6 ms·

"I went there with a positive attitude. The work was interesting. It was rewarding and intellectually challenging. But after a few months, I remember looking at

"I went there with a positive attitude. The work was interesting. It was rewarding and intellectually challenging. But after a few months, I remember looking at my boss and my boss’ boss, and my boss’ boss’ boss, and saying to myself, “You know what? I don’t want any of their jobs.” I saw how they spent their time and didn’t find it interesting or very rewarding. They spent their time managing meetings and office politics." Exactly my sentiment.

jshen 10y ago
I think it's fine to decide you don't want their jobs, but it's a mistake to frame it as "bullshit" which he does after the section you quote. Human nature isn't bullshit, and any endeavor which requires a large number of people to accomplish requires the management of human nature.
- overcast 10y ago
  No, sitting in meetings all day, essentially accomplishing nothing really is bullshit. Granted, there are some super productive management teams out there, but the majority of time is spent dealing with nonsense politics, and having meetings to schedule meetings. Stereotypes have basis in reality.
  - sverige 10y ago
    Having held a few of those jobs, I understand the sentiment, but that doesn't mean those positions are unnecessary, especially as organizations get beyond a certain size. I understood his take on it to be that it just wasn't for him since he likes to be able to see something he has built in a fairly short timeframe, and at a place like Motorola in the '90s, middle management and probably many of the executives wouldn't get that kind of feedback. From my experience managing managers in big corporations, a lot of the bullshit is created by people who want their own way after a decision has been made. They tend to be the reason meetings are called in the first place, since someone has to make the effort to get everyone moving in the same direction. They are also the most likely to walk around calling bullshit on everything that's happening in the place. There's no need to denigrate the work of the people who spend more of their time than they'd like in meetings trying to get a big company of individuals to cooperate on goals that are set by executives. As an aside, there are people who enjoy the kind of work that doesn't necessarily provide instant feedback. Teachers come to mind. Sure, there are little victories and defeats every day, but at the end of the year, there are times when they sigh and wonder what good it did. Try going to a good teacher's retirement party or funeral sometime and mingle with those who come to pay their respects. You'll often hear things like, "He changed my life" or "I'd probably be in prison now if she hadn't been so patient with me." Similarly, the people who make big organizations actually work have an impact on many lives and on the direction of companies, the effects of which are not always visible for years or decades.
    - overcast 10y ago
      I think the point was that he was emphasizing the bosses bosses bosses boss. Many levels of nonsense, leading to politics. Managers do need to exist, and I agree they have a purpose, but often times, even in the company I work for currently. There is more management than there is workers.
      - ryandrake 10y ago
        Well somebody has to manage the managers! The whole flat org with minimal managers "ideal" has been tried lots of places and always failed. I think even Google tried it at some point. Let me tell you a few things that happen when your org gets flatter: 1. Decisions get bottlenecked Typically, the "flat org" thing gets tried without empowering the rank-and-file to make big decisions. So decisions that would normally get resolved one or two levels up the chain all get bottlenecked at the GM or CEO, who (now having 100 reports) does not have the knowledge or context to always make the right call. 2. Extreme micromanagement A counter to #1 is if those decisions actually DON'T get bottlenecked: If you think it sucks to have your manager nit-picking over every little engineering decision you make, imagine how bad it is having the CEO do it, and feel he has to because he has no other managers to make those decisions. Let me tell you from experience: It sucks. 