that matrix management structures, where individuals report to multiple managers, can inadvertently create accountability sinks by blurring lines of responsibility. Another commenter suggested that the pursuit of rapid growth can sometimes overshadow the importance of establishing clear accountability mechanisms.

  The discussion also touched upon the psychological aspects of accountability. One commenter observed that some individuals might actively seek out accountability sinks as a way to avoid responsibility and the potential consequences of failure. Conversely, another commenter pointed out the demotivating effect of working in an environment where accountability is lacking, potentially leading to decreased productivity and engagement.

  Some commenters offered practical suggestions for mitigating the formation of accountability sinks. These included implementing clear roles and responsibilities, establishing regular progress reporting mechanisms, fostering a culture of open communication and feedback, and using project management tools to track individual contributions.

  Finally, a few commenters expressed skepticism about the universality of the "accountability sink" concept. They argued that in certain contexts, a degree of ambiguity and shared responsibility can be beneficial, fostering creativity and innovation. However, even these commenters acknowledged the importance of establishing clear accountability for critical tasks and decisions.

  Overall, the discussion on Hacker News provides a multifaceted exploration of the "accountability sink" concept, examining its causes, consequences, and potential solutions. The commenters draw upon personal experiences, organizational theory, and psychological principles to offer a nuanced understanding of the challenges of maintaining accountability in complex systems.

• If we had the best product engineering organization, what would it look like?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-12 19:27:07

  Verbose tl;dr

  James Shore envisions the ideal product engineering organization as a collaborative, learning-focused environment prioritizing customer value. Small, cross-functional teams with full ownership over their products would operate with minimal process, empowered to make independent decisions. A culture of continuous learning and improvement, fueled by frequent experimentation and reflection, would drive innovation. Technical excellence wouldn't be a goal in itself, but a necessary means to rapidly and reliably deliver value. This organization would excel at adaptable planning, embracing change and prioritizing outcomes over rigid roadmaps. Ultimately, it would be a fulfilling and joyful place to work, attracting and retaining top talent.

  James Shore's blog post, "If we had the best product engineering organization, what would it look like?", paints a utopian vision of a software development environment characterized by remarkable efficiency, unwavering quality, and genuine employee fulfillment. Shore envisions an organization where product engineering is not merely a department, but a holistic approach interwoven into the fabric of the company. This utopian organization prioritizes continuous improvement and learning, fostering a culture of experimentation and psychological safety where mistakes are viewed as opportunities for growth, not grounds for reprimand.

  Central to Shore's vision is the concept of small, autonomous, cross-functional teams. These teams, resembling miniature startups within the larger organization, possess full ownership of their respective products, from conception and design to development, deployment, and ongoing maintenance. They are empowered to make independent decisions, driven by a deep understanding of user needs and business goals. This decentralized structure minimizes bureaucratic overhead and allows teams to iterate quickly, responding to changes in the market with agility and precision.

  The technical proficiency of these teams is paramount. Shore highlights the importance of robust engineering practices such as continuous integration and delivery, comprehensive automated testing, and a meticulous approach to code quality. This technical excellence ensures that products are not only delivered rapidly, but also maintain a high degree of reliability and stability. Furthermore, the organization prioritizes technical debt reduction as an ongoing process, preventing the accumulation of technical baggage that can impede future development.

  Beyond technical prowess, Shore emphasizes the significance of a positive and supportive work environment. The ideal organization fosters a culture of collaboration and mutual respect, where team members feel valued and empowered to contribute their unique skills and perspectives. This includes a commitment to diversity and inclusion, recognizing that diverse teams are more innovative and better equipped to solve complex problems. Emphasis is also placed on sustainable pace and reasonable work hours, acknowledging the importance of work-life balance in preventing burnout and maintaining long-term productivity.

  In this ideal scenario, the organization functions as a learning ecosystem. Individuals and teams are encouraged to constantly seek new knowledge and refine their skills through ongoing training, mentorship, and knowledge sharing. This continuous learning ensures that the organization remains at the forefront of technological advancements and adapts to the ever-evolving demands of the market. The organization itself learns from its successes and failures, constantly adapting its processes and structures to optimize for efficiency and effectiveness.

  Ultimately, Shore’s vision transcends mere technical proficiency. He argues that the best product engineering organization isn't just about building great software; it's about creating a fulfilling and rewarding environment for the people who build it. It's about fostering a culture of continuous improvement, innovation, and collaboration, where individuals and teams can thrive and achieve their full potential. This results in not only superior products, but also a sustainable and thriving organization capable of long-term success in the dynamic world of software development.

  • product engineering
  • organizational design
  • engineering culture
  • team structure
  • Software Development
  • product development
  • agile
  • lean
  • continuous improvement
  • leadership
  • management
  • Innovation
  • collaboration
  • effectiveness
  • Efficiency
  • best practices
  • ideal organization
  • high-performing teams
  • organizational effectiveness
  • product vision
  • customer focus
  • employee empowerment
  • psychological safety
  • organizational structure
  • team dynamics
  • Communication
  • motivation
  • alignment
  • autonomy

  Summary of Comments ( 96 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42676123

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree with James Shore's vision of a strong product engineering organization, emphasizing small, empowered teams, a focus on learning and improvement, and minimal process overhead. Several express skepticism about achieving this ideal in larger organizations due to ingrained hierarchies and the perceived need for control. Some suggest that Shore's model might be better suited for smaller companies or specific teams within larger ones. The most compelling comments highlight the tension between autonomy and standardization, particularly regarding tools and technologies, and the importance of trust and psychological safety for truly effective teamwork. A few commenters also point out the critical role of product vision and leadership in guiding these empowered teams, lest they become fragmented and inefficient.

  The Hacker News post "If we had the best product engineering organization, what would it look like?" generated a moderate amount of discussion with several compelling comments exploring the nuances of the linked article by James Shore.

  Several commenters grappled with Shore's emphasis on small, autonomous teams. One commenter questioned the scalability of this model beyond a certain organizational size, citing potential difficulties with inter-team communication and knowledge sharing as the number of teams grows. They suggested the need for more structure and coordination in larger organizations, potentially through designated integration roles or processes.

  Another commenter pushed back on the idea of completely autonomous teams, arguing that some level of central architectural guidance is necessary to prevent fragmented systems and ensure long-term maintainability. They proposed a hybrid approach where teams have autonomy within a clearly defined architectural framework.

  The concept of "full-stack generalists" also sparked debate. One commenter expressed skepticism, pointing out the increasing specialization required in modern software development and the difficulty of maintaining expertise across the entire stack. They advocated for "T-shaped" individuals with deep expertise in one area and broader, but less deep, knowledge in others. This, they argued, allows for both specialization and effective collaboration.

  A few commenters focused on the cultural aspects of Shore's ideal organization, highlighting the importance of psychological safety and trust. They suggested that a truly great engineering organization prioritizes employee well-being, encourages open communication, and fosters a culture of continuous learning and improvement.

  Another thread of discussion revolved around the practicality of Shore's vision, with some commenters expressing concerns about the challenges of implementing such radical changes in existing organizations. They pointed to the inertia of established processes, the potential for resistance to change, and the difficulty of measuring the impact of such transformations. Some suggested a more incremental approach, focusing on implementing small, iterative changes over time.

  Finally, a few comments provided alternative perspectives, suggesting different models for high-performing engineering organizations. One commenter referenced Spotify's "tribes" model, while another pointed to the benefits of a more centralized, platform-based approach. These comments added diversity to the discussion and offered different frameworks for considering the optimal structure of a product engineering organization.