[itsmejeff]

When I got bored with software engineering, I decided to invest in developing leadership skills and to try to build teams.

Many people (myself included) are motivated by the impact their career can have. The impact of a great leader is exponentially larger than that of a direct contributor (based on the number people they can typically influence, and the amount of resources at their disposal to pursue “bigger” ideas). A great engineer who is also a great leader will garner more respect from their team, and will be more effective than a great leader who was not a great engineer.

I’m currently a Director of Engineering, and have a goal of becoming a CEO. This is something I never remotely considered, and even scoffed at early in my career.

The transition has been difficult and exciting. I considered myself to be an excellent engineer, so transitioning to a role where the new challenge is how to convince other brilliant (but possibly less honed) technical minds to do things has been extremely fulfilling. It forces me to think harder about my habits as an engineer and why they are important and how I can communicate that — it also forces me to have humility and admit that some of my habits may not have been as good as some things other folks are doing. It’s been extremely fulfilling, and I’m much more excited about my future than I was during the last few years I was a software engineer.

[ck425]

How did you make the transition in the first place? My issue is that despite enjoying and having good leadership skills (based on external feedback so I'm reasonable sure that's not just my ego ) I'm not the strongest technically and getting into those roles seems to require becoming an extremely technically competent senior/principle engineer first.

[itsmejeff]

I got bored with engineering because it became easy. The patterns always repeated, and I knew that the only thing standing between me and my desired outcome was a fully understood path of actions.

I don’t believe you have to reach this level across a wide domain, but you should be able to achieve it within some reasonably narrow technical scope. If you don’t, you will not be able to lead a technical team effectively. When you are in leadership, you may not always be on the hook for delivering, but you can win major support from your team if you are capable of diving in and doing something technically impressive from time to time. In addition, you will need to be able to teach engineers and guide technical implementation, which requires the ability to communicate clearly about deeply technical topics. I find that the less I know about a construct (think Law of Demeter, etc.) the less I’m able to communicate it to others or build solid arguments for or against it.

I think you must dig in and obsess about becoming great at engineering. My passion for this role is because of its meta nature. I love engineering and have built strong opinions about it over my career, and now I want to engineer a team of engineers who can see things similarly, and ultimately do greater things collectively. This wouldn’t be possible if I didn’t take the time to be a great engineer first.

[Zucburger]

@itsmejeff

What were the critical skills that you made yourself learn for the transition?

[itsmejeff]

Truthfully — the biggest thing has been leaning into my gut more as opposed to trying to reason through everything thoroughly. The decisions are many and the time is short. Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” is a great read, and when working in engineering management, the conclusion to be drawn from it is that your gut (aka system 1) is actually really good at summing all of your past experience and telling you what you should do. There is definitely more in the domain of human psychology that I have studied as well.

In addition, I’ve been forced to continue to hone my technical skills, but more in the domain of “why” instead of “how”. I was able to be an effective engineer by mastering the “how” (which of course required some non-zero knowledge of “why”). However, the types of minds that exist in engineering (or at least the types I want on my team), are not satisfied with a boss telling them “how” to do something. The reasoning must be sound. Engineers want to see the work. If you can’t provide compelling arguments for why a new policy or decision exists, then you quickly lose credibility.

[technological]

Did you invest in getting a MBA degree ?

[itsmejeff]

No, I already have two MS degrees (1 in Mechanical Engineering, 1 in CS) — I’m not interested in more school.

Maybe that will change in the future.