6 ms·

Recently, I've been breaking into upper management and now that I've seen just how messy it is/was this is a completely believable story. Crazy stuff. As I cont

Recently, I've been breaking into upper management and now that I've seen just how messy it is/was this is a completely believable story. Crazy stuff. As I continue in my career will be interested to see if different organizations handle that better at upper management or is it just the proverbial shit show everywhere you go.

passwordoops 4y ago
Yeah I flirted but after that experience I moved on to a couple of other places and started to pay closer attention. Trying to be a competent higher-up is not worth the headaches. I'm happy to find my niche at a place that pays well, delivering just enough to whatever higher up is asking for it so people stay happy with my performance to say "he's a good guy!". Side projects are where I get my personal sense of accomplishment these days
garciasn 4y ago
1. This is what happens when there are non-technical folks in the upper-echelons of an organization. The CTO should have highly technical backgrounds and should be able to do the work they’re pushing down to the rest of the engineering staff; however, oftentimes, they cannot and/or never could because their station comes from business acumen, not tech. 2. Now, there’s the other side of that where you have technical leaders who can code but cannot effectively communicate and/or make it known to other leaders why requested roadmap items are not feasible, possible, etc. This is a very common scenario where technical leaders are not great at communicating to other business leaders and making realities known. The third issue is when a technical leader draws a line in the sand and gets sacked because the rest of the leaders hate having their ‘vision’ quashed. This leads to #1 and #2, above.
- passwordoops 4y ago
  Agree with everything, but I wouldn't be too strict on the requirement that the CTO be able to do the work - within reason and depending on the org. They definitely have to be able to understand it and have an intelligible conversation. For example, my current place does hardware and software - CTO comes from the software side so he's not a specialist on the hardware and can't contribute directly to the electrical engineering work. But at least he knows how to ask the right questions, learn when he needs to, and got the right people under him to get the job done. And to your point, he has no formal business education and our CEO is the founder, and an electrical engineer
- willcipriano 4y ago
  > This is what happens when there are non-technical folks in the upper-echelons of an organization The described behavior can be found in non technical organizations as well. A room full of people will never blame itself, they will always blame someone not in the room (or failing that push someone out of the room and blame them). In group VS out group behavior[0][1]. You could tell the same story around a lemonade stand, "Looks like we are going to be busy next week, should I order more lemons?" "no, we ordered plenty", a week later "Why didn't you order more lemons!". It's not a technical problem in the slightest, or even a human nature problem, this stuff was wired in when we were early primates. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
  - oblio 4y ago
    This probably predates primates and it's just a standard social animal trait that's useful so is kept around. Think dogs, wolves, ants, whatever.
  - asoneth 4y ago
    I used to believe this too, but I've worked in multiple organizations now where there was no shame associated with assessing who or what factors contributed to project failures. The primary desire was to understand them accurately to mitigate those same failures in the future. Ultimately it comes down to the organization's culture and whether failures are punished or accepted as a necessary side-effect of doing ambitious work.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  Another pattern I've seen is that the CTO is technical and can do the work, but all their experiences actually coding for the company is from the early days where releasing half-baked bug filled messes was the standard. As the organization grows, maturity around quality, security, reliability, etc. increase but they still have an internalized notion that the company should be able to ship product "like the old days".
  - IneffablePigeon 4y ago
    Alternatively, the slight variation where even shipping good clean robust code was easier in the old days because the product was much smaller and didn't have years of accrued product and technical decisions to work around or unpick, all of which were good at the time but don't work a few years later. The "maturity makes things slower" thing can apply even if the quality of code was always good.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      Then there's the 3rd issue, where everything has become a moat and it's just not worth the effort of trying to do a good job anymore. I've literally seen things that should take an hour be weeks because it ended up involving 10 different teams. And while you may think that's an exaggeration, it's not. software is often used to assert authority so people CAN'T even attempt to work around these issues. Paradoxically, software can actually make companies less effective.
