15 ms·

I stood up to my boss, then he got promoted

464 points by firefoxd 7y ago

ScottFree 7y ago
> I don't know if there is a lesson here. But if you are bad at your job, it pays to have good connections. The lesson here is that companies are social entities, not technical ones. Relationships matter more than profit. If you're going to play the "game of thrones" as it were, learn the rules first.
- scrumper 7y ago
  Here are the rules: http://ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle http://ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle And they make for uncomfortable reading.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tra3 7y ago
    I'd be remiss if I didn't mention "Developer Hegemony" [0], a book about dealing with this sorts of garbage. Even thought it's forward looking there's a lot of practical advice. Here's a review [1] that does it justice: > It’s not a book about software development, it is a book about the industry of software development and why it is fundamentally different than “traditional” industries. And it is a book that promises an outlook on “the future of labor”, at least for us developers... It’s about finding your way in an industry that is in very high demand and mostly consists of players that play by the rules of an entirely different game: industrial manufacturing. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35051753-developer-hegemony https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35051753-developer-hegem... [1] https://schneide.blog/2019/10/14/book-review-developer-hegemony/ https://schneide.blog/2019/10/14/book-review-developer-hegem...
  - fg6hr 7y ago
    That's an interesting read. However what it describes looks like a very shallow version of lam-rim chen-mo, volumes 4-5, that explain the concept of emptiness and the danger of falling into nihilism. Edit: the tricks like "powertalk" and "information poker" are interesting, but rephrasing the book, manipulating people is not a game worth getting good at.
    - scrumper 7y ago
      I found that the article (I haven't read the book) makes a reasonable defense of "loserdom" - it's not a bad life if you seek meaning external to work and it certainly offers a more fulfilling existence than that of the deluded clueless.
- bsder 7y ago
  > If you're going to play the "game of thrones" as it were, learn the rules first. Agreed. Or decide to not play. And just leave to a different job. One thing though that I see far too commonly is that engineers think that people in power "don't know or care" as opposed to "don't want to know or care" or "know damn well and want it this way". People in power may not be geniuses, but they likely aren't incompetent either. They probably have a fairly solid level of political skill or they wouldn't have gotten to that level. Start from the assumption that things are shitty for a reason or you are going to miss something important.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    Start from the assumption that things are shitty for a reason Problematic when the shit is something safety-critical, a large chemical plant, the 737-MAX, even a banking app with vulnerabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_injury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_injury
    - bsder 7y ago
      I'm glad you cited the 737-MAX, because that's a PRIME example of "things are shitty for a reason." If you tried to move the system and it conflicted with "we will not recertify this plane under any circumstances" you were DOOMED. At that point, you have to leave or become a whistleblower as you are fighting legions of managers united around a common purpose.
    - kaitai 7y ago
      To me, starting with the assumption that things are shitty for a reason doesn't mean "start with the assumption that it is ok that things are shitty", but instead, "start with the assumption that the 737-max is shitty because letting it be so is serving someone's interest". Indeed, if someone with technical and political savvy and the talent to think ahead had figured out what interests in Boeing were prioritizing shittiness over safety, that someone might have been able to intervene effectively. If the engineers or statisticians at the FAA who wrote the buried report [1] had had the political savvy to understand why management was burying it and understood how to escalate it, they might have been able to get it out before the second plane crashed. There is often a (political or human) reason why things are shitty, and if you can understand and game that, you can be more effective in changing the shitty stuff. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/internal-faa-review-saw-high-risk-of-737-max-crashes-11576069202 https://www.wsj.com/articles/internal-faa-review-saw-high-ri...
codingdave 7y ago
The lesson is that going over your bosses head and complaining higher up the chain is not seen as initiative. It is seen as a communication failure. If your boss is bad at their job, you are still supposed to be able to communicate with them, work with them, and get problems resolved. If you hold back from talking to your boss, build up grudges, then launch them uphill.... even if your facts are correct, you have just become a problem. On the other hand, if you had been having ongoing discussions with your boss so everything was out on the table, and just weren't getting anywhere with your boss, then you could mutually escalate it in a productive way, working together to request some higher-level assistance. Working well with people is often more important than being right. Because a group of people who work well together will work mutually find the correct answers, using everyone's strengths, and helping each other grow in the process.
- bsder 7y ago
  > On the other hand, if you had been having ongoing discussions with your boss so everything was out on the table, and just weren't getting anywhere with your boss, then you could mutually escalate it in a productive way, working together to request some higher-level assistance. Your optimism is refreshing. Escalation is basically a waste of time. At that point, you need to have your ejection position set up anyhow, so you might as well just leave and have all the offending idiots still think you're a "great dude" who just moved on. If you have an effective external social relationship higher in the power structure, then you're better off just getting the offending manager removed behind the scenes.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  This is ignoring the obvious power imbalance, because your boss can fire you. I completely agree that you should try to communicate openly whenever possible, but let's not pretend like it's a level playing field. Of course, if the situation is so bad you can't talk openly with your boss, I'm not sure how much you're really losing by being fired (assuming you are able to find employment elsewhere, as is often the case for engineers today).
  - professorTuring 7y ago
kcorbitt 7y ago
Once a company gets past ~20 employees the CEO can't evaluate employee competence directly and has to rely on proxies. In sufficiently large companies, gaming these proxies gets you promoted faster than doing great work. This is one reason big incumbents eventually fail.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  I propose required anonymous 3 month evaluations from all team members to be evaluated by a department that is unbiased. Maybe even a computing system that raises alarms when a score falls too low to prevent corruption. You gotta balance this right with more checks and balances though as you don't want employees overpowering management either. It's a complicated thing. Some managers have
professorTuring 7y ago
I read it all. Mistakes were made due to inexperience. Lessons should have been learnt. Wiser should he be by now. Being aware of enterprise politics and learning how to play them will give you the opportunity to really impact the business. Never be the guy who says: 1. "nobody does this in the enterprise" 2. "we are doing all of this wrong" 3. "we need to start from the beginning" 4. "my manager is wrong" Whispers and grabbing coffees with people are much better weapons than being the one that always brings the harsh truth into the meetings. Beware: pointing fingers to a colleague or your manager to upper management is telling them that they are not making their job good enough, they are not noticing things, and since they tend not to fail and to notice everything, the failure must be you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- celticmusic 7y ago
  At some point you have to decide if the business deserves your effort, and if it were me I would've decided no and walked away long before this guy did. to put it more succinctly: There are a lot of business I can help be successful, fuck spending my time doing it for this sort of culture.
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > There are a lot of business I can help be successful, fuck spending my time doing it for this sort of culture. That's a reasonable attitude to have. Broadly, it's much easier to get promoted by joining another company anyhow. However. The higher up in the power structure you get the less able you will be to avoid politics if you want to be effective in your role. This is true, even in technical leadership.
    - jacobr 7y ago
      And with just a tiny bit of effort in corporate politics your technical (or whatever you aim for) impact can become so much larger.
alexfromapex 7y ago
All talent should leave these types of companies. Can’t be the VP of anything if everyone gets tired of your shit, leaves, and the company fails.
jakon89 7y ago
It's common to promote someone to just get rid of that person :) Sometimes promoting is just easier that firing.
- aliswe 7y ago
  Failing upwards, as someone here said
oarabbus_ 7y ago
Reinforces the idea that managers fail up; engineers fail down.
- anon73044 7y ago
  "Promoted to their level of incompetence" is a phrase I've heard before to describe this phenomenon.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    There is a whole book.
    - cpeterso 7y ago
      The book is The Peter Principle: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." This leads to Peter's Corollary: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties." The Wikipedia article is a pretty thorough summary of the book: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
  - oarabbus_ 7y ago
    That's a good one too - but the fact that managers are promoted to their level of incompetence, while engineers are DEMOTED to their level of incompetence... it makes it quite hard to justify staying on the technical track for all but the most talented of engineers (which 98% of engineers are not)
psweber 7y ago
