4 ms·

I have been surprised how emotionally unaware many of my managers are. They are engineers who moved to management and seem to think reading a bunch of books on

I have been surprised how emotionally unaware many of my managers are. They are engineers who moved to management and seem to think reading a bunch of books on management will make them adept at the social skills needed to read and adapt to individuals and a teams emotional state. Compensation is huge but good software devs are all making enough to where a 20-30% swing in either direction isn't going to make or break us. I would happily take a 20% cut if I loved what I was doing and felt endeared of my manager and our goals.

citizenpaul 5y ago
20-30% ?? What kind of money are you assuming most people make. at anything over 100k a year that is a lot of extra money anything less and it is probably needed. It could simply be used to retire a few years earlier if nothing else. It could pay for vacation. It could pay off a vehicle. It could pay down a mortgage or appraisal gap in this market. A 20% raise is huge at any income level.
- _ah 5y ago
  Except that it isn't. Assume you are a superstar of some persuasion and you earn $100M/yr. Is a 20% raise a lot of money? It's not! Sure, it's an extra twenty million dollars, but what could you possibly want to buy with that money that you can't already purchase? At some point $100k --> $100M the math changes. That point will be different for different people.
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    A nice yacht, a sports team, your name on a building .. there's always something.
  - grangerg 5y ago
    Expenses always rise to meet income.
  - citizenpaul 5y ago
    You and other people are discussing amounts of money that you could simply walk away from the world buy a yacht and travel the world for your entire life. This adds nothing to the discussion.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  Surely in the higher income brackets the tax on it brings down the net considerably?
- ivalm 5y ago
  Marginal value of money decreases the more money you have as consumption doesn't really scale up. Easily one should take a nice 500k/year job vs a stressful 600k/year job.
  - bluefirebrand 5y ago
    Most people aren't in a position where their choice is a nice 500k/year job versus a stressful 600k/year job thought.
    - ivalm 5y ago
      The OP was explicitly talking about people making >>100k. At any rate, 5-600k is a staff/principle swe at a lot of tech companies, or even just a senior in some. Given this forum I am guessing that’s not an insignificant percentage of readers.
bluefirebrand 5y ago
Managers can't control whether or not you love what you do, though. They can do their best to build an environment you enjoy being in, but that's about it. If you're bored or not enjoy the software or whatever else, they can't fix that. They can control your compensation and make sure if they want to keep you you have at least a monetary reason to stay
jollybean 5y ago
"Loved what I was doing" "and felt endeared of my manager" "our goals" So 1 and 3 are a little bit more objective, you can determine those on your own. But #2? If you're worried about your managers 'EQ' - why do you not contemplate your own? Do you assume a lack of visceral empathy from your manager means that they 'don't care' - and - even if they didn't care that much, why do you care? It's nice when my manager says 'Great Work' and it's important to know I'm respected - that's a matter of professionalism, i.e. recognition of competence. But I do don't care one bit otherwise. My manager is busy. Putting out fires, dragged into stupid meetings. I would not want his job. Why would I want to burden him with having worry about 'me'. Reading this thread I'm a bit dismayed by a lot of emotion just brimming beneath the surface, I think small things have a tendency to collect up on people over time ... but I also don't suspect that staffers realize how much control they have over their disposition towards most of these things things. I wish more people had experience managing or even with directorships, it can be brutal - those are probably the two, worst jobs in the system, and it's interesting how far the gap in understanding is between front-line contributor, and just one layer up.
- ericmcer 5y ago
  I wasn't saying a manager should need to babysit the emotional state of all the team members, but I think they should be generally socially adept. I have had many managers who were unable to engage meaningfully in any way. People who could eagerly analyze my Meyers Briggs type but would be unable to talk about their vacation. My last manager would unintentionally haze new employees when they asked questions in meetings, he just could not express compassion and understanding with his face/tone so he seemed belittling and annoyed with them.

citizenpaul 5y ago

20-30% ?? What kind of money are you assuming most people make. at anything over 100k a year that is a lot of extra money anything less and it is probably needed. It could simply be used to retire a few years earlier if nothing else. It could pay for vacation. It could pay off a vehicle. It could pay down a mortgage or appraisal gap in this market. A 20% raise is huge at any income level.

_ah 5y ago
Except that it isn't. Assume you are a superstar of some persuasion and you earn $100M/yr. Is a 20% raise a lot of money? It's not! Sure, it's an extra twenty million dollars, but what could you possibly want to buy with that money that you can't already purchase? At some point $100k --> $100M the math changes. That point will be different for different people.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  A nice yacht, a sports team, your name on a building .. there's always something.
- grangerg 5y ago
  Expenses always rise to meet income.
- citizenpaul 5y ago
  You and other people are discussing amounts of money that you could simply walk away from the world buy a yacht and travel the world for your entire life. This adds nothing to the discussion.
lordnacho 5y ago
Surely in the higher income brackets the tax on it brings down the net considerably?
ivalm 5y ago
Marginal value of money decreases the more money you have as consumption doesn't really scale up. Easily one should take a nice 500k/year job vs a stressful 600k/year job.
- bluefirebrand 5y ago
  Most people aren't in a position where their choice is a nice 500k/year job versus a stressful 600k/year job thought.
  - ivalm 5y ago
    The OP was explicitly talking about people making >>100k. At any rate, 5-600k is a staff/principle swe at a lot of tech companies, or even just a senior in some. Given this forum I am guessing that’s not an insignificant percentage of readers.

bluefirebrand 5y ago

Managers can't control whether or not you love what you do, though. They can do their best to build an environment you enjoy being in, but that's about it. If you're bored or not enjoy the software or whatever else, they can't fix that. They can control your compensation and make sure if they want to keep you you have at least a monetary reason to stay

jollybean 5y ago

"Loved what I was doing" "and felt endeared of my manager" "our goals" So 1 and 3 are a little bit more objective, you can determine those on your own. But #2? If you're worried about your managers 'EQ' - why do you not contemplate your own? Do you assume a lack of visceral empathy from your manager means that they 'don't care' - and - even if they didn't care that much, why do you care? It's nice when my manager says 'Great Work' and it's important to know I'm respected - that's a matter of professionalism, i.e. recognition of competence. But I do don't care one bit otherwise. My manager is busy. Putting out fires, dragged into stupid meetings. I would not want his job. Why would I want to burden him with having worry about 'me'. Reading this thread I'm a bit dismayed by a lot of emotion just brimming beneath the surface, I think small things have a tendency to collect up on people over time ... but I also don't suspect that staffers realize how much control they have over their disposition towards most of these things things. I wish more people had experience managing or even with directorships, it can be brutal - those are probably the two, worst jobs in the system, and it's interesting how far the gap in understanding is between front-line contributor, and just one layer up.

ericmcer 5y ago
I wasn't saying a manager should need to babysit the emotional state of all the team members, but I think they should be generally socially adept. I have had many managers who were unable to engage meaningfully in any way. People who could eagerly analyze my Meyers Briggs type but would be unable to talk about their vacation. My last manager would unintentionally haze new employees when they asked questions in meetings, he just could not express compassion and understanding with his face/tone so he seemed belittling and annoyed with them.