5 ms·

Because those of us who believe otherwise usually get beaten out and decide to not run businesses any more. My confounder doesn't like hiring, likes to have a

Because those of us who believe otherwise usually get beaten out and decide to not run businesses any more. My confounder doesn't like hiring, likes to have a huge pile of cash in the bank to no particular end, and sends people shitty emails if they're late in the morning. He's successfully killed off enthusiasm and passion for getting things done (mine included), and now people are either making time or leaving. We got crazy amounts done back when I wasn't cto and was still allowed to lead the tech team - because we'd work from 1pm until the early hours, myopically working on stuff because it was fun to create. That got slowly but surely strangled by timekeeping, requiring people to be in for 0900 (even if they were up half the night working support), and requiring that people only work from the office. It's impossible to push back against without continuous effort, and eventually one throws the towel in. Conservatism is easy as it requires you to just maintain the status quo, hence it is the norm in business - whereas change requires effort. It then turns into an endurance race, which can only go one way. Edit: I don't know why I bother commenting here any more.

dclowd9901 10y ago
"confounder", ha. In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it? It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between departments, could become their full time job, which would be better for everyone too (less overhead with employee reviews and bullshit like that). How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that.
- bostonpete 10y ago
  > How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that. I still don't see how that works. Your comment seems like it boils down to saying the company should pay the employee more than they're worth (i.e. worth to the business compared to others who could add the same value), but the company has all sorts of obligations to investors, other employees, etc. and spending money just because they can afford to do so today seems like an irresponsible way to run a business.
  - derefr 10y ago
    Sure, but it's just as irresponsible (economically irrational) as an individual to go the other way. Really, the "optimal" salary negotiation is for both the employer and the potential hire to first agree on a dollar-value of how much money the employee is expected to make the company—literally, what the hire is worth—and then, having come to agreement over that, to then negotiate what profit margin the company wants to keep of that created value. You might recognize this as the process a hiring agency goes through to negotiate with an employer. In this case, the employee is their own hiring agency, and the one who will end up with the majority "cut."
- pc86 10y ago
  > My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. It would also go away if employees would simply take whatever the company's first offer is. Neither are very realistic suggestions.
- groby_b 10y ago
  Forgetting the other most important role, coaching people on the team. And yet another one, shelter from outside unrest. Oh, and blame-absorber. And coordinating efforts, when yet again three engineers in three different places work on the same issue. You know, this is starting to resemble the "what have the romans ever done for us" skit :) I'm not disagreeing that many managers don't do this. Or that they do it badly. But managers, when they work properly, do a lot more than liaising.
  - guelo 10y ago
    Coaching happens naturally within a well-functioning team. Sheltering a lot of times means that the team is not aware of key information they should be aware of. Coordination can be accomplished via proper use of communication tools. Managers have the power to insert themselves at the critical junctions of natural process flows in order to artificially increase their own importance.
  - toolz 10y ago
    That's the thing, though. Almost no one does their job "properly". They do it well enough to not get fired - thus management is usually inept and useless. So is it the managers fault when they are just fulfilling the norm or is it the job all together? I would suggest management as a position is at fault rather than the people who occupy that space and do the minimum to get by.
  - derefr 10y ago
    The funny thing is, if you do all those things, but you don't "liaise", then it's very likely that your job-title isn't "manager", but rather "administrative assistant." Sadly, I've never heard of a team of engineers having a dedicated admin assistant. A lot of corporate malaise could be solved, I think, by 1. giving each team the budget to hire their own admin assistant to coordinate and coach for them (but to leave the liase-ing to the team lead), and then 2. firing all the middle-management layers that now serve literally no purpose.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? Deal with weird interpersonal issues of members on the team. Seriously, if you've never been a manager before, it will shock you some of the childish things people complain to you about. I do agree with you that the ideal is to have the team be self-managing, but there is usually some maturing that needs to happen among the team to reach that goal.
- drdeadringer 10y ago
  > the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you I infer that people don't do this, or at least similar to this via "what is the budget range for this position" type phrasing. Is my inference correct? Besides a lack of confidence, why?
xeromal 10y ago
Keep commenting. Ignore the bullshit downvotes. I understand weariness when arguing with someone who is hardheaded. They can even be nice, but so stubborn that you are drained by the end of the debate.
freshhawk 10y ago
Wow, I've worked with "that guy" before as well. Like you said, it's a retreat to the status quo, and conservatism is a common response to feeling overwhelmed or like an imposter. I now recognize it as a very accurate warning sign, this person has moved from trying whatever they can to help the business succeed to trying whatever they can to cover their ass and put on the appearance that they did all they could.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  In our case it's more like newtonian mechanics - for every force there is an equal and opposing force. I've always pushed for growth, for hiring, for bigger clients, for new avenues, for risk - and he has always challenged and pushed for the status quo, and to not spend, not invest, not grow, make sure every month is profitable. When we were small, my view was dominant, as I worked within and with the team, and we didn't have inertia to overcome, and his conservatism was useful as he talked me out of some risks that in hindsight were crazy. It was a good balance. Now that we've grown rather a bit, his voice is dominant, as we now have a large team who (as a majority, not all) likewise don't want change or risk or growth, and I've been slowly moved diagonally into a vestigial cto role where I have no direct involvement with the tech team, and instead just deal with escalations, internal and external, technical and non-technical. Chief Tortured Officer. So - the business will stagnate, then die, and I'm helpless to do anything about it. The sad thing is he thinks this is success. I feel like we've fundamentally failed. For added laughs, I feel trapped, as if I leave, I abandon my staff who I love to his mercurial whims, and my agreement is structured such that I would have to sell my equity (not options) (fmv in millions) for £60. So I'll be saluting from the bridge as we go down, like an idiot.
  - Ductapemaster 10y ago
    Thanks for sharing your story and your experience so others can learn from it. Please don't stop commenting!
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

dclowd9901 10y ago

"confounder", ha. In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it? It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between departments, could become their full time job, which would be better for everyone too (less overhead with employee reviews and bullshit like that). How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that.

