4 ms·

> My working theory is that the upper management's jobs are more boring, and harder to coast on, when they can't "count heads" and have the illusion of progress

> My working theory is that the upper management's jobs are more boring, and harder to coast on, when they can't "count heads" and have the illusion of progress. It's really exposed good and bad managers this past 1.5 years. A lot of upper management jobs consist solely of attending meetings for projects they are only vaguely aware of so that they can ask questions about irrelevant things, interrupting people who are trying to get work done to ask them how long the work they were doing before being interrupted will take to do (more time now that I've been interrupted again, thanks) and other needless tasks.

toss1 5y ago
Yup. I recall reading of a study 5+ years ago where the result was basically that remote work made good managers better (their teams became more productive), and bad managers worse (really revealing their weaknesses). I can't locate it, but I've noticed similar effects, and this pandemic seems to support it also (even after compensating for my likely confirmation bias).
misnome 5y ago
> A lot of upper management jobs consist solely of attending meetings for projects they are only vaguely aware of so that they can ask questions about irrelevant things, interrupting people who are trying to get work done to ask them how long the work they were doing before being interrupted will take to do (more time now that I've been interrupted again, thanks) and other needless tasks. I mean, _explicitly_ this, to the point that I almost included it in the initial reply. The reason they think no projects have moved is that they can't sit in endless, pointless meetings making unhelpful suggestions to feel justified. Meanwhile, the scientists and developers who actually build things haven't been pulled all over the research campus to sit in these pointless meetings all day any more, so the "real" work being done, and incident response timing, has drastically improved. Literally no projects have run any later than they always did (by initial plans, at least, they normally tended to restrospectively "move the goalposts" so that historically past projects are defined as having delivered "on time"), but this is being used as the primary justification for forcing everyone back in, full-time, from september. Maybe I'm just exposing the dysfunction of my hybrid academic/industry working place, at this point. We had trouble recruiting before, will be interesting to see how many people leave because of this; informally many are searching for alternative employment.
- dkdbejwi383 5y ago
  > Maybe I'm just exposing the dysfunction of my hybrid academic/industry working place, at this point Sadly this is all too common. It's the case in my large publicly traded company. Was the same when I was in 5-20 person startups. Our society needs people to have jobs so they can keep propping up the illusion of growth by buying more junk. This means there are many people (and entire organisations) which contribute nothing but consume time.
handrous 5y ago
I have had a little exposure to high-end (you know the company) management consultants. They have far more exposure to C-suite folks than most. Their view of them is... not flattering. Which is kinda funny considering how many of the consultants will end up in those positions—though, I mean, who wouldn't want to, if you knew how well they're paid, the kinds of perks and deference they get, the coddling, the valuable information and opportunities that are handed to them, and yet how little actual work they can do for all that (remember the experienced CEO who came in to be the real pro manager in charge of the company early-ish in the show Silicon Valley, but was absent screwing around with his hobbies or other business ventures half the time? That's not fiction).

toss1 5y ago

Yup. I recall reading of a study 5+ years ago where the result was basically that remote work made good managers better (their teams became more productive), and bad managers worse (really revealing their weaknesses). I can't locate it, but I've noticed similar effects, and this pandemic seems to support it also (even after compensating for my likely confirmation bias).

misnome 5y ago

> A lot of upper management jobs consist solely of attending meetings for projects they are only vaguely aware of so that they can ask questions about irrelevant things, interrupting people who are trying to get work done to ask them how long the work they were doing before being interrupted will take to do (more time now that I've been interrupted again, thanks) and other needless tasks. I mean, _explicitly_ this, to the point that I almost included it in the initial reply. The reason they think no projects have moved is that they can't sit in endless, pointless meetings making unhelpful suggestions to feel justified. Meanwhile, the scientists and developers who actually build things haven't been pulled all over the research campus to sit in these pointless meetings all day any more, so the "real" work being done, and incident response timing, has drastically improved. Literally no projects have run any later than they always did (by initial plans, at least, they normally tended to restrospectively "move the goalposts" so that historically past projects are defined as having delivered "on time"), but this is being used as the primary justification for forcing everyone back in, full-time, from september. Maybe I'm just exposing the dysfunction of my hybrid academic/industry working place, at this point. We had trouble recruiting before, will be interesting to see how many people leave because of this; informally many are searching for alternative employment.

dkdbejwi383 5y ago
> Maybe I'm just exposing the dysfunction of my hybrid academic/industry working place, at this point Sadly this is all too common. It's the case in my large publicly traded company. Was the same when I was in 5-20 person startups. Our society needs people to have jobs so they can keep propping up the illusion of growth by buying more junk. This means there are many people (and entire organisations) which contribute nothing but consume time.

handrous 5y ago

I have had a little exposure to high-end (you know the company) management consultants. They have far more exposure to C-suite folks than most. Their view of them is... not flattering. Which is kinda funny considering how many of the consultants will end up in those positions—though, I mean, who wouldn't want to, if you knew how well they're paid, the kinds of perks and deference they get, the coddling, the valuable information and opportunities that are handed to them, and yet how little actual work they can do for all that (remember the experienced CEO who came in to be the real pro manager in charge of the company early-ish in the show Silicon Valley, but was absent screwing around with his hobbies or other business ventures half the time? That's not fiction).