3 ms·

Hmmm, I disagree. I also don't think that all managers are morons, but even if they were, the fact is that companies often succeed in spite of managerial issues

by ratww 4y ago

Hmmm, I disagree. I also don't think that all managers are morons, but even if they were, the fact is that companies often succeed in spite of managerial issues. Sure, there's lots of people are optimizing for the wrong thing, but that doesn't mean it is affecting the final outcome. As long as managers and reports aren't being paid an exorbitant sum, the only loss is in the sanity of individual contributors. In a large enough company, managers have to do a lot to compromise the success of a company. I'm not saying managers are completely unimportant, but they're not as important as you think.

yowlingcat 4y ago
Point taken; I think that you are correct that things vary significantly based on the overall size and shape of the org. Poor management can contribute significantly to OpEx. Compared to ICs, managers have a disproportionate ability to destroy value. Of course, even that is not unlimited. It is true that companies often succeed in spite of managerial issues, but it is only to a point. Once certain lines are crossed from the legal or HR side, the potential collateral damage compared to the average value add can be massive. With that said, I don't disagree with you that in large enough companies, managers have to do a lot to compromise the success of a company. In practice, there is often enough vertical pressure from and sideways pressures from competing fiefdoms to prevent a single rogue manager from going hog wild. And from the other end, so long as managers are adding (or able to sell the perception of adding) just enough efficiency to the overall organization to support their paycheck, it is true that the only loss is of sanity to ICs, who necessarily must become fungible to a company of that size.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ratww 4y ago
  Yep, agreed. Good observation about operational expenses: management can really fuck things up when it comes to it. But with a large enough company, this might not affect the success. I agree about the "collateral damages" part. And I'd like to rectify my previous post and say it does also affect innovation, culture, long-term-growth, etc., alongside with the sanity of individual collaborators.

by ratww 4y ago

yowlingcat 4y ago

Point taken; I think that you are correct that things vary significantly based on the overall size and shape of the org. Poor management can contribute significantly to OpEx. Compared to ICs, managers have a disproportionate ability to destroy value. Of course, even that is not unlimited. It is true that companies often succeed in spite of managerial issues, but it is only to a point. Once certain lines are crossed from the legal or HR side, the potential collateral damage compared to the average value add can be massive. With that said, I don't disagree with you that in large enough companies, managers have to do a lot to compromise the success of a company. In practice, there is often enough vertical pressure from and sideways pressures from competing fiefdoms to prevent a single rogue manager from going hog wild. And from the other end, so long as managers are adding (or able to sell the perception of adding) just enough efficiency to the overall organization to support their paycheck, it is true that the only loss is of sanity to ICs, who necessarily must become fungible to a company of that size.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ratww 4y ago
Yep, agreed. Good observation about operational expenses: management can really fuck things up when it comes to it. But with a large enough company, this might not affect the success. I agree about the "collateral damages" part. And I'd like to rectify my previous post and say it does also affect innovation, culture, long-term-growth, etc., alongside with the sanity of individual collaborators.