
Good engineers make terrible leaders - paraschopra
https://invertedpassion.com/engineers-make-terrible-leaders/
======
jandrewrogers
I think a pair of issues are being improperly conflated here with respect to
the complexity of human systems. We see a similar problem contained within
software engineering (and chemical engineering): most humans, including most
engineers, are terrible at analysis and engineering of complex distributed
systems. Human systems are just another example of this problem domain.

Systems level engineering breaks a problem-solving heuristic that people rely
on to make analysis simple: that changing a variable does not feedback into
the value of that variable, which allows you to break a big problem into a
bunch of trivial small problems that can be solved independently. For systems
level engineering problems, you have to consider the interaction of all
components simultaneously, which is a very different type of analysis (you are
designing for locally stable and hopefully approximately optimal systems level
equilibria). It also has characteristics that go against the way humans want
to design things: the general design pattern is that you can't design for
"good" outcomes per se, you can only design systems that mitigate "bad"
outcomes, with optimal "good" outcomes being the natural result of efficient
pathology minimization. Most people tend to design for the outcome they want,
rather than minimizing the outcomes they don't want, but only the latter
works.

Bringing this back to human systems, in a naive analysis you can take any
variable, label it "good", and dial it up to eleven with some direct trivial
changes. I almost always see it approached this way at a policy level. In a
systems level analysis, it never works that way and you have less control of
the tradeoffs than you might like as a matter of policy. We suck at human
systems because, thus far, we haven't come to terms with the reality that a
systems level analysis doesn't let you dictate the absolute values of "good"
and "bad" no matter how you define them and controlling the relative values is
far from trivial in a systems level analysis. We have tools for approaching
this, as some types of engineering require it, but we don't apply it because
it doesn't lend itself to the kind of naive analysis people understand and the
tools don't allow the kinds of outcomes in human systems we wish we could
engineer.

~~~
paraschopra
>Human systems are just another example of this problem domain.

It isn't. Of course, both are systems of some sort, but there are several
differences:

1\. You can simulate a systems engineering problem and if it doesn't give you
an acceptable solution in the first go, change some parameters and re-run
again. In human systems, you (usually) do not get such luxury.

2\. Components in an engineered system behave predictably. Humans are free
agents who often act in irrational, surprising ways. You cannot simulate and
analyze that. This is why there are black swans.

We cannot bundle these two systems as one and the same thing.

~~~
icebraining
Your view of engineering seems too narrow. How would you classify a traffic
engineering problem? Humans area a crucial component, and it certainly doesn't
have an objectively correct solution (except possibly in narrow cases).

~~~
pixl97
Current traffic engineering is almost a complete human problem. Swap it out to
driverless cars and it becomes more like routing IP packets.

~~~
greenyoda
Not so simple, since driverless cars will still have to interact with
pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. Not to mention that humans will still ultimately
determine where the cars go, and when - even if all cars are driverless,
massive numbers of people will hit the road the day before Thanksgiving.

~~~
pixl97
>Not to mention that humans will still ultimately determine where the cars go

Incentives.

Right now the road network has no information on where you are going. Because
of this it is near impossible to route or plan traffic beforehand other than
using historical estimates. It is everyone for themselves. In a completely
driverless world people could submit their driving route the day before a
major event like Thanksgiving so the network has more information on what
traffic will look like then. The people that plan ahead could then be given a
'queue credit' or 'queue boost' that routes their car in to the faster moving
lanes, where those that did not get stuck in the slower lanes for longer.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I completely disagree with this for several reasons. The main reason is that
the article, sells short engineers abilities.

Let's look at software engineering, because that is what I am most familiar
with.

First, not every problem has a well defined solution. For example, trying to
decide what is the best way to pack a truck for deliveries is essentially the
knapsack problem and has no solution that we could actually implement.
Instead, what is done is to use heuristics to find an approximate solution.

In addition, in software engineering, there is such a thing as a desire to
write beautiful and elegant code and design. Those things don't have an
objective definition, but a subjective definition. Software engineers will try
to write that kind of code and will discuss and debate the various methods of
achieving that (look at the whole functional programming debates).

Finally, the article makes it seem like everybody's morals and values are so
different. It over exaggerates the differences. The vast majority of people
want things according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_need...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs).
They generally want government to make sure the lowest 2 levels (physiological
needs - ie clean drinking water, food, etc and security - low crime, rule of
law, etc) are provided while being allowed to pursue the things higher up the
pyramid.

What was described above is an optimization problem. Sure, there is no
feasible and probable perfect solution. However, engineers deal with this all
the time. Most code that is written does not have formal proofs. Often
heuristics are used and measurements of performance in common scenarios bare
taken. The same approach can also be used with social issues. Experienced
engineers are also good at communicating to the rest of the team why a certain
approach is a good one. This communication skills can also be used in the
social arenas.

Thus don't let this article discourage you. Engineers do have the ability to
deal with ambiguity and tradeoffs and communicate about them and can be
excellent leaders.

