Huge opportunity for impact. A sense of ownership. Collaboration with people across every function in the organization. An understanding of the big picture and a real opportunity to shape the future.
These are some of the best and most exciting qualities of working at a software start-up. In my personal experience, working at both a number of start-ups as well as in my nearly 4 years at Google, environments with these qualities attract some of the highest-quality software engineers, and subsequently allows them to be maximally effective once they’re on board.
Now that Bazaarvoice is six years old and technically a “big company” (in fact the best big company to work for in Austin), one of the biggest challenges we face from an engineering team culture standpoint is maintaining these qualities through growth of both the team and the scope of business. All too often in technology companies, especially those that experience fast success and growth, the culture is sacrificed at the altar of the business. This can be deadly to companies that thrive in large part on the strength of their culture, and highlights an important and often overlooked question about organizational culture: Is your culture scalable?
As VP of Engineering, a big part of my job is shepherding our culture and making sure that we create the kind of environment that allows us to attract and retain the best engineering talent. This brings us to the main topic of this blog post: Bazaarvoice engineering’s approach to building a scalable engineering culture and organization.
The central question I try to tackle is this: how can I build an engineering organization and culture that scales to hundreds of engineers where every engineer experiences, on a daily basis, those key qualities of a start-up? To answer this question, we focus on four major areas.
1. Team Size
This one seems obvious, but it never ceases to amaze me how many organizations miss the boat on this one. The bigger the team is, the less significant each individual is going to feel. The math is simple: it’s hard to feel like there’s a big opportunity for impact when you’re one of fifteen people on a team as compared to when you’re one of three people on a team. Also often overlooked is how much easier it is to hide an underperformer on a larger team than on a smaller team, and having to work with (and make up for) underperforming teammates can be toxic to an engineering culture.
In my experience, some of the most effective and high-powered engineering teams were 3- and 4-person teams working on Really Big Problems. I like to create environments populated by small teams, led by high-potential people, tackling problems that on their face are just slightly bigger than the team should, on paper, be able to handle. When done properly, this creates a sense of urgency and creates an opportunity for growth and self-discovery for the team members. (When done improperly, it makes people feel like you’re asking the impossible, which is obviously very demotivating, and it’s a fine line to walk between the two. This highlights how important it is that, as a leader, you know your team well and are very in tune with their state of mind.)
2. Cross-Functional Structure
Every organization has to choose how it’s going to fundamentally structure itself: functionally or cross-functionally (sort of like choosing your clustered index in SQL Server). I believe in a functional organization structure in the sense that every engineer reports to an engineering manager and on up through a VP of Engineering or CTO, for individual performance management and career development reasons.
However, on a daily basis, I think the organization should operate logically and physically as if it were cross-functionally structured. What I mean by this is that I believe we should have teams that work together daily consist of members from different functions (e.g. engineering, product management, design, operations, etc), that those teams should by physically co-located (i.e. sit together), and that the success of the team as a whole should be weighed more heavily than individual success.
The reason for this is simple: I feel that every engineer should have both visibility into why they’re building what they’re building, as well as having input into what gets built and how it gets built. Engineers, by and large, are creative people and they have a lot to bring to the table when it comes to creative problem solving. That stuff shouldn’t be solely the domain of the product managers, it should be a highly collaborative process. It’s similarly important that the engineers get visibility into how their products are being used when out in the wild. All of these inputs are hugely valuable to making sure the engineering team builds the right product for the market. As an important side benefit, exposure to these other areas gives the engineers themselves an opportunity o learn, makes them smarter and stronger and more likely to make a good decision when faced with uncertainty in the future.
3. Power! Unlimited Power!
(Not really, I just wanted an excuse to link to this video.) Seriously though, this bullet would be better titled: “Uncapped Potential”, or “Roles, Not Titles”. Every engineer ultimately wants to feel like they’re in control of their own destiny, and I want to create an environment where that’s largely true.
This boils down to one major question: can an engineer with talent, potential and ambition take the ball and run with it as far as her talent will let her? If not, what’s getting in her (or his) way? Maybe it’s an overbearing management structure, or lack of visibility into how the product is used in the field, or how it’s sold. Whatever it is, find it and get it out of the way as quickly as you can. We want to create an environment in which engineers with talent, potential and ambition can be as effective as possible, and nothing is more frustrating than an artificial barrier.
One simple organization structure change that helps this along is organizing teams around roles, not titles. First, some definitions. In my opinion, a job “title” should do one thing and one thing only: define the expectations by which someone’s work should be judged, vis-a-vis the organization’s overall values. For instance, the job title of “senior software engineer” may entail the expectation that an individual be capable of owning moderate-to-large components of a big system and operating in a self-directed manner. Notably, it says nothing about the function of that individual, or his relationship to his peers.
A job “role”, on the other hand, is all about the function of the individual in some specific context. For instance, a technical lead (TL) for a team may be responsible for the technical delivery of a project, including the day-to-day work assignments for the engineers on that team. Notably, it says nothing about the title or level of the individual. Every team can and should have a TL, regardless of whether the TL is the only individual on the team or if the team has dozens of members (in which case there may be multiple TLs).
What this means, as an extreme example, is that you can have situations where you’ve got a more junior engineer that is the TL of a team that includes much more senior engineers. Under the right circumstances, this can be exactly what you want (I’ve seen it work out spectacularly well on multiple occasions in my career).
More importantly though, is that you want your organization and culture to support this kind of flexibility because it provides an opportunity for high-potential engineers, regardless of seniority, to take ownership over something and stretch themselves.
4. A Voice Heard
The last bullet point is in many ways the most important, and really runs as an undercurrent to each of the others. Ultimately, the engineers on the team need to feel like they have a voice, and that that voice will be heard when they’ve got something to say. Whether that means having a voice in the design of the product, the technology direction of the team, the company’s core values, or anything else, engineers are ultimately people, and they want to feel like their opinion matters. As team leaders, it’s our job to make sure both that they feel this way and that it is actually true!
As always with these types of philosophical discussions, your mileage may vary, and there are always exceptions to the rules. However, I’ve seen these approaches and techniques be successful repeatedly throughout my career, perhaps most notably during my time at Google, and I believe that they are generally applicable.
What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear them and discuss them in the comments section below.
Like the main 4 constraints you are focusing for building up a healthy orgainzation culture giving efficient productivity. Also would like to add to give balanced amount of feedback including criticism and appreciation must be given to each and every employee so that they should feel that there work is being observed.