I've been this person a few times, so I sympathize while seeing all the mistakes they made. Some people have no problem with office politics. Some people don't notice or seem unaffected by it. I have a hero complex (or a sense of ethics if you want to be generous), and I can't be a full time employee anymore. Freelance work helps me keep boundaries in my work.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  I'm having this problem too. It's hard for me to stay silent. I tell my friends about the things I do or say and they tell me that I'm just giving away all my intentions and political moves. I don't manipulate people and I'm told I'm extremely straightforward. I'm not a hero though but when politics affects me like it always inevitably does, I don't play the game, I'm emotionally unable to.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    Be ready to move at all times, then.
  - goodcanadian 7y ago
    Refusing to play politics is also a political strategy. It won't work in every situation. Sometimes, being blunt will work out very badly, but sometimes your candor will be respected and your opinion will be sought out because of it. Refusing to play the game can put you in a position above the fray. You won't be promoted to management, but if that is not your goal, it may not matter.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      This is true. I've been in this type of situation before but I always attributed to luck rather then a political strategy. I'm thinking a combination of bluntness and deception is the best middle ground.
- jdance 7y ago
  Well, our values and norms say that being an employee, that some 40 of our hours per week are owned by another person, is good and normal. Freedom has very little value it seems. I'm like you and I just love to be free. I do whatever I want to do! And I love it, I love my life. With the perspective of freedom, signing over 40 hours a week to some random guy seems like a totally completely ludicrous thought. I would literally rather live in a tent eating only noodles, but luckily everything seems to work out anyway :) If you have this experience of "not being egocentric enough" a lot -- which I have had -- you might like to check out the developmental model called Spiral Dynamics, it put things into place for me.
Vysero 7y ago
The lesson is: Next time your favorite manager and tech lead quit the company, ask them why.
- tra3 7y ago
  No kidding, after reading about all the antics, I forgot how the story started. That should've been a huge red flag.
  - woadwarrior01 7y ago
    This has always been a rule that I’ve followed throughout my working career. Whenever someone leaves or is fired, invite them for a coffee or a drink and listen to their side of the story. There’s this Latin legal maxim that I learnt from my mum when I was a child, and have always remembered ever since: “Audi alteram partem”[1] which roughly translates to the same. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_alteram_partem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_alteram_partem
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- draw_down 7y ago
  It’s like, the frogs are boiling, but they’re too busy burnishing their case with evidence that the water is indeed boiling, instead of jumping out.
fred_is_fred 7y ago
This is a tough lesson for engineers to learn, but whether you are right or not doesn't even really matter, it's the relationships and how you present it. I cringed when I ready about going over your manager's head in front of all the other managers. Life at work is not a code review where everyone is equal and you get to +1 and -1 everyone's ideas.
- loopz 7y ago
  Should be a minor problem, unless the leaders are psychopaths, which they obviously were in the story so worthless of any effort.
  - fred_is_fred 7y ago
    If you have to take every problem to a VP or council of managers that means that you are ineffective and unable to sway anyone with your ideas. If the site is truly down like he said and his manager won't fix it, he should let his manager take the fall after raising it. Nobody thanks the messenger in a situation like this.
    - loopz 7y ago
      Most problem and change requests should not require manager involvement at all. In practice though, an org tend to optimize for top-brass to micromanage more and more (see: Scrum and "Agile"). You will be told to solve the issues, while higher-ups make all the shots, unwittingly causing some long-term trouble. If you correctly identify gaps and skillfully tell the right managers, they will be very glad for you pointing out risks and suggestions. Just don't expect too much at once and play the long-term game.
  - hollandheese 7y ago
    I'd bet most leaders in large corporations are psychopaths.
- matwood 7y ago
  > This is a tough lesson for engineers to learn, but whether you are right or not doesn't even really matter, it's the relationships and how you present it. Relationships are everything. How you tell someone they are wrong is important. You can shear a sheep over and over, but only skin it once. If you're going to skin someone, understand you're also ending a relationship. Every person is different. At an old job everyone in the office thought a coworker and I hated each other. They would hear the fights coming out of our office while we fought for our ideas around a whiteboard. The reality is that we were great friends and still talk 15 years later. But, we knew each other and how to interact with each other. The people I work with now are different types of people, and would not respond that sort of interaction. Finally, many decisions are not right/wrong or black/white. In fact any of number of solutions could typically work. If someone else is really passionate about their idea, then let them run with it. Either it works - great! Or it doesn't work and we loop back around to a different idea.
choppaface 7y ago
This might not be helpful, but it appears the OP struggled for so long because they were too attached to the project or an unrealistic expectation of growth. It’s critical to get feedback about your choices and to second-guess your attachment, if only to have that evidence or perspective available to you. Without it, it’s highly likely unexpected events carry greater personal risk, like a re-org causing a lot of distress or even happening unexpectedly at all. How aligned are you with the business leaders? It’s worth trying to meet people outside the team on a quarterly basis. The other sad result here is that the OP chose to fight leveraging a rational argument versus the buy-in of others. It’s easy to call the other side stupid, but the reality is you have to convince them of your perspective and not necessarily that your argument is right. To make matters worse, corporate structure is fundamentally opposed to threats from below. You can have green hair and get fired because they only want people with purple hair. Stories like these suggest (at least to me) that engineers need to work a bit more to reshape the industry into a gig economy. That means being more open to changing jobs, supporting portable and open technologies, and also establishing a more transparent hiring process. There’s a huge gap between supply and demand for engineers. That gap will be around for a while. Leveraging that gap should provide a path for preventing stories like these.
- choppaface 7y ago
  To the downvoters: would love to hear stories similar to that of the OP. I personally have never seen somebody in that situation win without major buy-in, especially from managers or C-levels. But wouldn’t mind being shown wrong.
ggm 7y ago
As somebody who was probably promoted up to or above his Peter Principle skills, I sympathize. This isn't how maximally efficient places should work. But having said that, maximally efficient places are heading to being truly horrible. Taylor time-and-motion and 'sack till it works' is not condusive to good longterm outcome. It works for something like D Day right up until you exhaust the pool of new officers. Then you have to go back and try and instill some motivation in the ones you sidelined hunting for perfection.
lmilcin 7y ago
This is completely typical story. I worked at a bunch of companies and had a chance observing this over and over again. The truth is that life is not fair. You and your manager were playing a different game. While you were spending your time and resources trying to do good for your company and to get better at doing that, your manager was spending time scheming in his own interest and also getting better at it. He beat you with experience. You were spending your time in Jira and IDE while he was building up his own image, perfecting ways to shift blame and building connections. And you know what? It is fine. Just ask yourself, "would I want to be that person?"
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  My answer is no. I have a deep lack of respect and huge hatred for these types of ass holes. If I became this type of person I would hate myself. However, you are right in the fact that many people are like this exist and life is not fair. My hatred is just a personal preference. I can see a lot of people answering your question with a yes... which says a lot about people in general. Most people are ass holes and that's life.
  - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
    > Most people are ass holes and that's life Whilst I tend to agree with this "between the lines" as it were, it's not an attitude I can healthily recommend. Re-shape it to "most people are trying to get ahead and that's life" is a much more helpful way of looking at various situations, and makes human behavior much easier to understand and predict. You may also find that it reflects back on you some.
- Jallal 7y ago
  It's fine as long you know the game you're playing. And this is the big issue : no one learn has told you, neither taught you how to play it. But some people were. Those are fine. For the others (me included) we had to figure out on our own. Learn that we played the game the wrong way, or find another place. It took time, and a lot of investment and efforts are wasted in the process. And some people never learn. Meanwhile, those people stole undeserved credit. And if you ask them, they will tell you its thanks to their leadership and all that bullshit. Actually, the most important thing you said is that : life is not fair. 100% fully agree.
refurb 7y ago
A few years back I got a new manager and this was her first people manager role. She was awful. Micromanaged about useless things, bother you at odd hours for not very important topics. Her whole team would usually just sit around and say “I can’t believe how bad she is.” I got a feedback request from her boss, so I listed 3 things she could do better. Pretty sure her boss wouldn’t follow up. Had my 1-on-1 with her and she asked “Any feedback?”. I thought for a second, then just went “what the hell, let’s do it”, and spent the next 10 minutes telling her all the things she does wrong. She was incredibly thankful for the feedback as no one else was willing to give her direct feedback. She didn’t change overnight, but we had an absolutely great relationship after that. If I didn’t like something she did, I told her right away. I even blew up at her about a year later because she kept cutting me off on a big presentation. She apologized and it never happened again. It was a gamble, but it paid off.
