It’s always fun when extremely talented engineers bring up the topic of continuing down an individual contributor path versus entering formally into people leadership. I recently had the chance to talk about the usual trade-offs in conversations about people leadership vs individual contributions. Topics like, do you think you can effectively lead through others, or are you a brilliant engineer? Are you sure you want to manage people instead of doubling down on your expertise? Naturally, The conversation generally shifts to an equally fascinating topic: quantifying effectiveness. For individual contributors, effectiveness can be measured in various ways, such as algorithmic efficiency or the robustness of systems and platforms they develop. In contrast, measuring performance and effectiveness in leadership introduces a different kind of subjectivity. It tends to lead into an opportunity where I quote from a concept from my favorite leadership book (at this point, I should use an Amazon federal link, hah) that followership is a useful measure of leadership effectiveness because it's both simple and quantifiable. Consider this: how many people you lead would choose to follow you if you switched teams, organizations, or even companies? This question underpins the argument in , where the author challenges the conventional wisdom of universally definable and measurable leadership. Instead, the book suggests that "followership" is the real measure of leadership effectiveness, proposing that the essence of leadership is not a singular trait or capability. Nine Lies About Work Coincidentally, my friends at Quotient a that offers complementary insights, identifying key attributes of effective engineering managers from both managers' and engineers' perspectives. These attributes include fostering a positive work environment, enabling autonomy, and nurturing talent. Notably, the study suggests de-emphasizing technical expertise in favor of qualities that promote team cohesion, psychological safety, and personal growth, reflecting a shift in how leadership effectiveness is perceived in the technical domain. recently analyzed Microsoft study However, I have reservations about the interpretations presented in the Microsoft research paper, especially the assertion that effective managers place less emphasis on technical leadership. This discrepancy might stem from the definition of 'technical' prowess, particularly within software and machine learning engineering. From my experience, there's a correlation between effective leadership and technical acumen. However, I'd reinterpret 'technical' abilities to include the capacity to engage in multiple "languages of abstraction." Exceptional leadership, especially in technical disciplines, involves the versatility to engage scientifically with data and empirical evidence, mathematically to argue points with precision, and logically to construct cogent arguments by effortlessly forming valid arguments (any casual reference to using modus ponens or hypothetical syllogism is a win). This abstract multi-lingual fluency enables leaders to connect with their teams on multiple intellectual levels, fostering a deeper appreciation for the leader’s technical capabilities. I think effective leadership, within most engineering domains, hinges as much on technical fluency as it does on vision, empathy, and adaptability. It's this synthesis of skills and the ability to create an environment where folk would happily follow — that distinguishes truly effective leaders.
