What are common leadership misconceptions in software design?

Sucessful Software Design is often in hindsight. Leaders think that a perfect design leads to bug free software. In my experience both are myths. The randomness in requirements often makes leaders question the goals of the design. Do we have to make a shoe that fits all sizes ? The changes in requirements forces leaders to make a fit all solution. The more changes in the requirement the farther is the solution from the intended design. Often design is not understood by all team members, leading to a common misconception that everything and everyone can be trained.

It is not possible for any person to be an expert on every subject. Leadership is a skill that needs to be used to give correct direction when creating a solution by using experience. Micromanagement is a blocker about earning experince for both leader and team members. Both sides of the team should be open to learn from eachother.

You cannot be an expert in every area in your work, half life is 18 months for many technologies, so you have to rely on others to know some areas in depth and learn to ask the right questions to them as a leader when making decisions.

Common leadership misconceptions in software design include: needing to be an expert in everything, making all decisions, being always right & available, and being liked by everyone. Leaders should instead focus on empowering their team, collaborating effectively, admitting mistakes, setting boundaries, and leading through tough decisions. Remember, leadership is a team effort, not a solo act.

Leadership requires a different skill set, including communication, decision-making, and team building. While technical expertise is crucial, it doesn't automatically translate into effective leadership.

In today's diverse landscape of Software, Hardware, and IT, it's impossible for anyone to claim expertise in every aspect. A fundamental aspect of effective leadership involves acknowledging areas of limited knowledge and seeking guidance from specialized experts. This approach empowers team members to detect potential flaws at an early stage, fosters continuous learning, and significantly enhances collaborative efforts.

Organizations often believe that architects should possess comprehensive knowledge in every aspect, but this notion is incorrect. This misconception has led to the establishment of architect groups within organizations to foster collaboration and support in pursuing common goals. However, this collaborative approach is not universally implemented, as some companies still expect employees to have all-encompassing knowledge without recognizing the distinction between knowing and experiential expertise.

I believe this myth is fortunately very old, and there is no place in modern companies for it. Most leaders understand that there is no expert who knows everything. Of course, you need people who can learn new things, but as a leader, you need to create an environment for learning and even for failing fast. Failure is the greatest teacher, and experience is more valuable than certificates.

It's good to be an expert in everything, but when it comes to create a solution for a customer it is more important to listen and ask a lot of questions. So you have to first let go of your own knowledge, ask questions, find things out, and then later use your knowledge to create the solution

The major responsibility of a leader in a software engineering project is not necessarily to make all the decisions, but to empower the different teams to be able to come up with the right solution. Help the teams understand tradeoff leveraging your experience, allow them to feel confident, but be there to point out what is wrong when things are not right. It is important that the ability is the entire team to make the right design decision does not revolve around you as the leader. For me, the team must be empowered to succeed.

Teams that work on software are usually composed of highly skilled people. Having all decisions made by the leader severely limits the engagement and thus the number of perspectives that are included in decision making. To get most out of a team, make them the active part in the decision-making process and ensure that progress is being made.

Different members of the team will have expertise in different areas. Listen to them. Weigh the needs of the system and constraints you have and strike a balance that is adequate. Be certain that you can communicate about the decisions made and the reasons for them. You don't have to make all the calls, but you will have to hold an umbrella over the people who did.

Making all decisions for a team would make a leader a micromanager who could never take a break from work. A successful leader pays attention to communicating the vision, building and supporting a team whose collective skillset is able to deliver on the vision, building systems to check in on progress and course-correcting where necessary, holding people accountable to learn from mistakes, and highlighting when something is done well in a way that inspires and motivates good decision-making.

If you haven’t learnt how to empower people around you yet, then you are not ready to be a leader. This in my opinion is the most important tool, empower and be the multiplier.

Delegation is most effective way of taking decisions. Areas like architecture and design, best advice would come from technical team, hear it, understand it, and make them part of decision. Similar Visual design or other functional decisions should be in collaboration. For things like vision/goal for short and long term that could be the decision of leaders but, if taking the team along during such decisions yields higher results, but depends on the leaders how they take the team along side.

Au contraire, trusting in your team to make the right decisions builds value over time. Both for the team and the customer. Trust and delegation are pivotal to leaders, if you cannot trust in your team and cannot 'give up' authority for the fear of losing control you will never be able to have a healthy and productive team.

Um equívoco comum no design de software é a ideia de que o líder deve ser o único tomador de decisões. Embora seja responsável pela visão geral, dictar todos os detalhes pode sufocar a criatividade da equipe. Envolva sua equipe na tomada de decisões, solicitando contribuições e feedback. Capacitar a equipe a tomar decisões autonomamente promove engajamento e inovação, construindo uma abordagem mais colaborativa e eficaz. Confiança no julgamento e na experiência da equipe é essencial.