- duxup 7y ago
  Ages ago I was a crappy manager at a crappy job and honestly too young to manage myself even. It was one of those places where managers saw themselves as little hall monitors or police looking at what people had on their desk and I'm ashamed to say I played along. So one day I'm talking to this guy who was fed up and labeled a problem and he says something like: "Does any of this even matter, do we do a better job because of it or do any of us get paid more?" Everyone complained bickered about the rules, but nobody has said it like that...I didn't have an answer. I suddenly realized, yeah this is all just pointless aggravation for everyone. So I quit enforcing dumb rules and we all had a better time... the managers above me talked about these rules and sent out all sorts of emails and directives to enforce them, and somehow me not doing it wasn't even noticed. The place didn't get any better, but at least if you were on my team you didn't get hassled about stupid things.
  - option_greek 7y ago
    It's like tragedy of commons for management. The manager gets nothing by enforcing corporate rules on his team. But not enforcing them usually doesn't cost them anything while improving team morale, good will and in most cases retention, productivity. I see many managers strictly follow up on logging leaves or restricting work from homes or enforcing release deadlines as if it personally costs them something while usually enforcement is just discretionary. The managers who have figured this out usually have happier teams.
ljm 7y ago
> While she was a great lead, we saved the managerial position for someone who was more suited for the job. Someone who could talk engineer and business all at the same time. Someone who has been groomed for the job. I'm struggling with this, and I've struggled with it before. What I think you're saying is that you have an ideal candidate, but they're not enough so you need to pull in the perfect one from the outside. You don't want to invest in them instead, which would be cheaper. "Someone who has been groomed for the job." Why not train/groom them yourself? You already have the talent and the potential. That £10k signup bonus could pay for a whole course of training to get a loyal and well educated leader who already knows the business intimately. It's a problem in its own making because a business fails to appreciate the talent it already has. Which is the same reason why so many people leave for new jobs, because their talent isn't recognised. Best way to get some acknowledgment is to get a fresh job offer 50+% above what you currently get with wild enthusiasm to get you on board.
- fredophile 7y ago
  My impression was that there were two open positions, one for a lead and one for a manager. The team wanted to promote someone from within to be lead and look for a new manager because they didn't have a good candidate to promote from within. The company moved a new manager in from another part of the company and this manager brought in their choice for lead, displacing the person that was favored by the team.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mdip 7y ago
Whew, I've seen this one first- and second-hand a few times. I worked for a global multi-national for around 17 years, through a few acquisitions, and through a 6-9 month lay-off cadence that often came with overall restructuring and rotating/changing managers. I remember one individual, in particular, we'll call him "Bob". This guy's ignorance was rivaled only by his arrogance. Bob ended up taking over the team that myself and a coworker (who I shared an office with) and almost immediately started causing grief. A series of boneheaded, and very expensive decisions were made which effectively eliminated the department at the next lay-off cycle. Somehow the Bob not only survives another set of layoffs, he gets promoted and is now in my direct reporting chain. Almost immediately, any interdepartmental communication was forbidden (and I'm talking "Database Admins" not being allowed to e-mail "Unix sysadmins"), and similarly, much of his department started crumbling. I got out quick and my coworker, Greg (not really), entered a new level of hell. Though my department changed, my location didn't, and I still worked with Greg 75% of the time. Greg felt his wrath, daily and I got a bit of it "by splash". Then Greg saw an opportunity -- he was asked to discuss a project with the CIO, our department Director and VP. Greg didn't hesitate to bring up Bob[0]. It went over like a lead baloon; holy cow, the whole mood in the room changed. Something we hadn't known -- Bob hung out with a lot of folks in the office outside of work. He worked at the main office, which was much larger and in a different time zone than us and our Director. The VP in the room was also from the main office. Shortly after the meeting, he was informed by his boss that she had spent the last hour "begging for them to not fire [coworker]". Yep. They were all friends. Well, my story has a bit of an uglier ending, but not one that isn't deserved. The struggling company was purchased by a competitor and the CIO was replaced. Several layers were added above Bob. The new headquarters was in a city far enough away that they had their own networks, isolated from the old guard. Incredibly, Bob started making in-roads well before the acquisition was complete and had already begun trying to sully the reputations of people he considered "enemies". One of those people was Greg. Now, Greg had a few people who didn't like him. He was very cut-and-dry, blunt, but he was an "attack the idea, not the person" kind of guy and if you understood that, you got along well with him. He was/is crazy smart, articulate and has a personality of the kind that you want to get behind because you know he's going to be doing something great. And he'd slept at the new office the entirety of the previous week making sure that the infrastructure side of things went off without a hitch. We're in a 9-person meeting "war-room" for the acquisition, and the CIO walks in -- I throw him a (sadly, over-prepared question) about REST and our (non-existent) service infrastructure and he mentioned something about Clojure. My coworker is introduced[1] him and he said "So, what's the deal with Bob? ...". He attacked the person. And went on for 15 minutes, deadpan, facts-only, listing every failure and its inevitable origin: a decision Bob forced down the department's throat. I watched the new CIO get more and more disgusted -- he was a rare beast -- a C-level at a multi-national who understood systems and didn't have a skillset that was a decade out-of-date[2]. The CIO politely excused himself from the room, which was completely silent at this point save for my coworker and remained that way for a solid minute after the guy left the room[3]. Greg had gotten a little loud. Then we remembered that we were there to watch him address the IT department on the big screen in the room[4]. Someone in tech announced that things would be getting started about 5 minutes late. They started 15-minutes late. Shortly after introducing himself, the CIO apologized and said he had to take care of a "personnel issue" that required a little more time than he had expected. The door opened and our (new) department VP walked in, "[CIO] just got off the phone with HR and Bob. He was informed his services are no longer needed." Greg was on his feet and the room erupted. For literally months after that happened, people from the "old company" would call Greg (remote office) to thank him. What was amazing to me was that literally everyone except for 3 people in IT management and leadership knew this guy was at fault and yet he continued to increase in his ability to cause problems. It turned out that the prior week had been spent by the new CIO trying to wrap his head around the boneheaded architectural decisions he was inheriting. All of these decisions had one name behind them and that guy had been with the company for 10 years! [0] I don't recommend it. This guy, though, had stones and if given the opportunity to address the issue with someone higher on the chain, it trumped any fears of him losing the job. "If they're not going to trust me to tell the truth when it's hard to hear, they're not someone I can morally work for." He had brought it up to every single person from above him up to the CIO, why not the CIO? [1] That's an understatement. He was one of the major reasons infrastructure integration happened at all. The CIO looked at him like he was some mad genius. [2] I recognized the same on the development side when his Clojure response, despite not being a choice I would have made (unfamiliarity), was backed up with an argument that wasn't marketing or otherwise buzz-wordy. [3] Someone started with a "So......" at some point, I'm sure. [4] The company had a studio -- really cool -- and complete stage/audience room. We could have gone, and some did, but we were "war rooming" for the past week and a few of us weren't sure if it was just the left-overs from lunch that had stunk up the place.
epx 7y ago
The only thing you can do to hurt a bad manager is to quit, depriving him of your good services. Eventually he will be sacked, but not before you.
bitL 7y ago
Everybody in non-tech companies should realize they are viewed as stupid ants doing all the work while another class rules them with different governance they have no chance to penetrate. The main issue of our industry is that it is now transforming from tech-friendly into the "same old" approach of other industries, including all FAANGs. There is no space for apolitical geniuses any longer.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Not at big companies. But there are lots of smaller ones.
larkin221 7y ago
Deval Patrick Inspired Obama and Obama Inspired the Nation
pointyfence 7y ago
In preparation for their first lousy boss (I hope that I'm not it), I advise my less experienced reports to first think hard on what's important to them about their job before acting. Since the organization might not be working from their view of what's fair or rational, they should plan around some best and worst case scenarios of acting on that belief. For instance, if working at that company in a particular position is the most important thing to you, then standing up to your bosses is a bad tactic. They could clip your wings or worse. Or if the pay is the most important thing to you but you can get that pay somewhere else, then you should probably leave on good terms for another job. I've seen a lot of people put themselves through unnecessary drama because they just reacted. In my case, I find bad bosses to be intellectually and emotionally offensive. So, I will work the system to either see if they can be better or manage them out. This is a terrible way to manage your career if you care about job security. But I plan accordingly. I had to build up my savings, create a strong internal network of people across departments with similar values, deliver business results to build credibility with more senior managers and execs, etc. And most importantly, recognize that I could lose and be ok with it. There are some real downsides, but it works for who I am. I know folks here are beating up the author for being naive or whatever, but I respect people who put skin in the game for what they believe is right, trying to build a better environment, and helping people that they care about.
