Oof, 2:1 ratio is a tough pill to swallow. I've seen a lot of redundancy in businesses where there will be an engineering manager, project manager, and scrum master. 3 individuals that all should be resolved into 1 role of engineering manager.

The equation definitely helps quantify what generally is a gut feeling. Great stuff!

The hope is that you're in an environment that doesn't require the qualifier before the question. Challenging decisions and asking questions to bolster contingency plans is always acceptable in my book.

Also, I'd add "Drive the action items and hold those who take them accountable." Too often we see action items doled out with no one keeping track of who is doing what, when it will be done, then following up the next time around.

Overall solid thoughts Jake!

Love these thoughts Max! This one especially and the ability to be reactive vs. proactive. I was dinged for this a while back and have been able to start thinking more about "here's a problem I'm reacting to, how do I prevent it in the future?"

From there it's a prioritization and impact analysis to see how feasible a solution would be, but man, it's been a major unlock to quelling the chaos.

Is this to say all side projects have to go through this amount of rigor? I'd prefer to understand what technological problem someone was trying to solve instead of a business they were trying to create (at least when reviewing the CV of an engineer).

Tossing CV's into the bin based on one factor seems a bit dramatic, but to each their own.

Agreed! This should be including when the meeting invite is sent along so folks know what will be discussed and if they need to attend or delegate.