4 ms·

I think the issue is that it's sort of circular, like, "managers provide value when they convince other managers not to be obstacles". I think there's important

I think the issue is that it's sort of circular, like, "managers provide value when they convince other managers not to be obstacles". I think there's important stuff managers can do, but creating complex hierarchies that they then have to navigate or circumvent is a neutral contribution at best, from a systemic standpoint rather than an individual one. For this high performer who's earned their promotion, having their manager go to bat for them is incredibly valuable. But if the reason they needed a manager to advocate for them was that other managers were either adversarial or ambivalent, that's just adding back value that was previously removed. To be clear, I'm addressing this narrow aspect of management, I've had managers who helped me resolve disputes, get access to resources and opportunities I couldn't have gotten on my own, et cetera, and I see the value in that without qualification.

refurb 4y ago
But if the reason they needed a manager to advocate for them was that other managers were either adversarial or ambivalent, that's just adding back value that was previously removed. But "adversarial" management is just a reality in company that has $X to spend and 12 different ways to spend it. Business decisions often have to made with limited data. A engineers "super cool feature that should obviously be implemented" is not so obvious at the CEO level where there are multiple competing projects. As such there is a need to "sell" ideas internally -> that's politics.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Just because it is the reality doesn't mean it can't be critiqued though, right? If the CEO doesn't have insight into this situation because their attention is divided - maybe the CEO should provide the people closer to the problem with the information they need to do their jobs, and trust that they've hired good people who will digest this information, prioritize appropriately, and get the job done? If they can't trust that's the case, then isn't that the problem we should be discussing? Maybe the CEO should focus on the strategic direction of the company and securing the investment required to implement it, and not manage projects at the feature level? Generally I find that managers are awesome at facilitating stuff and making sure information gets where it needs to go but that when they dictate it leads to bad decision making because they don't have the proper insight. This becomes exacerbated as you add levels of indirection are between the manager dictating decisions and the people on the ground implementing them. That isn't per say their fault, it's just the dynamics of hierarchies. As information travels up the hierarchy it becomes more essentialized and nonspecific. It loses fidelity. Statistics can travel up the hierarchy, experience can't. So that engineer who's close to the problem has this rich first hand information about the system, and the CEO has a spreadsheet and third- or forth-hand accounts of the situation on the ground. There's certainly a lot of global, systemic insights you can make from that position and useful work to be done. But it's probably not whether a individual feature of a broader project should or should not be implemented. Internal salesmanship is a bandaid, but structuring the organization differently is a solution.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Sure, the CEO delegates decisions to his COO. Ok, now the COO has to decide which 5 projects to find out of the 12 the company wants to do. Business decisions are rarely black and white which is why if you can’t articulate why you should get resources, you won’t - someone who can articulate their value better will get resources. And if they can convince someone else their idea is best, now you’ve got two people advocating (i.e. politics). The larger orgs get the more politics because there is simply to much going on for any one person to have all the information needed to make a decision - they can only rely on others to argue for their own priorities.

refurb 4y ago

But if the reason they needed a manager to advocate for them was that other managers were either adversarial or ambivalent, that's just adding back value that was previously removed. But "adversarial" management is just a reality in company that has $X to spend and 12 different ways to spend it. Business decisions often have to made with limited data. A engineers "super cool feature that should obviously be implemented" is not so obvious at the CEO level where there are multiple competing projects. As such there is a need to "sell" ideas internally -> that's politics.

maxbond 4y ago
Just because it is the reality doesn't mean it can't be critiqued though, right? If the CEO doesn't have insight into this situation because their attention is divided - maybe the CEO should provide the people closer to the problem with the information they need to do their jobs, and trust that they've hired good people who will digest this information, prioritize appropriately, and get the job done? If they can't trust that's the case, then isn't that the problem we should be discussing? Maybe the CEO should focus on the strategic direction of the company and securing the investment required to implement it, and not manage projects at the feature level? Generally I find that managers are awesome at facilitating stuff and making sure information gets where it needs to go but that when they dictate it leads to bad decision making because they don't have the proper insight. This becomes exacerbated as you add levels of indirection are between the manager dictating decisions and the people on the ground implementing them. That isn't per say their fault, it's just the dynamics of hierarchies. As information travels up the hierarchy it becomes more essentialized and nonspecific. It loses fidelity. Statistics can travel up the hierarchy, experience can't. So that engineer who's close to the problem has this rich first hand information about the system, and the CEO has a spreadsheet and third- or forth-hand accounts of the situation on the ground. There's certainly a lot of global, systemic insights you can make from that position and useful work to be done. But it's probably not whether a individual feature of a broader project should or should not be implemented. Internal salesmanship is a bandaid, but structuring the organization differently is a solution.
- refurb 4y ago
  Sure, the CEO delegates decisions to his COO. Ok, now the COO has to decide which 5 projects to find out of the 12 the company wants to do. Business decisions are rarely black and white which is why if you can’t articulate why you should get resources, you won’t - someone who can articulate their value better will get resources. And if they can convince someone else their idea is best, now you’ve got two people advocating (i.e. politics). The larger orgs get the more politics because there is simply to much going on for any one person to have all the information needed to make a decision - they can only rely on others to argue for their own priorities.