blisterpeanuts 7y ago
This blog was painful to read because it hits home on several points. I've been in the working world since the mid-1980s and have seen this type of scenario several times. It's unfortunate, it's frustrating, but there's usually nothing you can do about incompetent management except simply to leave. Fortunately, technology is a good profession and there are always choices. I've learned over the years not to fight City Hall; if you have no power, you're just a faint buzzing in their ears. Those who are busy sucking all the money out of an organization aren't going to just stop because of a lecture from a technical lead. Your first duty is to take care of yourself and your family. That may mean removing yourself from a toxic environment and starting over elsewhere, possibly for a cut in pay or seniority, but over the long haul you'll likely be emotionally and professionally better off.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  The only way to get a serious promotion in this field is to change companies. Start over elsewhere with a boost in pay and seniority, when the getting's good. The company has absolutely no loyalty to you, so you owe it none. But individuals do deserve loyalty. Try not to lose touch.
athiercelin 7y ago
Nothing gets fixed if you don't say anything, but the odds are always supporting the fact that this bozo was placed by another top bozo. The leaders who appreciate this, will go the extra mile to develop trust and/or open door with ICs but if you aren't 100% sure you have this, it means you don't. Bozos excel at social aerodynamism and those who start to like them are to be worried about just as much. Bozos can even end up on boards, VCs or public figures. Never assume there are rules, never assume someone is addressing the obvious problem. In the end, if you sniff a bozo, pack up and go. That's your only move. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/01/31/why-every-company-needs-a-no-bozo-policy/#26d2e84e11d3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/01/31/why-ever...
je42 7y ago
I like the inverted pyramid. ;) While not perfect, it is pretty good at exposing unproductive people.
peglasaurus 7y ago
I'd be someone who would have responded to the first HN comment about his workplace as "its a toxic environment, pack your parachute and get out." I think life is too short to waste it sharing with toxic people. You are just withholding it from the good people. Tolerating political nonsense is a particular kind of fun or challenge for awhile but its really just an opportunity cost in the long term. Be clear about what you see as the benefit when doing so. This doesn't mean you run from adversity but it does mean you evaluate adversity knowing that it still needs an actual benefit that exceeds its very real cost.
privateSFacct 7y ago
A bit of a different angle on this. A companies may value folks in non-management roles who: * Do what they are asked to * Don't cause problems * Solve their own problems * Make the boss look good? Note that being right on technical matters may not be on this list! Sometimes the hero's would be great managers - but if they are not manager's, all that good energy may be wasted or a negative from a companies view. I've had this (unfortunate) experience and learned from it! I really did have the capacity to do all this great stuff. But not in that position. Some quick suggestions. * Provide feedback if asked, but get on with things if its not adopted (don't make business personal if you can help it) * Make some of your own suggestions in areas the boss isn't addressing. That can look a lot like good initiative. * If you have options take them, don't hang around too long! * If you don't have good options outside of your current position - check to see if you are overestimating your skill etc. * Ask yourself - will my pattern of behavior, ignoring the specific technical details, result in others (managers / co-workers) interested in working for me? * If you want to fight the product fights / set direction - become a manager! You generally can do this by a) getting some cert / education somewhere AND b) switching jobs OR telling your boss you'd like to become a manager and get them to describe the pathway needed - then check if the timeline they share + 1 year is reasonable. If you become a manager make sure you can efficiently write memos and can write reasonably well. If that doesn't work and you are really great - start consulting or start your own shop.
BLKNSLVR 7y ago
I stayed too long in a job at a company that was turning / had turned toxic. It takes that experience to be able to not only recognize it in the future, but also know to act on it before it goes too far. The combination of these two statements in the post give me the "chills of recognition" of a bad situation: > In a company of a thousand, everyone knew me by name. I've created dozens of tools that are still used in the company to this day. > I was assuming a position of leadership, I was very popular, yet I had no power. If this is you, you need to evaluate your situation coldly and logically. Why do you have no power? You're either delusional about your level of influence and utility within the company, or the company is a boys club (I believe the term 'lifestyle company' was used to describe a previous place of employment of mine) and you're not a member. And fundamentally, do your "network of influence" research before you tattle on ANYONE. That's a primary school lesson.
deedubaya 7y ago
Going over your boss’s head won’t end well because of misaligned incentives. Your boss’s boss is responsible for the boss. Responsible for any failures and any successes. Acting on a failure you reported would be a black mark on their report card. That’s not gonna happen. Few managers care about doing the right thing — that’s why they’re in politics... ahem....management.
yibg 7y ago
I've been in a similar situation. Very well liked and popular at the company, including with the founders. Often gets praised in public and is the go to person from many employees when they want advice or just to gripe. Saw somethings at the company that I thought weren't good, and most of the employees complained about to me as well. I thought I had some influence with the powers that be, and so did many of the other folks (e.g. I was encouraged to speak up because I had influence). So I did, quietly and privately at first, and a little louder as time went on. Everything I did was completely ineffective. I learned that public praise and apparent influence is very superficial, and evaporates when it comes to anything deep rooted.
newshorts 7y ago
This story is why you need to spend your f*s carefully. The author care way too much about his day job. If he’s that passionate he needs to start his own company.
james1071 7y ago
I read this story and found it interesting to notice how the author seemed not to have any perspective other than his own. He seemed to regard himself as central to the company, when in reality he was just one of many employees, who had been hired to do a job. Those hiring him seemed to be interested in the sale of the company and securing their own positions, which they appear to have managed well, by running a sham department, that they could present as being a success.
- haihaibye 7y ago
  The author is suffering from "Bridge over the river Kwai" syndrome - being wholly concerned about technical implementation while ignoring larger strategic concerns.
madshiva 7y ago
Or you could in my situation. We are understaffed, three people already have leave, and they still don't engage any body. Network is so a easy job that switch can run without any job, no maintenance is required... I hope he go fired because of the lack of any competence, no management skill, no technical skills, only blablabla and he will be promoted too. This is a sad world where we live.
jamisteven 7y ago
Kind of interested in knowing if this was his first job, as there were many, many mistakes made here. This is simply a case of him not understanding his role. Went over bosses head without knowing anything about the relationship between said boss and upper management. Didnt inquire as to why a boss who "burned a team to the ground" in previous position was promoted to his team to begin with. Kept trying to come back to the company for social gatherings even after leaving. Am not sure what the story is here, but I hope he learned some lessons, plural.
duelingjello 7y ago
About 2006, I stood up to my boss trying to cajole me into weakening a credit card processing private network at a big name university. And then I was fired for refusing to do it immediately when all I asked for was to slow down and review the changes. Narcissists throw tantrums if they don't always get their way because they hate not being in complete control. sigh
jrochkind1 7y ago
> Other departments rose, the company changed its business model and was bought for 1.1 billion dollars by a private firm.... > They were not fired. They were promoted. The manager is now the Vice President. The lead now leads in the most profitable department. The old VP is now Chief Product Officer.... > But if you are bad at your job, it pays to have good connections. Were they bad at their jobs? Maybe their job wasn't actually doing good work. It was getting the company purchased for 1.1 billion dollars. Not the company I want to work at either where that's your job, but it's apparently a lot of the world. Once I understood this, it made a lot of organizational behavior make more sense to me. It didn't make me like it. But most organizations aren't actually oriented around doing quality work (of any kind of work, internal or external). That is not the job anyone is actually set up to do or incentivized to do. And I'm not totally sure they'd succeed as organizations if they were, that's not the way the world is set up, apparently. Yes, I am having some cynicism problems.
piterdevries 7y ago
Classic millennial drama. You should care about 2 things: improving your skills (especially the transferable ones) and increasing your pay. If your current workplace doesn't satisfy any of those just move on. Who cares about politics? Did you really think this white knight attitude would do any good?
phibz 7y ago
Ah the follies of ignoring and not having social capital

