4 ms·

That's management's job, yes, but it turns out that managers get overloaded in tasks and some just drop on the floor. 1/3rd of it is providing your boss the in

That's management's job, yes, but it turns out that managers get overloaded in tasks and some just drop on the floor. 1/3rd of it is providing your boss the information he needs to get his job done. (Staffing plans, status reports, distillation of technical issues and tradeoffs, etc.) 1/3rd of it is working with the rest of your team to run the department. (cross-team coordination, escalation, department initiatives, surfacing issues and solving problems.) The last third focuses on the team. Now, depending on the time of year and the composition of each team (new boss, new managers, new team members), the composition of the work can vary, but they each take up some time. Sometimes, things just devolve into status reports and firefighting. If your manager was able to do that work, it means that the entire department was functional. I try to do all of that. Some of it, I have to delegate.

jrochkind1 8y ago
Sounds like a dysfunctional organization where managers routinely do not have the capacity to do their jobs. But yeah, in my experience dysfunctional organizations are definitely the norm. (There's a reason why the great manager left...)
- ebiester 7y ago
  Right, but then what's the right manager:IC ratio? Think of it more as a tradeoff and a design decision. How many managers do you want in an organization? (Assume managers make 5% more than your senior engineers.) Too many and your organization gets top heavy. Now, I think one right solution might be to have non-technical administrative assistants for the department. My organization has three, and we still have work for more. Finally, there's always more work to be done for any organization.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    Well, if there's nobody with the responsibility/authority and sufficient time to do the kind of work we're talking about (and who is evaluated and promoted based on doing it well), it sounds like the tradeoff was not the right one if the goal is producing a good product. Because that work needs to be done, to produce a quality product (whatever you are producing). Over my career, I have increasingly tended to believe that at the majority of organizations the goals decision-makers are acting upon are not in fact about producing a good product, for whatever that product is. That is certainly one explanation. It's not that they are obtuse about what it takes to create a good product, they just have other priorities.

jrochkind1 8y ago

Sounds like a dysfunctional organization where managers routinely do not have the capacity to do their jobs. But yeah, in my experience dysfunctional organizations are definitely the norm. (There's a reason why the great manager left...)

ebiester 7y ago
Right, but then what's the right manager:IC ratio? Think of it more as a tradeoff and a design decision. How many managers do you want in an organization? (Assume managers make 5% more than your senior engineers.) Too many and your organization gets top heavy. Now, I think one right solution might be to have non-technical administrative assistants for the department. My organization has three, and we still have work for more. Finally, there's always more work to be done for any organization.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  Well, if there's nobody with the responsibility/authority and sufficient time to do the kind of work we're talking about (and who is evaluated and promoted based on doing it well), it sounds like the tradeoff was not the right one if the goal is producing a good product. Because that work needs to be done, to produce a quality product (whatever you are producing). Over my career, I have increasingly tended to believe that at the majority of organizations the goals decision-makers are acting upon are not in fact about producing a good product, for whatever that product is. That is certainly one explanation. It's not that they are obtuse about what it takes to create a good product, they just have other priorities.