I know this isn't new information, but lately I've seen a lot of people here lamenting the lack of Build Volume support in Docker, when it's been supported since Feb 2019 (albeit "experimentally").
Hopefully this can help a few of you speed up your build pipelines.
It does, now. The whole build system was uprooted with the change from legacy build to buildkit. One of the current "experimental" features is build volumes.
Look at Crucial Conversations. Don't take it as gospel, but it's a good starting point.
Stick to facts. Clearly state your expectation, and show how they are not meeting that expectation. Then place the ball firmly in their court. The goal is not fixing the issue for them, but getting them to take responsibility for fixing it themselves.
Refrain from creating a "shit sandwich" by putting the critique in the middle of praise. That makes the conversation ineffective. These conversations are never fun, but they are important to have, and you eventually get used to it.
In most cases, the majority of my customer engagement is early in the process. Lots of discussion up front to inform the development. It tapers off through the iterations.
Traditional "feedback" only goes so far. Most customers don't actually know what they want. I spend the most engagement time discovering their process and pain points in order to help them figure that part out. Isolate one (or a few) customers that will regularly participate and provide high-quality feedback and focus your relationship building on them.
The feedback of the masses is more like an (unreliable) compass.
Start practicing CYA (Cover Your Ass) diligently. Follow all of the rules, document everything (email follow ups for any any conversation), and be tactful at all times. Give him no space to find fault, and have proof. Discuss your concerns with HR if you can.
Personally, I would be looking for an exit, either mine or his.
Do not go to HR yet.
I repeat - Do not say anything to HR about someone who has a higher authority than you no matter how skilled or how much tenure you have. I learned this the hard way. HR is not your friend. They will try to only remove an obstacle which may be you.
Although, it not fun to think about, you should always have an exit strategy.
As mentioned above, HR is not your friend. I would think of HR as a place where you can document your future lawsuit and buy you a little time to find another job.
I had an issue with another programmer, (homophobic slur and he was getting cozy with the client/boss) so feared for my job. I filed a complaint and got it documented. It allows you maybe 6 months before they fire you or buys you sometime to get in a better space.
Although it's fun to think about suing your previous employer, it very rarely works out. That energy can be spent finding a better job.
There is a time to fight... but from what little I know, this doesn't sound like one of them.
p.s. I'm no longer at the job and have moved on and even more happier.
I think the exit strategy is the most important part. This manager sounds like an abusive psycho, and you do not want to be working with that type of person, much less for that type of person.
Mitigate it in the meantime; these CYA strategies are good advice (except maybe the HR one), but most importantly, RUN AWAY AS SOON AS YOU CAN.
Agreed. If you have options, leave. You can't fix jerks. Then again, every job will have some, but if it's your supervisor, then polish up your resume. The stress is not worth your health.
It's a different mindset, but I still think it's fun. For me, the key with that size of a group was focusing on the development of the leaders under me. When I make sure they are set up for success, things go smoothly.
The hardest time in my life was trying to micromanage a large group. Once you let go, and focus on the bigger picture, it's quite fun. Challenging, for sure, but very fun.
Hint: you should never frame your reports in such a way ('leaders under me'), 101 of leadership; but let's move on: I think we are not talking about the same; managing people has no short-term feedback loops like coding, it can be fun yes but many confuse this fun with the status involved; from a rational perspective and with the experience of heading larger headcounts (did you lead 100+ teams for a longer time?) paired with hitting ambitious org goals, I find it hard to call 'managing people' fun.
Holdover from the military. I can see you're framing it as "beneath", which would be very inappropriate, but it references "under your charge". Thanks for pointing out that it could be misconstrued.
I am sorry to hear you have not enjoyed your time leading a large group. It certainly has its challenges, but I assure you it can be quite fun and rewarding.
This is getting a bit too deep now. I didn't say that I didn't enjoy it. I like challenges, my initial notion was just to express that words like 'fun' are far away from what leadership is. Btw, you didn't answer the question if you led 100+ people for a longer time. Besides and no offense, military, authoritative leadership styles might not be the right approach in tech environments (like those where engineers work).
With regards to the military, good leadership works in any organization. I do not speak to my engineers the way I would speak to a platoon, but I lead them the same.
In all seriousness, I recommend not referring to them as "reports" at all. Call them "My Team", "us", "we". It creates a sense of collective ownership.
When talking up, I use specific names, or "the team" to reference tasks or successes, and "I" when we talk about failures. I own what goes wrong, they own what goes right.
Hm, how should this work? If I'd ask you, 'How many direct reports do you have', what would you say? You need to use the term 'direct report' again.
If you fuzzed around with 'my team' while I try to understand you team structure, your direct report count, their profile, which and how many reports they again have, you'd drive me nuts with a fake 'my team' humbleness.
Using the term 'report' is absolutely ok, you shouldn't talk all day long of your reports of course or trying to impressive anyone.
You think so? I just disagreed with the things you wrote because I think some of your statements are wrong and/or mislead and they're altogether also inconsistent.
I don't believe they are inconsistent, but I also have the advantage of knowing my own life intimately. I suppose the context makes a difference.
There are very few "rules" in this game, so feel free to manage differently. You have 100+ on your team, so I'm sure your methods worked well for you, as mine have for me.
Just reports. The ones directly reporting to you are called 'direct reports'. Latter also implies a bigger headcount and that the direct reports are managers themselves. So if you have a small, flat team you call your direct reports just reports.
We have an internal website with user-maintained groups/content. Every week, you get an email with major updates from the teams you want based on the important information they've been telling themselves. That's been useful for culling and focusing the information flow to each person.
In my experience, newsletters don't work well for internal communication. As you said, keeping the content relevant to a wide readership is too difficult. It does, however, work well as a recognition mechanism. A team seeing it's achievements blasted out to the company is very motivating, even if they are the only one's who notice it.
In the grand scheme of things, that degree just opens a few extra doors early in your career. It's still up to you, and your personal drive to succeed, to get anywhere past that.
You have passion, and that is a massive advantage. Stoke the fire.
Hopefully this can help a few of you speed up your build pipelines.