7 ms·

This is a painfully cynical worldview. If you find yourself in a company where management is this ineffective, get out. Or at least move to a different departme

This is a painfully cynical worldview. If you find yourself in a company where management is this ineffective, get out. Or at least move to a different department where people are genuinely working together. Companies (or departments) wouldn't actually last very long if management teams were as bad as you described. > Setting the agenda and defining the terms is a way to exert power, in many ways far more important than any substantive outcome to the meetings. No, setting an agenda is a way to give people a chance to prepare for a meeting and to keep the meeting on track. A meeting with an agenda sent out ahead of time is far more efficient than a meeting where people just show up and think of things to chat about. > You can try using some BS of your own Please don't do this. Believe it or not, it's actually really easy from the management side of the table to tell when someone is just laying on the flattery and trying to say all the right things to butter people up. Engineers who try to "play politics" usually overestimate their ability to manipulate other people and underestimate other people's ability to see right through it. You may think you're just playing the game, but I guarantee it's coming off as patronizing to the genuine employees around you. Those genuine employees are the people you need to build trust with, and these political manipulation games will only do the opposite. > Don't have a team? Invent one, just evoke the existence of some confused and dissatisfied co-workers who you are eager to motivate. Now this is pure keyboard warrior fantasy material. Doing anything resembling this will destroy your reputation at the company in short order. Chronic liars and manipulators may not be called out in public, but their negative reputation will spread quickly among people in the know.