3. You get less time with your boss When your boss has 4-5 direct reports, they can spend time with you weekly to chat about current challenges, help you with career development, give you pointers on things, etc. When he/she has 20-30 directs, good luck getting any airtime at all. 4. Shit rains down on you A great manager shields his reports from 95% of the shit that gets rained down on him by the higher-ups. Uninformed complaints, decision churn and flip-flopping, "strategic enterprise synergy workshops", requests for perpetual motion machines and features that defy mathematics: If your boss is good, he doesn't let any of this crap get down to you. Without management, you as 3rd engineer from the left on WhatsitApp Project, get a firehouse of this in your face every day. 5. No career advancement Granted, this is not important to everyone, but if your boss is the CEO or if his/her boss is the CEO, you're unlikely to get promoted at all during your tenure at that company, or you're going to have to wait for one of them to quit. Whereas if you're manager #6 down, there will be plenty of opportunities to find a #5 level manager position to move up to at some point.
  - gohrt 10y ago
    OK, so imagine that middle-manager person stopped dealing with nonsense politics and took on a role in eng or sales or whatever. Would the nonsense politics disappear?
    - maxxxxx 10y ago
      I honestly think it would decrease. There are more managers than management work so they start creating their own work. That applies to all roles when there are too many people. Designers will redesign constantly when they have nothing else to do, programmers will refactor evertyhing, bureaucrats will create rules.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Stereotypes have a basis in reality, but there are myriad exceptions to "meetings = doing nothing." Tim Cook pretty much only goes to meetings.
    - overcast 10y ago
      If that's your example, well then my counter is that Apple is arguably in the least innovative, most boring slump of their existence. Nothing but incremental nonsense hardware wise, a desktop OS going no where, and a mobile interface that has largely remained unchanged since 2006.
  - jsn117 10y ago
    > Stereotypes have basis in reality. Why else would they exist?
    - ben_jones 10y ago
      As a way for people to feel like they understand something that they really don't. The human mind will make all kinds of contraptions (religion etc.) as an attempt to rationalize and understand the unknown. I think stereotypes serve the same purpose.
    - overcast 10y ago
      They could exist in someones mind, make believe, not reality.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Human nature isn't bullshit No, but it is bullshit to conflate Dilbert-like management culture for "human nature".
  - jshen 10y ago
    Good thing I didn't do that.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Well, the author talked about meetings after meetings, slow progress and a huge hierarchy of bosses, and you assumed they are wrong to call it bullshit because "Human nature isn't bullshit, and any endeavor which requires a large number of people to accomplish requires the management of human nature." As if its inevitable that the "management of human nature" should necessarily take the form the author argued against.
      - jshen 10y ago
        A hierarchy of bosses is not the same thing as Dilbertesque management culture. An organization above a certain size requires managers of managers and meetings. There certainly are bad managers and bad meetings, but it is bad logic to jump from that to a dismissal of management and meetings in general.
- kevinwang 10y ago
  Human nature is definitely bullshit.
- Retra 10y ago
  Human nature is plenty bullshit. Especially when it gets in the way of accomplishing things that need large numbers of people.
pound 10y ago
"I saw how they spent their time and didn’t find it interesting or very rewarding." it may not be interesting but I'm sure it's quite rewarding (as in money/wealth)
- overcast 10y ago
  In my thirties now, after spending my twenties in pursuit of wealth. I can tell you unequivocally, as cliche as it is, accumulating money/wealth is not rewarding. Of course one needs a certain amount to be comfortable, but obtaining more has absolutely not made me a happier person. Relationships, interesting purposeful work, and travel has been what I have found to be the most rewarding. Basically experiences over things.
  - p4wnc6 10y ago
