4 ms·

So, what do you do (or have you done) if your boss is a fairly rational geek-type? I'm a geek and am sympathetic to the problems you've described, but for me n

by jnovek 16y ago

So, what do you do (or have you done) if your boss is a fairly rational geek-type? I'm a geek and am sympathetic to the problems you've described, but for me negotiating salaries is every bit as miserable from the other side of the fence (I run a startup) for the same reasons (introverted, etc.). When I encounter engineers who have been "hardened" by crummy bosses in the past, I often just toss salary negotiations off onto my business and sales-minded cofounder who doesn't mind playing hardball.

edw519 16y ago
So, what do you do (or have you done) if your boss is a fairly rational geek-type? In my experience, "fairly rational geek-type" and "boss" are a contradiction in terms. I honestly believe that a rational geek has to give up some rationality in order to become a boss. I didn't mean to infer that anyone has to play hardball. I just needed to give myself an attitude adjustment to level the playing field. In any negotiation, only 2 things are really needed: (1) Treat the other person the way you would want to be treated and (2) Do the right thing. What could be more rational than that?
- endtime 16y ago
  >I honestly believe that a rational geek has to give up some rationality in order to become a boss. Uh, that doesn't make sense. Becoming a boss might cause your incentives and perspective to change, but if "rationality" makes you worse at your job then whatever you're calling "rationality" isn't.
  - dpritchett 16y ago
    I'm guessing edw519's post was a riff on "what got you here won't get you there", namely that a highly developed ability to reason logically and to debug is less valuable to a manager than to a developer. Managers are going to also need plenty of empathy and charisma.
    - bostonpete 16y ago
      I think it must depend on the environment. In my company, development managers (right up to the VP of software) are extremely competent developers and are expected to be able to solve the problems (or help solve the problems) that individual contributors are spinning their wheels on. Maybe at a larger company this model doesn't work as well, but I would assume that development managers at most small tech companies are highly proficient developers. Am I totally off base here...?
      - wisty 16y ago
        Successful companies (um, Microsoft?) have mostly razor-sharp bosses. Floundering companies often have a wider range of abilities (both managers and devs). It's a crap-shot whether your boss is great, or clueless.
ScottBurson 16y ago
"Engineers suck at negotiating, so don't negotiate, be fair." From http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/essays/2010/10/14/cult-creation.html http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/essays/2010/10/14/cult-cr...
- seltzered 16y ago
  I love this post. The problem is that many people (including myself) are not working for (and possibly won't find) managers with this view towards hiring. Many managers hire people as a sudden reactionary event ("we have an open rec, we've got to hire before the rec closes!"), leading to rushed hiring decisions, and then negotiation issues a year later where you ended up hiring someone (and they took the offer) out of immediacy / desperation, and the employee ends up leaving or accepts the lack of interest and doesn't work to his/her full potential.
sp4rki 16y ago
It doesn't have to be miserable at all. If your profits doubled this year and some employees are the reason for such an increase, then you would be a jerk to play hardball with said employees about salary increases. Now if your company took a negative hit and an employee that doesn't really create a decent amount of value asks for a raise, then he's a jerk for not having the company's best interest in mind (and if his performance is not good enough you should be thinking about letting him go anyways). Hell the whole point of working is to advance in the world. You as an employer should be making more money with each year that passes in comparison to past years. Employees as people with goals and dreams should be making more money as time passes also. If you're making more money thanks to your employees, your employees should be making more money also. Not just because they're entitled to it, but because there's always the possibility that by letting them go could end up costing you more money than a raise of a couple of thousand dollars. A great team is something you should strive to maintain and cherish, but is also something that becomes exponentially more expensive as years pass. If they're working like a well oiled machine and creating insane amounts of value for your company, just pay up. If by comparison they're average (or worse) and your company isn't growing one bit because of lack of innovation or performance on their part, then you're correct in playing hardball... while you look for replacements that can actually benefit your company.

by jnovek 16y ago

edw519 16y ago

So, what do you do (or have you done) if your boss is a fairly rational geek-type? In my experience, "fairly rational geek-type" and "boss" are a contradiction in terms. I honestly believe that a rational geek has to give up some rationality in order to become a boss. I didn't mean to infer that anyone has to play hardball. I just needed to give myself an attitude adjustment to level the playing field. In any negotiation, only 2 things are really needed: (1) Treat the other person the way you would want to be treated and (2) Do the right thing. What could be more rational than that?

endtime 16y ago
>I honestly believe that a rational geek has to give up some rationality in order to become a boss. Uh, that doesn't make sense. Becoming a boss might cause your incentives and perspective to change, but if "rationality" makes you worse at your job then whatever you're calling "rationality" isn't.
- dpritchett 16y ago
  I'm guessing edw519's post was a riff on "what got you here won't get you there", namely that a highly developed ability to reason logically and to debug is less valuable to a manager than to a developer. Managers are going to also need plenty of empathy and charisma.
  - bostonpete 16y ago
    I think it must depend on the environment. In my company, development managers (right up to the VP of software) are extremely competent developers and are expected to be able to solve the problems (or help solve the problems) that individual contributors are spinning their wheels on. Maybe at a larger company this model doesn't work as well, but I would assume that development managers at most small tech companies are highly proficient developers. Am I totally off base here...?
    - wisty 16y ago
      Successful companies (um, Microsoft?) have mostly razor-sharp bosses. Floundering companies often have a wider range of abilities (both managers and devs). It's a crap-shot whether your boss is great, or clueless.

ScottBurson 16y ago

"Engineers suck at negotiating, so don't negotiate, be fair." From http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/essays/2010/10/14/cult-creation.html http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/essays/2010/10/14/cult-cr...

seltzered 16y ago
I love this post. The problem is that many people (including myself) are not working for (and possibly won't find) managers with this view towards hiring. Many managers hire people as a sudden reactionary event ("we have an open rec, we've got to hire before the rec closes!"), leading to rushed hiring decisions, and then negotiation issues a year later where you ended up hiring someone (and they took the offer) out of immediacy / desperation, and the employee ends up leaving or accepts the lack of interest and doesn't work to his/her full potential.

sp4rki 16y ago

It doesn't have to be miserable at all. If your profits doubled this year and some employees are the reason for such an increase, then you would be a jerk to play hardball with said employees about salary increases. Now if your company took a negative hit and an employee that doesn't really create a decent amount of value asks for a raise, then he's a jerk for not having the company's best interest in mind (and if his performance is not good enough you should be thinking about letting him go anyways). Hell the whole point of working is to advance in the world. You as an employer should be making more money with each year that passes in comparison to past years. Employees as people with goals and dreams should be making more money as time passes also. If you're making more money thanks to your employees, your employees should be making more money also. Not just because they're entitled to it, but because there's always the possibility that by letting them go could end up costing you more money than a raise of a couple of thousand dollars. A great team is something you should strive to maintain and cherish, but is also something that becomes exponentially more expensive as years pass. If they're working like a well oiled machine and creating insane amounts of value for your company, just pay up. If by comparison they're average (or worse) and your company isn't growing one bit because of lack of innovation or performance on their part, then you're correct in playing hardball... while you look for replacements that can actually benefit your company.