3 ms·

There is a good way to do "lots of management": it's when a small amount of bureaucracy is distributed over management with plenty of autonomy so that managers

by kqr 4y ago

There is a good way to do "lots of management": it's when a small amount of bureaucracy is distributed over management with plenty of autonomy so that managers get to spend 80 % of their time with technical work and only do a small amount of clerical work. That creates skilled managers that can step in and substitute for individual contributors. It also teaches them what the day-to-day work actually looks like, what the culture of the company actually is, what the obstacles actually are, and so on. Technically active management is super powerful, and the only way to achieve it is with a large group of managers, because a small group won't have time to regularly dive into technical details. The problem is that's never what happens. Any time managers have excess time on their hands, they don't find something valuable to do -- instead they invent more bureaucracy and administration to fill their time, and make the organisation less effective. Why is that? I genuinely want to know because if I ever get the opportunity to help shape an organisation, I would want technically active management. I think it's critical for success.

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
My workplace has a lot of managers, many of which I find to be rather redundant; however, my manager is the first one that I have ever had in my career that is particularly "good". He's less technical than some of the people on the team, but what he is very good at is limiting the ability for other departments to interfere with my team's work. He's almost like a border guard and diplomat for our team. Any sort of potential project involving co-operation between departments always goes to him first to figure out whether it fits our team. He also has our team's back in saying, "no, that is not my team's fault" --- in other words, he won't throw us under the bus. He lets us get our work done, and also provides us with clear higher level direction by managing how other departments interact with us. When a big project involving multiple departments develops, he is the one responsible for scheduling and...leading, for lack of a better word. I think some people bristle at the idea of being led, but a good leader is worth their weight in gold. A lot of bad managers are ultimately simply bad leaders. Now, can every department have what my team has? I don't know. But, I can say that his work as a manager has actively improved team productivity and task completion. It's very refreshing once you have a good manager. You're free to just work while he manages the teams bureaucracy, that is other departments pushing the team in a thousand directions at once.
- kqr 4y ago
  I'm a bit skeptical of this idea of the manager as an immune system protecting the organisation from itself. I believe this is a symptom of something else that has gone wrong, rather than an ideal to strive for.
citizenpaul 4y ago
The same reason all politicians are corrupt. If you choose to be the one doing good in a world of political backstabbing and make work. While your opponents spend 90% of their time figuring oout how to take your share. Guess what happens to your share. This doesn't even include the fact that since you are doing real work eventually you will make a mistake. Meanwhile your competitors are waiting for this and doing nothing real so they can point out your failing and how much better they know than you and how you should be replaced with some guy they are good friends with that would be really great to replace you.

by kqr 4y ago

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago

My workplace has a lot of managers, many of which I find to be rather redundant; however, my manager is the first one that I have ever had in my career that is particularly "good". He's less technical than some of the people on the team, but what he is very good at is limiting the ability for other departments to interfere with my team's work. He's almost like a border guard and diplomat for our team. Any sort of potential project involving co-operation between departments always goes to him first to figure out whether it fits our team. He also has our team's back in saying, "no, that is not my team's fault" --- in other words, he won't throw us under the bus. He lets us get our work done, and also provides us with clear higher level direction by managing how other departments interact with us. When a big project involving multiple departments develops, he is the one responsible for scheduling and...leading, for lack of a better word. I think some people bristle at the idea of being led, but a good leader is worth their weight in gold. A lot of bad managers are ultimately simply bad leaders. Now, can every department have what my team has? I don't know. But, I can say that his work as a manager has actively improved team productivity and task completion. It's very refreshing once you have a good manager. You're free to just work while he manages the teams bureaucracy, that is other departments pushing the team in a thousand directions at once.

kqr 4y ago
I'm a bit skeptical of this idea of the manager as an immune system protecting the organisation from itself. I believe this is a symptom of something else that has gone wrong, rather than an ideal to strive for.

citizenpaul 4y ago

The same reason all politicians are corrupt. If you choose to be the one doing good in a world of political backstabbing and make work. While your opponents spend 90% of their time figuring oout how to take your share. Guess what happens to your share. This doesn't even include the fact that since you are doing real work eventually you will make a mistake. Meanwhile your competitors are waiting for this and doing nothing real so they can point out your failing and how much better they know than you and how you should be replaced with some guy they are good friends with that would be really great to replace you.