~~~
paraschopra
Author here.

> First, not every problem has a well defined solution. For example, trying to
> decide what is the best way to pack a truck for deliveries is essentially
> the knapsack problem and has no solution that we could actually implement.
> Instead, what is done is to use heuristics to find an approximate solution.

But even if optimal solutions are not to be found, you can state it
objectively and know it's an unsolvable problem and so you interpret results
in the same light. In human system, you cannot even state the problem
objectively.

>Finally, the article makes it seem like everybody's morals and values are so
different. It over exaggerates the differences.

If I was overexaggerating, we wouldn't have ISIS, Korea and many other
cultures that pose threat to human existence every now and then. The
difference of opinions is all around us, just open any news website.

~~~
QAPereo
Just to a reminder that there are two Koreas, and one of them probably doesn’t
deserve to be lumped in with ISIS.

------
mattnewport
It's nonsense to suggest that engineering decisions are simple black and white
decisions compared to other kind of problems. We may be able to calculate the
properties of a particular bridge design reasonably accurately but engineering
is full of tradeoffs. Some of those tradeoffs are part of even doing those
calculations (which necessarily involve simplifications and imperfectly known
or measurable inputs and involve cost benefit tradeoffs). There are vast
numbers of complex tradeoffs in designing and engineering a bridge beyond
that: costs and timelines vs quality, aesthetics and other qualities,
projections of future traffic patterns... Fundamentally engineering is all
about smart tradeoffs, including those involving working with limited data
about the problem vs. gathering more data.

On the other side, politics is full of examples of objectively bad policies
where relevant experts know better ways to achieve the stated objectives. In
reality many of the problems with politics stem from the fact that the stated
objectives are not the real objectives behind policy decisions.

The article is riddled with other errors and fallacies too, too many to list
in detail.

~~~
paraschopra
Author here. I'd love to get a list of errors and fallacies. I actively try to
learn to think better, so it'll be great if you could point them out.

You are missing the point of the article. The question isn't about tradeoffs,
it is about knowledge (or lack of such tradeoffs). In engineering problems,
tradeoffs are known and in human systems, tradeoffs aren't known.

> On the other side, politics is full of examples of objectively bad policies
> where relevant experts know better ways to achieve the stated objectives. In
> reality many of the problems with politics stem from the fact that the
> stated objectives are not the real objectives behind policy decisions.

If you read the notes (and the paper linked), that's the exact point I'm
making in the article.

~~~
wilun
> In engineering problems, tradeoffs are known

Not really. In non trivial projects, you also have to "manage" the unknowns.
Viewing engineering projects as completely controlled is a myth; even what we
make with actual engineering practices (planes, etc.) fail every so often
because of design issues. This is not because of known tradeoff, except if you
twist the definition as far as pretending that the lack of infinite study and
simulation is a tradeoff. Catastrophic failures often (always?) come from
highly non-linear causes, you can think that kind of chaos also leads in other
areas, especially among social interaction. Because of the non-linearity, even
estimations of failure rates are only really estimations with absolutely no
hard bounds. So said non trivial (real) engineering projects actually have to
be inserted in the society as a whole, including for example insurances.

The (real) engineer also have (a moral obligation) to consider the social
impact of their work.

In the end, both engineering work and leading a society is reducible to
exercising reason to attempt to achieve a goal. The remaining differences are
mere details.

------
nitwit005
Engineers, like most professions, contain all the diversity of humanity. The
only filter is that the portion of the populace that couldn't attain that
level of education, or who can't hold onto a job, aren't included.

Sure, there's some commonality in that it's a group that has been exposed to a
certain form of thinking, but if you asked people to write their thoughts on
solving the poverty problem, I seriously doubt you'd be able to identify the
engineers from what they wrote.