464 points by firefoxd 7y ago

> I don't know if there is a lesson here. But if you are bad at your job, it pays to have good connections. The lesson here is that companies are social entities, not technical ones. Relationships matter more than profit. If you're going to play the "game of thrones" as it were, learn the rules first.

scrumper 7y ago
Here are the rules: http://ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle http://ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle And they make for uncomfortable reading.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tra3 7y ago
  I'd be remiss if I didn't mention "Developer Hegemony" [0], a book about dealing with this sorts of garbage. Even thought it's forward looking there's a lot of practical advice. Here's a review [1] that does it justice: > It’s not a book about software development, it is a book about the industry of software development and why it is fundamentally different than “traditional” industries. And it is a book that promises an outlook on “the future of labor”, at least for us developers... It’s about finding your way in an industry that is in very high demand and mostly consists of players that play by the rules of an entirely different game: industrial manufacturing. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35051753-developer-hegemony https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35051753-developer-hegem... [1] https://schneide.blog/2019/10/14/book-review-developer-hegemony/ https://schneide.blog/2019/10/14/book-review-developer-hegem...
- fg6hr 7y ago
  That's an interesting read. However what it describes looks like a very shallow version of lam-rim chen-mo, volumes 4-5, that explain the concept of emptiness and the danger of falling into nihilism. Edit: the tricks like "powertalk" and "information poker" are interesting, but rephrasing the book, manipulating people is not a game worth getting good at.
  - scrumper 7y ago
    I found that the article (I haven't read the book) makes a reasonable defense of "loserdom" - it's not a bad life if you seek meaning external to work and it certainly offers a more fulfilling existence than that of the deluded clueless.
bsder 7y ago
> If you're going to play the "game of thrones" as it were, learn the rules first. Agreed. Or decide to not play. And just leave to a different job. One thing though that I see far too commonly is that engineers think that people in power "don't know or care" as opposed to "don't want to know or care" or "know damn well and want it this way". People in power may not be geniuses, but they likely aren't incompetent either. They probably have a fairly solid level of political skill or they wouldn't have gotten to that level. Start from the assumption that things are shitty for a reason or you are going to miss something important.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  Start from the assumption that things are shitty for a reason Problematic when the shit is something safety-critical, a large chemical plant, the 737-MAX, even a banking app with vulnerabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_injury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_injury
  - bsder 7y ago
    I'm glad you cited the 737-MAX, because that's a PRIME example of "things are shitty for a reason." If you tried to move the system and it conflicted with "we will not recertify this plane under any circumstances" you were DOOMED. At that point, you have to leave or become a whistleblower as you are fighting legions of managers united around a common purpose.
  - kaitai 7y ago
    To me, starting with the assumption that things are shitty for a reason doesn't mean "start with the assumption that it is ok that things are shitty", but instead, "start with the assumption that the 737-max is shitty because letting it be so is serving someone's interest". Indeed, if someone with technical and political savvy and the talent to think ahead had figured out what interests in Boeing were prioritizing shittiness over safety, that someone might have been able to intervene effectively. If the engineers or statisticians at the FAA who wrote the buried report [1] had had the political savvy to understand why management was burying it and understood how to escalate it, they might have been able to get it out before the second plane crashed. There is often a (political or human) reason why things are shitty, and if you can understand and game that, you can be more effective in changing the shitty stuff. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/internal-faa-review-saw-high-risk-of-737-max-crashes-11576069202 https://www.wsj.com/articles/internal-faa-review-saw-high-ri...

codingdave 7y ago

The lesson is that going over your bosses head and complaining higher up the chain is not seen as initiative. It is seen as a communication failure. If your boss is bad at their job, you are still supposed to be able to communicate with them, work with them, and get problems resolved. If you hold back from talking to your boss, build up grudges, then launch them uphill.... even if your facts are correct, you have just become a problem. On the other hand, if you had been having ongoing discussions with your boss so everything was out on the table, and just weren't getting anywhere with your boss, then you could mutually escalate it in a productive way, working together to request some higher-level assistance. Working well with people is often more important than being right. Because a group of people who work well together will work mutually find the correct answers, using everyone's strengths, and helping each other grow in the process.

bsder 7y ago
> On the other hand, if you had been having ongoing discussions with your boss so everything was out on the table, and just weren't getting anywhere with your boss, then you could mutually escalate it in a productive way, working together to request some higher-level assistance. Your optimism is refreshing. Escalation is basically a waste of time. At that point, you need to have your ejection position set up anyhow, so you might as well just leave and have all the offending idiots still think you're a "great dude" who just moved on. If you have an effective external social relationship higher in the power structure, then you're better off just getting the offending manager removed behind the scenes.
OnlineGladiator 7y ago
This is ignoring the obvious power imbalance, because your boss can fire you. I completely agree that you should try to communicate openly whenever possible, but let's not pretend like it's a level playing field. Of course, if the situation is so bad you can't talk openly with your boss, I'm not sure how much you're really losing by being fired (assuming you are able to find employment elsewhere, as is often the case for engineers today).
- professorTuring 7y ago

kcorbitt 7y ago

Once a company gets past ~20 employees the CEO can't evaluate employee competence directly and has to rely on proxies. In sufficiently large companies, gaming these proxies gets you promoted faster than doing great work. This is one reason big incumbents eventually fail.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
I propose required anonymous 3 month evaluations from all team members to be evaluated by a department that is unbiased. Maybe even a computing system that raises alarms when a score falls too low to prevent corruption. You gotta balance this right with more checks and balances though as you don't want employees overpowering management either. It's a complicated thing. Some managers have

professorTuring 7y ago

I read it all. Mistakes were made due to inexperience. Lessons should have been learnt. Wiser should he be by now. Being aware of enterprise politics and learning how to play them will give you the opportunity to really impact the business. Never be the guy who says: 1. "nobody does this in the enterprise" 2. "we are doing all of this wrong" 3. "we need to start from the beginning" 4. "my manager is wrong" Whispers and grabbing coffees with people are much better weapons than being the one that always brings the harsh truth into the meetings. Beware: pointing fingers to a colleague or your manager to upper management is telling them that they are not making their job good enough, they are not noticing things, and since they tend not to fail and to notice everything, the failure must be you.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
celticmusic 7y ago
At some point you have to decide if the business deserves your effort, and if it were me I would've decided no and walked away long before this guy did. to put it more succinctly: There are a lot of business I can help be successful, fuck spending my time doing it for this sort of culture.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > There are a lot of business I can help be successful, fuck spending my time doing it for this sort of culture. That's a reasonable attitude to have. Broadly, it's much easier to get promoted by joining another company anyhow. However. The higher up in the power structure you get the less able you will be to avoid politics if you want to be effective in your role. This is true, even in technical leadership.
  - jacobr 7y ago
    And with just a tiny bit of effort in corporate politics your technical (or whatever you aim for) impact can become so much larger.

alexfromapex 7y ago

All talent should leave these types of companies. Can’t be the VP of anything if everyone gets tired of your shit, leaves, and the company fails.

jakon89 7y ago

It's common to promote someone to just get rid of that person :) Sometimes promoting is just easier that firing.

aliswe 7y ago
Failing upwards, as someone here said

oarabbus_ 7y ago

Reinforces the idea that managers fail up; engineers fail down.

