5 ms·

Just another counterpoint, the airing of which is therapeutic in stopping me from downvoting due to rising tension at the thought of what you've suggested and m

Just another counterpoint, the airing of which is therapeutic in stopping me from downvoting due to rising tension at the thought of what you've suggested and my experience with managerial-ilk and their uselessness in the past (and I haven't, because I think you're contributing, but understand just how visceral my feelings are towards this). There needs to be a counterbalance to your advice. Just no. Just GOD NO. Want to be a good manager? Get the hell out of my way. You're not there for my benefit (i didn't hire you, and odds are, I probably don't think you should have a job at all, let alone one that pays more than me) so don't pretend you are. Its insulting to both of us. I'm there because you've hired me, given me money, to do some labor that you can't/won't do. If I want you, I will come to you, and it will usually be because some genius decided that I don't have the authority to fix a problem or do something. If you come to me, its because you're telling me to spend my labour on something else. If you're going to make yourself even vaguely useful, be my human shield to keep the rest of the useless people (read: management/executives/marketers/HR) and distractions away from people actually doing work. I appreciate this is all context sensitive and my response is filled with hyperbole, but you'll also hopefully understand that i'm particularly frustrated with managers/employers in our society wanting to be my mother/psychiatrist/friend? If I wanted to be your friend or meet with you, do you think people would have to pay me money to be in your presence? Its not a very Hacker-esque movie, but there's a brilliant line from the English patient: "I once traveled with a terrific guide, who was taking me to Faya. He didn't speak for nine hours. At the end of it he pointed at the horizon and said - Faya! That was a good day."

Panoramix 11y ago
You did mention it was hyperbole, but still, saying that executives, marketers, HR and even managers are "useless" people makes my blood boil. A company is a team, and these are crucial parts of a team - especially so for larger enterprises.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Aaargh20318 11y ago
  In my experience they usually are worse than useless. As in they have negative productivity and actively harm the company. For example, marketing at a previous company was extremely incompetent. Everything they did was basically a major cringe-fest for everyone involved. They would send a company-wide email announcing they had made a 'viral video' and if you could please share it as much as possible. The aforementioned video was super-boring and about corporate stuff no normal person would ever care about. How the hell is that supposed to be a 'viral video'? Apparently they completely lacked the capability for self-critcism. They also did fake-interviews with members of upper management, the whole thing was so obviously scripted and read to the camera that you just had to feel ashamed for them. They also made rookie mistakes like looking directly into the camera and stuff like that. The resulting videos looked extremely amateurish, the average youtuber has a higher production quality. HR did more harm than good, their main role was to get rid of everyone who had any knowledge of the product and anyone who was critical of management, basically what they wanted was yes-men. Management itself was completely retarded, to the point where the whole C-level was fired by the board followed by several lawsuits. They kept interfering with engineering decisions not held back by any knowledge on the subject. They basically forced us use certain tools that would result in a lower quality end result, take more people and take more time, and thus be more expensive for the customer (and harder to sell). All purely for political reasons; and then they wondered why they didn't make any money. Of course, as a software company you want to spend as much as possible on managers and as little as possible on engineers, so that is what they did. This of course attracted the kind of manager who only does it for the money and status. In the end, the company went belly-up. Apparently you can't survive selling an inferior product for a much higher price than much smaller, leaner competitors did. Especially if your organisational structure is diamond-shaped.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I think all you have described here is bad management. Nobody would disagree that there is an awful lot of bad management out there, what we are all interested in is how to make management better.
    - galfarragem 11y ago
danieltillett 11y ago
Well I am glad you are not down voting just because you don’t agree with me :) I am not sure where I suggested that a manager is supposed to be there for the employees benefit - the role of the manager is to maximize the performance of the employee and team. I also didn’t suggest their role is to mother or being a friend either (although being a friend can help). The major job of a manager is to ensure translation of business objectives into output that is directed towards the end goal. You might think you understand exactly what your job is, but it is exceptionally common for people to not really know what the company is working towards and exactly what management wants them to do, or what is important (to the company). This is not a failing of anyone, but just a consequence of incomplete information. Vice versa it is also very common with hands off (or too busy managers) to not know what the blocks or distractions are that are impeding progress. The whole situation becomes even more fraught when the business objectives are fluid and changing. The only way to achieve the business objectives is to spend time making sure the information flows happen and problems are solved. I wish there was another way as it is incredibly time consuming.
- mmatants 11y ago
  I really like the philosophy you describe. It pains me to see folks disenfranchised from the concept of real teamwork. Isn't the whole point to be working with each other? Even if the person is signing my paycheque, they are still another human tackling the same general problem as I am. Easier said than done, because of course there are bad managers out there. But even in difficult situations it can sometimes help to try "manage up" - again, the value-building and the mission is bigger than any one person.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  > it is exceptionally common for people to not really know what the company is working towards and exactly what management wants them to do This is exactly the phenomenon I am referring to in my comment (see sister comment on this thread level). Often no one know what management wants them to do including management themselves. The end goal is clear but how to best get there is anyones guess.
  - 11y ago
rorykoehler 11y ago
My desired approach to management is exactly what you ask for, servant-leadership. That said I do find it difficult sometimes. It's hard to find the balance between driving the vision of the business and serving your employees so they can do stellar work (my experience is startups so this probably doesn't apply to bigger corps). I find many employees who haven't been in an executive position don't understand the pressures that surround needing to find a path for the company to be successful. It is a process filled with doubt and trying to whittle down many options to choose the correct one and sometimes even with great data the answer is not clear. The hard part is shielding the employees from the ambiguities of the business decision process and delivering a clear vision that can be executed upon. Anything else leads to confusion and the sense that the founders/executives are unsure (which as humans they always are, even when they're not). This friction has existed in every place I have worked as an employee or as a founder.
dagw 11y ago
You're not there for my benefit Even as another lowly peon I absolutely disagree with this. My boss/manager is absolutely there for my benefit. As much as I'm there "to do some labor that (he) can't/won't do" he's there to do work that I can't/won't do, primarily to be my "human shield", but also doing all the legwork needed to make sure that interesting jobs (and thus money) keep flowing my way. If I didn't see any benefit in working for a manager, I'd be working for myself.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  You are working for the company. Your managers job is to make you as productive as possible (one of their jobs is shielding you from distractions). Their job is not to provide you with interesting jobs unless that is in the companies interest. If you don't want to do the work the company wants you to do you of course have the right to leave.
  - tossaway1 11y ago
    As a manager, I would say it IS my job to get my directs involved in interesting projects. If I dont, theyre apt to look for something interesting elsewhere and finding talented developers to replace them is expensive for the company.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      This is in the companies interest then to provide interesting jobs. The interesting jobs are a means to the end which in this case is keeping your developers since turnover is expensive. The skill in management is balancing everything.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
zo1 11y ago
Not every individual is the same. Being your manager would require a completely different approach than for most of your fellow colleagues in industry. I know I have quite a few unique reports that require motivation. Some you give work, and they plough through it. Others do that only when they're motivated, some are just slackers that you need to micro-manage in order to get any productivity out of them (assuming dismissal is not an option).
- davidmr 11y ago
  This is precisely what I was going to respond with. I "manage" a technical group of 27, and we have people that run the entire stretch between one guy I check in with every 4 hours, and another guy I talk with once a month to make sure we're on the same page and then just let him crack on until he needs something. I wouldn't say I'm particularly good at being a manager (or, for that matter, enjoy it particularly), but the only universal truism I've discovered is that you have to let each person decide on their own what makes a good manager and try your best to be that manager for them. Specifically, wit respect to one on ones, I just decided to punt, errr... delegate their scheduling to my reports at whatever periodicity they think is best and just make a point of asking at the end if it's still working on the current schedule for them.
joe563323 11y ago
Wow. Wow. Wow. This is the honest and most useful advice to managers. Thanks very much for speaking out my mind.