    I started out from a very young age focused mostly on finding sources of interesting/purposeful work that provide enough wage to afford a comfortable life, but not luxury. I have not been able to find meaningful/purposeful work in any organization. The life lessons I've learned can basically be summarized as: there is no such thing as purposeful work for which you are paid a wage, and businesses rarely extract meaningful labor out of you. Businesses are rarely punished for being unproductive, and most effort within any organization is spent intensely focused on politics, both internal and external, to ensure the business can create Dutch books and survive any possible outcome without needing to actually be productive. The closer you get to pure knowledge work, the worse all of these effects become. In my field, machine learning and statistics, it is about as bad as it can possibly be. Because policy is ostensibly supposed to be based on evidence and sound, statistical reasoning, and it's very fashionable right now to try to characterize all aspects of business planning as if they are "data driven", all that it means is that the corporate politicians now hawkishly focus on statistics/machine learning and "science" as the means by which they control politics. It unequivocally does not mean that businesses are actually shifting to truly be more scientific in their decision making, nor are they less wasteful, less driven by prestige or politics, less hyper-focused on short-term thinking, etc. If anything, firms are worse on all of these dimensions, and waste vast sums of money setting up big data infrastructure than truly does nothing but give glossy data visualization facades that decisions are somehow being made based on hard data. What it has taught me is somewhat of the inverse of what you say. I agree that pursuit of material wealth and power is uninteresting and highly unfulfilling. The problem is that pursuit of meaningful work turns out to be even more uninteresting and even more unfulfilling and you simply end up poorer and sounding like a burnt out crank. You are probably better off (if you can; I unfortunately cannot) sublimating away any desire for creative, autonomous, meaningful, purposeful, or interesting work -- simply delete that from your genome with hardcore unhealthy repression. Then try to amass enough wealth doing horrible, horrible politics as you can to retire early, start your own small business, or something else where you are personally in charge of what you do and where you don't have a need for anyone else to pay you for your labor output. The one part I will agree with you on is to definitely value relationships. Whether you are burning yourself out chasing the carrot of so-called meaningful work, or you are killing yourself slowly playing political games to get promotions and money, do not allow either toxin to infiltrate your personal life, and really try to slow your brain down and savor the moments you have with family, friends, and loved ones.
cableshaft 10y ago
Hmmm....That's basically where I am now. I look at what my superiors are doing and it's just constant meetings with the occasional writing up tasks and doing code reviews, pretty much nothing else. I'm not sure I want to get promoted into that role. I've had project management roles before, but the meetings were minimal and I still got to code at least 40% of the time.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  I am going through that right now. For a long time I was working more on infrastructure in the background where we just had to make things working for other engineers without execs paying much attention. Now I am working on a product and the whole process is a nightmare. - Long meetings with directors and project managers who never read any previous reports so you spend hours explaining the same thing again and again. - Demanding precise estimates while requirements are nebulous - There is always one more manager who pops up from nowhere who derails a finally reached agreement with bringing up another nonsense issue - There are plenty of managers who come into a meeting who monopolize the first half hour asking questions that have been asked and answered a long time ago. Then they monopolize the second half explaining the stuff they learned in the first half with an authoritative voice. They forget everything soon and three weeks later it's the same. - Creating more teams to make "quick decisions" consisting of insiders who spend weeks deciding how often and when they should meet. - Some VP inserts another angle into the project that gets refuted several times but somehow keeps coming back. It's insane. The only explanation I have is that some people are just social and political animals that enjoy talking for hours and getting nothing done. They view work's purpose as having meetings, talking about things and looking good in front of their own manager.
  - itchyouch 10y ago
    Once you're in middle management, it's all about putting on a show like you're contributing in order advance & not get laid off. Honestly, I think it's a survival tactic.