johnwheeler 4y ago
> Please don't do this. Believe it or not, it's actually really easy from the management side of the table to tell when someone is just laying on the flattery and trying to say all the right things to butter people up. Actually it’s been shown that ass kissing and flattery are quite effective unfortunately. > Engineers who try to "play politics" usually overestimate their ability to manipulate other people and underestimate other people's ability to see right through it. Actually, engineers are often quite adept at manipulating social systems to their advantage. If you think engineers are just heads-down nerds without personal agendas they promote ruthlessly, you’re the patsy. > Chronic liars and manipulators may not be called out in public, but their negative reputation will spread quickly among people in the know. Seriously? Politics over the last 10 years come to mind. Bad behavior is often rewarded. Doesn’t mean you should partake, but I don’t call it cynicism as much as realism.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > > Chronic liars and manipulators may not be called out in public, but their negative reputation will spread quickly among people in the know. > Seriously? Why do you doubt that at all? It's literally what the parent comment suggested doing: Keeping track of different people and getting a sense for who impacts business outcomes versus who is all talk. This is what people do in general. It's not some magical skill that only engineers can have. We all observe who gets things done and learn who can't follow through over time. These ideas that only engineers can see how things work and that once we're promoted to management we just become dumb robots incapable of seeing reality is ridiculous. > Politics over the last 10 years come to mind. Bad behavior is often rewarded. Doesn’t mean you should partake, but I don’t call it cynicism as much as realism. Politics isn't the workplace. If you're using hot-button public politics spanning the country as an analog for teams working together in a workplace, you're going to end up with some deeply flawed mental models of how management works.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    >Politics isn't the workplace. [...] you're going to end up with some deeply flawed mental models of how management works. I mean, I sort of agree... But on the other hand, it's literally called 'office politics' and is generally pretty analogous with 'public politics' (e.g. balancing diverse viewpoints to achieve a common goal). It's not really as binary as you are implying.
  - andresp 4y ago
    You are not promoted to manager. It is a different career choice, but the fact that you see it that way explains a lot about your position.
    - haswell 4y ago
      > You are not promoted to manager This seems like a statement you could use to describe one’s own path, but not the path of others. People absolutely are promoted to management positions. This cannot be disputed. Whether the individual transitions into the role effectively and becomes a good manager is a separate thing. I’ve worked with managers who started as devs, and took naturally to the role. I’ve worked with horrible managers who started from the same place. > but the fact that you see it that way explains a lot about your position. What does it explain? You are implying it’s meaningful, but it’s impossible to engage with your position until you articulate it.
anigbrowl 4y ago
You are quite right that it is a cynical outlook, but (it seems to me) OP is describing an environment where buzzwords take precedence over making sure everyone understands the goals and path toward them, and has made extensive good faith efforts to figure out just what corporate is trying to say. My suggestion is not that OP should play politics (which s/he would likely neither enjoy nor prosper at) but rather do some very basic tests to get a feel of what is actually going on and avoid possibly ending up as a convenient scapegoat if a manager's grand plans don't pan out. I fully agree that anyone stuck in an actually dysfunctional corporate environment should look for an exit where they can focus on actually working as a team.
willcipriano 4y ago
> it's actually really easy from the management side of the table to tell when someone is just laying on the flattery and trying to say all the right things to butter people up. How do you know you didn't just catch the people who are bad at it?
- hitekker 4y ago
  I think most managers are afraid to think how the people who like them are using them. That fear is intensified by past decisions around liking: when you've promoted someone who was good at manipulating you, terrible at the work, and now everyone associates their success with your success. One reason why good judgement becomes essential the higher up you go. If you just "believe in management", managers below, above and across from you will saddle you with likeable and incompetent people.
g051051 4y ago
> No, setting an agenda is a way to give people a chance to prepare for a meeting and to keep the meeting on track. A meeting with an agenda sent out ahead of time is far more efficient than a meeting where people just show up and think of things to chat about. I go so far as to reject meetings that don't have an agenda specified. Either that, or (if I'm feeling generous) reply to the meeting invite with a "Maybe" and ask specifically for an agenda.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  ^ This. If a meeting doesn't have an agenda, then it has no terminating condition, and is therefore an infinite loop until it times out. Don't go to those meetings. And more constructively, don't create those meetings. An agenda takes ~3 minutes to add; there's no excuse for not having one. E.g. Agenda for this comment: (1) express agreement, (2) clarify what's toxic about agenda-less meetings using computer science analogy, (3) appeal to reader to improve their own behavior, (4) preemptively rebut complaints about suggested behavior. Done.
  - monkeydust 4y ago
    I wish this was enforced in meeting systems across corporations unless all participants elect not to have one (appreciate certain sensitive or perhaps social meetings might not need this)
lazyasciiart 4y ago
> Chronic liars and manipulators may not be called out in public, but their negative reputation will spread quickly among people in the know. I desperately wish this to be true, but the years spent watching them get promoted and rewarded tells me otherwise.
dougmwne 4y ago
I have observed that even when all parties know someone is full of BS, it can still be quite difficult to fight against it. It takes much more energy to debunk than lie. Lies, once spoken take on a weird truth of their own.
- bckr 4y ago
  This is such an important, lucid point. One of the most important skills I have had to develop is to see through "reality control", which constitutes a much larger part of communication than we're comfortable talking about in most settings.
VyseofArcadia 4y ago
> Companies (or departments) wouldn't actually last very long if management teams were as bad as you described. I take it you've never worked for a FAANGM.
galdosdi 4y ago
> Companies (or departments) wouldn't actually last very long if management teams were as bad as you described. That is only true for companies in a highly competitive market. There are all kinds of markets, some are very competitive (e.g., the market for a commodity like gasoline or flour), some are total monopolies or oligopolies (e.g., the market for smartphone operating systems, or for electricity or water in your city) and many are some hybrid somewhere in between. The less competition a company has to face, the more they are able to grow dysfunctional while still staying profitable, thus avoiding any serious pressure to curb the dysfunction. See https://open.lib.umn.edu/exploringbusiness/chapter/1-5-monopolistic-competition-oligopoly-and-monopoly-2/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/exploringbusiness/chapter/1-5-monop... or any intro microeconomics text for more. Also, even in cases that are more competitive, managers are human and make mistakes, and the feedback cycle might be so long that a lot of dysfunction can happen before it's time to pay the piper and a whole division has to be sold off or laid off. This is most likely to happen at companies huge and diversified enough. I think you have been fortunate enough to never work at a place like the one OP described. I have, although only once. If you find yourself in such a place, yeah, take it as a sign to get out.
time_to_smile 4y ago
Have you ever been management at a Fortune 500 company? I have and, while the parent may be a bit on the cynical side, you're take is boarding on dangerously naive for anyone who wants to understand the non-engineering part of an org. My experience is that the real path to success is to do cynical things naively. That is, if you cynically see things how they are, and act accordingly, you won't get very far. Management in large orgs (and many small ones as well) requires "true believers" so to speak. Meetings are a lot about asserting power, but the most successful people in large orgs genuinely believe that those people asserting power are better than them, and hope to one day be as powerful. Flattery works insanely well, but it works better coming from a true sycophant, one who genuinely aligns their personal success with your opinion of them. I've been the object of flattery many time, and to be honest, it does feel good and work even when you know it's some what BS. > Now this is pure keyboard warrior fantasy material. I literally laughed out loud when I read this, since I was more or less told to engage in this type of behavior to succeed by senior leadership when I worked in a large org. Inject yourself into projects that didn't need you, find ways to make yourself relevant, do whatever it takes to grow your team (because your authority is directly proportional to the number of people under you). Personally I think that entire culture is reclusive, so left that role very quickly and stick to IC work and smaller leadership roles on teams that do more resemble the world you're describing. But make no mistake, parent is accurately depicting the realty at the majority management roles in large corporations.

