Leadership tech debt

This week on the https://refactoring.fm/ community a member asked the difference between a good Engineering manager and an exceptional Engineering manager. In the conversations that followed someone suggested that "a good manager leads the team, a great manager creates a team of leaders". That immediately reminded me of how in Turn the ship around, the author Captain L. David Marquet argues that leaders’ performance should be measured by how their reports perform after the leader has left.

A few days later I was listening to the Knowledge Project podcast (I usually listen to most episodes two or three times to make sure I can get all the knowledge), and I made the connection of the above to tech debt. Someone who is a good leader but is required/essential for the performance of his reports is the transposition of code tech debt in the organization hierarchy.
The organization trades going further in the long term for going fast in the now.

Touch points between the two situations:

  1. leave the code/organization better than you found it
  2. be willing to slow down now to be able go further later vs be willing to look like a fool now while you build and grow the org competency and autonomy
  3. they're both a form of risk. We should in fact call tech debt tech risk instead, because most C-suite stakeholders see debt (i.e. financial) differently than risk, and tech debt is really closer to financial risk than financial debt


Popular posts

A not so short guide to ZFS on Linux

Indexing Apache access logs with ELK (Elasticsearch+Logstash+Kibana)

Mirth: recover space when mirthdb grows out of control