6 ms·

If even Microsoft is trimming employees, whether it's less than X % or not is somewhat immaterial. The chilling fear of job loss articles like it produces is st

If even Microsoft is trimming employees, whether it's less than X % or not is somewhat immaterial. The chilling fear of job loss articles like it produces is still a feeling I experience. At least for me, I have multiple former coworkers saying 'apply over here' and I'm nervous to jump ship. Last in First Out says it's risky to move jobs if there's gonna be a big downturn. Mediocre butts-in-seats middle management are probably rubbing their hands together in glee that soon they can crush that uppity employee class underfoot once more. My own manager is amazing and I don't wanna give him up easily, lest I end up with one of the Lumbergs.

wombat-man 4y ago
It's absolutely not last in first out. Sometimes it's a good time to let go of a partner who isn't quite worth their cost anymore. A good manager is valuable but you'll have some chance to evaluate any future ones. If it ends up being terrible, sometimes you can boomerang back.
iknowSFR 4y ago
Yeah… middle management is oh-so-powerful! They’re definitely not worried about their own roles because they control everything! Seriously, what the hell is this mindset? What’s the deal with HN and framing middle management as some us-vs-them bad guy? Stop dehumanizing this layer. Middle management doesn’t exist by their own accord. It’s formed by leadership to support leadership. I get the impression that the people who bash middle management have never experienced the role themselves.
- Loughla 4y ago
  Bingo. Middle managers can make your day-to-day a little easier or a lot worse, depending on their particular management style/ability. But overall trends in the workforce, at your company, and policies/practice that create these trends? That's upper level executive level leadership. Why do middle managers get all the blame for company decisions? I have never understood that.
- Patrol8394 4y ago
  In my experience, in small/medium/big companies, I am sorry to say, but most middle “managers” are what Steve Jobs referred to as “bozos”. They are either professional managers who have only managed but never did anything else, or they are mediocre software engineers who have decided to become managers … because in most cases they couldn’t build and deliver anything. Unfortunately leaderships let bozos rules, that’s the truth. “ We went out and hired a bunch of professional management; it didn’t work at all. Most of them were Bozos. They knew how to manage, but they didn’t know how to DO anything. If you are a great person, why do you want to work for somebody you cannot learn anything from? And you know what’s interesting - you know what the best managers are? They are the great individual contributors who never ever wanted to be a manager, but decide they have to be a manager because no one else is able to do as good job as them.”
  - mattgreenrocks 4y ago
    > most middle “managers” are what Steve Jobs referred to as “bozos”. I'll humbly submit that we should offer more grace to middle managers: these typically end up as the first few steps into management for ICs. The role is new, and they face difficulties managing up to upper management and clients, and down to their subordinates. In some orgs, I suspect they are not set up to succeed, but more to diffuse responsibility and hopefully compartmentalize some of the chaos. That said, I've had a handful of [middle] managers who weren't fun to work under, and it was their personalities/vices combining with various organizational pathologies. > We went out and hired a bunch of professional management; it didn’t work at all...they knew how to manage, but they didn’t know how to DO anything. Leadership is instantiated within a business/cultural context. Without knowledge of that context, leaders will not be as effective as they could be. This makes the concept of a professional managerial class that purports to be able to swoop into any industry and "manage" rather ridiculous.