anon73044 7y ago
"Promoted to their level of incompetence" is a phrase I've heard before to describe this phenomenon.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  There is a whole book.
  - cpeterso 7y ago
    The book is The Peter Principle: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." This leads to Peter's Corollary: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties." The Wikipedia article is a pretty thorough summary of the book: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  That's a good one too - but the fact that managers are promoted to their level of incompetence, while engineers are DEMOTED to their level of incompetence... it makes it quite hard to justify staying on the technical track for all but the most talented of engineers (which 98% of engineers are not)

psweber 7y ago

I've been this person a few times, so I sympathize while seeing all the mistakes they made. Some people have no problem with office politics. Some people don't notice or seem unaffected by it. I have a hero complex (or a sense of ethics if you want to be generous), and I can't be a full time employee anymore. Freelance work helps me keep boundaries in my work.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
I'm having this problem too. It's hard for me to stay silent. I tell my friends about the things I do or say and they tell me that I'm just giving away all my intentions and political moves. I don't manipulate people and I'm told I'm extremely straightforward. I'm not a hero though but when politics affects me like it always inevitably does, I don't play the game, I'm emotionally unable to.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Be ready to move at all times, then.
- goodcanadian 7y ago
  Refusing to play politics is also a political strategy. It won't work in every situation. Sometimes, being blunt will work out very badly, but sometimes your candor will be respected and your opinion will be sought out because of it. Refusing to play the game can put you in a position above the fray. You won't be promoted to management, but if that is not your goal, it may not matter.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    This is true. I've been in this type of situation before but I always attributed to luck rather then a political strategy. I'm thinking a combination of bluntness and deception is the best middle ground.
jdance 7y ago
Well, our values and norms say that being an employee, that some 40 of our hours per week are owned by another person, is good and normal. Freedom has very little value it seems. I'm like you and I just love to be free. I do whatever I want to do! And I love it, I love my life. With the perspective of freedom, signing over 40 hours a week to some random guy seems like a totally completely ludicrous thought. I would literally rather live in a tent eating only noodles, but luckily everything seems to work out anyway :) If you have this experience of "not being egocentric enough" a lot -- which I have had -- you might like to check out the developmental model called Spiral Dynamics, it put things into place for me.

Vysero 7y ago

The lesson is: Next time your favorite manager and tech lead quit the company, ask them why.

tra3 7y ago
No kidding, after reading about all the antics, I forgot how the story started. That should've been a huge red flag.
- woadwarrior01 7y ago
  This has always been a rule that I’ve followed throughout my working career. Whenever someone leaves or is fired, invite them for a coffee or a drink and listen to their side of the story. There’s this Latin legal maxim that I learnt from my mum when I was a child, and have always remembered ever since: “Audi alteram partem”[1] which roughly translates to the same. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_alteram_partem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_alteram_partem
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
draw_down 7y ago
It’s like, the frogs are boiling, but they’re too busy burnishing their case with evidence that the water is indeed boiling, instead of jumping out.

fred_is_fred 7y ago

This is a tough lesson for engineers to learn, but whether you are right or not doesn't even really matter, it's the relationships and how you present it. I cringed when I ready about going over your manager's head in front of all the other managers. Life at work is not a code review where everyone is equal and you get to +1 and -1 everyone's ideas.

loopz 7y ago
Should be a minor problem, unless the leaders are psychopaths, which they obviously were in the story so worthless of any effort.
- fred_is_fred 7y ago
  If you have to take every problem to a VP or council of managers that means that you are ineffective and unable to sway anyone with your ideas. If the site is truly down like he said and his manager won't fix it, he should let his manager take the fall after raising it. Nobody thanks the messenger in a situation like this.
  - loopz 7y ago
    Most problem and change requests should not require manager involvement at all. In practice though, an org tend to optimize for top-brass to micromanage more and more (see: Scrum and "Agile"). You will be told to solve the issues, while higher-ups make all the shots, unwittingly causing some long-term trouble. If you correctly identify gaps and skillfully tell the right managers, they will be very glad for you pointing out risks and suggestions. Just don't expect too much at once and play the long-term game.
- hollandheese 7y ago
  I'd bet most leaders in large corporations are psychopaths.
matwood 7y ago
> This is a tough lesson for engineers to learn, but whether you are right or not doesn't even really matter, it's the relationships and how you present it. Relationships are everything. How you tell someone they are wrong is important. You can shear a sheep over and over, but only skin it once. If you're going to skin someone, understand you're also ending a relationship. Every person is different. At an old job everyone in the office thought a coworker and I hated each other. They would hear the fights coming out of our office while we fought for our ideas around a whiteboard. The reality is that we were great friends and still talk 15 years later. But, we knew each other and how to interact with each other. The people I work with now are different types of people, and would not respond that sort of interaction. Finally, many decisions are not right/wrong or black/white. In fact any of number of solutions could typically work. If someone else is really passionate about their idea, then let them run with it. Either it works - great! Or it doesn't work and we loop back around to a different idea.

choppaface 7y ago

This might not be helpful, but it appears the OP struggled for so long because they were too attached to the project or an unrealistic expectation of growth. It’s critical to get feedback about your choices and to second-guess your attachment, if only to have that evidence or perspective available to you. Without it, it’s highly likely unexpected events carry greater personal risk, like a re-org causing a lot of distress or even happening unexpectedly at all. How aligned are you with the business leaders? It’s worth trying to meet people outside the team on a quarterly basis. The other sad result here is that the OP chose to fight leveraging a rational argument versus the buy-in of others. It’s easy to call the other side stupid, but the reality is you have to convince them of your perspective and not necessarily that your argument is right. To make matters worse, corporate structure is fundamentally opposed to threats from below. You can have green hair and get fired because they only want people with purple hair. Stories like these suggest (at least to me) that engineers need to work a bit more to reshape the industry into a gig economy. That means being more open to changing jobs, supporting portable and open technologies, and also establishing a more transparent hiring process. There’s a huge gap between supply and demand for engineers. That gap will be around for a while. Leveraging that gap should provide a path for preventing stories like these.

choppaface 7y ago
To the downvoters: would love to hear stories similar to that of the OP. I personally have never seen somebody in that situation win without major buy-in, especially from managers or C-levels. But wouldn’t mind being shown wrong.

ggm 7y ago

As somebody who was probably promoted up to or above his Peter Principle skills, I sympathize. This isn't how maximally efficient places should work. But having said that, maximally efficient places are heading to being truly horrible. Taylor time-and-motion and 'sack till it works' is not condusive to good longterm outcome. It works for something like D Day right up until you exhaust the pool of new officers. Then you have to go back and try and instill some motivation in the ones you sidelined hunting for perfection.

lmilcin 7y ago

This is completely typical story. I worked at a bunch of companies and had a chance observing this over and over again. The truth is that life is not fair. You and your manager were playing a different game. While you were spending your time and resources trying to do good for your company and to get better at doing that, your manager was spending time scheming in his own interest and also getting better at it. He beat you with experience. You were spending your time in Jira and IDE while he was building up his own image, perfecting ways to shift blame and building connections. And you know what? It is fine. Just ask yourself, "would I want to be that person?"

crimsonalucard 7y ago
My answer is no. I have a deep lack of respect and huge hatred for these types of ass holes. If I became this type of person I would hate myself. However, you are right in the fact that many people are like this exist and life is not fair. My hatred is just a personal preference. I can see a lot of people answering your question with a yes... which says a lot about people in general. Most people are ass holes and that's life.
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  > Most people are ass holes and that's life Whilst I tend to agree with this "between the lines" as it were, it's not an attitude I can healthily recommend. Re-shape it to "most people are trying to get ahead and that's life" is a much more helpful way of looking at various situations, and makes human behavior much easier to understand and predict. You may also find that it reflects back on you some.
Jallal 7y ago
It's fine as long you know the game you're playing. And this is the big issue : no one learn has told you, neither taught you how to play it. But some people were. Those are fine. For the others (me included) we had to figure out on our own. Learn that we played the game the wrong way, or find another place. It took time, and a lot of investment and efforts are wasted in the process. And some people never learn. Meanwhile, those people stole undeserved credit. And if you ask them, they will tell you its thanks to their leadership and all that bullshit. Actually, the most important thing you said is that : life is not fair. 100% fully agree.

refurb 7y ago

A few years back I got a new manager and this was her first people manager role. She was awful. Micromanaged about useless things, bother you at odd hours for not very important topics. Her whole team would usually just sit around and say “I can’t believe how bad she is.” I got a feedback request from her boss, so I listed 3 things she could do better. Pretty sure her boss wouldn’t follow up. Had my 1-on-1 with her and she asked “Any feedback?”. I thought for a second, then just went “what the hell, let’s do it”, and spent the next 10 minutes telling her all the things she does wrong. She was incredibly thankful for the feedback as no one else was willing to give her direct feedback. She didn’t change overnight, but we had an absolutely great relationship after that. If I didn’t like something she did, I told her right away. I even blew up at her about a year later because she kept cutting me off on a big presentation. She apologized and it never happened again. It was a gamble, but it paid off.

