4 ms·

Really depends on the organization. Middle managers manage managers. They are definitely in meetings, just meetings you're unaware of. My experience dates to

by epc 7y ago

Really depends on the organization. Middle managers manage managers. They are definitely in meetings, just meetings you're unaware of. My experience dates to IBM in the 1990s so is lacking whatever has developed since then. At IBM first and second line managers still had some understanding of the code or product or services being developed/run by their organizations (and I knew first lines who were still active contributors). Once you got to third line, those managers are more focused, almost solely focused on "business" issues and macro operational issues. As you get higher up an organization, the managers could care less about the day to day or even month to month issues faced by their organization. They're focused on will their organization meet or exceed revenue projections? Are you running below or over budget? You've maxed out space in Blue Cube corners and at the rate of growth only need 10,000 square feet next year but they can only rent new space in units of 100,000 square feet. The CEO is demanding 5% cuts across the board, can you do it without firing people? Or is there a particular organization you've been hoping to get rid of anyway that you can terminate en masse? Even higher up at director and VP level they're focused on profit & loss, because that's what they get measured on, maybe secondarily customer satisfaction. Employee satisfaction is mostly irrelevant once you're above a second line organization. Depending on the _jurisdiction_ a manager is in, they may have certain legal responsibilities or authorities that a lower level manager may not have. Even if you're not the CEO, you might have to sign off on certain contracts (especially with governments, governments love to have an executive's signature on things, because they can go after that executive when the $100MM payroll system costs $300MM and still doesn't work).

shubb 7y ago
Thats interesting, it feels like that upper level you mention are more like individual contributors, except optimising very slow responding systems indirectly through policies.
- ci5er 7y ago
  I like that - I think that's about right. Working on the business as a machine, not only to drive the machine (the CEO and his staff), but to optimize the internal architecture of, and to optimize its various inner workings and component-to-component linkages, is a thing. But - it's a machine made out of people. Whom are inherently squishy emotional things to build a well-oiled machine out of...
- epc 7y ago
  Yes. If you’re a middle manager you’re typically getting directives from on–high that you have to implement indirectly by pushing buttons and pulling levers which themselves are pushing buttons or pulling levers. Picture driving some sort of vehicle remotely. There's a slight delay to everything, right? You turn, and the vehicle turns a few seconds later. By the time you see an object on the horizon you’re marginally closer to it. And you know this all so you build in certain factors to change response time. But there's still a lag. And now picture driving the vehicle by telling the remote operator how to react. There's now two levels of lag, and depending on how you communicate, two more chances for mis–communication. It’s why bottom–up communications get to be so bad in large organizations. The classic production line “the product is a piece of shit” transmutes, through absolutely normal and routine communications softening and filtering, into “our product brings things to life through its fertilization qualities.” And conversely, the top–down message gets filtered and manipulated by each layer of management. It’s also why escalation culture becomes a thing in large organizations. IBM (in the 1990s, can't speak for today) had a notorious escalation culture: if I didn't do a thing you wanted me to do, and was in a different organization, you’d “escalate” up to some middle manager or executive somewhere who had enough pull to scare my manager into doing something, regardless of the business value or need. The executive doesn't particularly care, he or she just wants the issue off their pile, and it makes them feel good that they're doing something to help their product area. Every organization is susceptible to this as it grows. It’s human nature.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Totally. I’ve worked with very senior level people in corporations and government. The people at the top who aren’t on the letterhead are simultaneously powerful and powerless. All of their information is 2-5 degrees from the source. They are held accountable for outcomes, and need to be able to navigate through all sorts of stuff. Senior government middle managers are the most fucked. They are either civil service or staff people who moved up the ranks and have extensive expertise in their programs or field or political appointees who know anything from less than nothing to being preeminent in their field. IME, the government people are smarter, but get ground up by the machinery of bureaucracy. Often times you have layer of formal leaders who are in a symbiotic relationship with the next level down who really run things. Sort of like how in many ways sergeants run the army.

by epc 7y ago

shubb 7y ago

Thats interesting, it feels like that upper level you mention are more like individual contributors, except optimising very slow responding systems indirectly through policies.

ci5er 7y ago
I like that - I think that's about right. Working on the business as a machine, not only to drive the machine (the CEO and his staff), but to optimize the internal architecture of, and to optimize its various inner workings and component-to-component linkages, is a thing. But - it's a machine made out of people. Whom are inherently squishy emotional things to build a well-oiled machine out of...
epc 7y ago
Yes. If you’re a middle manager you’re typically getting directives from on–high that you have to implement indirectly by pushing buttons and pulling levers which themselves are pushing buttons or pulling levers. Picture driving some sort of vehicle remotely. There's a slight delay to everything, right? You turn, and the vehicle turns a few seconds later. By the time you see an object on the horizon you’re marginally closer to it. And you know this all so you build in certain factors to change response time. But there's still a lag. And now picture driving the vehicle by telling the remote operator how to react. There's now two levels of lag, and depending on how you communicate, two more chances for mis–communication. It’s why bottom–up communications get to be so bad in large organizations. The classic production line “the product is a piece of shit” transmutes, through absolutely normal and routine communications softening and filtering, into “our product brings things to life through its fertilization qualities.” And conversely, the top–down message gets filtered and manipulated by each layer of management. It’s also why escalation culture becomes a thing in large organizations. IBM (in the 1990s, can't speak for today) had a notorious escalation culture: if I didn't do a thing you wanted me to do, and was in a different organization, you’d “escalate” up to some middle manager or executive somewhere who had enough pull to scare my manager into doing something, regardless of the business value or need. The executive doesn't particularly care, he or she just wants the issue off their pile, and it makes them feel good that they're doing something to help their product area. Every organization is susceptible to this as it grows. It’s human nature.
Spooky23 7y ago
Totally. I’ve worked with very senior level people in corporations and government. The people at the top who aren’t on the letterhead are simultaneously powerful and powerless. All of their information is 2-5 degrees from the source. They are held accountable for outcomes, and need to be able to navigate through all sorts of stuff. Senior government middle managers are the most fucked. They are either civil service or staff people who moved up the ranks and have extensive expertise in their programs or field or political appointees who know anything from less than nothing to being preeminent in their field. IME, the government people are smarter, but get ground up by the machinery of bureaucracy. Often times you have layer of formal leaders who are in a symbiotic relationship with the next level down who really run things. Sort of like how in many ways sergeants run the army.