“…However, it is conversely true that resilient processes and Beyond organizational impacts, managing across software projects which morph from existing plans into new and unplanned challenges is a bleakly common personal challenge for engineering managers. This experience across software projects exerts unique pressures, shaping the skills, decision-making and monitoring behaviors of managers and their teams, and potentially subjecting software teams to higher risk of burnout and other negative outcomes compared with other types of knowledge work [39,66,73,76]. However, compared to analyzing software projects themselves, considerably less software research has explored the human cost of leading diagnosis and triage on managers.…”
Engineering managers’ experiences provide a unique and important window into how software teams overcome failure and achieve lasting change. 465 experienced engineering managers were recruited to a mixed-methods study, of which 465 shared quantitative responses and 87-112 shared in-depth qualitative open-text responses to behavioral vignettes. Managers ranked project requirements and project timeline failures as the biggest risks to software projects. Managers’ responses to behavioral vignettes on team failure show they use specific process and people strategies 1) for diagnosing potential causes of delivery failure on a software team 2) for advocating for investment in upskilling with leadership, and 3) in their real-life examples of implementing changes on software teams. This study investigates how engineering managers reason through three key focus areas in executing their strategies for team change, acting as diagnosticians, advocates, and change conductors, and qualitative analysis shows that managers suggest common strategies to help a struggling team, such as team-level diagnosis and investment in well-scoped technical upskilling. These findings are discussed in the context of management science, developer wellbeing and experience, and potential for manager burnout.
“…However, it is conversely true that resilient processes and Beyond organizational impacts, managing across software projects which morph from existing plans into new and unplanned challenges is a bleakly common personal challenge for engineering managers. This experience across software projects exerts unique pressures, shaping the skills, decision-making and monitoring behaviors of managers and their teams, and potentially subjecting software teams to higher risk of burnout and other negative outcomes compared with other types of knowledge work [39,66,73,76]. However, compared to analyzing software projects themselves, considerably less software research has explored the human cost of leading diagnosis and triage on managers.…”
Engineering managers’ experiences provide a unique and important window into how software teams overcome failure and achieve lasting change. 465 experienced engineering managers were recruited to a mixed-methods study, of which 465 shared quantitative responses and 87-112 shared in-depth qualitative open-text responses to behavioral vignettes. Managers ranked project requirements and project timeline failures as the biggest risks to software projects. Managers’ responses to behavioral vignettes on team failure show they use specific process and people strategies 1) for diagnosing potential causes of delivery failure on a software team 2) for advocating for investment in upskilling with leadership, and 3) in their real-life examples of implementing changes on software teams. This study investigates how engineering managers reason through three key focus areas in executing their strategies for team change, acting as diagnosticians, advocates, and change conductors, and qualitative analysis shows that managers suggest common strategies to help a struggling team, such as team-level diagnosis and investment in well-scoped technical upskilling. These findings are discussed in the context of management science, developer wellbeing and experience, and potential for manager burnout.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.