3 ms·

Where did I say we don't need managers? I explicitly said otherwise: Invest in your automators and treat your people managers as a low-value-add cost center. J

Where did I say we don't need managers? I explicitly said otherwise: Invest in your automators and treat your people managers as a low-value-add cost center. Just because you treat something as low-value-add or admit it's a cost center doesn't mean you don't need that work to happen! > When was the last time you tried to add a recurring meeting to a development team's calendar? Yes, I agree, managers' secretarial and political work is incredibly important to the success of an org. But the 1960s idea that it's a "force multiplier" worth high comp is a mistake. I'm not contesting whether managerial work is important or necessary or to be respected. I'm contesting the idea that managerial work is a force multiplier for individual contributors, in any sense other than in the same sense that janitorial work or admin assistant work is a force multiplier. The only orgs where I've seen managers to be actual force multipliers were body shops.

TameAntelope 6y ago
A good manager is worth 10x a good developer, and a good developer managed by a good manager is 100x base developer value. This is why managers often get paid more, and it applies even more the further up the chain you go. A good CEO is worth every single penny of the millions they get paid, because of the multiplicative force they have on everyone below them on the org chart.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > This is why managers often get paid more I think we are disagreeing because we're talking past one another. Hopefully the following observation helps make my point: The average base pay for a manger in the USA is much lower than the average base pay for an engineer in the USA. I'm talking about management as a discipline in general and engineering as a discipline in general. > A good manager is worth 10x a good developer, and a good developer managed by a good manager is 100x base developer value. Can you define "good" in a way that would allow us to empirically test this statement that doesn't make this statement a literal tautology?
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Even those tiny orgs follow what I'm talking about, you're mistaking bloat for specialization. The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills. It is much rarer to know what to build than it is to know how to build.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      > Even those tiny orgs follow what I'm talking about, you're mistaking bloat for specialization. Right. The whole thing is a silly tautology. Good managers are force multipliers. Better hire good managers! and then if they don't force multiply they must not have been good managers :( It's literally an unfalsifiable tautology. > The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills. "Knowing what to build" is not what 90+% of managers do.
      - TameAntelope 6y ago
        No, it is not a tautology. You are misusing that word. A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. If you can't understand this fact, then I don't think you and I have anything more to discuss. Have a good day!
        throwawaygh 6y ago
        > A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. Right. A good manager indisputably force multiplies because a good manager is defined as someone who improves the performance of her direct reports... Importantly, any empirical evidence that less management structure improves outcomes is easy to dismiss because it's really just proof that the particular manager/company that failed wasn't a "good" manager/management structure. After all, if they were "good", then the output of engineers would have been multiplied, right?! Tautology (n): a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. Saying that we know good managers force multiply by improving performance of reports -- and then defining "good" to mean "improve the performance of her direct reports" -- is absolutely a tautology. More importantly, ignoring empirical evidence by making a rational appeal to the truth of this tautology creates a rather pointless conversation. Given the choice between blind faith in a tautology that "good managers = good" and empirical evidence that sometimes "less emphasis on/power for managers = better", I prefer the latter. You have a good day as well :)

TameAntelope 6y ago

A good manager is worth 10x a good developer, and a good developer managed by a good manager is 100x base developer value. This is why managers often get paid more, and it applies even more the further up the chain you go. A good CEO is worth every single penny of the millions they get paid, because of the multiplicative force they have on everyone below them on the org chart.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> This is why managers often get paid more I think we are disagreeing because we're talking past one another. Hopefully the following observation helps make my point: The average base pay for a manger in the USA is much lower than the average base pay for an engineer in the USA. I'm talking about management as a discipline in general and engineering as a discipline in general. > A good manager is worth 10x a good developer, and a good developer managed by a good manager is 100x base developer value. Can you define "good" in a way that would allow us to empirically test this statement that doesn't make this statement a literal tautology?
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Even those tiny orgs follow what I'm talking about, you're mistaking bloat for specialization. The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills. It is much rarer to know what to build than it is to know how to build.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > Even those tiny orgs follow what I'm talking about, you're mistaking bloat for specialization. Right. The whole thing is a silly tautology. Good managers are force multipliers. Better hire good managers! and then if they don't force multiply they must not have been good managers :( It's literally an unfalsifiable tautology. > The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills. "Knowing what to build" is not what 90+% of managers do.
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      No, it is not a tautology. You are misusing that word. A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. If you can't understand this fact, then I don't think you and I have anything more to discuss. Have a good day!
      - throwawaygh 6y ago
        > A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. Right. A good manager indisputably force multiplies because a good manager is defined as someone who improves the performance of her direct reports... Importantly, any empirical evidence that less management structure improves outcomes is easy to dismiss because it's really just proof that the particular manager/company that failed wasn't a "good" manager/management structure. After all, if they were "good", then the output of engineers would have been multiplied, right?! Tautology (n): a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. Saying that we know good managers force multiply by improving performance of reports -- and then defining "good" to mean "improve the performance of her direct reports" -- is absolutely a tautology. More importantly, ignoring empirical evidence by making a rational appeal to the truth of this tautology creates a rather pointless conversation. Given the choice between blind faith in a tautology that "good managers = good" and empirical evidence that sometimes "less emphasis on/power for managers = better", I prefer the latter. You have a good day as well :)