undefined

points

[-]

I also notice the growing trend to have EM carry individual contributor duties, I thought it was mostly a consequence of using coding agents but perhaps it's not: the EM figure as we know might just be a consequence of the golden zirp times (do you remember the endless technical EM vs non-technical EM debates?)

by __turbobrew__1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I think non-technical EMs are fine, but they need to manage an appropriate headcount. I see EMs who manage 2-3 ICs and have no other responsibilities, those EMs need to either take on more ICs or start coding.

by strix_varius1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

> 2-3 ICs

This is the real problem. If you don't have enough folks for a 4+ IC team then you don't have a team.

by badprose2 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Isn't this basically the same structure they currently use i.e. individual contributors, managers, and producers?

by cardy311 days ago|

parent|

[-]

As someone who works in big tech with a partner at a similar big tech company _but with player coaches, DRIs, etc_ it is basically the same thing except messier.

Your manager who used to just focus on motivating and unblocking their people? Now they have to ship code too since they’re a player coaches! You’re a DRI who needs management to get your project unblocked? Too bad your player coach who has to ship code now also has 20 direct reports because the hierarchy was flattened so you can’t get time with them until next week and are blocked until at least then.

It is the hot new trend from the “thought leaders” who have all consistently copied each other’s bad ideas for the past 10 years.

by asveikau1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

This is how well structured teams have worked for a long time.

It sounds pretty similar, for example, to team structure ideas proposed by Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man Month from 1975.