4 ms·

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 cle

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.
    - borski 8y ago
      I suspect we agree on the concept as well. That’s the thing about colloquialisms; they’re not meant to be taken literally. For example, the phrase “kicked the bucket” does not literally mean a foot had come into contact with a bucket. Similarly, to say that I have 13 bosses does not literally mean that I have 13 people above me in the hierarchy. It is a colloquialism used to describe a feeling and intention, rather than a literal description. Perhaps it would be patronizing to say that without explaining what I meant, but I do explain that, in the same comment. Lastly, in many ways, they do control their own fate - that is, they can choose to leave if they’re unhappy, and be happier elsewhere. In that way, because they are in no way conscripted (at least in the State of California), you could make the argument that they control my actions. That may be a specious argument. I’m not certain. But one perhaps worth exploring.

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.
  - borski 8y ago
    I suspect we agree on the concept as well. That’s the thing about colloquialisms; they’re not meant to be taken literally. For example, the phrase “kicked the bucket” does not literally mean a foot had come into contact with a bucket. Similarly, to say that I have 13 bosses does not literally mean that I have 13 people above me in the hierarchy. It is a colloquialism used to describe a feeling and intention, rather than a literal description. Perhaps it would be patronizing to say that without explaining what I meant, but I do explain that, in the same comment. Lastly, in many ways, they do control their own fate - that is, they can choose to leave if they’re unhappy, and be happier elsewhere. In that way, because they are in no way conscripted (at least in the State of California), you could make the argument that they control my actions. That may be a specious argument. I’m not certain. But one perhaps worth exploring.