  - dtech 4y ago
    This is almost a certainty in large organizations, because these people spend their time on advancing their career, office politics and place in the organization as opposed to producing things / "doing their job". And unfortunately but unsurprisingly in most organizations it's a much more successful strategy when measured in power and compensation.
- cableshaft 4y ago
  Yeah, I've seen middle management get cut faster than ICs at several companies. They're definitely not safe. Executives and upper management? Yeah, they're likely the ones rubbing their hands in glee. You can hear it in interviews with several of them. "These people not wanting to come back to the office or 'quiet quitting' or jumping ship to get paid what they're worth are going to regret doing so when this recession hits." Inside their heads they're probably adding a 'Muahahaha' at the end of that. But I think most middle managers are about as worried about their jobs as ICs are.
dopylitty 4y ago
You might even guess that’s the goal of this “economy is going to get worse” narrative that these “company announces layoffs” stories are part of. The economy has been doing well despite supply issues caused by the pandemic and war. This has made hiring difficult which has given employees power. While businesses have been making money hand over fist they’ve also been begrudgingly forced to give a small amount to employees. By pushing this narrative that a recession is imminent they can lower employee expectations so that even more of their record revenues can be channeled to profits/executive compensation.
- mattgreenrocks 4y ago
  Initially, I thought this was overly antagonistic. Then, I remembered the swath of anti-remote work articles when we were more optimistic on the state of the economy: worries about "quiet quitters," WFH employees secretly living in another country/state, etc. If those are truly big problems, why has discussion slowed so much? (I'll believe they are problems, but that they have been exaggerated.)
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  Yeah, companies like Snapchat and Roku are down close to 90% because of a narrative. The growth slowdown is real
  - cableshaft 4y ago
    Snapchat has nothing to do with a general 'growth slowdown'. People have left Snapchat for TikTok[1]. Social media users, especially youth, are fickle and the industry relies heavily on network effects. Once you're no longer perceived as cool and/or lose enough users that the network effect isn't as powerful, it tends to snowball, and is hard to get that back. "But there could be a bigger reason the company[Snapchat] has seen revenue deflate. Its reputation as the social media platform for young people has faded—particularly in the eyes of advertisers." Not denying that growth slowdown is happening to some extent. But Snapchat has problems beyond that, and isn't a great example for it. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-09-01/snap-is-struggling-as-tiktok-grows-with-young-users https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-09-01/snap-i... As for Roku, I'm not as well-versed there, but I do see that in October 2021 they announced that they're losing 85 channels, including the behemoth YouTube, so that may have contributed significantly to its decline this past year. Not to mention lots of TVs now tend to have the same type of channels as Roku built-in, rendering it a bit unnecessary. Mine has everything I care about for streaming, for example. Netflix, HBO Max, Hulu, Disney+, etc. [2] https://bestlifeonline.com/news-roku-losing-channels-youtube/ https://bestlifeonline.com/news-roku-losing-channels-youtube...

