Mistakes as a new manager
New engineering managers describe a steep shift from hands-on coding to people leadership, struggling most with delegation, loss of “shipping” dopamine, and avoiding hard performance conversations with former peers. Commenters emphasize that effective management means clearing blockers, giving direct but compassionate feedback, staying technical enough to ask hard questions without owning critical-path work, and protecting teams from organizational politics. Others argue over how much managers actually add value, with anecdotes from flat and hierarchical orgs suggesting that good middle management can prevent both burnout and persistent underperformance.
Performance, posture, and “carrot vs. stick”
- Several comments argue new managers are too lenient, especially early on, and should be more willing to fire for persistent underperformance and missed standards.
- Others see this as a symptom of dysfunctional cultures, warning that aggressive hire/fire cycles and strong “stick” usage can be toxic and demoralizing.
- Two rough styles are described: “restless” (hire/fire fast, strict rules) vs “patient” (train, tolerate more slack), with trade‑offs in fairness, morale, and speed.
Delegation, IC habits, and staying off the critical path
- Delegation is widely cited as a top struggle: managers take work themselves to “save time,” then become bottlenecks and neglect management duties.
- Strong consensus: managers should avoid owning critical‑path tasks, and if coding, focus on low‑risk refactors, docs, and tech debt.
- Some feel “working managers” can be effective on very small teams; others say this fails once meeting and coordination load grows.
Feedback, conflict, and psychological safety
- Many highlight “avoiding hard conversations” as the biggest new‑manager mistake, especially when managing former peers.
- Debate centers on how to give feedback: behavior/outcomes vs. character, specificity vs. vague “quality issues,” individual blame vs. systemic problems.
- Some warn that scripted, indirect phrases can feel passive‑aggressive; others say candid, behavior‑focused feedback, in a blameless culture, is essential.
- There’s tension between “ruinous empathy” (never confronting) and overly adversarial approaches.
Technical depth and manager scope
- Some insist line managers must be deeply technical and able to understand systems, ask hard questions, and detect BS; a few go so far as to say they should be able to step into a report’s work.
- Others push back: that’s closer to a tech lead’s role; managers should understand “why” and trade‑offs, not do every “how.”
- Over‑probing by technically curious managers can waste IC time if not managed carefully.
Dopamine shift and redefining success
- Multiple commenters resonate with losing the immediate gratification of shipping code.
- Some never adapt and return to IC work; others report longer‑cycle but more durable satisfaction from developing people, getting promotions for reports, or removing blockers and politics.
Do managers add value?
- One view calls management “fluff” and largely unnecessary.
- A counterexample from a flat org describes how lack of oversight led to entrenched underperformance, resentment, and eventually a heavy-handed management reset—argued as evidence that good middle management prevents worse outcomes.