Nearly every tweet describes scenarios that can only happen when engineering management is M.I.A. or too inexperienced to recognize when something is a bad idea.
- Attempting to solve problems with a rewrite in a different programming language. This can be the correct long term decision in specific scenarios, but it’s rarely the correct answer for bailing out a sinking ship. You need to focus on fixing the current codebase as a separate initiative rather than going all-in on a rewrite to fix all of your problems. Rewrites take far too long to be band-aid solutions.
- Rewriting open-source software before you can use it. If Django doesn’t fit your startup’s needs, the solution is never to rewrite Django. The solution is to use something else that does fit your needs. Your startup’s web services needs are almost never unique enough to merit rewriting popular open-source frameworks as step 1. Pick a different tool, hire different people if necessary, and get back to focusing on the core business problem. Don’t let the team turn into open-source contributors padding their resume while collecting paychecks from a sinking startup. Save the open-source work for later when you have the extra money to do it right without being a distraction.
- Hiring consultants to confirm your decisions. Consultants can be valuable for adding outside perspective and experience, but the team must be prepared to cede some control to the consultant. If you get to the point where you’re hiring a “Twisted consultant” instead of a web store scaling consultant, you’re just further entrenching the team’s decisions.
- “Nobody was in charge”. Common among startups who pick a “technical cofounder” based on their technical skills, rather than their engineering leadership skills. When you assemble a team of highly motivated, very smart engineers, it’s tempting to assume they can self manage. In my experience, the opposite is true. The more motivated and driven the engineers, the more you need explicit leadership to keep them moving in the same direction. Otherwise you get the next point:
- Multiple competing initiatives to solve the problem in different ways. Letting engineers compete against each other can feel like a good idea to inexperienced managers because it gets people fired up and working long hours to prove their code is the best. That energy quickly turns into a liability as engineers go full political, hoarding information to help their solution succeed while casually sabotaging the competing solutions. In a startup, you need everyone moving in the same direction. It’s okay to have disagreement, but only if everyone can still commit to moving in the one chosen direction. If some people can’t commit, they need to be removed from the company.
- The “drop-in replacement” team. This is just a variation of having engineers compete against each other. Doesn’t work.
- Allowing anyone to discuss “business logic” as if it’s somehow different work. This leads to engineers architecting over-generalized “frameworks” for other people to build upon instead of directly solving the company’s problems. At a startup, never let people discuss “business logic” as something that someone else deals with. Everyone is working on the business logic, period.
I have to admit that when I was younger and less experienced, I plowed right into many of these same mistakes. These days, I’d do everything in my power to shut down the internal competition and aimless wandering of engineering teams.
Ironically, these situations tend to benefit from strategically shrinking headcount. It’s not a fun topic, but it’s crucial for regaining alignment. The key is to remove the dissenters, the saboteurs, the politicians, and the architects creating solutions in a vacuum. You need to keep a cohesive core team that can move fast, commit to one direction even when they disagree, and not let their egos get in the way of doing the right thing.
The real challenge is that those employees tend to fly under the radar. The people quietly doing the important work and shipping things that Just Work can be overshadowed by bombastic, highly opinionated “rockstar” engineers. Founders need to be willing to let those rockstars go when they no longer benefit the company, no matter how good their coding skills might be in isolation. A coordinated team of mediocre but diligent engineers will run circles around a chaotic team of rockstars competing against each other.
So much this. The bombastic Rockstars not only create unnecessary ego driven political fights that are distractions to a business delivering value, but on the occasions they do deliver, it’s often not what was promised. But their social skills (or privilege) allow them to cruise through failures.
Whereas a team of devs that work well together that are hungry to learn, willing to have an open minded conversation about systems, that deliver consistently: they are what really keep the business from falling apart.
(I made the tweets)