jshen 10y ago

I think it's fine to decide you don't want their jobs, but it's a mistake to frame it as "bullshit" which he does after the section you quote. Human nature isn't bullshit, and any endeavor which requires a large number of people to accomplish requires the management of human nature.

overcast 10y ago
No, sitting in meetings all day, essentially accomplishing nothing really is bullshit. Granted, there are some super productive management teams out there, but the majority of time is spent dealing with nonsense politics, and having meetings to schedule meetings. Stereotypes have basis in reality.
- sverige 10y ago
  Having held a few of those jobs, I understand the sentiment, but that doesn't mean those positions are unnecessary, especially as organizations get beyond a certain size. I understood his take on it to be that it just wasn't for him since he likes to be able to see something he has built in a fairly short timeframe, and at a place like Motorola in the '90s, middle management and probably many of the executives wouldn't get that kind of feedback. From my experience managing managers in big corporations, a lot of the bullshit is created by people who want their own way after a decision has been made. They tend to be the reason meetings are called in the first place, since someone has to make the effort to get everyone moving in the same direction. They are also the most likely to walk around calling bullshit on everything that's happening in the place. There's no need to denigrate the work of the people who spend more of their time than they'd like in meetings trying to get a big company of individuals to cooperate on goals that are set by executives. As an aside, there are people who enjoy the kind of work that doesn't necessarily provide instant feedback. Teachers come to mind. Sure, there are little victories and defeats every day, but at the end of the year, there are times when they sigh and wonder what good it did. Try going to a good teacher's retirement party or funeral sometime and mingle with those who come to pay their respects. You'll often hear things like, "He changed my life" or "I'd probably be in prison now if she hadn't been so patient with me." Similarly, the people who make big organizations actually work have an impact on many lives and on the direction of companies, the effects of which are not always visible for years or decades.
  - overcast 10y ago
    I think the point was that he was emphasizing the bosses bosses bosses boss. Many levels of nonsense, leading to politics. Managers do need to exist, and I agree they have a purpose, but often times, even in the company I work for currently. There is more management than there is workers.
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      Well somebody has to manage the managers! The whole flat org with minimal managers "ideal" has been tried lots of places and always failed. I think even Google tried it at some point. Let me tell you a few things that happen when your org gets flatter: 1. Decisions get bottlenecked Typically, the "flat org" thing gets tried without empowering the rank-and-file to make big decisions. So decisions that would normally get resolved one or two levels up the chain all get bottlenecked at the GM or CEO, who (now having 100 reports) does not have the knowledge or context to always make the right call. 2. Extreme micromanagement A counter to #1 is if those decisions actually DON'T get bottlenecked: If you think it sucks to have your manager nit-picking over every little engineering decision you make, imagine how bad it is having the CEO do it, and feel he has to because he has no other managers to make those decisions. Let me tell you from experience: It sucks. 3. You get less time with your boss When your boss has 4-5 direct reports, they can spend time with you weekly to chat about current challenges, help you with career development, give you pointers on things, etc. When he/she has 20-30 directs, good luck getting any airtime at all. 4. Shit rains down on you A great manager shields his reports from 95% of the shit that gets rained down on him by the higher-ups. Uninformed complaints, decision churn and flip-flopping, "strategic enterprise synergy workshops", requests for perpetual motion machines and features that defy mathematics: If your boss is good, he doesn't let any of this crap get down to you. Without management, you as 3rd engineer from the left on WhatsitApp Project, get a firehouse of this in your face every day. 5. No career advancement Granted, this is not important to everyone, but if your boss is the CEO or if his/her boss is the CEO, you're unlikely to get promoted at all during your tenure at that company, or you're going to have to wait for one of them to quit. Whereas if you're manager #6 down, there will be plenty of opportunities to find a #5 level manager position to move up to at some point.
- gohrt 10y ago
  OK, so imagine that middle-manager person stopped dealing with nonsense politics and took on a role in eng or sales or whatever. Would the nonsense politics disappear?
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    I honestly think it would decrease. There are more managers than management work so they start creating their own work. That applies to all roles when there are too many people. Designers will redesign constantly when they have nothing else to do, programmers will refactor evertyhing, bureaucrats will create rules.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Stereotypes have a basis in reality, but there are myriad exceptions to "meetings = doing nothing." Tim Cook pretty much only goes to meetings.
  - overcast 10y ago
    If that's your example, well then my counter is that Apple is arguably in the least innovative, most boring slump of their existence. Nothing but incremental nonsense hardware wise, a desktop OS going no where, and a mobile interface that has largely remained unchanged since 2006.
- jsn117 10y ago
  > Stereotypes have basis in reality. Why else would they exist?
  - ben_jones 10y ago
    As a way for people to feel like they understand something that they really don't. The human mind will make all kinds of contraptions (religion etc.) as an attempt to rationalize and understand the unknown. I think stereotypes serve the same purpose.
  - overcast 10y ago
    They could exist in someones mind, make believe, not reality.
coldtea 10y ago
>Human nature isn't bullshit No, but it is bullshit to conflate Dilbert-like management culture for "human nature".
- jshen 10y ago
  Good thing I didn't do that.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Well, the author talked about meetings after meetings, slow progress and a huge hierarchy of bosses, and you assumed they are wrong to call it bullshit because "Human nature isn't bullshit, and any endeavor which requires a large number of people to accomplish requires the management of human nature." As if its inevitable that the "management of human nature" should necessarily take the form the author argued against.
    - jshen 10y ago
      A hierarchy of bosses is not the same thing as Dilbertesque management culture. An organization above a certain size requires managers of managers and meetings. There certainly are bad managers and bad meetings, but it is bad logic to jump from that to a dismissal of management and meetings in general.
kevinwang 10y ago
Human nature is definitely bullshit.
Retra 10y ago
Human nature is plenty bullshit. Especially when it gets in the way of accomplishing things that need large numbers of people.

