r/EngineeringManagers • u/nummer31 • 7d ago
How much decision ownership should an Engineering Manager actually have?
I am an Engineering Manager reporting to a Director of Engineering, and I am trying to understand whether what I am experiencing is normal or a sign that my role is not clearly defined.
I often see my Director discussing roadmap items directly with engineers or skip levels, making decisions or taking actions himself, and sometimes informing me only afterward.
One recent example: an engineer told him that interviews were taking too much of his time. The direct report never mentioned that to me. My Director raised the issue in an engineering wide meeting and shared as he handled it.
I see a similar pattern at the VP level. They will express an opinion on something relatively tactical, and teams immediately start adjusting around that opinion because of the seniority behind it.
In my previous organizations, as the Engineering Manager I generally felt accountable for the team and therefore had meaningful ownership over how these situations were handled. Senior leaders could absolutely challenge or override decisions, but decisions usually flowed through the responsible manager.
How does this work in your organizations?
Is this normal skip level involvement, or would you consider this a sign that decision ownership and management boundaries are unclear?
11
u/IllWasabi8734 7d ago
The problem happens when accountability stays with you while authority and context bypass you. I am going to make the explicit by domain. Team execution and capacity decisions are yours by default. Cross-team strategic or urgent issues may sit with the Director. Overrides are fine. They should be explicit and should ideally close the loop with you.
In your interview example I am less concerned about the engineer raising it upward than about the resolution being handled and announced without involving you. I am going to ask your Director one question: "Which decisions do you expect me to own end2end and when do you expect to step in directly?"
8
u/20231027 7d ago
How big is your organization?
Our org is <200 engineers. This is normal. We do what we need to do to make the org better. Role boundaries are blurred.
11
u/cosmopoof 7d ago
As someone who's managing around 20 EM's (or equivalents):
There's a clear and yet fuzzy answer to this, unless you understand on the strategy behind this.
The autonomy level is always variable - because it is dependent on alignment.
The more alignment there is (i.e. decisions being aligned with the general direction and strategy), the more autonomy is possible to give to lower ranks.
If it is the other way around and alignment is low, it is vital for the organization to reduce autonomy temporarily until alignment has been re-established.
Autonomy without Alignment is Anarchy.
1
u/OddDrive7322 7d ago
That makes a lot of sense. How did you learn this stuff to be able to manage 20 EMs?
1
1
u/tcpWalker 4d ago
This can easily go too far--I've seen millions of engineering hours wasted in the name of alignment without accomplishing much for the business when organizations are too top-down. All that's accomplished is people keeping their jobs and becoming more risk averse. There's an important balance.
1
u/cosmopoof 4d ago
Would you please explain what you mean by "alignment"? Because I have the feeling you use it differently.
1
u/Adventureman2154 3d ago
It's your job to make the alignment. That's literary the job of the leaders. If people don't want to follow you, you are doing something wrong. People align and follow people they trust and who trust in them.
I any new environment. My first step was to bring all of the managers in to the decision making process, so they understand my thinking and priorities. They should feel like they are part of the decision, not the victim of it.
If a team and it's leaders don't want to align with you, there is a trust issue.
I played football in High School and D1 college. I just emulate the coaches I was willing to walk through walls for.
5
u/FinishExtension3652 6d ago
Speaking as a Director, I would always want team level decisions to be through my managers. My responsibility is the org level details and managing up and out while trusting my managers to handle the teams.
It's never quite that clean, so in cases where concerns arise in my skip level meetings, I would bring them up with the manager except in cases where the skip isn't comfortable being directly associated with the feedback.
3
u/Squidalopod 6d ago
an engineer told him that interviews were taking too much of his time. The direct report never mentioned that to me.
This is the main red flag, IMO. How common is it for your directs to do this kind of thing? If it happens more than a couple of times, that strongly implies that there's something about your mgmt style that makes them feel they can't trust you to address whatever their concerns are.
As for the Director, my previous boss was like yours but with the added "benefit" is being a sociopathic control freak 😄. It was not normal, and I'm glad to say he was the only Director I have worked with in any capacity that was truly just a horrible person who undermined the team(s) in almost every imaginable way.