~~~
module0000
>> I seriously doubt you'd be able to identify the engineers from what they
wrote.

This isn't meant to be funny, but I bet you could identify _good engineers_
from what they wrote rather quickly. What does a good engineer do when they
discover a faulty resistor while debugging a circuit? Cut it out, throw it in
the trash, and replace it with a working one. They never pause to consider the
moral impact of suddenly removing it from the board, attempt to rehabilitate
it, or try to empathize with it. They cut it out and move on.

If you apply engineering principles to societal problems, the die-hard
engineer may come up with a similar result. I'm only speculating, but their
line of reasoning could resemble... "these (good productive) citizens do not
harm other citizens, and they support their economies through labor and
taxes.... discard every other citizen that does not do this, and replace them
with a working one".

Sounds like a dystopian sci-fi plot to me.

~~~
roenxi
As a society, we have demonstrated a remarkably limited ability to coherently
articulate what the problems are.

Now, if you can articulate a clear problem, I might be persuaded that
engineers as class will solve it a specific way. But my experience is that
once a problem is identified anyone could do it. Identifying the problem is
the part that generates friction.

In the one-line example you came up with, you imply:

* Working is good

* Economic productivity is the end goal

* Possibly a link between morality and citizenship

* That 'replacement' based on some unknown process will be legitimate

If I am allowed to assume things like that, every human problem becomes easy
and I can engineer it. But a 'landslide' in politics is 60% agreement on a
subject - assumptions like this do not fly. I, for example, disagree with at
least 2 of those points.

------
mikebenfield
The article seems to make two different points that don't completely fit
together:

1\. Non-engineers are better leaders because they can find solutions to
"wicked problems", problems with many interacitng parts where there is no
predefined objectively right or wrong solution.

2\. Non-engineers are better leaders because they are better at persuading
others that their shitty solutions are actually good.

I might buy #2 (for some definition of "better leaders"); I'm not so sure
about #1.

~~~
junkscience2017
#1 flows from the strange rationalization that regardless of anything else in
life, studying humanities for four years in college turns one into a great
abstract thinker....while studying engineering for four years permanently
transforms you into a robot

amazing that people still believe that an undergrad education either turns you
into Napoleon or R2D2

~~~
sidlls
How odd. There is a meme in engineering circles that people who don't study
math or science are somehow less able to think and reason. I wasn't aware of
the sort of inverse you posit.

My personal experience on this is extremely lopsided: it's rare for me to
encounter a non-techie who doesn't fawn embarrassingly at me when I tell them
what my academic background is (physics) or gush over how smart and good at
math I must be, etc., while on the other hand I hear from engineer peers all
the time about how non-techies are dumb, incompetent, play politics, etc.

~~~
junkscience2017
nowhere did I claim that only engineers were numerate, logical or analytical

------
crocal
Let’s wrap it up. Confuses engineering and science. Reduces engineering
activities to closed problems. Thinks science does not successfully offers
models for fuzzy systems (<cough> thermodynamics, man </cough>). Puts doubts
on the fact that technology enabled human progress above its animal condition.
And finally, seems to ignore that the main role of an engineer is to safely
/lead/ the work in factory or on construction sites. Really, I have seldom
read something so inaccurate, up to the point where I suspect it may have been
written on the sole purpose of annoying the HN crowd...

------
slededit
Engineers: Know your place and stay within it.

Get those silly little ideas out of your head and back to whatever it is you
do. Isn't your boss waiting?

~~~
paraschopra
For the record, I'm an engineer myself.

~~~
slededit
Surely you've met engineers that aren't purely analytical?

~~~
paraschopra
Yes, I have. As a clarification, by good engineers, I mean the mode of
thinking that goes with good engineering / problem solving skills. People can
have multiple skills.