I think that great leader is not the one who thinks he/she always comes up with all the decisions but one who can lead the team to the right decision and make them feel like they did it.

Delegation is on of the key aspects of the effective leader. Effective leaders recognize the strengths of their team members and delegate tasks accordingly. Delegation not only distributes workload but also empowers team members, fostering skill development and a sense of ownership. Trusting others to handle responsibilities enhances overall team efficiency and allows leaders to focus on strategic aspects, contributing to the team's long-term success.

You don't have to be always right. As a team player, you have extremely talented people on the team who can help you answer questions beyond your domain. One of the key things that helps me is having the intellectual curiosity to ask the right questions rather than have a solution. I'd rather fail fast and optimize the solution with others helping to get to the right answer. Be humble and accept the fact you don't know everything.

The #1 skill you need is the willingness & this ability to learn. And the more you learn, the more you will realize that this can never be true. In fact , what feels or is right today could be very wrong in just a few years.

It is near impossible that we will be right 100% of the time. In fact, the environment change, the variables shift and the data we rely on to make decisions sometimes can be inaccurate. So it’s important that a software engineering leader should have a growth mindset, be open to learn something new and stay flexible. Overconfidence can lead to arrogance which eventually hurt the team and the project at large. Truth is, the people under you may have more context on the specific implementation details, so as a leader, you must be humble enough to realize that you won’t always be right. Be open to new ideas and be ready to challenge what you already know.

You don't always have to be right as that is not realistic in the ever increasing and fast changing world of software technologies. You do need to however always be learning and have a curious mindset. I have found that a failure to have a curious mindset leads often to a always having to be right.

A software design leader should not aim to be always right or avoid mistakes at all costs. Instead, they should promote a growth mindset, adaptability, and a culture of continuous improvement. Embracing mistakes as opportunities for learning and encouraging experimentation and innovation can lead to better outcomes and a more resilient and motivated team.

By falling into the trap of thinking 'I am always right,' we inadvertently close numerous doors. This not only affects our relationships with colleagues and clients but also increases the likelihood of making incorrect or suboptimal decisions and achieving undesirable outcomes. However, by questioning our decisions or thoughts, we not only allow others to contribute but also acknowledge potential blind spots we may have missed.

One common misconception in software design leadership is the belief that leaders must always be right. This assumption often leads to reluctance in seeking input or acknowledging potential mistakes, hindering the team's growth and innovation. Effective leadership in software design involves fostering an environment where collaboration, diverse perspectives, and learning from failures are encouraged. Embracing a culture that values experimentation, iteration, and collective problem-solving allows leaders to leverage the team's expertise, enabling better decision-making and fostering continuous improvement in software design.

Hell no! You just can't be always right and only "know it all" kind of people think that. Great leader has to be flexible and self-conscious to realize that someone else could have better idea and keep open mind.

Generally speaking, if you're always right you are very likely not taking any risks, playing it safe to ensure you're only making calls you know from experience will be "right". While that strategy would work on the "always being right" front, it also tends to stifle innovation. A better strategy might be to accept some risks you don't know the right answer for, stretch yourself and the team and reach for some innovation. When you're able to prove that you took risks but the rewards paid off you will generally find more acceptance of future risk. MIstakes are for learning and you can't make mistakes without accepting some risks. You also can't innovate without risk.

If you are always available that means you are not committed to your work and can be easily distracted. What is needed is a communication. Communicate with your team your available time slots.

Delegate instead. While effective communication with team members, clients, and stakeholders is crucial, sacrificing your work-life balance isn't necessary. Striving for constant availability can result in overload, distraction, and burnout, ultimately hindering productivity and creativity. Establishing clear communication boundaries, defining expectations for availability, and prioritizing tasks are the keys to a more beneficial approach.

I believe the opposite is true. Great leaders foster investment from their team which leads to trust between them and by extension the ability to step away knowing that things are in good hands.

Humans aren't machines; free thinking leads to creativity, not constant availability, which can be like an addiction. Listening to experienced individuals often trumps seeking personal experiences. In software design, always being available can lead to burnout. Effective communication is key, but not at the cost of work-life balance and well-being. Perpetual reachability can cause overload and diminish productivity. Setting clear boundaries, prioritizing tasks, delegating, and taking breaks are essential for sustainable productivity and innovation.

In a team, you need to be a resource that can your team calculate thus they can rely on your work. But this does not mean being constantly available without giving your mind a little rest and being away. I often see people confuse these. Even when you need unpredicted interruptions in your work, the least you can do is to notify your colleagues. But people have the right to be alone, be away, and do whatever else they want to do.

Es necesario establecer una separación entre la vida personal y la vida laboral. Si no se está bien no se trabaja bien y a largo plazo tendrá consecuencias. Hay que empezar a asumir que igual que no puedes ir al supermercado a partir de cierta hora porque está cerrado, en los proyectos también trabajan personas que tienen un horario establecido y necesitan un equilibrio.

