4 ms·

I think the focus on "managers have power" is overstated. Places I've worked (as both an IC and a manager) there's also greater responsibility and higher ups ho

I think the focus on "managers have power" is overstated. Places I've worked (as both an IC and a manager) there's also greater responsibility and higher ups hold the managers much more accountable than the ICs. I know many people who simply do not want the responsibility or accountability. Maybe the work is not better or worse, easier or harder, but often there is more pressure/stress.

WalterSear 6y ago
> Maybe the work is not better or worse, easier or harder, but often there is more pressure/stress. None of these are directly relevant to the power imbalance.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> managers have power Respect, too. I've lost count of how many times I've been stuck waiting for somebody in the network group to grant me access to some resource I need to do my job until somebody that they actually respect (that is, a manager) tells them that they have to.
- Kinrany 6y ago
  Isn't this normal? If they're not your manager, it's not their job to make sure you can do your job. Though arguably the manager should have arranged for an easier process if this happens more than a few times.
  - nip180 6y ago
    Too much bureaucracy for access to internal resources (api access, repository access, requisition of servers, google doc permissions, w/e) slows down ICs and is a sign of bad corporate culture. There’s a difference between needing to ask for access to shared resources and asking for someone else to do work. So many corporations silo there teams so deeply that PRs from outside members aren’t even considered. Collaboration isn’t given anything more than lib service.
    - google234123 6y ago
      If a company gets too big, they have to start worrying more about internal adversaries. That's why you see those kind of things.
      - doonesbury 6y ago
        totally agree. See my other post here.
      - aahortwwy 6y ago
        Nope. Those kinds of things are almost entirely related to control and power, not real security. If you're legitimately concerned about internal adversaries you start by finding and catching them. Once you've set up effective mechanisms for doing that you can start to introduce stricter controls around sensitive data/operations based on what you've learned about how your internal adversaries operate. You use a light touch when doing this, because you understand that every extra control you put in place introduces inefficiency into the organization.
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    At lower levers in the engineering ladder, I'm OK with that. I mean, if you're a junior engineer, your job is to do whatever your manager has directed you to do at that moment. But my current rung is staff engineer, and my job is to move the whole company forward by finding sticking points and unsticking them. That doesn't mean doing people's work for them, but very often does mean making sure other people aren't blocked while they wait for something to happen. I feel like at very senior levels, you can't really say "it's not my job". You're looking out for the whole organization, not just your direct team, and it's your responsibility to help everyone move ahead - even the ones who don't report to you.
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    > it's not their job to make sure you can do your job If they're on the network team, it's literally their job description to make sure everybody has the network access they need.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > If they're not your manager, it's not their job to make sure you can do your job. If their job is to manage access, it slowly morphs into "controlling access" and then "wanting justification in granting access" which is not the same thing. There's no benefit to someone pointing this out for a long time. Eventually (hopefully) this perversion is identified as the cause of why processes went from efficient to gridlock, grinding a large company to a halt.
- glxxyz 6y ago
  Sounds very familiar...
valuearb 6y ago
They should have more responsibility and be held accountable. When managers have narrow authority and are not honestly measured its a bad scene man.

WalterSear 6y ago

> Maybe the work is not better or worse, easier or harder, but often there is more pressure/stress. None of these are directly relevant to the power imbalance.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> managers have power Respect, too. I've lost count of how many times I've been stuck waiting for somebody in the network group to grant me access to some resource I need to do my job until somebody that they actually respect (that is, a manager) tells them that they have to.

Kinrany 6y ago
Isn't this normal? If they're not your manager, it's not their job to make sure you can do your job. Though arguably the manager should have arranged for an easier process if this happens more than a few times.
- nip180 6y ago
  Too much bureaucracy for access to internal resources (api access, repository access, requisition of servers, google doc permissions, w/e) slows down ICs and is a sign of bad corporate culture. There’s a difference between needing to ask for access to shared resources and asking for someone else to do work. So many corporations silo there teams so deeply that PRs from outside members aren’t even considered. Collaboration isn’t given anything more than lib service.
  - google234123 6y ago
    If a company gets too big, they have to start worrying more about internal adversaries. That's why you see those kind of things.
    - doonesbury 6y ago
      totally agree. See my other post here.
    - aahortwwy 6y ago
      Nope. Those kinds of things are almost entirely related to control and power, not real security. If you're legitimately concerned about internal adversaries you start by finding and catching them. Once you've set up effective mechanisms for doing that you can start to introduce stricter controls around sensitive data/operations based on what you've learned about how your internal adversaries operate. You use a light touch when doing this, because you understand that every extra control you put in place introduces inefficiency into the organization.
- kstrauser 6y ago
  At lower levers in the engineering ladder, I'm OK with that. I mean, if you're a junior engineer, your job is to do whatever your manager has directed you to do at that moment. But my current rung is staff engineer, and my job is to move the whole company forward by finding sticking points and unsticking them. That doesn't mean doing people's work for them, but very often does mean making sure other people aren't blocked while they wait for something to happen. I feel like at very senior levels, you can't really say "it's not my job". You're looking out for the whole organization, not just your direct team, and it's your responsibility to help everyone move ahead - even the ones who don't report to you.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > it's not their job to make sure you can do your job If they're on the network team, it's literally their job description to make sure everybody has the network access they need.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > If they're not your manager, it's not their job to make sure you can do your job. If their job is to manage access, it slowly morphs into "controlling access" and then "wanting justification in granting access" which is not the same thing. There's no benefit to someone pointing this out for a long time. Eventually (hopefully) this perversion is identified as the cause of why processes went from efficient to gridlock, grinding a large company to a halt.
glxxyz 6y ago
Sounds very familiar...

valuearb 6y ago

They should have more responsibility and be held accountable. When managers have narrow authority and are not honestly measured its a bad scene man.