~~~
junkscience2017
okay, well if you really believe this...why the article?

------
Splatter
> While a leader with an engineering mindset works hard at finding at a better
> solution, other leaders use their personality, power or charm to persuade
> people that their solution will be in everyone’s benefits, even if it
> actually isn’t. This is why despite his IQ, Donald Trump got elected as the
> president of US.

I'm no Trump fan, but have to wonder why, in an article proposing an objective
truth, I have to read the author's opinion of Donald Trump -- in this case
regarding his IQ.

If the author can prove the lowness of Trump's IQ, I'd love to see the
objective proof. Otherwise I would suggest the author stick with his main
points and not involve his politics.

Moreover, it's sickening to me to read the veiled insult of the voters (the
"even if it actually isn't" statement) who put Trump in office. Again, perhaps
the author would consider sticking with his main thesis and avoid denigration
of those with whom he clearly disagrees.

------
neom
It's absurd to believe someone can't learn a new way of thinking, even if they
are not predisposed to it. Plenty of doctors are also amazing photographers.
I've spent my whole career around engineers from the leadership side of the
house, and I can firmly say I believe many of them could learn to be wonderful
leaders. I think mixing disciplines requires you to switch to child eyes on
your other skills, but that's about it. Great leaders are eternally humble (I
know nothing), great engineers are eternally arrogant (I know this). There is
certainly beautiful in both. :)

~~~
jarjoura
I think that’s the key point, to learn. So many tech companies make management
the only way to continue getting promoted. Then they don’t offer any way for
employees to learn how to be a good manager. So they’re left to learn by
doing.

~~~
neom
It boggles my mind so many great engineers are willing to work for leadership
teams that contains nobody who has built organizational structures at scale.
It's almost like going in for surgery by the person who made the scalpel.

------
pbourke
> Thus anyone claiming an objective basis for a problem in society is taking a
> simplistic view. And that’s my issue with saying technology is causing
> progress.

The author seems to create a false dichotomy between solving “wicked problems”
according to a pure engineering approach and the alternative, which is not
articulated.

Yes, there is probably not an engineering solution analogous to building a
bridge to issues such as poverty. There is, however, a boatload of research
about various facets of the problem that will inform a good solution. A good
leader will become apprised of this research and use it to support a position
that they advocate for. The ultimate position will of course be motivated by
values, culture, etc but if it ignores evidence - gathered by science - or
execution - informed by engineering, then it’s not a good solution.

~~~
josinalvo
Fully aggree.

In fact, I'd go further: having an engeneering mindset is _necessary_ but not
_suficient_ for good leadership

------
danielblazevski
Why is this article with this click-bait title on the top of HN? A lot of
leaders start off as engineers then go to CTOs, VP level, CEOs etc.

And this idea that engineers are purely scientifically minded totally ignores
the endless number of articles suggesting that the best senior engineers have
strong product and business sense, and in many places (but not all) having
those skills are a defining quality of a senior engineer.

Engineers definitely NEED scientific background to enter the field, but this
totally ignores that engineers grow business and product skills throughout
their career, and need to do so to be effective

------
paulsutter
China’s leadership is mostly engineers, and in the US we have lawyers. Seems
to be working well for China.

~~~
regulation_d
In general, I think it makes sense for a large percentage of the people making
laws to be familiar with how laws work.

~~~
maxxxxx
It totally doesn't make sense. When I look at my company lawyers are rarely
the ones that come up with new strategies or anything innovative. They
implement what others tell them to do. That's a valuable thing but I don't
think being a lawyer is a good qualification for leadership. I would argue you
can see this in Congress where they seem to be more interested in fighting
than actually delivering something.

~~~
regulation_d
I'm certainly not suggesting all leaders should be lawyers, just that a fair
number of the ones making laws should be. The US legal system is complex.
Every time my very business-minded senator opens his mouth, there's a real
good chance that he will say something dumb about the way the legal system
works.