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  > This is what happens when there are non-technical folks in the upper-echelons of an organization. Technical people can forget things and then try to play "shoot the messenger" just as well as non-technical people can.
asoneth 4y ago
I've worked at several companies now, sometimes in a management role. In my experience it's always a shitshow filled with people making things up as they go. One key difference is culture. Some cultures punish candid honesty which leads to reasonable people resorting to politics and blame games. Not sure how to spot this when you're applying, but good culture seems to be correlated with competent and respected technical people in upper-management and lots of devs/engineers with a long tenure.
- passwordoops 4y ago
  My most negative experience has been with business school grads, meaning BComms with MBAs whose experience is in the finance or accounting departments. Seems the culture is about doing what you're told and CYA rather than critical thinking that come from a solid STEM background. It reached the point where I now believe any BComm who wants a leadership role should first spend 3 months shadowing the cleaning staff. Once that person convinces the staff they're capable of not setting anything on fire, they can be allowed to mop the floors for the next 3 months. So on through the organization until 10-15 years later they're deemed qualified to think independently and understand what taking responsibility means. Again, could just be select negative experience, but it's what I've noticed
  - asoneth 4y ago
    I have had both good and bad experiences with MBAs and other business school grads, but I could say the same about STEM folks. I agree there are major cultural differences (i.e. BS from engineers takes a totally different form from BS from MBAs) but I think the more salient problem is if your management team consists of nothing but a single background. If a tech company is run by business and finance folks it can become unmoored from engineering realities. But a tech company run by engineers and scientists can become similarly unmoored from business realities. In my experience, companies that promote well-respected members of their key disciplines into senior management roles seem to be the least dysfunctional.
sybercecurity 4y ago
I've had interactions with upper management some times and agree. I had an older boss who explained that part of his job is to politely head off bad decisions before they get too popular. It's not a people skill they usually teach in management/leadership training for obvious reasons. I guess it falls into the whole "managing up" communication.
lbriner 4y ago
My experience is that the higher you go, the less rules and objectivity exists. You get paid more because you have to navigate this. An e.g. Developer just has to work on the backlog, there might be technical challenges but the requirement is obvious. Once you get to Exec level, do we hire more to produce more work? Close a department because it's losing money now (but might not in the future)? Do we stick with our current market that we have most of or go after a new one that is untapped but less familiar. All of this with the situation/world/people changing all the time. People can call it a shit show but the truth is that it's hard. It's hard to put relative values on things to help make decisions. Ultimately, it usually takes a step of faith and the ability to execute well to increase your chances of making your decision work. You also need to balance the need to stick with something and make it work with accepting it was a bad idea and canning it. I suspect in the very large corporations, it probably gets very surreal because 10 levels of management make the execs completely disconnected from reality so they can make it look like they are making decisions without really knowing what is going on (and most of those might never happen because they take too long to fall down the soil pipe!).
- matwood 4y ago
  Computers are easy compared to people.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  Some companies are clearly run better than others, this is mostly apologist nonsense. What really goes on is that the goals of executives is different from that of people who actually do things, and paradoxically, the ones who actually do things tend to be valued the least.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    But that is a failure of middle management. Middle management's main job is to get the ones who actually do things the tools they need. That includes roadmaps that make sense, etc. That also includes showing upper management the value of the opinions of the ones who actually do things. Upper management is not the advocate for opinions, they are the decision makers who base decisions on what they have been fed. Middle managers are the advocates for the opinions of their people.