Panoramix 11y ago

You did mention it was hyperbole, but still, saying that executives, marketers, HR and even managers are "useless" people makes my blood boil. A company is a team, and these are crucial parts of a team - especially so for larger enterprises.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Aaargh20318 11y ago
In my experience they usually are worse than useless. As in they have negative productivity and actively harm the company. For example, marketing at a previous company was extremely incompetent. Everything they did was basically a major cringe-fest for everyone involved. They would send a company-wide email announcing they had made a 'viral video' and if you could please share it as much as possible. The aforementioned video was super-boring and about corporate stuff no normal person would ever care about. How the hell is that supposed to be a 'viral video'? Apparently they completely lacked the capability for self-critcism. They also did fake-interviews with members of upper management, the whole thing was so obviously scripted and read to the camera that you just had to feel ashamed for them. They also made rookie mistakes like looking directly into the camera and stuff like that. The resulting videos looked extremely amateurish, the average youtuber has a higher production quality. HR did more harm than good, their main role was to get rid of everyone who had any knowledge of the product and anyone who was critical of management, basically what they wanted was yes-men. Management itself was completely retarded, to the point where the whole C-level was fired by the board followed by several lawsuits. They kept interfering with engineering decisions not held back by any knowledge on the subject. They basically forced us use certain tools that would result in a lower quality end result, take more people and take more time, and thus be more expensive for the customer (and harder to sell). All purely for political reasons; and then they wondered why they didn't make any money. Of course, as a software company you want to spend as much as possible on managers and as little as possible on engineers, so that is what they did. This of course attracted the kind of manager who only does it for the money and status. In the end, the company went belly-up. Apparently you can't survive selling an inferior product for a much higher price than much smaller, leaner competitors did. Especially if your organisational structure is diamond-shaped.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I think all you have described here is bad management. Nobody would disagree that there is an awful lot of bad management out there, what we are all interested in is how to make management better.
  - galfarragem 11y ago