Also, I'm generally not looking for laws that are innovative. Companies are
suppose to innovate and risk a lot to do so. But if a company goes bankrupt,
it's rarely a big deal. Governments don't have that level of flexibility. They
need good, stable policy, from people who are good at seeing both sides of
whatever argument is in play. You know what kind of people are good at doing
that? Lawyers.

~~~
maxxxxx
Each member of Congress has a substantial number of lawyers behind them to
write the actual laws. That's necessary. But the direction should come from
people from all walks of life, not just lawyers. I think the real problem may
be that Congress creates laws by lawyers for lawyers.

------
rafiki6
Management is an engineering problem whether we want to admit it or not. It's
about maximizing the potential of the people who are working for you.
Designing a team is just as much of an engineering problem as building a large
scale web service. People will argue and say, but humans are emotional, greedy
etc. That to me just sounds like inputs to the optimization problem at hand.
How do I get team member x, to produce y for me given that x1,x2,x3 factors?
Some of the best executives were formerly great engineers. Engineering is as
much a people discipline as it is a technical discipline. This author's
article is all over the place and I think that they miss this point entirely.
This author doesn't do a good job of actually defining what they think a
"good" engineer is to begin with.

------
erasemus
_it’s meaningless to say human society had made progress without stating areas
that you’re considering and not considering when it comes to assessing such
progress_

Is it meaningless to say that some areas are more worthy of consideration than
others? There are reasons why the OP chose infant mortality and education as
example areas. Those reasons could be made explicit and examined objectively:
for instance to see if they make sense by their own terms. For example is a
society that prioritises a certain area able to _continue_ to do that well
into the future, or not?

------
chacham15
Engineering isnt simply solving known problems. Research in engineering is
working in exactly the situations that he describes: where there are
potentially many unknowns and trying to optimize for some variable, the same
as we would in a political situation. The main difference is the inputs and
outputs to the system: with a lot of engineering its pieces of hardware +
software where as in politics its policy + law.

------
CalChris
I'm not sure what to take away from this article. Yes, Engineers are perhaps
bad at solving insoluble problems. 'Leaders' are equally bad at solving
soluble problems. However, there are a few things I do know:

    
    
      Engineers can become Leaders (difficult, dicey, possible)
      Leaders cannot become Engineers (ain't gonna happen)

~~~
Bahamut
I don’t agree with the assertion that leaders cannot become engineers. I have
had leadership experience before even becoming a software engineer through my
time in the Marine Corps (infantry), and it has served me well in being able
to demonstrate excellence in leadership, as well as in engineering.

I have run into other Marines who have similarly succeeded in making the
transition. On the flip side, some of the best managers I’ve had were former
software engineers.

I think overly broad assertions made like in the article do a disservice. I
think one’s ability to be successful in either role comes down to one’s own
characteristics more than anythig else.

------
asmithmd1
Some problems are engineering problems - design and estimate the cost of a
highway bridge that crosses a river at point X; and some problems are
"political" \- decide the point x where a bridge will cross a river. Only an
engineer can decide if a problem is an engineering one or a political one.

------
eternalban
OP is conflating "method" and "mindset".

The engineer is a methodical thinker and tinkerer. I would think in fact
engineers would make excellent central committee material. :)

"Salesmen" as leaders. Well, let's see how that turns out. MAGA or GAGA, tbd
..

------
akeck
Contrast to Toyota, where, if I recall correctly, VPs are expected to be able
to do personally the roles beneath them in the org chart. Also, the
application of Lean principles to food banks and other service charities.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
There were a couple of recent article from HBR making a similar point[0][1].
They make the point that it is important for leaders to have expertise about
the domain that they are leading in.

[0] [https://hbr.org/2017/11/can-you-be-a-great-leader-without-
te...](https://hbr.org/2017/11/can-you-be-a-great-leader-without-technical-
expertise)

[1] [https://hbr.org/2016/12/if-your-boss-could-do-your-job-
youre...](https://hbr.org/2016/12/if-your-boss-could-do-your-job-youre-more-
likely-to-be-happy-at-work)

------
akkartik
This may be country-specific:
[http://www.economist.com/node/13496638](http://www.economist.com/node/13496638)

------
wittgenstein
The title of this article is click-bait and a complete oversimplification. I'm
tired of seeing shit like this in HN and can't believe people are upvoting it.