If one has to be always available, then they probably do not have inspirational work life balance, and are more aligned with operations vs. being in a leadership and strategic role. Delegation to a capable team gets one away from having to be always available.

Nurturing an independent, high-performance team entails empowering members to make decisions autonomously. The key lies in establishing autonomy through clearly defined roles and responsibilities for individual practitioners. As leaders, our role is not to be constantly available for every decision but to oversee the team's alignment with goals, addressing concerns or conflicts that may impede progress.

No no no. What is more important than availability is the right documentation of the strategy, timeline and workflow. Every project needs a sponsor, a committed sponsor but this person is to align the company's strategy to the team effort, check in on progress, challenges and poential changes in direction. The project manager should be in charge of the project and communicate up and down effectively. But no need to be there 24/7. This actually just shows that there is potential for improvement on the project management. The best way to improve is gain feedback from the team what goes well and what can be improved. And provide goals what you want to achieve not being prescriptive how you want people to achieve it.

It's crucial to prioritize earning the respect and support of the most effective and productive individuals rather than seeking universal popularity. Cultivating an environment of trust and safety fosters open expression. Additionally, a leader must exemplify guidance and resilience during ambitious endeavors, serving as a beacon for the team.

If you one to be liked by everyone, start selling ice-cream. As a manager, you have to face some uncomfortable truths, to convey difficult messages to the team and motivate them even in difficult times.

Healthy conflict is a natural part of team dynamics. Addressing and resolving conflicts constructively can lead to better solutions and improved team cohesion.

This is a difficult one. As a leader you have to have the right balance keeping aligned to the strategic goals and people engagement. Setting right expectations always helps. If you fail to clearly communicate expectations and constructive feedback then you are not only setting everyone up for failure but also this is a reflection of your own challenges as a leader. Also, a question you should ask yourself as a leader, would you rather be respected or liked?

In Steve Jobs' words "If you want to make everyone happy, don't be a leader, sell ice cream!" It's the easy way to be liked by everyone but that's not the purpose of a leader.

Respect and transparency, people don't always like hard decisions, hard decisions are saved for leaders and part of them being leaders is the ability to take hard decisions

People like you when you are aligned with their wishes. This not always can happen when you need to meet the company target. Trying to reach a win-win situation, is a smart suggestion always.

Effective leadership isn't about popularity; it's about respect, trust, and the ability to inspire and guide a team towards common goals. It involves making tough decisions that may not always please everyone but are in the best interest of the project and team. A leader's focus should be on being fair, transparent, and consistent in their actions and decisions, fostering an environment of mutual respect. Open communication, empathy, and understanding differing perspectives are crucial, but these should be balanced with the need to maintain clear vision and direction. Ultimately, it's more important for a leader to be respected for their judgment and integrity than to be liked by everyone.

Being liked by everyone isn't realistic or beneficial; harmony shouldn't come at the cost of individual ambition or team success. Conflicts, while inevitable, should be addressed 100% of the time, even if it impacts project timelines. In software design, attempting to please everyone can lead to compromised values, vision, and standards, causing confusion and resentment. Being authentic and assertive is key. Clear, respectful communication of expectations and feedback is essential. Constructively managing and resolving conflicts and seeking win-win solutions ensure a healthy, productive team dynamic, aligning individual and collective goals.

Wanting to be liked by everyone is a symptom of a people pleaser. When trying to please everyone, you please no one. More importantly, disagreeing is natural and healthy. There are many ways to solve a problem and, at some point, a decision will need to be made to move forward as a business. A decision may suffer from analysis paralysis when trying to get everyone's buy-in. Instead, listen and hear the dissenting opinions and move to a decision explaining the direction that is believed to be the best for the business. For folks who are bothered by this, a leader can work to understand them more; however, that is separate from the decision and trying to please everyone.

The misconception that software designers have to work in isolation and rely solely on their own skills is counterproductive. Collaboration, seeking advice, and learning from others are essential practices for success in software development. Leveraging the power of teamwork, networking, and embracing a collaborative mindset can lead to better outcomes, personal growth, and a more enjoyable and fulfilling software design career.

It's almost like the "easy way" out. Doing it alone, you know exactly what you're getting. Trying to build a team that can do what you can (and so much more) requires tremendous dedication, patience, and empathy. Not to mention the ability to admit mistakes, learn from them, and being persistent about it. But it is the only way to help achieve something that is much bigger than what you could have ever done on your own.

In my personal experience - I have found collaborative software design is always better. Parties to collaborative software design could be developers, product owners , end-users, stakeholders, domain experts, architects, UI/UX designers, quality analysts. Also the importance of involving end-users very early in the process can not be emphasized enough as the finer details get lost in translation.

