Difficult Squad Lead
Navigating Challenges with a Difficult Squad Lead
Joining a new company can be both an exciting and daunting experience, especially when stepping into a senior engineering role. While many aspects of the job may go smoothly, encountering a difficult squad lead can throw a wrench in the works, creating friction not only in project management but also in team dynamics and morale.
The Dilemma of Feedback
One of the most pressing issues faced by the original poster (OP) is the squad lead’s resistance to feedback. In an agile environment, feedback is crucial for continuous improvement and adaptability. However, when a lead dismisses suggestions—especially regarding ticket sizes and development scope—it creates a bottleneck that stifles productivity. The OP notes instances where tickets are unnecessarily large and scope is added late in the development process, a scenario that can lead to frustration and burnout among team members.
It’s essential to recognize that feedback should be seen as a collaborative tool, not as an attack. However, the OP’s squad lead appears to misunderstand this dynamic, which is detrimental to the team’s ability to deliver quality work efficiently.
Scope Creep and Its Implications
The phenomenon of scope creep, where additional features are requested during development, is a common pitfall in software projects. In the OP’s case, the lead’s insistence on accommodating changes during PR reviews can lead to extended timelines and diminished team morale. The OP’s observations about PRs taking up to three weeks to complete due to this behavior highlight a significant inefficiency that could impact the overall project delivery.
In a healthy team culture, scope should be carefully managed through well-defined tickets and regular refinement sessions. The OP’s attempt to push back against the expanding scope reflects a commitment to maintaining project integrity and ensuring that the team can work effectively without becoming overwhelmed.
Communication Breakdown
Another critical aspect of the OP’s situation is the lack of effective communication. The squad lead’s multiple rounds of PR reviews and the tendency to add comments post-review can create confusion and frustration among team members. This behavior not only slows down progress but can also lead to misunderstandings about project requirements.
The OP has made commendable efforts to communicate the challenges posed by the squad lead’s approach, yet it seems that these attempts have gone unrecognized. This highlights a broader issue within the organization: the importance of open lines of communication and the need for leaders to be receptive to input from their teams.
Addressing the Culture
The OP’s situation may be indicative of a larger cultural issue within the company. If senior leadership promotes a culture of speed over quality, it can lead to poor practices becoming normalized. As noted by some commenters, if the squad lead’s behavior is a reflection of the company’s core values, then a systemic change may be necessary to address these issues.
In instances where a team lead is not equipped for their role, it may be beneficial to escalate the matter to upper management. However, it’s essential to approach this with evidence and a constructive mindset, focusing on how these changes can benefit the team and the organization as a whole.
The Path Forward
So, what can the OP do? Here are some potential steps:
-
Final Discussion: Before escalating, consider having one last conversation with the squad lead. Frame it as an opportunity for collaboration rather than confrontation. Focus on specific examples where the lead’s approach has hindered progress.
-
Leverage Retrospectives: If the team conducts retrospectives, use this platform to propose changes to PR and review policies. Encourage the team to collectively decide on ticket scoping and review practices.
-
Document Everything: Maintain records of PRs, messages, and feedback. This documentation will be crucial if the situation escalates and the OP needs to present a case to management.
-
Seek Support from Peers: While the junior and mid-level developers may be compliant now, they could be allies in advocating for change. Engaging them in discussions about the team’s challenges could provide a united front.
-
Consider Long-Term Plans: If the situation does not improve, it may be worth considering a transition to another team or even seeking opportunities elsewhere. A toxic work environment can have long-lasting effects on job satisfaction and personal well-being.
In conclusion, navigating a difficult squad lead requires a combination of patience, strategic communication, and a willingness to advocate for a healthier work culture. The OP’s commitment to their team and desire for improvement is commendable, and with the right approach, change may be on the horizon.