------
valuearb
Philosophers make terrible judges of engineering managers.

~~~
AstralStorm
Laconic, I like it. (Yes that is a philosophy.)

------
sytelus
Bad artical paddling completely unsubstantiated theory and making absurd
claims - very likely to benefit his own career as non-engineer leader.

Author basically rides his argument on one "paper" which also makes out-of-
the-thin-air arguments in similar fashion. The central point of the argument
is that science is incapable of dealing with complex incompletely specified
systems with uncertainties. Then author goes one step ahead and makes a
sweeping statement that people who are good at scientific approach have
decreased abilities to deal with this kind of problems! On the other hand, so
called "leaders" have this natural "charm" to allow them to work with such
systems without requiring scientific mindset. He then cites Donald Trump as
proof of his argument. In my long career I have actually came across such
leaders with natural "charm" and I can attest that chances of have them
destruct the project is much higher than a leader with engineering background.

So the conclusion is that if person is less scientific then better chance that
he would be good leader. I think author has time travelled from 500 BC and is
not aware of entire fields of complexity theory, chaos, probability,
statistics. He is probably also unaware that virtually every major leader from
Alexander to JFK have used science to win their wars and had fairly good
understanding and ability to naturally apply those methods to their problems.

No need to waste your time in reading this BS.

------
gamechangr
Of course HN would be a terrible place to make an argument that "good
engineers make terrible leaders".

Engineers here would just deconstruct it.

Anyone see the irony?

~~~
AstralStorm
And leaders will ignore it as baby talk. Or posturing.

------
ricardobeat
This did not make any sense to me. The article does not back its title in any
way. Material progress for humanity achieved through technology somehow
'cannot be objectively measured'. Plus some empty statements about engineering
being task-executors with no political/planning ability?

------
ashleyn
>This is why despite his IQ, Donald Trump got elected as the president of US.

Has this ever been made public?

------
bullsandabears
This clickbait headline is leaning on a study behind a paywall so we can't
argue the actual points or data. Don't bother

------
satyajeet23
Causality and Correlation.

------
anonacct37
People who try to box engineers into some sort of hyper-rational over-
simplified box to separate them from real world messy problems are silly.

I suspect the underlying reason is that once you start measuring things, you
tend to learn thing fast and that typically shakes up the status quo in a way
that disciplines "far away" from the hard sciences aren't emotionally ready
for. You don't question their sacred cows.

Let me give you a software example which shows how basically even the "tamest"
seeming problem in software engineering is pretty "wicked", requiring some of
the same skills you'd use to tackle a social issue.

Is website A faster than website B? What do we mean by fast? Sure we agree we
can use a clock, and to bucket relativistic effects we can talk about things
on planet earth. So if you're sitting there in front of a computer with a
clock, what should you measure to tell if website A is faster than website B?

The answer is nobody really knows but some answers seem better than others.
The most simplistic measure is to measure the time from when a request is sent
to when the last byte of the response is received. But once we have a number
we have to ask what it means in terms of "faster" and if it's the right
number.

Some single page apps these days are really fast by that measure. They just
give you a static shell, that would sure beat the pants off just about any
other webpage download. Of course for single page apps giving you a static
shell, the initial download is not the end, but the beginning. They start to
load css and javascript and images, etc.

We might say that page download time is a poor metric because if I'm some poor
schmuck trying to visit a page, the time that the html took to download
doesn't really mean anything to me.

For a while people thought time to first byte was more interesting. Of course
it really means nothing, but in some cases, for a short while (streaming pages
from jsps, etc) before mvc became the predominant paradigm, a good ttfb was
correlated with sending some html that the browser could get to work on,
allowing it to render content sooner, which seemed like a good thing.

Do you see the wickedness here? In order to even tackle the problem we have to
invent measures and targets, even though this is a "tame problem" with a
objective stopwatch for measuring.

We kind of "knew" the right measurement was one that the human interacting
with the web page would intuitively understand as "website A is fast". How
long until they could see the page, how long until they could "touch" it and
interact with it?