passwordoops 4y ago

Yeah I flirted but after that experience I moved on to a couple of other places and started to pay closer attention. Trying to be a competent higher-up is not worth the headaches. I'm happy to find my niche at a place that pays well, delivering just enough to whatever higher up is asking for it so people stay happy with my performance to say "he's a good guy!". Side projects are where I get my personal sense of accomplishment these days

garciasn 4y ago

1. This is what happens when there are non-technical folks in the upper-echelons of an organization. The CTO should have highly technical backgrounds and should be able to do the work they’re pushing down to the rest of the engineering staff; however, oftentimes, they cannot and/or never could because their station comes from business acumen, not tech. 2. Now, there’s the other side of that where you have technical leaders who can code but cannot effectively communicate and/or make it known to other leaders why requested roadmap items are not feasible, possible, etc. This is a very common scenario where technical leaders are not great at communicating to other business leaders and making realities known. The third issue is when a technical leader draws a line in the sand and gets sacked because the rest of the leaders hate having their ‘vision’ quashed. This leads to #1 and #2, above.

passwordoops 4y ago
Agree with everything, but I wouldn't be too strict on the requirement that the CTO be able to do the work - within reason and depending on the org. They definitely have to be able to understand it and have an intelligible conversation. For example, my current place does hardware and software - CTO comes from the software side so he's not a specialist on the hardware and can't contribute directly to the electrical engineering work. But at least he knows how to ask the right questions, learn when he needs to, and got the right people under him to get the job done. And to your point, he has no formal business education and our CEO is the founder, and an electrical engineer
willcipriano 4y ago
> This is what happens when there are non-technical folks in the upper-echelons of an organization The described behavior can be found in non technical organizations as well. A room full of people will never blame itself, they will always blame someone not in the room (or failing that push someone out of the room and blame them). In group VS out group behavior[0][1]. You could tell the same story around a lemonade stand, "Looks like we are going to be busy next week, should I order more lemons?" "no, we ordered plenty", a week later "Why didn't you order more lemons!". It's not a technical problem in the slightest, or even a human nature problem, this stuff was wired in when we were early primates. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
- oblio 4y ago
  This probably predates primates and it's just a standard social animal trait that's useful so is kept around. Think dogs, wolves, ants, whatever.
- asoneth 4y ago
  I used to believe this too, but I've worked in multiple organizations now where there was no shame associated with assessing who or what factors contributed to project failures. The primary desire was to understand them accurately to mitigate those same failures in the future. Ultimately it comes down to the organization's culture and whether failures are punished or accepted as a necessary side-effect of doing ambitious work.
ryanbrunner 4y ago
Another pattern I've seen is that the CTO is technical and can do the work, but all their experiences actually coding for the company is from the early days where releasing half-baked bug filled messes was the standard. As the organization grows, maturity around quality, security, reliability, etc. increase but they still have an internalized notion that the company should be able to ship product "like the old days".
- IneffablePigeon 4y ago
  Alternatively, the slight variation where even shipping good clean robust code was easier in the old days because the product was much smaller and didn't have years of accrued product and technical decisions to work around or unpick, all of which were good at the time but don't work a few years later. The "maturity makes things slower" thing can apply even if the quality of code was always good.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    Then there's the 3rd issue, where everything has become a moat and it's just not worth the effort of trying to do a good job anymore. I've literally seen things that should take an hour be weeks because it ended up involving 10 different teams. And while you may think that's an exaggeration, it's not. software is often used to assert authority so people CAN'T even attempt to work around these issues. Paradoxically, software can actually make companies less effective.
tbrownaw 4y ago
> This is what happens when there are non-technical folks in the upper-echelons of an organization. Technical people can forget things and then try to play "shoot the messenger" just as well as non-technical people can.

asoneth 4y ago

I've worked at several companies now, sometimes in a management role. In my experience it's always a shitshow filled with people making things up as they go. One key difference is culture. Some cultures punish candid honesty which leads to reasonable people resorting to politics and blame games. Not sure how to spot this when you're applying, but good culture seems to be correlated with competent and respected technical people in upper-management and lots of devs/engineers with a long tenure.

passwordoops 4y ago
My most negative experience has been with business school grads, meaning BComms with MBAs whose experience is in the finance or accounting departments. Seems the culture is about doing what you're told and CYA rather than critical thinking that come from a solid STEM background. It reached the point where I now believe any BComm who wants a leadership role should first spend 3 months shadowing the cleaning staff. Once that person convinces the staff they're capable of not setting anything on fire, they can be allowed to mop the floors for the next 3 months. So on through the organization until 10-15 years later they're deemed qualified to think independently and understand what taking responsibility means. Again, could just be select negative experience, but it's what I've noticed
- asoneth 4y ago
  I have had both good and bad experiences with MBAs and other business school grads, but I could say the same about STEM folks. I agree there are major cultural differences (i.e. BS from engineers takes a totally different form from BS from MBAs) but I think the more salient problem is if your management team consists of nothing but a single background. If a tech company is run by business and finance folks it can become unmoored from engineering realities. But a tech company run by engineers and scientists can become similarly unmoored from business realities. In my experience, companies that promote well-respected members of their key disciplines into senior management roles seem to be the least dysfunctional.

sybercecurity 4y ago

I've had interactions with upper management some times and agree. I had an older boss who explained that part of his job is to politely head off bad decisions before they get too popular. It's not a people skill they usually teach in management/leadership training for obvious reasons. I guess it falls into the whole "managing up" communication.

lbriner 4y ago

My experience is that the higher you go, the less rules and objectivity exists. You get paid more because you have to navigate this. An e.g. Developer just has to work on the backlog, there might be technical challenges but the requirement is obvious. Once you get to Exec level, do we hire more to produce more work? Close a department because it's losing money now (but might not in the future)? Do we stick with our current market that we have most of or go after a new one that is untapped but less familiar. All of this with the situation/world/people changing all the time. People can call it a shit show but the truth is that it's hard. It's hard to put relative values on things to help make decisions. Ultimately, it usually takes a step of faith and the ability to execute well to increase your chances of making your decision work. You also need to balance the need to stick with something and make it work with accepting it was a bad idea and canning it. I suspect in the very large corporations, it probably gets very surreal because 10 levels of management make the execs completely disconnected from reality so they can make it look like they are making decisions without really knowing what is going on (and most of those might never happen because they take too long to fall down the soil pipe!).

matwood 4y ago
Computers are easy compared to people.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
Some companies are clearly run better than others, this is mostly apologist nonsense. What really goes on is that the goals of executives is different from that of people who actually do things, and paradoxically, the ones who actually do things tend to be valued the least.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  But that is a failure of middle management. Middle management's main job is to get the ones who actually do things the tools they need. That includes roadmaps that make sense, etc. That also includes showing upper management the value of the opinions of the ones who actually do things. Upper management is not the advocate for opinions, they are the decision makers who base decisions on what they have been fed. Middle managers are the advocates for the opinions of their people.