danieltillett 11y ago

Well I am glad you are not down voting just because you don’t agree with me :) I am not sure where I suggested that a manager is supposed to be there for the employees benefit - the role of the manager is to maximize the performance of the employee and team. I also didn’t suggest their role is to mother or being a friend either (although being a friend can help). The major job of a manager is to ensure translation of business objectives into output that is directed towards the end goal. You might think you understand exactly what your job is, but it is exceptionally common for people to not really know what the company is working towards and exactly what management wants them to do, or what is important (to the company). This is not a failing of anyone, but just a consequence of incomplete information. Vice versa it is also very common with hands off (or too busy managers) to not know what the blocks or distractions are that are impeding progress. The whole situation becomes even more fraught when the business objectives are fluid and changing. The only way to achieve the business objectives is to spend time making sure the information flows happen and problems are solved. I wish there was another way as it is incredibly time consuming.

mmatants 11y ago
I really like the philosophy you describe. It pains me to see folks disenfranchised from the concept of real teamwork. Isn't the whole point to be working with each other? Even if the person is signing my paycheque, they are still another human tackling the same general problem as I am. Easier said than done, because of course there are bad managers out there. But even in difficult situations it can sometimes help to try "manage up" - again, the value-building and the mission is bigger than any one person.
rorykoehler 11y ago
> it is exceptionally common for people to not really know what the company is working towards and exactly what management wants them to do This is exactly the phenomenon I am referring to in my comment (see sister comment on this thread level). Often no one know what management wants them to do including management themselves. The end goal is clear but how to best get there is anyones guess.
- 11y ago

rorykoehler 11y ago

My desired approach to management is exactly what you ask for, servant-leadership. That said I do find it difficult sometimes. It's hard to find the balance between driving the vision of the business and serving your employees so they can do stellar work (my experience is startups so this probably doesn't apply to bigger corps). I find many employees who haven't been in an executive position don't understand the pressures that surround needing to find a path for the company to be successful. It is a process filled with doubt and trying to whittle down many options to choose the correct one and sometimes even with great data the answer is not clear. The hard part is shielding the employees from the ambiguities of the business decision process and delivering a clear vision that can be executed upon. Anything else leads to confusion and the sense that the founders/executives are unsure (which as humans they always are, even when they're not). This friction has existed in every place I have worked as an employee or as a founder.

dagw 11y ago

You're not there for my benefit Even as another lowly peon I absolutely disagree with this. My boss/manager is absolutely there for my benefit. As much as I'm there "to do some labor that (he) can't/won't do" he's there to do work that I can't/won't do, primarily to be my "human shield", but also doing all the legwork needed to make sure that interesting jobs (and thus money) keep flowing my way. If I didn't see any benefit in working for a manager, I'd be working for myself.

danieltillett 11y ago
You are working for the company. Your managers job is to make you as productive as possible (one of their jobs is shielding you from distractions). Their job is not to provide you with interesting jobs unless that is in the companies interest. If you don't want to do the work the company wants you to do you of course have the right to leave.
- tossaway1 11y ago
  As a manager, I would say it IS my job to get my directs involved in interesting projects. If I dont, theyre apt to look for something interesting elsewhere and finding talented developers to replace them is expensive for the company.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    This is in the companies interest then to provide interesting jobs. The interesting jobs are a means to the end which in this case is keeping your developers since turnover is expensive. The skill in management is balancing everything.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

zo1 11y ago

Not every individual is the same. Being your manager would require a completely different approach than for most of your fellow colleagues in industry. I know I have quite a few unique reports that require motivation. Some you give work, and they plough through it. Others do that only when they're motivated, some are just slackers that you need to micro-manage in order to get any productivity out of them (assuming dismissal is not an option).

davidmr 11y ago
This is precisely what I was going to respond with. I "manage" a technical group of 27, and we have people that run the entire stretch between one guy I check in with every 4 hours, and another guy I talk with once a month to make sure we're on the same page and then just let him crack on until he needs something. I wouldn't say I'm particularly good at being a manager (or, for that matter, enjoy it particularly), but the only universal truism I've discovered is that you have to let each person decide on their own what makes a good manager and try your best to be that manager for them. Specifically, wit respect to one on ones, I just decided to punt, errr... delegate their scheduling to my reports at whatever periodicity they think is best and just make a point of asking at the end if it's still working on the current schedule for them.

joe563323 11y ago

Wow. Wow. Wow. This is the honest and most useful advice to managers. Thanks very much for speaking out my mind.