pound 10y ago

"I saw how they spent their time and didn’t find it interesting or very rewarding." it may not be interesting but I'm sure it's quite rewarding (as in money/wealth)

overcast 10y ago
In my thirties now, after spending my twenties in pursuit of wealth. I can tell you unequivocally, as cliche as it is, accumulating money/wealth is not rewarding. Of course one needs a certain amount to be comfortable, but obtaining more has absolutely not made me a happier person. Relationships, interesting purposeful work, and travel has been what I have found to be the most rewarding. Basically experiences over things.
- p4wnc6 10y ago
  I started out from a very young age focused mostly on finding sources of interesting/purposeful work that provide enough wage to afford a comfortable life, but not luxury. I have not been able to find meaningful/purposeful work in any organization. The life lessons I've learned can basically be summarized as: there is no such thing as purposeful work for which you are paid a wage, and businesses rarely extract meaningful labor out of you. Businesses are rarely punished for being unproductive, and most effort within any organization is spent intensely focused on politics, both internal and external, to ensure the business can create Dutch books and survive any possible outcome without needing to actually be productive. The closer you get to pure knowledge work, the worse all of these effects become. In my field, machine learning and statistics, it is about as bad as it can possibly be. Because policy is ostensibly supposed to be based on evidence and sound, statistical reasoning, and it's very fashionable right now to try to characterize all aspects of business planning as if they are "data driven", all that it means is that the corporate politicians now hawkishly focus on statistics/machine learning and "science" as the means by which they control politics. It unequivocally does not mean that businesses are actually shifting to truly be more scientific in their decision making, nor are they less wasteful, less driven by prestige or politics, less hyper-focused on short-term thinking, etc. If anything, firms are worse on all of these dimensions, and waste vast sums of money setting up big data infrastructure than truly does nothing but give glossy data visualization facades that decisions are somehow being made based on hard data. What it has taught me is somewhat of the inverse of what you say. I agree that pursuit of material wealth and power is uninteresting and highly unfulfilling. The problem is that pursuit of meaningful work turns out to be even more uninteresting and even more unfulfilling and you simply end up poorer and sounding like a burnt out crank. You are probably better off (if you can; I unfortunately cannot) sublimating away any desire for creative, autonomous, meaningful, purposeful, or interesting work -- simply delete that from your genome with hardcore unhealthy repression. Then try to amass enough wealth doing horrible, horrible politics as you can to retire early, start your own small business, or something else where you are personally in charge of what you do and where you don't have a need for anyone else to pay you for your labor output. The one part I will agree with you on is to definitely value relationships. Whether you are burning yourself out chasing the carrot of so-called meaningful work, or you are killing yourself slowly playing political games to get promotions and money, do not allow either toxin to infiltrate your personal life, and really try to slow your brain down and savor the moments you have with family, friends, and loved ones.

cableshaft 10y ago

Hmmm....That's basically where I am now. I look at what my superiors are doing and it's just constant meetings with the occasional writing up tasks and doing code reviews, pretty much nothing else. I'm not sure I want to get promoted into that role. I've had project management roles before, but the meetings were minimal and I still got to code at least 40% of the time.

maxxxxx 10y ago
I am going through that right now. For a long time I was working more on infrastructure in the background where we just had to make things working for other engineers without execs paying much attention. Now I am working on a product and the whole process is a nightmare. - Long meetings with directors and project managers who never read any previous reports so you spend hours explaining the same thing again and again. - Demanding precise estimates while requirements are nebulous - There is always one more manager who pops up from nowhere who derails a finally reached agreement with bringing up another nonsense issue - There are plenty of managers who come into a meeting who monopolize the first half hour asking questions that have been asked and answered a long time ago. Then they monopolize the second half explaining the stuff they learned in the first half with an authoritative voice. They forget everything soon and three weeks later it's the same. - Creating more teams to make "quick decisions" consisting of insiders who spend weeks deciding how often and when they should meet. - Some VP inserts another angle into the project that gets refuted several times but somehow keeps coming back. It's insane. The only explanation I have is that some people are just social and political animals that enjoy talking for hours and getting nothing done. They view work's purpose as having meetings, talking about things and looking good in front of their own manager.
- itchyouch 10y ago
  Once you're in middle management, it's all about putting on a show like you're contributing in order advance & not get laid off. Honestly, I think it's a survival tactic.