johnwheeler 4y ago

> Please don't do this. Believe it or not, it's actually really easy from the management side of the table to tell when someone is just laying on the flattery and trying to say all the right things to butter people up. Actually it’s been shown that ass kissing and flattery are quite effective unfortunately. > Engineers who try to "play politics" usually overestimate their ability to manipulate other people and underestimate other people's ability to see right through it. Actually, engineers are often quite adept at manipulating social systems to their advantage. If you think engineers are just heads-down nerds without personal agendas they promote ruthlessly, you’re the patsy. > Chronic liars and manipulators may not be called out in public, but their negative reputation will spread quickly among people in the know. Seriously? Politics over the last 10 years come to mind. Bad behavior is often rewarded. Doesn’t mean you should partake, but I don’t call it cynicism as much as realism.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> > Chronic liars and manipulators may not be called out in public, but their negative reputation will spread quickly among people in the know. > Seriously? Why do you doubt that at all? It's literally what the parent comment suggested doing: Keeping track of different people and getting a sense for who impacts business outcomes versus who is all talk. This is what people do in general. It's not some magical skill that only engineers can have. We all observe who gets things done and learn who can't follow through over time. These ideas that only engineers can see how things work and that once we're promoted to management we just become dumb robots incapable of seeing reality is ridiculous. > Politics over the last 10 years come to mind. Bad behavior is often rewarded. Doesn’t mean you should partake, but I don’t call it cynicism as much as realism. Politics isn't the workplace. If you're using hot-button public politics spanning the country as an analog for teams working together in a workplace, you're going to end up with some deeply flawed mental models of how management works.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  >Politics isn't the workplace. [...] you're going to end up with some deeply flawed mental models of how management works. I mean, I sort of agree... But on the other hand, it's literally called 'office politics' and is generally pretty analogous with 'public politics' (e.g. balancing diverse viewpoints to achieve a common goal). It's not really as binary as you are implying.
- andresp 4y ago
  You are not promoted to manager. It is a different career choice, but the fact that you see it that way explains a lot about your position.
  - haswell 4y ago
    > You are not promoted to manager This seems like a statement you could use to describe one’s own path, but not the path of others. People absolutely are promoted to management positions. This cannot be disputed. Whether the individual transitions into the role effectively and becomes a good manager is a separate thing. I’ve worked with managers who started as devs, and took naturally to the role. I’ve worked with horrible managers who started from the same place. > but the fact that you see it that way explains a lot about your position. What does it explain? You are implying it’s meaningful, but it’s impossible to engage with your position until you articulate it.

anigbrowl 4y ago

You are quite right that it is a cynical outlook, but (it seems to me) OP is describing an environment where buzzwords take precedence over making sure everyone understands the goals and path toward them, and has made extensive good faith efforts to figure out just what corporate is trying to say. My suggestion is not that OP should play politics (which s/he would likely neither enjoy nor prosper at) but rather do some very basic tests to get a feel of what is actually going on and avoid possibly ending up as a convenient scapegoat if a manager's grand plans don't pan out. I fully agree that anyone stuck in an actually dysfunctional corporate environment should look for an exit where they can focus on actually working as a team.

willcipriano 4y ago

> it's actually really easy from the management side of the table to tell when someone is just laying on the flattery and trying to say all the right things to butter people up. How do you know you didn't just catch the people who are bad at it?

hitekker 4y ago
I think most managers are afraid to think how the people who like them are using them. That fear is intensified by past decisions around liking: when you've promoted someone who was good at manipulating you, terrible at the work, and now everyone associates their success with your success. One reason why good judgement becomes essential the higher up you go. If you just "believe in management", managers below, above and across from you will saddle you with likeable and incompetent people.