Doing alone is a promise that not all perspectives will be taken into consideration. Doing alone is only when you do not have any other choice.

Doing it alone is defining a non-scalable system. Nowadays, it just does not make sense. The only way to enable growth is to make sure as many people as possible can do your job. This means coaching, mentoring and collaboration.

1. Poor understanding about the scope of the problem 2. Poor professional practices in the process of planning and execution 3. Lack of prior experience in similar endeavours, both in their organisations and in industry 4. Lack of domain knowledge and whether a design maps to it well. 5. Being caught up in management or technology fashions and jargon (like Agile, Sprint, AI, enterprise Java/Spring etc), and not actual facts. 6. Not understanding exponential consequences of design defects in downstream activities like development, verification/validation and quality assurance. 7. Nearly non-existent cause analysis, traceability, post-mortems when a software development project is completed - either as a failure of or a success.

Leadership is a team effort. Trust your team, empower them to contribute, and delegate tasks effectively. Collaboration fosters creativity, ownership, and ultimately, success.

Doing all alone will make you lose your team. Also you will surely find out that you dont have time to do anything. The thing also is you really dont want to be the only one knowing everything.

One more myth - adding more head count YoY, will keep improving the quantum of delivery. In reality, adding more resources beyond a point might not improve throughput and at times might even slow down release velocity due to the complexities that come from growing fast. Few other levers that can disproportionately improve engineering throughput and release velocity : 1. Adopting a capability mindset (platformization journey). 2. Restructuring teams to minimize coordination tax especially between engineering , product , design, QA. 3. Modernizing technology stacks to improve development velocity. 4. Investments to make platforms self-service. 5. Decentralizing decision-making. Anything else I am missing ? thx

Often, we tend to convince ourselves by adding additional people during the crisis period would bring back the situation on track. Logically speaking, ramping up a member in any kind of activity (regardless of his/her experience level) would require minimum a month time. The only way to address this problem would be by adding frequent health checks during the course of execution and coming up with tangible action items. This way either we can avoid crisis situation, or we get a visualization of crisis moment much early which eventually helps us to prepare well in advance.

IMHO, More of a practice than a myth - Often people making these choices come with experience and try to suggest/enforce design based on what worked on "other" software. People making these choices should be able to understand the underlying context/product/software and then carefully adopt the design choices. So the Myth can be "What worked for a different product/software will work again" and the focus should be on "What does this product/software need".

Myth: You need to be in line with latest technology all the time. While it is true that one should keep evaluating latest tech and versions but one should carefully evaluate it's usability and compatibility with their own product. It's not always wise to keep your software updated with latest version of patches and library versions. Not all design and programming languages are meant for one's product. As wisely said, don't fix it if ain't broken. Evaluate judiciously. Debate it's pros and cons along with overheads involved. Upgrade only if benifits exceed the overheads.

I think tooling proliferation is sometimes overlooked w.r.t. design documents, sharing, and collaborating. I've seen lots of new tools brought into an org with the intention of adding new features and capabilities to an existing process. I find this can add confusion, loss of provenance, and adds to proliferation of duplicate documents when an original can't be found. Ways to mitigate these issues... 1) Stick to a standard SOR (system of record), 2) Use a doc system that can act as a search system, or link to other docs, like Coda, or Notion (even Google Docs).

Myth 7: Technical Skills Outweigh Soft Skills: While technical expertise is crucial, the ability to communicate effectively, resolve conflicts, and motivate team members is equally important. Successful leaders balance technical knowledge with strong interpersonal skills.

One common misconception in software design leadership is that leaders must have all the technical answers. This can lead to micromanaging and bottlenecks in the development process. In reality, a leader's role is to provide direction, guidance, and support to their team, rather than being the sole source of technical expertise. A good leader empowers their team members to take ownership of their work and encourages them to collaborate and solve problems together. Another misconception is that leadership is about giving orders and dictating tasks, whereas in reality, leadership is about creating an environment where team members can thrive and achieve their goals.

Another myth: Being deeply involved in every detail is the only way to ensure project success. Reality: Micromanagement can stifle creativity and demotivate team members. Effective leaders empower their teams, providing guidance and support while allowing individuals to take ownership of their work.

Myth: The best designer will be the best leader. 1. Leading a design is not the same as leading people. Someone can be good at making design decissions, understanding the consequences, and choosing an ideal strategy. That doesn't help when dealing with people. 2. Managing a team or a project takes a lot of time. Such time will not be available for technical work. So, promoting the best designer to a managerial position actually removes the most precious work force. 3. Delegation of tasks from somebody who is good at that task to somebody who is not, causes inefficiency. To some extend that can be a desirable invest. But there are cases when explanation review cycles take longer than writing the actual result.