Big Tech leaders are turning leadership into a fad
But I don't intend this to pass so easily. You should resist too.
Today’s issue is going to be short, as it focuses on a concept and set of observations that will take some time to fully crystallize into something deeper and more articulated. So, expect the following paragraphs to be somewhat chaotic and all over the place. That’s by design, as writing helps me clarify my thinking.
But given how people are getting used to half-baked copy-pasted AI slop content, I guess I can allow myself a bit of slack here.
Most of what follows is triggered by a reaction to a recent article from Will Larson, an author I respect and have been following for a while. I recently wrote a review of his book on engineering executives, which I found well-written and very informative.
The good thing about people you respect and follow is that you have the right to disagree with them without feeling bad or falling into an ad hominem attack, which are way too common in online discourse these days. That might disqualify me from a trillion-dollar paycheck one day, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take.
Now, the article I’m referring to is one that came out a couple of weeks ago, provocatively titled “Good Engineering Management” is a fad.
The essence of the article, which I invite everyone to read, can be summarised as follows: the definition of good engineering leadership in the tech industry is highly volatile, and you’d better adjust rather than being stuck on a version that has fallen out of fashion.
That is me paraphrasing, and I might have gotten something wrong. Here is an excerpt from the article itself, summarising the author's conclusion:
The conclusion here is clear: the industry will want different things from you as it evolves, and it will tell you that each of those shifts is because of some complex moral change, but it’s pretty much always about business realities changing. If you take any current morality tale as true, then you’re setting yourself up to be severely out of position when the industry shifts again in a few years, because “good leadership” is just a fad.
In and of itself, this conclusion sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
It’s just another version of the good old adage “adapt or die”, which is at the foundation of the theory of evolution, mixed with a sane dose of skepticism towards any official explanation, especially when it sounds too noble.
Not so fast.
First of all, that “the industry will want different things from you as it evolves” smells like victim mindset, external locus of control, or worse, a blatant avoidance of responsibility.
But let’s park the conclusion for a moment, and go back to those “morality tales” as presented by Larson in his article.
This is the first one, referring to the main trend (in big tech) during the second decade of the 2000s, is described as follows:
In the 2010s, the morality tale was that it was all about empowering engineers as a fundamental good. Sure, I can get excited for that, but I don’t really believe that narrative: it happened because hiring was competitive.
The second refers to the situation we’re living in the 2020s, or the post-COVID era:
In the 2020s, the morality tale is that bureaucratic middle management have made organizations stale and inefficient. The lack of experts has crippled organizational efficiency. Once again, I can get behind that–there’s truth here–but the much larger drivers aren’t about morality, it’s about ZIRP-ending and optimism about productivity gains from AI tooling.
Thanks for reminding us that we shouldn’t take the official statements of big tech company leaders at face value. Let’s not be naive.
Big tech is the epitome of ruthless and soulless late-stage capitalism in the Western world. Nothing new under the sun.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the reality of things for what they are.
But I do have a problem with the implied notion of agency and responsibility that comes with the message. That's because the author is not an independent journalist or a random external observer. He’s not even a “simple” employee at the bottom of the pyramid of big tech.
No, this is a highly influential figure who has actively contributed to shaping the notion of engineering leadership as we know it today. He’s been holding executive roles in prominent and influential tech companies. He’s so respected that he’s even invited to present his views to forums organized by leading cultscompanies in VC tech investing:
It’s exactly because of the high profile of the figure that I found the article profoundly disappointing. I can’t easily swallow someone of that caliber simply saying “do what the industry is asking you to do, even if you're obviously lied to”, because he is that industry. He has an active role in shaping where it goes. Dismissing that responsibility and resorting to the modern version of the invisible hand of the market is such a sad declaration of impotence.
It’s the opposite of what I’d call true leadership, which is based on agency, values, and convictions. Leadership is having the courage to create the conditions you believe are right for the people you’re taking responsibility for. That includes your teams, users, stakeholders, and owners.
Going back to the morality-washing Larson mentions about the 2010 and 2020 trends, he's admitting that the official moral narrative is just a lie, and seems to be OK with that. Dismissed with a simple “I don't believe it, but here is what you should do to avoid trouble with those lying to you”.
Very condescending.
People at all levels should have the decency and integrity to be honest about their true motives, and then let the rest decide whether to follow their leadership or go look somewhere else. The industry is not an inanimate, soulless machine. It's the collection of people paid very high salaries to make important decisions, some of which have the power to impact the lives of thousands or even millions of people. They all should take that responsibility very seriously, at all levels. There should not be an implicit notion of impunity that comes with diluting your responsibilities in the mass of all other “leaders” doing the same.
When Larsson talks about the 2010 narrative, what matters isn’t whether he believes it or not. That’s the easy question. The question is whether he - as a person, as a leader, as a key figure - believes in the underlying set of principles and values, regardless of whether they’d been abused by the usual greedy people. Whether he's been deliberately lying as a means to align with the top, or whether he's suggesting others do the same.
The same applies to the 2020 narrative. Only someone living on another planet1 would have missed the optimism about productivity gains from AI tooling (quote) and the fact that it’s leading to all sorts of impulsive, half-assed decisions.