g051051 4y ago

> No, setting an agenda is a way to give people a chance to prepare for a meeting and to keep the meeting on track. A meeting with an agenda sent out ahead of time is far more efficient than a meeting where people just show up and think of things to chat about. I go so far as to reject meetings that don't have an agenda specified. Either that, or (if I'm feeling generous) reply to the meeting invite with a "Maybe" and ask specifically for an agenda.

ethbr0 4y ago
^ This. If a meeting doesn't have an agenda, then it has no terminating condition, and is therefore an infinite loop until it times out. Don't go to those meetings. And more constructively, don't create those meetings. An agenda takes ~3 minutes to add; there's no excuse for not having one. E.g. Agenda for this comment: (1) express agreement, (2) clarify what's toxic about agenda-less meetings using computer science analogy, (3) appeal to reader to improve their own behavior, (4) preemptively rebut complaints about suggested behavior. Done.
- monkeydust 4y ago
  I wish this was enforced in meeting systems across corporations unless all participants elect not to have one (appreciate certain sensitive or perhaps social meetings might not need this)

lazyasciiart 4y ago

> Chronic liars and manipulators may not be called out in public, but their negative reputation will spread quickly among people in the know. I desperately wish this to be true, but the years spent watching them get promoted and rewarded tells me otherwise.

dougmwne 4y ago

I have observed that even when all parties know someone is full of BS, it can still be quite difficult to fight against it. It takes much more energy to debunk than lie. Lies, once spoken take on a weird truth of their own.

bckr 4y ago
This is such an important, lucid point. One of the most important skills I have had to develop is to see through "reality control", which constitutes a much larger part of communication than we're comfortable talking about in most settings.

VyseofArcadia 4y ago

> Companies (or departments) wouldn't actually last very long if management teams were as bad as you described. I take it you've never worked for a FAANGM.

galdosdi 4y ago

> Companies (or departments) wouldn't actually last very long if management teams were as bad as you described. That is only true for companies in a highly competitive market. There are all kinds of markets, some are very competitive (e.g., the market for a commodity like gasoline or flour), some are total monopolies or oligopolies (e.g., the market for smartphone operating systems, or for electricity or water in your city) and many are some hybrid somewhere in between. The less competition a company has to face, the more they are able to grow dysfunctional while still staying profitable, thus avoiding any serious pressure to curb the dysfunction. See https://open.lib.umn.edu/exploringbusiness/chapter/1-5-monopolistic-competition-oligopoly-and-monopoly-2/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/exploringbusiness/chapter/1-5-monop... or any intro microeconomics text for more. Also, even in cases that are more competitive, managers are human and make mistakes, and the feedback cycle might be so long that a lot of dysfunction can happen before it's time to pay the piper and a whole division has to be sold off or laid off. This is most likely to happen at companies huge and diversified enough. I think you have been fortunate enough to never work at a place like the one OP described. I have, although only once. If you find yourself in such a place, yeah, take it as a sign to get out.

time_to_smile 4y ago

Have you ever been management at a Fortune 500 company? I have and, while the parent may be a bit on the cynical side, you're take is boarding on dangerously naive for anyone who wants to understand the non-engineering part of an org. My experience is that the real path to success is to do cynical things naively. That is, if you cynically see things how they are, and act accordingly, you won't get very far. Management in large orgs (and many small ones as well) requires "true believers" so to speak. Meetings are a lot about asserting power, but the most successful people in large orgs genuinely believe that those people asserting power are better than them, and hope to one day be as powerful. Flattery works insanely well, but it works better coming from a true sycophant, one who genuinely aligns their personal success with your opinion of them. I've been the object of flattery many time, and to be honest, it does feel good and work even when you know it's some what BS. > Now this is pure keyboard warrior fantasy material. I literally laughed out loud when I read this, since I was more or less told to engage in this type of behavior to succeed by senior leadership when I worked in a large org. Inject yourself into projects that didn't need you, find ways to make yourself relevant, do whatever it takes to grow your team (because your authority is directly proportional to the number of people under you). Personally I think that entire culture is reclusive, so left that role very quickly and stick to IC work and smaller leadership roles on teams that do more resemble the world you're describing. But make no mistake, parent is accurately depicting the realty at the majority management roles in large corporations.