So, as a manager (by technicality, I’m more of an engineering lead in truth) I see both sides of this. It IS better when everyone can just… Go constructively contribute. I love it. I get to focus on my own work. It is absolutely the way to go.
Unfortunately sometimes hiring doesn’t go perfectly.
And there are certain people where you have to micromanage them, because otherwise they’re just go to git commit absolute fucking shit, and it’s better to cut that off earlier via micromanagement, then allow it to pollute the repo.
So if your boss is pulling this, I see three options:
They’re just a micromanager, which sucks.
They think you’re a fuckup, and they are actually the fuckup.
They think you are the fuckup, and you are actually the fuckup.
Easy way to tell- is literally everyone on the team getting treated like this? It’s #1.
Are several people that you think are morons treated like this? Are there several people who don’t get treated like this, even the people who don’t stand out as ‘rockstar coders’? You’re the fuckup.
Is everyone except the manager’s special rockstar- even the highly qualified, solid workers- being treated like this? Then the manager is the fuckup.
And there are certain people where you have to micromanage them, because otherwise they’re just go to git commit absolute fucking shit, and it’s better to cut that off earlier via micromanagement, then allow it to pollute the repo.
Way to make sure they’ll never improve. We have merge requests and four eye policy for this, no need for micromanagement. There’s never a need for micromanagement, and if you feel like there is, your processes suck, which is your responsibility as a tech lead.
Review stops people from polluting your repo with bad code and lets you give feedback.
It doesn’t stop people from wasting time writing unfixably bad code that just needs to be thrown out.
Now of course what you can do is give people very small coding tasks and regularly review them before getting it into a shape where it can go in the main repo. But this is just micromanagement via git.
If that person made it through the probation period under your supervision, that’s still your fault. And if that person was there from the beginning, a senior in your team could still support them by teaching them good practices, showing them better options, etc. Or, as a last resort you could always assign them tasks that are more within their capabilities.
Micromanagement will never lead to people improving - quite the opposite in fact, they’ll start to care less because there’s always someone who prevents them doing mistakes.
![Decentralized [Work Chronicles]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/20710cd5-69e3-4654-91d4-b63e14461bd4.png){kind=link}
So, as a manager (by technicality, I’m more of an engineering lead in truth) I see both sides of this. It IS better when everyone can just… Go constructively contribute. I love it. I get to focus on my own work. It is absolutely the way to go. Unfortunately sometimes hiring doesn’t go perfectly. And there are certain people where you have to micromanage them, because otherwise they’re just go to git commit absolute fucking shit, and it’s better to cut that off earlier via micromanagement, then allow it to pollute the repo.
So if your boss is pulling this, I see three options:
Easy way to tell- is literally everyone on the team getting treated like this? It’s #1.
Are several people that you think are morons treated like this? Are there several people who don’t get treated like this, even the people who don’t stand out as ‘rockstar coders’? You’re the fuckup.
Is everyone except the manager’s special rockstar- even the highly qualified, solid workers- being treated like this? Then the manager is the fuckup.
Way to make sure they’ll never improve. We have merge requests and four eye policy for this, no need for micromanagement. There’s never a need for micromanagement, and if you feel like there is, your processes suck, which is your responsibility as a tech lead.
That’s really not enough.
Review stops people from polluting your repo with bad code and lets you give feedback.
It doesn’t stop people from wasting time writing unfixably bad code that just needs to be thrown out.
Now of course what you can do is give people very small coding tasks and regularly review them before getting it into a shape where it can go in the main repo. But this is just micromanagement via git.
If that person made it through the probation period under your supervision, that’s still your fault. And if that person was there from the beginning, a senior in your team could still support them by teaching them good practices, showing them better options, etc. Or, as a last resort you could always assign them tasks that are more within their capabilities.
Micromanagement will never lead to people improving - quite the opposite in fact, they’ll start to care less because there’s always someone who prevents them doing mistakes.