How can a Tech Lead get their team to listen?

Wasted years in previous company under narcissistic manager with the same mindset. The guy had official senior lead title and was calling the shots. When ther team became too big, he assigned most senior people as “leads” without the official title. You had to perform as a team lead in an environment where your decisions do not have authoritative power, so every small task became negotiation with every member regardless of their seniority. Also no salary bump either. The “teams” quickly collapsed and they hired official team leads from there, with a real authority.

> Although hierarchical decision making may be more efficient, it's an unnatural system and anti-social

Where did you read this? “Empowerment management for empowered to empower #21”?

God help me. Was on a project where this was used to justify so much extra boilerplate. Every class had an interface, and then we used dependency injection to supply the class to something expecting that interface. Actually, it was in Rust, so there were no classes, but that didn't stop us. Absolute waste of time.

This is probably the single, most important advice for any new person joining a company in a (technical) leadership position. There are going to be missing things in any org, and bad mistakes, and people needing to learn new things. But also there are going to be tons of decisions that make "no sense" on first look that do have a reason behind, and to fix that "root cause" you probably need a 3 years plan and buy-in from C-level. So, trust the team you are going to lead.

starting with a presentation that nobody asked for is a good way to be ignored.

I think its important to note in most companies I worked in, the issues were mostly political.

Honestly, the more I look at it, the worse it gets.

Makes me think of Ninjas and Rockstars.

The words that follow support it being "intimacy". That is what intimacy is — being close enough to someone that you can be open without a feeling of being left exposed. How would empathy fit?

I work in automation (mostly) as a lead tech and professional troubleshooter because I am familiar with a wide and varied amount of automation technologies. I've met plenty of people over the years who have much more advanced skills than myself, but never go beyond doing more than parts swapping on a workbench, which leaves me scratching my head.

Over the last few years, I have listened carefully to what people around me say about my work, and while it is good gas for the ego, I have notice that's not the likely reason I get promoted so quickly. While I can walk into a problem and know how to apply different processes to figure out what to do almost reflexively at this point, the real focus seems to be that I take ownership of the process.

Bit of a buzzphrase, "ownership of the process," but the short explanation is that a little planning, accountability, resourcefulness and communication seems to get you a lot further than just knowing what to do in any given situation. Employers like that because they now have department manager they can rely on, and team members like that because someone else is taking responsibility so they don't have to.

You're good at code, obviously, but if you zoom out on your work a bit, are you also bringing a bit of accountable authority to the table? That may be the real reason why you move up so quickly, or at least something that greases the gears so that can happen faster for you than, say, an equally skilled colleague.

In what way?

This happens so often at big companies as well. Management is always assumed to be correct, and the pay grade argument always kicks in(They are paid more because you are beneath them). And this starts to show up everywhere. You can't take any initiative without sanction from the top, and they are often clueless as to what the ask is. Most of the times its rejected just to assert authority, and not on the grounds of merit.

Top bosses are also very envious and proactively trying to kill rising talent out of fear- people better than them, will replace them. To that end no good thing ever happens, if you push too hard you will be eliminated in interest of self preservation.

So by and large no good thing is ever suggested, or tried or happens. Eventually until whole business(es) die out. This happens in every company, no matter what companies claim about hiring, retaining and promoting talent. This is just how every place works.

I've seen the culture changing in some special circumstances a couple times in previous companies, and honestly all of them were ugly: 1) Demographic replacement (having more people saying yes and out-vote the legacy employees)

2) Hired guns from the top to the bottom to shake the system (we called in a company those managers "007" because they used to have licence to fire).

3) Non-compliance stable as a discipline method for the "legacy employees" (very adopted in Central Europe)

4) "Train-your-replacement" as a coercion method for collaboration

5) Some modified version of the "madogiwa-zoku" but instead of looking to the window, they push people to go for the "metawork," like organizing events, being a developer advocate in conferences, assuming roles as "community managers," or being used as a "donkey token" to be used in conferences or panels of "_______________ in tech."

This happens a lot in large company. And isn't just a singular case or a company, but any organisation or even countries. Just look at governments around the world.

You cant help those who dont want to be helped.

The biggest problem of any problem is people dont think it is a problem.

And may be controversially, you cant stop the pendulum from swinging and change its direction. The only way to fasten the cycle is to help it swing to its extreme before it swings back.

I don't do this because I don't trust them but because I have different requirements. What matters most to them is completing their work items according to specifications. What matters more to me is long-term maintainability of our projects for the rest of the team.

Some of them have the long-term needs in mind. Some of them just don't think that way. I try not to make them feel like their work can't be trusted or like my demands are arbitrary. I think they are more receptive to my demands when I can at least provide context for them. That seems absolutely necessary to me.

I ask myself all the time whether I'm insisting on too much control. I appreciate you asking of yourself, "Is this my ego?" It can definitely go both ways.

Based on the headline, people will upvote the post and/or share anecdotes, but I'm just going to flag it.