Skip to main content

On This Page

Why Software Engineering Managers Must Embrace Non-Determinism

2 min read
Share

These articles are AI-generated summaries. Please check the original sources for full details.

Non-determinism is the job

Raleigh Schickel, a veteran engineering manager, argues that people are inherently non-deterministic and cannot be managed like code. Replacing a single employee costs months of recruiting, onboarding, and ramp-up time, destroying team velocity.

Why This Matters

Software organizations are people systems, not code systems. Engineers trained to expect deterministic inputs/outputs often fail when managing teams because they try to engineer human behavior with process. The failure scale is large: 70% of engineers become managers without training, and replacing a single lost employee costs months of recruiting, onboarding, and ramp-up. The industry’s refusal to acknowledge this gap turns high-performing engineers into damaging managers, driving talent away and costing teams dearly.

Key Insights

  • People leave managers, not jobs – a widely cited Gallup finding, reinforced by Schickel’s observation that poor management costs teams months of productivity per replacement.
  • The Alliance model (Hoffman, Casnocha, Yeh) – treat employer-employee relationships as mutual alliances rather than transactional obligations; Schickel uses this to align team goals with personal growth.
  • 360-degree reviews as a manager evaluation tool – Schickel advocates for direct reports’ feedback to surface management failures that top-down reviews miss, though few companies adopt it.
  • Engineer-to-manager transition failure – most engineers are promoted without training, leading to process-overload (belittling) or technical-escape (ignoring people), as Schickel describes from personal experience.

Practical Applications

  • Use case: Managers who adopt the ‘alliance’ mindset (e.g., investing in a direct report’s next job) see increased loyalty and perseverance. Pitfall: Treating management as a side chore between ‘real work’ leads to quiet quitting and resume updates.
  • Use case: Starting performance conversations with ‘How are you?’ before naming observed issues. Pitfall: Jumping directly to problem-solving without listening first, which misses the real root cause (often anxiety or life stress).
  • Use case: Asking ‘What do you need?’ after listening fully. Pitfall: Assuming you know what the employee needs, then imposing process fixes that ignore the human element.

References:

Continue reading

Next article

Open Science Desktop: A Local-First Experimental Tool for AI Research

Related Content

Jul 27, 2026

"Refactor vs Rewrite Decision Tree for Engineers", "pubdate": "2026–07–27", "description": "Six-question framework evaluates whether incrementally refactoring legacy code outweighs strategic full-system rewrite.", "categories": ["Software Engineering", "Best Practices"], "mainheading": "A decision tree for grown engineers", "hook": { "sentences": [ "Edgar Nahama Alochi published an engineer’s guide distinguishing emotional rewrites from strategic ones.", "Most teams do not need rewrites — they need tests, clearer boundaries, smaller pull requests, and patience." ] }, "whythismatters": { "paragraph": "Engineering teams frequently conflate personal frustration with architectural necessity when considering rewrites versus refactors." +" While clean-slate approaches feel productive initially they erase hard-won production knowledge embedded in legacy code," +" often creating regression generators instead of improved systems." +" The economic cost of unnecessary rewrites includes months of slowed feature delivery plus reintroduction of bugs already fixed." +" Technical leaders must distinguish when change cost compounds structurally versus when discomfort stems only from poor naming or style." }, "keyinsights": [ {"fact_with_source_year": ": According to Alochi (July ॣ८६),ifasystemworksandgeneratesvalueyouarenonstaringatechnicalproblembutarevenueengine.Preferrefactoringinthatcase."},"]

...

Read article
Jun 26, 2026

How Engineering Leaders Can Avoid Becoming Bond Villains

Charity Majors advises focusing on winning at business first; over 90% of VC-backed startups fail.

Read article
Nov 21, 2025

QConSF 2025: Navigating Engineering Leadership in the Age of AI

Michelle Brush of Google’s QConSF 2025 keynote highlighted the increasing complexity for engineers as AI automates tasks, demanding higher-level skills and conscious competence.

Read article