Early in my management career, I received varied advice from different bosses on management in software engineering. Some of this advice was insightful, while others — which I’m sharing here — were, in my view, catastrophic, which hinder team morale, trust, and performance.
You’re a people manager, you’re not tech anymore
As a people manager, you are responsible for team growth, coaching, hiring, performance evaluations, and presenting your team’s work. You should step away from the technical aspects.
Why this is bad?
While stepping back from daily technical tasks may allow a manager to focus on broader responsibilities, completely abandoning technical awareness can lead to major issues. To effectively coach, support, and challenge their team, a manager needs to remain up-to-date on the technology stack, understand the complexities of the code, and participate in architectural discussions.
Why is it important to stay technically engaged?
Understanding the technology enables managers to provide insightful feedback, pinpoint areas for improvement, and guide team members toward valuable growth opportunities. It also allows managers to maintain a balanced approach to autonomy, as they can identify unnecessarily complex solutions, giving the team space to innovate without reinventing the wheel. Furthermore, teams are more likely to trust, respect and rely on a manager who understands their challenges and can engage in meaningful technical discussions.
For instance, a manager from a non-technical background may be unaware that a task estimated for five days could actually be done in a few hours using existing libraries. Such misunderstandings can be avoided when managers stay in touch with the technical aspects.
Rather than being hands-on, set up regular technical check-ins, attend tech meetings, or review pull requests with the team. This way, you stay informed while empowering the team to take ownership of the technical execution.
Only share good news with your team
Only share good news with your team to keep morale high and help them stay focused on deliverables.
Why this is bad?
Creating a positive environment is important, but shielding teams from reality leads to unintended negative consequences. Eventually, bad news travels, and if employees find out through rumors rather than an official source, it can erode trust and increase stress.
Why is transparent communication essential?
Transparent communication offers several key benefits for teams. By knowing the full picture, even the negative aspects, teams are better equipped to adapt and solve problems, which builds resilience. Openly sharing difficult news also helps prevent harmful rumors, ensuring that team members have clear information about their position within the company. This level of transparency fosters respect and honesty, strengthening trust and the relationship between managers and employees.
For instance, if potential layoffs are anticipated, a manager can be upfront about the uncertainty, focusing on ways for the team to remain positive. A good approach to sharing news involves providing context, encouraging questions, listening to concerns, and supporting morale through honest solution-oriented discussions. Such mechanism also helps team members build up their skills dealing with bad news.
Don’t share projects real timelines
Keep your team under pressure by presenting tighter deadlines to drive them to deliver earlier.
Why this is bad?
Creating fake urgency might seem like it boosts productivity, but over time it destroys trust and reduces the team’s ability to prioritize effectively. When teams realize they are working with manipulated timelines, they may lose motivation and become skeptical about future deadlines.
How do transparent timelines enhance team engagement?
Transparent project timelines strengthen trust and long-term commitment, as team members are more likely to remain engaged and motivated when they believe their manager is trustworthy about deadlines. Additionally, knowing the true timelines enables better planning and stress management, allowing the team to allocate sufficient time for testing, debugging, and necessary adjustments.
For example, a manager might impose a fake deadline weeks ahead of the actual one, hoping it will prompt the team to finish early. However, once the team realizes the deception, they may rush through tasks without adequate testing or cut corners, ultimately hurting both project quality and morale. A more effective approach involves engaging the team in the planning process, collaboratively outlining milestones, accounting for buffers, and communicating that timelines may be adjusted together if unforeseen circumstances arise.
