That's fair. In my case, I think our managers have historically done very little outside of collecting information for promotions, fielding questions from other teams about our roadmaps, and approving expenses.
That makes me think to some extent the problem is we have had little continuous feedback from these leaders or even much concentration on goals/expectations. That makes it really tough because you just have to keep outputting and believing it's enough until the end-of-cycle feedback comes in. I've managed to succeed in this environment anyways but it's certainly stressful.
I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager, so we will see how/if things change.
That makes me think to some extent the problem is we have had little continuous feedback from these leaders or even much concentration on goals/expectations. That makes it really tough because you just have to keep outputting and believing it's enough until the end-of-cycle feedback comes in. I've managed to succeed in this environment anyways but it's certainly stressful.
I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager, so we will see how/if things change.
I got your distaste from the above first paragraph. Earlier, I was asking: what else would have instead of that? I hope I was clear this time.
I think what I'm looking for is someone who understands the technical side of a team and org enough (perhaps through support of a tech lead) to set expectations and goals for the individuals they manage (and likely hired).
If the manager doesn't understand the business and technical needs enough to be able to set those items with an engineer, I'm not sure what that they are really enabling team members to have a good bar for what they will be evaluated on, and I think that is a sub-optimal environment for people (not just engineers) to work in.
My ultimate sentiment here is: would you want to take a test where you didn't have a good idea about how it was graded?
Comments
That's fair. In my case, I think our managers have historically done very little outside of collecting information for promotions, fielding questions from other teams about our roadmaps, and approving expenses.
That makes me think to some extent the problem is we have had little continuous feedback from these leaders or even much concentration on goals/expectations. That makes it really tough because you just have to keep outputting and believing it's enough until the end-of-cycle feedback comes in. I've managed to succeed in this environment anyways but it's certainly stressful.
I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager, so we will see how/if things change.
Can you please share here - rather what else you prefer?
Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure I understand
I got your distaste from the above first paragraph. Earlier, I was asking: what else would have instead of that? I hope I was clear this time.
I think what I'm looking for is someone who understands the technical side of a team and org enough (perhaps through support of a tech lead) to set expectations and goals for the individuals they manage (and likely hired).
If the manager doesn't understand the business and technical needs enough to be able to set those items with an engineer, I'm not sure what that they are really enabling team members to have a good bar for what they will be evaluated on, and I think that is a sub-optimal environment for people (not just engineers) to work in.
My ultimate sentiment here is: would you want to take a test where you didn't have a good idea about how it was graded?