As people started doing more javascript, the approximation of TTFB stopped
being as useful. There were easy things to measure, domready and page loaded.
Dom ready meant that a page had loaded enough for javascript to begin
interacting with a "complete" document. So almost by definition it wasn't a
good measure since it marks the beginning of the lifecyle of an AJAX app or
client side mvc or single page app or whatever we're calling it next week.
Content loaded often was too conservative of a measure. It didn't fire until
the last image had downloaded and rendered. That could be below the fold and
as they say: "out of sight out of mind".

So at this point if we want to answer the question: "is website A faster than
website B?" we only know the real answer is somewhere between 2 numbers.

Of course facebook cheated. They attached event handlers to the body pre-
domloaded that just appended events to a Array (queue) so that people could
see a button and click on it and even though the "app" wasn't done rendering,
you could say: "a customer could see the page and interact with it without
those interactions being lost".

So if we want to measure "when can I see a webpage and start interacting with
it?" it's a pretty tough question that might not have an answer. The best we
can do is say: "you loaded a web page at time t0 and at time t1 you performed
an action and it (did|did not) work. We could compare those 2 things... if the
action was something you could do on both websites.

You can make videos of websites rendering and visually compare them.

I've spent my career as a performance engineer and I don't really know how to,
in the general case, answer the question: "is website A faster than website
B". In specific cases it's sometimes clear. For example I could visit a static
html page with no buttons and say: "it was definitely loaded in 50ms" and then
visit some monstrosity of a single page app that displays a loading screen for
several seconds and conclude: "the static webpage was faster than the app".

But I'm sure designing a bridge is sooo much simpler and there's no ambiguity
there.

Right?

------
whataretensors
This is one of those 'common' knowledge things that is pushed forward by non-
engineers and further backed up by other non-engineers. Since we account for ~
1e-3 or less of the population we are so outnumbered it becomes part of the
culture.

If you can program you are likely among the smartest people in the world and
can do better at any analytical task than almost anyone else.

~~~
paraschopra
> > If you can program you are likely among the smartest people in the world
> and can do better at any analytical task than almost anyone else.

Designing a system for humans is NOT an analytical task. It can be supported
via analytics, but it's a political task (that requires _others_ to be
convinced that it is a good solution. For example, you can raise income
levels, but if people get pissed off at inequality, you can't argue your way
with numbers. They may or may not take it. And that was my point in the
article).

~~~
valuearb
Yea you know nothing about engineering management. To a man with a hammer
every problem is a nail, and you love your hammer.

I’m an engineer. I’ve built a 45 person engineering team that shipped dozens
of releases of award winning software without ever missing a schedule or
compromising quality. There is nothing but analytical tasks for the
engineering manager.

1\. How do you maximize developer productivity? Motivation? Job satisfaction?
How do you help them make technical decisions and plans?

2\. What process best allows your specific teams to ship quality releases on
time? How much planning overhead is necessary to do so, and how much isn’t
benefiting the process or product?

3\. How do you make your quality assurance staff most productive at finding
and reporting problems? How can they best organize their testing to ensure the
most useful/necessary test coverage, and how do they communicate their
progress clearly?

4\. How well do all these things meet the needs of your first level customer,
the product owner?

5\. How do you communicate your groups capacities to executives? How do you
tell them what can be done, what can’t be done, and what shouldn’t be done?

Your tools, technologies and customer requirements are changing over time.
Analysis never ends, you can always get better.

All the things you think are important, aren’t

~~~
programming_act
lol

------
gaius
Just another self-promoting Twitter startup bro. Who is upvoting this complete
gibberish? At least that article on the cult guy was interesting...

------
katastic
>Good engineers make terrible leaders

The entire position of lead engineer/developer seems to disagree with this.

------
junkscience2017
author cites the problem of motivating a sales team...anywhere I have worked,
this has been the quintessential "objective" process; meet quota, get bonus.
fail to meet quota thrice, adios.

~~~
dahauns
Problem: It's been shown time and again that this doesn't work. (For all but
the lowest simple, mechanical, repetitive tasks.)

[http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01567-001](http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01567-001)

~~~
junkscience2017
counter example: the world economy, most of which is still kept running with
the threat of repercussions

~~~
dahauns
How is this a counterexample?

