5 ms·

Sorry if I sound harsh but I disagree extremely strongly with this. If you are evaluating someone's work and you can fire them, then you are their boss. There

Sorry if I sound harsh but I disagree extremely strongly with this. If you are evaluating someone's work and you can fire them, then you are their boss. There is a trend of calling managers "supporters" where I work, and I absolutely can't stand it. It seriously reminds me of "War is Peace" from 1984. I don't mind having a boss; hierarchies are fine. But I feel extremely patronized and condescended to when people try to pretend they don't exist. > my job is to keep them productive Well, you could say the same thing about a manager at Wal-Mart or McDonald's. Their job is to make sure their underlings are productive. "Empower my reports too do their best work" is just an unusually nice way to put it. The thing that sounds nice to most people about not having a boss is exactly that: nobody that you feel is judging whether you are productive.

suff 8y ago
Another way to put it is building a culture that helps everyone perform better. There are conscious levers that conscious managers can pull to make sure his happen. Have you ever worked in an environment where managers created conflicting goals or perverse incentives? Did that help teamwork, or create frustration? Do frustrated teams perform at their best? How many people have you managed?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Everywhere I've worked from McDonald's to tech companies, managers were trying to help everyone perform better (i.e., make more money for the business per hour).
  - borski 8y ago
    Ah, you're conflating things here. Bad managers often think making more money for the business per hour is a 'get more work out of the employees per minute' strategy. That doesn't work, due to the off-pay benefits a happy employee provides that a bullied or unhappy one doesn't. Staying a few minutes late to finish up a job, coming on time, not fudging their hours a few minutes here and there, recruiting on your behalf by telling their smart friends about how much they love their job, being willing to come up with new ideas to improve the business, etc. Many bad managers think short term, and are looking to squeeze every ounce of work out of their employees, which leads to burnout, disillusionment, and resentment. My point is it's far more important to make them happy and have them convinced they want to do their best work, not because they fear losing their job, but because they feel inspired, capable, trusted, well-compensated / rewarded, and like they have autonomy. If McDonald's had that, their turnover would be a hell of a lot lower, guaranteed. [edit] Here's an example of what I mean by the unpaid extras I refer to: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/bullying-bosses-negatively-impact-employee-performance-behaviour-study/articleshow/68343605.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/bullying-bosses-ne...
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Maybe this should really be split up? Managers should be relegated to their stated role - being servants and shit umbrellas, not bosses. And since there is a need for a boss over a team, why not create a second job type, Commissar, whose job is to evaluate performance of the underlings and fire underperformers?
wanderr 8y ago
Where I work, direct reports evaluate their managers and managers can't arbitrarily fire people. As a manager my job is primarily to help engineers grow and clear obstacles for them and provide air cover when they need it. Not all companies view management this way - I've worked at other companies where the role of a manager was to make sure that every ounce of productivity is being squeezed out of engineers, and at places where growth wasn't even a consideration, but there really are places where managers are supporters, and some managers are better at that than others.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Well where I work is the same way, but presumably it's not the same where the person I was replying to works, since he refers to himself as not having a boss (i.e., presumably he is pretty high up the hierarchy). And even though managers can't arbitrarily fire you at big/reputable companies, they certainly have a gigantic amount of influence in performance review discussions.
  - borski 8y ago
    It's not that I'm not their boss; of course I am, pretty much by definition. I'm higher up on the hierarchy (context: I'm a cofounder and CTO) The point I'm trying to make isn't that I'm not their boss, but that by virtue of great employees being hard to find, it's my job to keep them happy and productive. Not just productive, but happy is important too. It costs the company way more to find a new employee than to keep an existing one. As such, provided an employee is doing a good job (which is a requirement in any role), it's my job to ensure they are as productive and happy as possible. That doesn't mean I don't have the hard conversation or fire if they stop working, but it does mean that my role is to be an effective shit-umbrella and keep them happy, inspired, and excited.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      Right, that's the ideal of a good boss, but a boss, nonetheless. I think we agree about more than we disagree about, here. I just think words can be important, and when someone in a position of hierarchical power, no matter how benevolently they wield it, says things like "really, they're MY boss", it might be intended completely harmlessly, but can actually come off as patronizing.
humanrebar 8y ago
> If you are evaluating someone's work and you can fire them, then you are their boss. At least given the current job market, if an engineer isn't evaluating and at least prepared to "fire" her employer, she's probably misunderstanding the employment dynamics. If the compensation, freedom to work, and growth expected aren't there, ask for them. If you don't get good answers and actions to back them up, say, "Thanks! I'll see you around."