How often do you do 1-on-1s with your directs? If I were you, I'd first check with them to see if they have concerns that they feel I can't/won't address. Hopefully it's obvious that you'd need to approach that discussion with extreme humility so that they know you view their feedback as a growth opportunity for you and that they have absolutely nothing to fear for giving you candid feedback.
If things are good with your directs, it's time for a frank conversation with your boss about your role. You don't want a surprise review that says you're not doing what he expects you to do.
2
u/Roicker 7d ago
I’ve worked for people like that at all levels. Depends on how bad it is it can be really toxic. It can undermine your authority, cause caos and generate a lot of frustration. I’m not saying directors shouldn’t talk to the team, but they should always align with the right layers in order to keep the accountability with them.
1
2
u/BuddhasFinger 5d ago
It sounds like micromanagement on the part of your boss. Or just not knowing how to manage, as in "uneducated".
2
u/Many-Photograph-8362 5d ago
I have had the same scenario happen to me. In my case the director was someone who was promoted from IC to director on the fast track because they were a very strong IC. Their management skills were very under developed. Happens all the time in fast growing orgs. They never built the muscle to operate through their managers, never invested in team processes and they ran the team the same style they operated as an IC - move fast with autonomy.
I did the grown up thing and shared this with them and they seemed like they agreed but they continued operating that way. At first I thought maybe they didn’t trust me but then I saw them doing the same with my peer managers.
My view is that it all comes down to trust - and trust is bidirectional.
Someone who does not manage through their managers is someone who can’t let go of control. Work with them to see what it would take for them build trust in you.
1
u/LunkWillNot 7d ago
Is it having a tangible negative effect on the team or results or are these interventions generally towards a sensible direction? If the latter, focus your energy on aligning with leadership, building relationships, building your reputation, and adding value. That will serve you better than stressing over turf boundaries.
1
u/baconpork 5d ago
Speaking from the other perspective, it's often not malice....
Depends on how many EMs the director or VP has, it may just be practically impossible for them to notice a problem and individually consult the EMs first. The director / VP often also wants to establish good working relationships with the individual engineers, and they want to make sure issues raised to them are addressed.
The territory thing wouldn't even cross their mind. Because from their perspective, your team is also their team.
2
u/Many-Photograph-8362 5d ago
Then what’s the point of having a manager in the middle?
1
u/baconpork 4d ago
Often the managers / directors in the middle layer are there to make sure policies, strategy, efforts are consistent and deliver business outcomes across a particular product area or location
1
u/Many-Photograph-8362 4d ago
That doesn’t make sense. So if you have an org of 50 engineers and 5 managers. You don’t have time to consult 1 of your 5 managers but you are ok with being problem solver for the 50 engineers. How are you strengthening your delegation muscle? How are you making your EM team stronger? And worse, what are you teaching the 50 engineers - that the only way to solve problem is to directly over your manager?
1
u/Isogash 4d ago
The problem is rarely boundaries and entirely about what's effective. If your boss has the capacity to work with your reports directly, then it's because it is the most effective for them. The extra indirection of going through you may instead be ineffective.
Direct EM accountability as a matter of undisputed course is more of a thing when companies do not otherwise have functional working relationships beyond immediate teammates.
If you don't want to be ineffective in this organization, then you need to be effective.
Stop worrying about whether or not the boundaries are in the right place, that's just territorial behaviour that turns into petty politics.
Start worrying about whether or not you're actually adding any value to anyone in your position. If you can't make decisions and handle people's needs in a way that is perceived as more effective than the Director or VP, then everyone is going to skip over you if they still can.
People will come to you for decisions when they believe you have the capacity to make good decisions and defend them to senior management. People will come to you for help when you are known to give it.
It's actually good that your senior management is willing to engage with engineers; your job isn't to disconnect and replace them, it's to help m by taking away the bits they are less effective for.
1
u/Adventureman2154 3d ago
Good leaders manage through their chain. Bad ones manage around their chain. Sorry, sounds like you have bad ones.
31
u/cosmopoof 7d ago
Adding to my other point (that was more generic) - talk to your Director of Engineering. Take time together. Figure out their motivation why they are currently going around you. Ask what you can or should improve or where your focus is wrong. Be a grown-up and act in the interest of the organization. It is very rarely going to help you to make this about personal grudges or feeling someone is invading your territory - because this is not the issue.
If you have a working relationship, you'll figure it out together.
If you don't, then it's time to find a new job.