bostonpete 10y ago
> How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that. I still don't see how that works. Your comment seems like it boils down to saying the company should pay the employee more than they're worth (i.e. worth to the business compared to others who could add the same value), but the company has all sorts of obligations to investors, other employees, etc. and spending money just because they can afford to do so today seems like an irresponsible way to run a business.
- derefr 10y ago
  Sure, but it's just as irresponsible (economically irrational) as an individual to go the other way. Really, the "optimal" salary negotiation is for both the employer and the potential hire to first agree on a dollar-value of how much money the employee is expected to make the company—literally, what the hire is worth—and then, having come to agreement over that, to then negotiate what profit margin the company wants to keep of that created value. You might recognize this as the process a hiring agency goes through to negotiate with an employer. In this case, the employee is their own hiring agency, and the one who will end up with the majority "cut."
pc86 10y ago
> My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. It would also go away if employees would simply take whatever the company's first offer is. Neither are very realistic suggestions.
groby_b 10y ago
Forgetting the other most important role, coaching people on the team. And yet another one, shelter from outside unrest. Oh, and blame-absorber. And coordinating efforts, when yet again three engineers in three different places work on the same issue. You know, this is starting to resemble the "what have the romans ever done for us" skit :) I'm not disagreeing that many managers don't do this. Or that they do it badly. But managers, when they work properly, do a lot more than liaising.
- guelo 10y ago
  Coaching happens naturally within a well-functioning team. Sheltering a lot of times means that the team is not aware of key information they should be aware of. Coordination can be accomplished via proper use of communication tools. Managers have the power to insert themselves at the critical junctions of natural process flows in order to artificially increase their own importance.
- toolz 10y ago
  That's the thing, though. Almost no one does their job "properly". They do it well enough to not get fired - thus management is usually inept and useless. So is it the managers fault when they are just fulfilling the norm or is it the job all together? I would suggest management as a position is at fault rather than the people who occupy that space and do the minimum to get by.
- derefr 10y ago
  The funny thing is, if you do all those things, but you don't "liaise", then it's very likely that your job-title isn't "manager", but rather "administrative assistant." Sadly, I've never heard of a team of engineers having a dedicated admin assistant. A lot of corporate malaise could be solved, I think, by 1. giving each team the budget to hire their own admin assistant to coordinate and coach for them (but to leave the liase-ing to the team lead), and then 2. firing all the middle-management layers that now serve literally no purpose.
ktRolster 10y ago
In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? Deal with weird interpersonal issues of members on the team. Seriously, if you've never been a manager before, it will shock you some of the childish things people complain to you about. I do agree with you that the ideal is to have the team be self-managing, but there is usually some maturing that needs to happen among the team to reach that goal.
drdeadringer 10y ago
> the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you I infer that people don't do this, or at least similar to this via "what is the budget range for this position" type phrasing. Is my inference correct? Besides a lack of confidence, why?

xeromal 10y ago

Keep commenting. Ignore the bullshit downvotes. I understand weariness when arguing with someone who is hardheaded. They can even be nice, but so stubborn that you are drained by the end of the debate.

freshhawk 10y ago

Wow, I've worked with "that guy" before as well. Like you said, it's a retreat to the status quo, and conservatism is a common response to feeling overwhelmed or like an imposter. I now recognize it as a very accurate warning sign, this person has moved from trying whatever they can to help the business succeed to trying whatever they can to cover their ass and put on the appearance that they did all they could.

madaxe_again 10y ago
In our case it's more like newtonian mechanics - for every force there is an equal and opposing force. I've always pushed for growth, for hiring, for bigger clients, for new avenues, for risk - and he has always challenged and pushed for the status quo, and to not spend, not invest, not grow, make sure every month is profitable. When we were small, my view was dominant, as I worked within and with the team, and we didn't have inertia to overcome, and his conservatism was useful as he talked me out of some risks that in hindsight were crazy. It was a good balance. Now that we've grown rather a bit, his voice is dominant, as we now have a large team who (as a majority, not all) likewise don't want change or risk or growth, and I've been slowly moved diagonally into a vestigial cto role where I have no direct involvement with the tech team, and instead just deal with escalations, internal and external, technical and non-technical. Chief Tortured Officer. So - the business will stagnate, then die, and I'm helpless to do anything about it. The sad thing is he thinks this is success. I feel like we've fundamentally failed. For added laughs, I feel trapped, as if I leave, I abandon my staff who I love to his mercurial whims, and my agreement is structured such that I would have to sell my equity (not options) (fmv in millions) for £60. So I'll be saluting from the bridge as we go down, like an idiot.
- Ductapemaster 10y ago
  Thanks for sharing your story and your experience so others can learn from it. Please don't stop commenting!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]