suff 8y ago

Another way to put it is building a culture that helps everyone perform better. There are conscious levers that conscious managers can pull to make sure his happen. Have you ever worked in an environment where managers created conflicting goals or perverse incentives? Did that help teamwork, or create frustration? Do frustrated teams perform at their best? How many people have you managed?

umanwizard 8y ago
Everywhere I've worked from McDonald's to tech companies, managers were trying to help everyone perform better (i.e., make more money for the business per hour).
- borski 8y ago
  Ah, you're conflating things here. Bad managers often think making more money for the business per hour is a 'get more work out of the employees per minute' strategy. That doesn't work, due to the off-pay benefits a happy employee provides that a bullied or unhappy one doesn't. Staying a few minutes late to finish up a job, coming on time, not fudging their hours a few minutes here and there, recruiting on your behalf by telling their smart friends about how much they love their job, being willing to come up with new ideas to improve the business, etc. Many bad managers think short term, and are looking to squeeze every ounce of work out of their employees, which leads to burnout, disillusionment, and resentment. My point is it's far more important to make them happy and have them convinced they want to do their best work, not because they fear losing their job, but because they feel inspired, capable, trusted, well-compensated / rewarded, and like they have autonomy. If McDonald's had that, their turnover would be a hell of a lot lower, guaranteed. [edit] Here's an example of what I mean by the unpaid extras I refer to: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/bullying-bosses-negatively-impact-employee-performance-behaviour-study/articleshow/68343605.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/bullying-bosses-ne...

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Maybe this should really be split up? Managers should be relegated to their stated role - being servants and shit umbrellas, not bosses. And since there is a need for a boss over a team, why not create a second job type, Commissar, whose job is to evaluate performance of the underlings and fire underperformers?

wanderr 8y ago

Where I work, direct reports evaluate their managers and managers can't arbitrarily fire people. As a manager my job is primarily to help engineers grow and clear obstacles for them and provide air cover when they need it. Not all companies view management this way - I've worked at other companies where the role of a manager was to make sure that every ounce of productivity is being squeezed out of engineers, and at places where growth wasn't even a consideration, but there really are places where managers are supporters, and some managers are better at that than others.

umanwizard 8y ago
Well where I work is the same way, but presumably it's not the same where the person I was replying to works, since he refers to himself as not having a boss (i.e., presumably he is pretty high up the hierarchy). And even though managers can't arbitrarily fire you at big/reputable companies, they certainly have a gigantic amount of influence in performance review discussions.
- borski 8y ago
  It's not that I'm not their boss; of course I am, pretty much by definition. I'm higher up on the hierarchy (context: I'm a cofounder and CTO) The point I'm trying to make isn't that I'm not their boss, but that by virtue of great employees being hard to find, it's my job to keep them happy and productive. Not just productive, but happy is important too. It costs the company way more to find a new employee than to keep an existing one. As such, provided an employee is doing a good job (which is a requirement in any role), it's my job to ensure they are as productive and happy as possible. That doesn't mean I don't have the hard conversation or fire if they stop working, but it does mean that my role is to be an effective shit-umbrella and keep them happy, inspired, and excited.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    Right, that's the ideal of a good boss, but a boss, nonetheless. I think we agree about more than we disagree about, here. I just think words can be important, and when someone in a position of hierarchical power, no matter how benevolently they wield it, says things like "really, they're MY boss", it might be intended completely harmlessly, but can actually come off as patronizing.

humanrebar 8y ago

> If you are evaluating someone's work and you can fire them, then you are their boss. At least given the current job market, if an engineer isn't evaluating and at least prepared to "fire" her employer, she's probably misunderstanding the employment dynamics. If the compensation, freedom to work, and growth expected aren't there, ask for them. If you don't get good answers and actions to back them up, say, "Thanks! I'll see you around."