I'm also an engineering manager, currently working in a department that feels on fire, and I think there is good wisdom in the article. The part about not fostering a "us vs them" mentality was good food for thought, as I do find it tempting to build short term camaraderie. When faced with big picture issues that can't be changed (believe me, they can't) it's easy to reach for a "We all know that these exec decisions don't make sense, but we can still do right for each other among this BS" type of conversation. But it's worth thinking about what that will do for the long term motivation of that team member at the company.

It sounds like you are trying to rationalize a toxic environment.

Most of us don't actually have to stay at a company that is on fire. Plenty of companies (and managers) will try to convince us to stay at a company that "feels" on fire. That's what I hate about this "wartime software" bullshit. Like, if you enjoy being at war, cool, go at it. But if you don't want to feel horrible, find a different job. There is no prize to win for being a hero. Just a life of pain from an entity that will drop you as soon as is convenient.

Rationalise - maybe. Romanticise - definitely not. If people want to leave I wouldn't blame them at all, and will happily write them a reference. But there's no point in me optimising for that decision, I need to optimise for the scenario where they want to stay.

I can say that I'm staying because I hunted for this job last year through the "winter of tech" and that nearly broke me as much as this toxic workplace does. So I have reasons not to jump ship, and I can't imagine I'm the only one. So for anyone reporting to me who would also rather not leave, I should do what I can to reduce the shittiness for them as much as possible.

There is a middle around between seeking camaraderie by total bad-mouthing of the executives and singing praises of the management while wagging your tail vigorously.

From the article:

> When you receive a new headcount, you need to prioritize hiring experienced, self-sufficient, autonomous engineers who can tolerate (even better, strive) in high-stress environments and are experienced enough to contribute immediately.

Yeah, such people would be able to spot and smell "this BS" from a mile and trying to sell it to them by re-packaging won't exactly help raise motivation. I would wager that most of them can probably appreciate the truth behind "this is what we are paid to do so we need to do the best we can for what needs to be done" - they are probably exercising that discipline in their personal lives too.

I think both things are true. If you're on the struggle bus then you should prioritise self-sufficiency in the hiring process (as the post suggests) and be honest about what people are walking into (as you kind of suggest). But I think no amount of honesty will help if you hire someone who needs some amount of hand-holding when your team doesn't have the bandwidth to provide it.

Seems obvious - don't hire people when you can't give them what they need to succeed in-role. But I think the blog author wasn't trying to say much more than that with the sentence you quoted.

What about what "this BS" does to morale and motivation? If a manager acknowledges dysfunction, I feel significantly better working for them than one who tries to convince me that everything is fine.

> It neglects to focus on stopping the fire,

This can get pretty tricky when the fire is your very boss... (and honestly, been there and didn't know how to handle that, and still don't know (top management did, they fired my boss, but I burnt out before..)))))

It's essentially an ad to promote their career.