A company is the people who work for it.

I ran across this article through Hacker News by an entrepreneur who had sold his previous company and realized that he needed to start a new company. The author definitely has that entrepreneur spirit of wanting to take action on ideas, but a few of his statements are also examples of the negatives views adopted by many who are in management and leadership positions.

"I hated having 85 employees. It had become a little hell. I needed to get away and clear my mind."

How sad to hear from their leader that he hated having to deal with them. Being in management and leadership positions means having a degree of power over the employees, but it also comes with a responsibility for those employees. Employees are people and not just pawns to fulfill the manager's whims.

Before accepting the job of a manager, think about what that position means because it can be very different from what your existing role is.

When to grow an organization vertically vs horizontally?

I believe that a lot of good solutions to problems that a business is trying to solve comes from the rank-and-file. A technology company, for example, get some of its most innovative solutions from the engineers who are hired to build the company's products. When a company is at the stage where its focus is on building its products then it should focus on growing horizontally to maximize its efficiency. A good example is Google where they have been in the mode of building up their product. It makes sense that they have a fairly flat organizational hierarchy since the problem they're solving now is how to build a better search, how to monetize search, how to come up with new technical solutions, etc. Having a large set of talented engineer maximizes their chances of success.

At some point, however, the organization starts to move beyond just building the product. As the rank-and-file grows, a new problem emerges: organization. How does it organize all the ideas, thoughts and interactions between the different pieces? This is when a company needs to grow vertically. Managers are there to provide the necessary organization, structure and guidance so that the company can continue to maximize its potential. This also means that there is a max height to the organization at different stages since there is only so much organization that is needed and when that height is exceeded is when we see the high level of ineffective bureaucracy.

Sometimes I see an organization grow in the wrong direction because they fail to recognize the problem that it needs to solve. Instead of growing horizontally when trying to deliver products (This doesn't mean that throwing more ppl at a problem means it'll get solved faster or better. Growing horizontally could also mean empowering existing employees to come up with solutions), a company starts to insert multiple layers of management. This might be fine if it was trying to solve organizational problems but since it isn't these additional layers becomes more a hindrance then benefit.

Engineering Manager

The American Society of Engineering Management describes the discipline of engineering management as:

Engineering Management is the art and science of planning, organizing, allocating resources, and directing and controlling activities which have a technological component.

Engineering Management is rapidly becoming recognized as a professional discipline. Engineering managers are distinguished from other managers by the fact that they possess both an ability to apply engineering principles and a skill in organizing and directing technical projects and people in technical jobs.

Of course, this description throws another wrench in the roles within a technology company. Where is the line between technical product management, technical project management and engineering management?

Technical Product Manager

When I go to the bookstore, I see plenty of books in the technology section on software engineering and technical project management. However, there are very (if any) books about technical product management. Why is that? Technical product manager seems to be common enough in Silicon Valley, but there seems to be a lack of printed literature on technical product management. A search online, however, turned up many blogs about technical product management and what the position means.

Personally, I believe that technical product management is very different from regular product management or at least it is a specialized subset of product management. The problem that I often see is when a technology company don't see the distinction and when product management and project management gets confused.

This lack of clarity in companies also has a negative impact on its people. When a company hires a product manager (non-technical) for what is really a technical product manager role, the person simply won't be set up for success.

What baffles me and makes me wonder is it only in the tech industry that job roles are so unclear?

Meetings

I love meetings, I hate meetings, I love meetings... Okay, okay, I have a love-hate relationship with meetings. There are three types of meetings (no, it's not the good, the bad and the ugly) that I've found myself in. The first type of meeting is the useful meeting where the right people get together and figure out a solution to a problem.

The second type of meeting can also be useful which is the information meeting. This type of meeting is when one person needs to pass along information to a group of people followed by a discussion or questions. Type 2 can be tricky, though, because it can easily become an useless meeting if the information being given out is ill-prepared or not useful. Also, don't drag out these type of meetings for too long 'cause people have a limit on how much they can take from one person droning on-and-on.

The third type of meeting is the bad one, and unfortunately, the most common one that gives meetings a bad name. This is the meeting that someone has in order to show he's doing something to justify his existence at the company. There is often no true purpose at this meeting or to collect the people there together, yet it seems to last forever. Sometime this can be disguised as type 2 where the person talks forever on a topic that nobody needs to hear about and probably could've been done more efficiently in an email. There is often a lot of people in these meetings but no clear action items results from it. People might say something just so they can meet the "I participated" criteria but there is very little investment by the group. Occasionally there is one person who tries makes it his soapbox, but given the lack of interest by the group who soon just wants to get out it doesn't result in any positive action. In the end, everyone leaves feeling that they just lost a few hours of their lives.

My point? Make sure there is a clear purpose for calling a meeting and make sure you stay focus on the topic to be addressed/solved. If it's for information, get to the point and keep it clear.

How true this is...

from Death by Risk Adversion