duxup 7y ago
Ages ago I was a crappy manager at a crappy job and honestly too young to manage myself even. It was one of those places where managers saw themselves as little hall monitors or police looking at what people had on their desk and I'm ashamed to say I played along. So one day I'm talking to this guy who was fed up and labeled a problem and he says something like: "Does any of this even matter, do we do a better job because of it or do any of us get paid more?" Everyone complained bickered about the rules, but nobody has said it like that...I didn't have an answer. I suddenly realized, yeah this is all just pointless aggravation for everyone. So I quit enforcing dumb rules and we all had a better time... the managers above me talked about these rules and sent out all sorts of emails and directives to enforce them, and somehow me not doing it wasn't even noticed. The place didn't get any better, but at least if you were on my team you didn't get hassled about stupid things.
- option_greek 7y ago
  It's like tragedy of commons for management. The manager gets nothing by enforcing corporate rules on his team. But not enforcing them usually doesn't cost them anything while improving team morale, good will and in most cases retention, productivity. I see many managers strictly follow up on logging leaves or restricting work from homes or enforcing release deadlines as if it personally costs them something while usually enforcement is just discretionary. The managers who have figured this out usually have happier teams.

ljm 7y ago

> While she was a great lead, we saved the managerial position for someone who was more suited for the job. Someone who could talk engineer and business all at the same time. Someone who has been groomed for the job. I'm struggling with this, and I've struggled with it before. What I think you're saying is that you have an ideal candidate, but they're not enough so you need to pull in the perfect one from the outside. You don't want to invest in them instead, which would be cheaper. "Someone who has been groomed for the job." Why not train/groom them yourself? You already have the talent and the potential. That £10k signup bonus could pay for a whole course of training to get a loyal and well educated leader who already knows the business intimately. It's a problem in its own making because a business fails to appreciate the talent it already has. Which is the same reason why so many people leave for new jobs, because their talent isn't recognised. Best way to get some acknowledgment is to get a fresh job offer 50+% above what you currently get with wild enthusiasm to get you on board.

fredophile 7y ago
My impression was that there were two open positions, one for a lead and one for a manager. The team wanted to promote someone from within to be lead and look for a new manager because they didn't have a good candidate to promote from within. The company moved a new manager in from another part of the company and this manager brought in their choice for lead, displacing the person that was favored by the team.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mdip 7y ago

Whew, I've seen this one first- and second-hand a few times. I worked for a global multi-national for around 17 years, through a few acquisitions, and through a 6-9 month lay-off cadence that often came with overall restructuring and rotating/changing managers. I remember one individual, in particular, we'll call him "Bob". This guy's ignorance was rivaled only by his arrogance. Bob ended up taking over the team that myself and a coworker (who I shared an office with) and almost immediately started causing grief. A series of boneheaded, and very expensive decisions were made which effectively eliminated the department at the next lay-off cycle. Somehow the Bob not only survives another set of layoffs, he gets promoted and is now in my direct reporting chain. Almost immediately, any interdepartmental communication was forbidden (and I'm talking "Database Admins" not being allowed to e-mail "Unix sysadmins"), and similarly, much of his department started crumbling. I got out quick and my coworker, Greg (not really), entered a new level of hell. Though my department changed, my location didn't, and I still worked with Greg 75% of the time. Greg felt his wrath, daily and I got a bit of it "by splash". Then Greg saw an opportunity -- he was asked to discuss a project with the CIO, our department Director and VP. Greg didn't hesitate to bring up Bob[0]. It went over like a lead baloon; holy cow, the whole mood in the room changed. Something we hadn't known -- Bob hung out with a lot of folks in the office outside of work. He worked at the main office, which was much larger and in a different time zone than us and our Director. The VP in the room was also from the main office. Shortly after the meeting, he was informed by his boss that she had spent the last hour "begging for them to not fire [coworker]". Yep. They were all friends. Well, my story has a bit of an uglier ending, but not one that isn't deserved. The struggling company was purchased by a competitor and the CIO was replaced. Several layers were added above Bob. The new headquarters was in a city far enough away that they had their own networks, isolated from the old guard. Incredibly, Bob started making in-roads well before the acquisition was complete and had already begun trying to sully the reputations of people he considered "enemies". One of those people was Greg. Now, Greg had a few people who didn't like him. He was very cut-and-dry, blunt, but he was an "attack the idea, not the person" kind of guy and if you understood that, you got along well with him. He was/is crazy smart, articulate and has a personality of the kind that you want to get behind because you know he's going to be doing something great. And he'd slept at the new office the entirety of the previous week making sure that the infrastructure side of things went off without a hitch. We're in a 9-person meeting "war-room" for the acquisition, and the CIO walks in -- I throw him a (sadly, over-prepared question) about REST and our (non-existent) service infrastructure and he mentioned something about Clojure. My coworker is introduced[1] him and he said "So, what's the deal with Bob? ...". He attacked the person. And went on for 15 minutes, deadpan, facts-only, listing every failure and its inevitable origin: a decision Bob forced down the department's throat. I watched the new CIO get more and more disgusted -- he was a rare beast -- a C-level at a multi-national who understood systems and didn't have a skillset that was a decade out-of-date[2]. The CIO politely excused himself from the room, which was completely silent at this point save for my coworker and remained that way for a solid minute after the guy left the room[3]. Greg had gotten a little loud. Then we remembered that we were there to watch him address the IT department on the big screen in the room[4]. Someone in tech announced that things would be getting started about 5 minutes late. They started 15-minutes late. Shortly after introducing himself, the CIO apologized and said he had to take care of a "personnel issue" that required a little more time than he had expected. The door opened and our (new) department VP walked in, "[CIO] just got off the phone with HR and Bob. He was informed his services are no longer needed." Greg was on his feet and the room erupted. For literally months after that happened, people from the "old company" would call Greg (remote office) to thank him. What was amazing to me was that literally everyone except for 3 people in IT management and leadership knew this guy was at fault and yet he continued to increase in his ability to cause problems. It turned out that the prior week had been spent by the new CIO trying to wrap his head around the boneheaded architectural decisions he was inheriting. All of these decisions had one name behind them and that guy had been with the company for 10 years! [0] I don't recommend it. This guy, though, had stones and if given the opportunity to address the issue with someone higher on the chain, it trumped any fears of him losing the job. "If they're not going to trust me to tell the truth when it's hard to hear, they're not someone I can morally work for." He had brought it up to every single person from above him up to the CIO, why not the CIO? [1] That's an understatement. He was one of the major reasons infrastructure integration happened at all. The CIO looked at him like he was some mad genius. [2] I recognized the same on the development side when his Clojure response, despite not being a choice I would have made (unfamiliarity), was backed up with an argument that wasn't marketing or otherwise buzz-wordy. [3] Someone started with a "So......" at some point, I'm sure. [4] The company had a studio -- really cool -- and complete stage/audience room. We could have gone, and some did, but we were "war rooming" for the past week and a few of us weren't sure if it was just the left-overs from lunch that had stunk up the place.

epx 7y ago

The only thing you can do to hurt a bad manager is to quit, depriving him of your good services. Eventually he will be sacked, but not before you.

bitL 7y ago

Everybody in non-tech companies should realize they are viewed as stupid ants doing all the work while another class rules them with different governance they have no chance to penetrate. The main issue of our industry is that it is now transforming from tech-friendly into the "same old" approach of other industries, including all FAANGs. There is no space for apolitical geniuses any longer.

ncmncm 7y ago
Not at big companies. But there are lots of smaller ones.

larkin221 7y ago

Deval Patrick Inspired Obama and Obama Inspired the Nation

pointyfence 7y ago

In preparation for their first lousy boss (I hope that I'm not it), I advise my less experienced reports to first think hard on what's important to them about their job before acting. Since the organization might not be working from their view of what's fair or rational, they should plan around some best and worst case scenarios of acting on that belief. For instance, if working at that company in a particular position is the most important thing to you, then standing up to your bosses is a bad tactic. They could clip your wings or worse. Or if the pay is the most important thing to you but you can get that pay somewhere else, then you should probably leave on good terms for another job. I've seen a lot of people put themselves through unnecessary drama because they just reacted. In my case, I find bad bosses to be intellectually and emotionally offensive. So, I will work the system to either see if they can be better or manage them out. This is a terrible way to manage your career if you care about job security. But I plan accordingly. I had to build up my savings, create a strong internal network of people across departments with similar values, deliver business results to build credibility with more senior managers and execs, etc. And most importantly, recognize that I could lose and be ok with it. There are some real downsides, but it works for who I am. I know folks here are beating up the author for being naive or whatever, but I respect people who put skin in the game for what they believe is right, trying to build a better environment, and helping people that they care about.

