3 ms·
I understand the story is one sided, but if I take it as truth, the immediate red flag is how the manager failed to manage. In the first examples gave me all t
by elmerfud 4y ago
I understand the story is one sided, but if I take it as truth, the immediate red flag is how the manager failed to manage. In the first examples gave me all the things I would have needed to know to bail on that team.
When technical decisions come up with no obvious correct answer, the manager saying it's up to the team while also disagreeing is just bad. The team provides input and offers their view on best direction but it's up to the manager and product manager to be technical enough to understand the team and then balance business needs (which may be unknowns to the team) and make a final decision. The team then should accept it.
The push back of using a parallel kanban board is just dumb on the managers part too. Management and teams often need different tracking and reporting styles to get work done. Your direct manager should be familiar with both. If they are not or refuse to be, just run.
Managers enable teams by empowering, deciding and then getting out of the way. Bully managers use passive aggressive non-sense like you had to deal with.
For Spotify to not recognize and isolate this person is a problem all the way up there chain.... And again, assuming your version is correct.
- synergyS 4y agoYeah, losing good people this way does not look good for Spotify
- throw457 4y agoIf you are petty enough to make a website about how you made passive aggressive Jira tickets to show the manager who’s the boss I bet he is not one of the good people you want as employees.
- mavhc 4y agoThe problem isn't this one person though, it's Spotify itself, it has grown large enough to need multiple managers, but no one is managing them
- casion 4y agoMy view is that if this story is 100% true, the author is in the wrong, and the manager is in the wrong, and Spotify as an employer is in the wrong. Write a formal letter and pass it up the chain appropriately (without this petty retaliation baked in), transfer teams, find a new job, etc... Fighting the manager directly and consistently does not provide any business value, social value or goodwill. It's simply the wrong play. In an ideal world, pushing for what you think is correct is noble and moral, however it is not an ideal world. Rallying against (minor) wrongs is not always valuable or appropriate. Business magnifies that, and pushing back against (minor) wrongs becomes ever more subtly complex. Business environments require tact and that is absent here. Now we can take it a step further and assume that the author is making themselves appear less complicit than they are (we all do this to some level when writing about ourselves). The chance of that pushes this story from "innocent but socially immature dev against big bad manager" to a whole variety of stories where it's a troublesome developer and a manager trying their best (even if moderately poorly) to manage it.