That’s, again, the easy part. The difficult part of the questions I’d expect every single leader to answer - rather than delegate to the industry - is their take on this exact point. Are they overly optimistic, and why? Are they deliberately cutting jobs? Are they in favour of doing that? Are they recommending doing that? What responsibilities are they taking for such decisions?
As Brian Merchant always repeats with a clarity I envy: it’s never a technology imposing itself. It’s always someone’s decision to replace humans (or try to) with technology. It’s always a manager who pulls the trigger, often hiding behind the “inevitability” of what is happening.2
While things like the recent layoffs at Amazon are happening, the worst thing we can do as leaders is to say “get in line and comply”. That, according to Timothy Snyder, is the first step in the direction of authoritarianism:
Do not obey in advance.
Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
Anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy. Perhaps rulers did not initially know that citizens were willing to compromise this value or that principle. Perhaps a new regime did not at first have the direct means of influencing citizens one way or another. After the German elections of 1932, which brought Nazis into government, or the Czechoslovak elections of 1946, where communists were victorious, the next crucial step was anticipatory obedience. Because enough people in both cases voluntarily extended their services to the new leaders, Nazis and communists alike realized that they could move quickly toward a full regime change. The first heedless acts of conformity could not then be reversed.3
So yes, maybe the best way to optimize your career in the short term is to do just that, but that comes at the cost of abdicating our critical thinking in exchange for personal benefits. And guess what happens when everyone becomes narrowly individualistic and tries to optimize for their own special case?
Unfortunately, the answer is in front of us all, and the best advice we seem to be giving as leaders is to act selfishly while it lasts.
I don’t subscribe to that.
While I fully recognize that nobody is perfect, that we all need to cater for our families and relatives, I do believe in the importance of not sacrificing our principles and values on the altar of easy(er) money.
I do believe in the importance of taking stances, rather than learning to navigate opportunistically every situation, sacrificing human decency.
And I do invite every reader to seek out leaders who are willing to do the same.
Related upcoming activities
I know that many of you are dealing with situations related to the evolving nature of expectations on our roles. It’s always been evolving, for good and bad reasons combined. I like to work with people in finding ways to implement good leadership principles (which, in my book, are the opposite of a fad) in every situation.
In finding ways to stay true to your values while recognising the need to learn new skills and deal with increased frugality. In reminding ourselves that we’re part of shaping the industry trends, and that our level of true agency is often underestimated and underutilized.
For that, I’ve decided to anticipate an offer I was reserving for the Black Friday week.
Starting today, and until Monday 1st of December, you can join the Sudo Make Me a CTO community for half the price for six months. The day after this article goes live, we’ll hold a live session to discuss this exact topic: how the role of engineering managers is evolving, but also how we believe it should evolve, and what we can do in our teams to keep developing good leadership.
You’re welcome to join us just in time for that exciting conversation.
Follow the link below to discover more about the offer and grab your seat.
Secondly, after a bit of a break due to focusing on other fronts, in Q1, I’ll resume the practice of offering free coaching and mentoring sessions to specific populations. This time around, I want to support what I suspect has become a pretty large group:
Anyone in the tech industry (regardless of their role) who has been the object or victim of impulsive, stupid, draconian leadership decisions, which significantly degraded their quality of life, or the life of others.
This includes layoffs, forced AI adoption, RTO mandates, etc.
I’ll soon put up a form for people to apply, and I expect to be able to support 3 to 4 people during Q1.
If you’re interested, you can reply to this email with your story in the meantime. I promise that I’ll keep all of this confidential, of course.
This is an exciting moment for making use of good, well-intentioned leadership.
I’m looking forward to meeting plenty of new friends on the upcoming journey!
Help keep this newsletter free
I love writing this newsletter, and I intend to keep it free forever.
If you want to support my work, you can engage with me in one of the following ways:
If you need help with your Startup, Company, or team, I can support through advisory or fractional services. Find out more on this page.
If you need personal support to overcome challenges and grow as an engineering leader, I can support you through Mentoring and Coaching. Find out more on this page.
If you are looking for continued support and the chance of joining a thriving community of like-minded people, I host a Community for engineering leaders. Find out more on this page.
If your needs fall into a different category, such as newsletter collaborations or sponsoring, please reply to this email or schedule a free call via this link.
Here, I must admit I'm falling victim to the thinking that everyone on this planet has access to the same amount and level of information. Apparently, about 30% of the world population still does not have access to the internet. Source. I hope that at least they escaped all the hype around AI, and the Musk vs Altman live soap opera we've all been forced to witness.
Ready enjoyed this, thanks for sharing. That tension between serving your company’s needs and staying anchored in your own leadership philosophy is something I'm sure gets harder and harder as you climb the corporate ladder. Especially now, with AI companies pushing 9-9-6, the expectations of engineers looks very different from just a few years ago.
Thanks for sharing! I have a personal experience of moving to a new company as a manager, sticking to my own management style, and getting fired eventually (partially due to other external factors). So the "adapt or die" idea is very true to me.
I agree that impactful leaders should shape their organization culture to be more open in welcoming changes. Sadly, with profitability as priority in recent days, creating a healthy culture is probably not on their radar now.
I think what we can do it more to survive/adapt first in an organization, and as we get more authority, we make changes and shape the culture in a way that fits our own management philosophy.