blisterpeanuts 7y ago

This blog was painful to read because it hits home on several points. I've been in the working world since the mid-1980s and have seen this type of scenario several times. It's unfortunate, it's frustrating, but there's usually nothing you can do about incompetent management except simply to leave. Fortunately, technology is a good profession and there are always choices. I've learned over the years not to fight City Hall; if you have no power, you're just a faint buzzing in their ears. Those who are busy sucking all the money out of an organization aren't going to just stop because of a lecture from a technical lead. Your first duty is to take care of yourself and your family. That may mean removing yourself from a toxic environment and starting over elsewhere, possibly for a cut in pay or seniority, but over the long haul you'll likely be emotionally and professionally better off.

ncmncm 7y ago
The only way to get a serious promotion in this field is to change companies. Start over elsewhere with a boost in pay and seniority, when the getting's good. The company has absolutely no loyalty to you, so you owe it none. But individuals do deserve loyalty. Try not to lose touch.

athiercelin 7y ago

Nothing gets fixed if you don't say anything, but the odds are always supporting the fact that this bozo was placed by another top bozo. The leaders who appreciate this, will go the extra mile to develop trust and/or open door with ICs but if you aren't 100% sure you have this, it means you don't. Bozos excel at social aerodynamism and those who start to like them are to be worried about just as much. Bozos can even end up on boards, VCs or public figures. Never assume there are rules, never assume someone is addressing the obvious problem. In the end, if you sniff a bozo, pack up and go. That's your only move. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/01/31/why-every-company-needs-a-no-bozo-policy/#26d2e84e11d3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/01/31/why-ever...

je42 7y ago

I like the inverted pyramid. ;) While not perfect, it is pretty good at exposing unproductive people.

peglasaurus 7y ago

I'd be someone who would have responded to the first HN comment about his workplace as "its a toxic environment, pack your parachute and get out." I think life is too short to waste it sharing with toxic people. You are just withholding it from the good people. Tolerating political nonsense is a particular kind of fun or challenge for awhile but its really just an opportunity cost in the long term. Be clear about what you see as the benefit when doing so. This doesn't mean you run from adversity but it does mean you evaluate adversity knowing that it still needs an actual benefit that exceeds its very real cost.

privateSFacct 7y ago

A bit of a different angle on this. A companies may value folks in non-management roles who: * Do what they are asked to * Don't cause problems * Solve their own problems * Make the boss look good? Note that being right on technical matters may not be on this list! Sometimes the hero's would be great managers - but if they are not manager's, all that good energy may be wasted or a negative from a companies view. I've had this (unfortunate) experience and learned from it! I really did have the capacity to do all this great stuff. But not in that position. Some quick suggestions. * Provide feedback if asked, but get on with things if its not adopted (don't make business personal if you can help it) * Make some of your own suggestions in areas the boss isn't addressing. That can look a lot like good initiative. * If you have options take them, don't hang around too long! * If you don't have good options outside of your current position - check to see if you are overestimating your skill etc. * Ask yourself - will my pattern of behavior, ignoring the specific technical details, result in others (managers / co-workers) interested in working for me? * If you want to fight the product fights / set direction - become a manager! You generally can do this by a) getting some cert / education somewhere AND b) switching jobs OR telling your boss you'd like to become a manager and get them to describe the pathway needed - then check if the timeline they share + 1 year is reasonable. If you become a manager make sure you can efficiently write memos and can write reasonably well. If that doesn't work and you are really great - start consulting or start your own shop.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

I stayed too long in a job at a company that was turning / had turned toxic. It takes that experience to be able to not only recognize it in the future, but also know to act on it before it goes too far. The combination of these two statements in the post give me the "chills of recognition" of a bad situation: > In a company of a thousand, everyone knew me by name. I've created dozens of tools that are still used in the company to this day. > I was assuming a position of leadership, I was very popular, yet I had no power. If this is you, you need to evaluate your situation coldly and logically. Why do you have no power? You're either delusional about your level of influence and utility within the company, or the company is a boys club (I believe the term 'lifestyle company' was used to describe a previous place of employment of mine) and you're not a member. And fundamentally, do your "network of influence" research before you tattle on ANYONE. That's a primary school lesson.

deedubaya 7y ago

Going over your boss’s head won’t end well because of misaligned incentives. Your boss’s boss is responsible for the boss. Responsible for any failures and any successes. Acting on a failure you reported would be a black mark on their report card. That’s not gonna happen. Few managers care about doing the right thing — that’s why they’re in politics... ahem....management.

yibg 7y ago

I've been in a similar situation. Very well liked and popular at the company, including with the founders. Often gets praised in public and is the go to person from many employees when they want advice or just to gripe. Saw somethings at the company that I thought weren't good, and most of the employees complained about to me as well. I thought I had some influence with the powers that be, and so did many of the other folks (e.g. I was encouraged to speak up because I had influence). So I did, quietly and privately at first, and a little louder as time went on. Everything I did was completely ineffective. I learned that public praise and apparent influence is very superficial, and evaporates when it comes to anything deep rooted.

newshorts 7y ago

This story is why you need to spend your f*s carefully. The author care way too much about his day job. If he’s that passionate he needs to start his own company.

james1071 7y ago

I read this story and found it interesting to notice how the author seemed not to have any perspective other than his own. He seemed to regard himself as central to the company, when in reality he was just one of many employees, who had been hired to do a job. Those hiring him seemed to be interested in the sale of the company and securing their own positions, which they appear to have managed well, by running a sham department, that they could present as being a success.

haihaibye 7y ago
The author is suffering from "Bridge over the river Kwai" syndrome - being wholly concerned about technical implementation while ignoring larger strategic concerns.

madshiva 7y ago

Or you could in my situation. We are understaffed, three people already have leave, and they still don't engage any body. Network is so a easy job that switch can run without any job, no maintenance is required... I hope he go fired because of the lack of any competence, no management skill, no technical skills, only blablabla and he will be promoted too. This is a sad world where we live.

jamisteven 7y ago

Kind of interested in knowing if this was his first job, as there were many, many mistakes made here. This is simply a case of him not understanding his role. Went over bosses head without knowing anything about the relationship between said boss and upper management. Didnt inquire as to why a boss who "burned a team to the ground" in previous position was promoted to his team to begin with. Kept trying to come back to the company for social gatherings even after leaving. Am not sure what the story is here, but I hope he learned some lessons, plural.

duelingjello 7y ago

About 2006, I stood up to my boss trying to cajole me into weakening a credit card processing private network at a big name university. And then I was fired for refusing to do it immediately when all I asked for was to slow down and review the changes. Narcissists throw tantrums if they don't always get their way because they hate not being in complete control. sigh

jrochkind1 7y ago

> Other departments rose, the company changed its business model and was bought for 1.1 billion dollars by a private firm.... > They were not fired. They were promoted. The manager is now the Vice President. The lead now leads in the most profitable department. The old VP is now Chief Product Officer.... > But if you are bad at your job, it pays to have good connections. Were they bad at their jobs? Maybe their job wasn't actually doing good work. It was getting the company purchased for 1.1 billion dollars. Not the company I want to work at either where that's your job, but it's apparently a lot of the world. Once I understood this, it made a lot of organizational behavior make more sense to me. It didn't make me like it. But most organizations aren't actually oriented around doing quality work (of any kind of work, internal or external). That is not the job anyone is actually set up to do or incentivized to do. And I'm not totally sure they'd succeed as organizations if they were, that's not the way the world is set up, apparently. Yes, I am having some cynicism problems.

piterdevries 7y ago

Classic millennial drama. You should care about 2 things: improving your skills (especially the transferable ones) and increasing your pay. If your current workplace doesn't satisfy any of those just move on. Who cares about politics? Did you really think this white knight attitude would do any good?

phibz 7y ago

Ah the follies of ignoring and not having social capital