4 ms·

In my experience those at the very top are horrified when they find out that their staff believe that the boss requires them to enslave themselves to the compan

In my experience those at the very top are horrified when they find out that their staff believe that the boss requires them to enslave themselves to the company. I believe that in many cases cultures of overwork are intrinsically generated, not imposed from on high. It could be fear of the boss, it could be a ruthless layer of middle management, it could be example-setting by perceived high fliers. Nothing is ever done about it because nobody wants to bother the execs with that sort of nebulous and sticky issue (especially one which sounds like whining). It often happens with very driven and brilliant leaders, the types who themselves frequently work very hard and very long hours. Doubtless there is some social primate leader emulation dynamic, something we are helpless to escape.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
I fully agree with this. I've vocally and silently disagreed with middle managers (never seen it from higher ups) pushing for employees to work longer hours and haven't had any issues. I've certainly had to communicate my boundaries but I've found that once you do, people respect them.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
Well, even if the CEO doesn't mastermind the overwork, I think a leader is responsible for everything that happens beneath them. They have full visibility (if they choose) and hired those middle-managers (or the people who hired them).
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I suspect that the real problem is the incentives for those middle managers. The CEO often may set those without understanding the consequences for the people below the middle managers...
- scrumper 8y ago
  I think that, counterintuitively, that's a stronger argument at larger firms. There you have surveys and metrics and more room to focus on how the work gets done (rather than being in a mad scramble just to do it). Smaller companies, everyone is in execution mode and superhuman efforts often get rewarded simply because they generate a good result.
aranelsurion 8y ago
That's one way to look at it. Alternatively, I'd think middle management people are doing exactly what they were hired for. In most cases, their job is to simply act as a buffer and propagate upper layer's wishes to mere mortals, without them losing face or being directly involved in any kind of conflict. It builds a culture of uncertainty and doubt and more layers of management means less perceived value and power for individual contributors. I can definitely see the value it provides to those at the top.
- scrumper 8y ago
  > In most cases, their job is to simply act as a buffer and propagate upper layer's wishes to mere mortals Well, they're there to take care of the details of implementing the execs' orders. That is a necessary function for scale. An analogy: Field Marshal Haig wants a village taken. He doesn't shout at the infantry; rather there's a chain of command which fractally decomposes the order into a coherent plan for achieving the goal. We'll need artillery to soften the defenses, then infantry will flank the fortifications; ok put a battery here and load it up with this kind of shell; and so on down to the platoon level where little groups of soldiers will tackle micro-scale obstacles along the way (there's an enemy sniper in that church, etc.) So the reasons for hiring this layer are sound. I'm not really arguing with you though: it does provide value to those at the top (arguably not necessarily long-term value). I just don't think, in most cases, that it's a conscious Machiavellian plan to stuff the mid-tier with remote-controlled, plausibly deniable bastards. I just think that people in those positions end up exhibiting bastardish behavior circumstantially. (Although of course if there was such a devious scheme anywhere, it'd probably be Amazon.) So I still think that it's largely intrinsic.
munchbunny 8y ago
I definitely don't think it's intrinsically generated. The reality at ground level is that your manager will almost always fill your plate at least a bit higher than you can reasonably fit in, because there is always room to do more work until there isn't. The more you can do, the better your manager looks. There's another important dynamic: your manager will often be able to get more done in the same time than you will if your manager does it himself/herself, because the manager is typically more experienced and wields power in a way that you can't. This stays true for each step up the hierarchy. Since managers often gauge a reasonable amount of work for the employee based on how long it takes the manager, there's a disconnect in anticipated workload too. Finally, the higher you go, the more you are able to buy into a strategy and vision. If you're at ground level, executing on that strategy often means spending days squashing bugs. It's much harder to buy into the big picture when your immediate picture looks like more of the same as everywhere else. Not to say "you shouldn't work hard," but I do think there are structural reasons why ground level is a less motivating place to be.
- scrumper 8y ago
  But those are all intrinsic factors - as in, they are self-generated by the middle management layer. They're not imposed from on high. To enumerate: - Manager fills plate higher, accrues rewards. - Manager judges your target output based on her ability. - Manager buys in to strategy and vision (because of access), becomes more motivated.

castlecrasher2 8y ago

I fully agree with this. I've vocally and silently disagreed with middle managers (never seen it from higher ups) pushing for employees to work longer hours and haven't had any issues. I've certainly had to communicate my boundaries but I've found that once you do, people respect them.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

Well, even if the CEO doesn't mastermind the overwork, I think a leader is responsible for everything that happens beneath them. They have full visibility (if they choose) and hired those middle-managers (or the people who hired them).

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I suspect that the real problem is the incentives for those middle managers. The CEO often may set those without understanding the consequences for the people below the middle managers...
scrumper 8y ago
I think that, counterintuitively, that's a stronger argument at larger firms. There you have surveys and metrics and more room to focus on how the work gets done (rather than being in a mad scramble just to do it). Smaller companies, everyone is in execution mode and superhuman efforts often get rewarded simply because they generate a good result.

aranelsurion 8y ago

That's one way to look at it. Alternatively, I'd think middle management people are doing exactly what they were hired for. In most cases, their job is to simply act as a buffer and propagate upper layer's wishes to mere mortals, without them losing face or being directly involved in any kind of conflict. It builds a culture of uncertainty and doubt and more layers of management means less perceived value and power for individual contributors. I can definitely see the value it provides to those at the top.

scrumper 8y ago
> In most cases, their job is to simply act as a buffer and propagate upper layer's wishes to mere mortals Well, they're there to take care of the details of implementing the execs' orders. That is a necessary function for scale. An analogy: Field Marshal Haig wants a village taken. He doesn't shout at the infantry; rather there's a chain of command which fractally decomposes the order into a coherent plan for achieving the goal. We'll need artillery to soften the defenses, then infantry will flank the fortifications; ok put a battery here and load it up with this kind of shell; and so on down to the platoon level where little groups of soldiers will tackle micro-scale obstacles along the way (there's an enemy sniper in that church, etc.) So the reasons for hiring this layer are sound. I'm not really arguing with you though: it does provide value to those at the top (arguably not necessarily long-term value). I just don't think, in most cases, that it's a conscious Machiavellian plan to stuff the mid-tier with remote-controlled, plausibly deniable bastards. I just think that people in those positions end up exhibiting bastardish behavior circumstantially. (Although of course if there was such a devious scheme anywhere, it'd probably be Amazon.) So I still think that it's largely intrinsic.

munchbunny 8y ago

I definitely don't think it's intrinsically generated. The reality at ground level is that your manager will almost always fill your plate at least a bit higher than you can reasonably fit in, because there is always room to do more work until there isn't. The more you can do, the better your manager looks. There's another important dynamic: your manager will often be able to get more done in the same time than you will if your manager does it himself/herself, because the manager is typically more experienced and wields power in a way that you can't. This stays true for each step up the hierarchy. Since managers often gauge a reasonable amount of work for the employee based on how long it takes the manager, there's a disconnect in anticipated workload too. Finally, the higher you go, the more you are able to buy into a strategy and vision. If you're at ground level, executing on that strategy often means spending days squashing bugs. It's much harder to buy into the big picture when your immediate picture looks like more of the same as everywhere else. Not to say "you shouldn't work hard," but I do think there are structural reasons why ground level is a less motivating place to be.

scrumper 8y ago
But those are all intrinsic factors - as in, they are self-generated by the middle management layer. They're not imposed from on high. To enumerate: - Manager fills plate higher, accrues rewards. - Manager judges your target output based on her ability. - Manager buys in to strategy and vision (because of access), becomes more motivated.