The Importance of Defined Roles in Engineering Teams

Workplace teams resemble sports teams in many ways. Just as each athlete has a designated position, every member of a team in a workplace setting has specific responsibilities. When individuals clearly understand and execute their roles, the entire team flourishes. Conversely, ambiguity regarding roles leads to misunderstandings, missed tasks, and ultimately, decreased performance. A significant portion of engineering challenges arises from this lack of clarity.

LeBron James exemplifies the significance of defined roles when he encourages his teammates to "shine in their roles." My observations reveal that this issue of unclear roles pervades all levels of engineering organizations, affecting:

• How engineers collaborate across different functions
• The dynamics between CTOs and VPs
• Expectations surrounding the CTO role itself

Engineering leaders must prioritize ensuring that team members are aware of their roles and expectations. Providing clarity in roles can mitigate many of the setbacks I've witnessed in various engineering organizations.

Role Clarity in Cross-Functional Projects

Clear delineation of roles is particularly crucial in cross-functional initiatives. I've observed that projects confined to a single engineering team tend to progress smoothly, as the chain of command is well-defined. The engineering manager leads, while engineers execute their tasks, creating a clear division of responsibilities.

However, challenges arise when working on cross-functional projects, where team members may not belong to the same organization or report to one another. This fragmentation can lead to significant complications. For instance, while a Product Manager may lead a cross-functional project, the engineers involved report to different supervisors, creating potential communication gaps.

How Netflix Engineers Collaborate Across Functions

At Netflix, I experienced this challenge firsthand. The company frequently undertakes cross-functional A/B testing initiatives. In the past, a product manager would spearhead the project while engineers were "loaned" from various teams. Unfortunately, this model often resulted in bugs and missed deadlines, as there was no single owner for the overall engineering architecture.

To address this, we implemented explicit engineering lead roles for cross-functional projects. Specifically, we established two new positions:

• Engineering Lead: Responsible for the technical architecture of the project.
• QA Lead: Ensures comprehensive test coverage.

With these roles clearly defined, projects ran more smoothly, and the frequency of bugs decreased. The engineering challenges that had initially seemed purely technical were often rooted in the lack of clarity regarding ownership of the complete engineering process.

Lack of Ownership in Engineering Teams

I've also witnessed issues related to role clarity among senior management in startups. For instance, while consulting for a Series C startup, I was asked to assess a prolonged migration process. Initially, I suspected inadequate project management was to blame. However, I soon discovered that the actual problem stemmed from poor organizational structure rather than technical issues.

Consider their organizational chart:

• Product Managers were incorrectly placed under the CTO when they should have been in a separate product organization.
• An overwhelming number of direct reports existed—15 engineering teams within a 70-person engineering organization, leading to an average of 7.5 teams per leader.
• There was no clear division of responsibilities between the CTO and VP regarding team oversight.

The CTO noted that the VP acted more as a "right-hand man," leading to a "tag-team management" approach. Consequently, if one leader was occupied, the other would step in, further muddying ownership.

I worked with the CTO to develop a more effective organizational structure, including:

• Hiring additional VPs to reduce direct reports.
• Establishing a new product organization for the PMs under a Chief Product Officer.
• Clearly defining the roles of the VPs to establish ownership over the teams.

Following the reorganization, the CTO reported significant improvements in team management.

Challenges for First-Time CTOs

Lastly, I've found that many first-time CTOs struggle with defining their roles. Often, these individuals transition from engineering roles and continue to perceive themselves as subordinates to the CEO. This perspective can hinder their effectiveness.

CTOs must recognize their position as equal partners with the CEO. They cannot simply await directives; instead, they must proactively communicate their insights and priorities. Many CTOs underestimate their influence, which can lead to detrimental outcomes for their startups.

In one instance, a CTO expressed feeling "overwhelmed" by trying to align their priorities with those of the CEO. The CEO aimed to shift to a flat subscription model and expand into new markets, while the CTO focused on addressing technical debt. The disconnect caused frustration and inefficiency.

When I explored the situation further, it became clear that communication was lacking. The CEO was unaware of the complexities involved in changing the business model, while the CTO did not realize they had the authority to voice these challenges. As a result, they attempted to execute the CEO's vision without addressing the technical implications.

Had the CTO communicated the difficulties associated with the business model shift, they could have collaboratively prioritized initiatives, allowing time to complete the technical debt cleanup while still pursuing market expansion.

In conclusion, engineering leaders should prioritize ensuring that team members are aware of their roles and responsibilities. This proactive approach can help prevent many of the common pitfalls that startups face.

💡 Want to Learn More?

Join over 2,700 subscribers reading my newsletter without the Medium paywall. Connect with me on social media for further insights.