wombat-man 4y ago

It's absolutely not last in first out. Sometimes it's a good time to let go of a partner who isn't quite worth their cost anymore. A good manager is valuable but you'll have some chance to evaluate any future ones. If it ends up being terrible, sometimes you can boomerang back.

iknowSFR 4y ago

Yeah… middle management is oh-so-powerful! They’re definitely not worried about their own roles because they control everything! Seriously, what the hell is this mindset? What’s the deal with HN and framing middle management as some us-vs-them bad guy? Stop dehumanizing this layer. Middle management doesn’t exist by their own accord. It’s formed by leadership to support leadership. I get the impression that the people who bash middle management have never experienced the role themselves.

Loughla 4y ago
Bingo. Middle managers can make your day-to-day a little easier or a lot worse, depending on their particular management style/ability. But overall trends in the workforce, at your company, and policies/practice that create these trends? That's upper level executive level leadership. Why do middle managers get all the blame for company decisions? I have never understood that.
Patrol8394 4y ago
In my experience, in small/medium/big companies, I am sorry to say, but most middle “managers” are what Steve Jobs referred to as “bozos”. They are either professional managers who have only managed but never did anything else, or they are mediocre software engineers who have decided to become managers … because in most cases they couldn’t build and deliver anything. Unfortunately leaderships let bozos rules, that’s the truth. “ We went out and hired a bunch of professional management; it didn’t work at all. Most of them were Bozos. They knew how to manage, but they didn’t know how to DO anything. If you are a great person, why do you want to work for somebody you cannot learn anything from? And you know what’s interesting - you know what the best managers are? They are the great individual contributors who never ever wanted to be a manager, but decide they have to be a manager because no one else is able to do as good job as them.”
- mattgreenrocks 4y ago
  > most middle “managers” are what Steve Jobs referred to as “bozos”. I'll humbly submit that we should offer more grace to middle managers: these typically end up as the first few steps into management for ICs. The role is new, and they face difficulties managing up to upper management and clients, and down to their subordinates. In some orgs, I suspect they are not set up to succeed, but more to diffuse responsibility and hopefully compartmentalize some of the chaos. That said, I've had a handful of [middle] managers who weren't fun to work under, and it was their personalities/vices combining with various organizational pathologies. > We went out and hired a bunch of professional management; it didn’t work at all...they knew how to manage, but they didn’t know how to DO anything. Leadership is instantiated within a business/cultural context. Without knowledge of that context, leaders will not be as effective as they could be. This makes the concept of a professional managerial class that purports to be able to swoop into any industry and "manage" rather ridiculous.
- dtech 4y ago
  This is almost a certainty in large organizations, because these people spend their time on advancing their career, office politics and place in the organization as opposed to producing things / "doing their job". And unfortunately but unsurprisingly in most organizations it's a much more successful strategy when measured in power and compensation.
cableshaft 4y ago
Yeah, I've seen middle management get cut faster than ICs at several companies. They're definitely not safe. Executives and upper management? Yeah, they're likely the ones rubbing their hands in glee. You can hear it in interviews with several of them. "These people not wanting to come back to the office or 'quiet quitting' or jumping ship to get paid what they're worth are going to regret doing so when this recession hits." Inside their heads they're probably adding a 'Muahahaha' at the end of that. But I think most middle managers are about as worried about their jobs as ICs are.

dopylitty 4y ago

You might even guess that’s the goal of this “economy is going to get worse” narrative that these “company announces layoffs” stories are part of. The economy has been doing well despite supply issues caused by the pandemic and war. This has made hiring difficult which has given employees power. While businesses have been making money hand over fist they’ve also been begrudgingly forced to give a small amount to employees. By pushing this narrative that a recession is imminent they can lower employee expectations so that even more of their record revenues can be channeled to profits/executive compensation.

mattgreenrocks 4y ago
Initially, I thought this was overly antagonistic. Then, I remembered the swath of anti-remote work articles when we were more optimistic on the state of the economy: worries about "quiet quitters," WFH employees secretly living in another country/state, etc. If those are truly big problems, why has discussion slowed so much? (I'll believe they are problems, but that they have been exaggerated.)
FormerBandmate 4y ago
Yeah, companies like Snapchat and Roku are down close to 90% because of a narrative. The growth slowdown is real
- cableshaft 4y ago
  Snapchat has nothing to do with a general 'growth slowdown'. People have left Snapchat for TikTok[1]. Social media users, especially youth, are fickle and the industry relies heavily on network effects. Once you're no longer perceived as cool and/or lose enough users that the network effect isn't as powerful, it tends to snowball, and is hard to get that back. "But there could be a bigger reason the company[Snapchat] has seen revenue deflate. Its reputation as the social media platform for young people has faded—particularly in the eyes of advertisers." Not denying that growth slowdown is happening to some extent. But Snapchat has problems beyond that, and isn't a great example for it. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-09-01/snap-is-struggling-as-tiktok-grows-with-young-users https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-09-01/snap-i... As for Roku, I'm not as well-versed there, but I do see that in October 2021 they announced that they're losing 85 channels, including the behemoth YouTube, so that may have contributed significantly to its decline this past year. Not to mention lots of TVs now tend to have the same type of channels as Roku built-in, rendering it a bit unnecessary. Mine has everything I care about for streaming, for example. Netflix, HBO Max, Hulu, Disney+, etc. [2] https://bestlifeonline.com/news-roku-losing-channels-youtube/ https://bestlifeonline.com/news-roku-losing-channels-youtube...