4 ms·

This is pretty funny. You’re also more likely to get a raise by finding a new job. So basically management is just providing more incentive for the top perform

This is pretty funny. You’re also more likely to get a raise by finding a new job. So basically management is just providing more incentive for the top performers to quit? How is this a good idea?

polotics 3y ago
From a games-theory standpoint: - Top performers need less management. - Top-performers may be competing for your management job. - Top performers are more likely to annoy colleagues and/or make them feel threatened.
- q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 3y ago
  This is an interesting perspective. Out of curiosity, are you describing some profession other than software engineering? At least in the context of SWE, I think all of those points are exactly the opposite: > Top performers need less management. Any halfway-competent engineering manager knows she should spend more of her time with her top people, because anything she can do to improve their performance is that much more impactful for the business. > Top-performers may be competing for your management job. SWE at the higher-levels tends to be "dual track" (and frankly this is a model that should be applied to more professions). A strong IC is better off being given more breadth/depth for their IC impact, rather than being forced into management -- and that's usually what they prefer, too. > Top performers are more likely to annoy colleagues and/or make them feel threatened. What a horrifyingly insecure company culture that must be.
  - mythhabit 3y ago
    I think GP means less management in the sense that you give them guidelines and goals, and then let them do their thing. Of course you should remove impediments and in general make it such that they are distracted less. But less performing IC often needs to be managed much more. They need guidance selecting work, they need guidance to help prioritising, estimating, structuring, and taking important things into account. Dependable top performancers rarely need that.
  - inigoalonso 3y ago
    > Any halfway-competent engineering manager knows she should spend more of her time with her top people, because anything she can do to improve their performance is that much more impactful for the business. I guess the point is that to improve their performance the best managers can do is "get out of their way", not "spend more of her time" with them.
    - q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 3y ago
      Yeah, that's my point though -- that's a common belief, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Consider some common scenarios: If you have a tech lead who's cooking up some new architecture, some new idea, whatever -- it's valuable to both of you to spend time together on it. The manager can make connections to work going on with other teams/customers, can help pressure-test the business reasoning for particular design choices, and can help line up the right people to work on it alongside the TL. Meanwhile, the TL benefits by having their design strengthened up front and getting connections to the right people, without having to spend tons of time meandering around the business. By contrast, a junior engineer isn't going to benefit from a doubling or tripling of the manager's time. Their work is straightforward. The manager's only job is to ensure they have good tickets, make sure they have a nearby mentor in a mid-level/senior engineer, and then get out of the way. Tying back to the article, the top/senior people are exactly the ones who are going to be doing new and creative things, so they -- and therefore the business -- benefit the most from the manager's time.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        I'm not sure you understand what it means to be a senior engineer. A senior engineer can generally do every single role involved in the process, from PM all the way down to developer. They often don't because they don't have the time to fill 3 or 4 roles, but they _can_. One of the roles they can fill is manager and reaching out to others in order to coordinate and facilitate work amongst others. A senior is _not_ a junior who can program faster or better. A senior is someone who has a much broader set of skills than a junior.
    - ozim 3y ago
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    What he wrote perfectly applies to SWE, too. Top performers do need less management (and what you describe is not management) and they are threatening. These are 'natural' consequences of high competency and human nature.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Agree with your second and third points, but doesn't your first one clash with your second? In my experience, top perfomers/good dev will spend a lot less time with their own middle managers than average ones, except where the culture is terrible. But they might spend more time with managers for other teams and low-level executives.
- pg_1234 3y ago
  Actually, for the typical environment, top performers who work from home are effectively opting out of the management track. So from a game-theory standpoint they remain an asset, but not a threat.
vaicorinthians 3y ago
which corporate newspeak did y'all hear lately in justification of RTO ? I really do find them amusing
- datadeft 3y ago
  We are between two mandatory vaccination programs pushed by the pharma lobby and now is the time to really get back to the office. I think we should get back the control of our lives from corporations. At this stage it is about profit and control maximalization above all else.
  - WJW 3y ago
    What do you think corporations were founded to do in the 1800s? The term "robber baron" didn't come about because executives were all socially-minded back then.
polygamous_bat 3y ago
I think the flawed assumption there is thinking management is there for the good of the company. In my experience, much of the time management is there for the good of itself, and when it’s good for the company it’s mostly a byproduct. Just like how we use yeast to make bread and beer.
DrBazza 3y ago
In some industries companies are well aware of what others are doing such as 'cost saving' redundancies, or "adjusting" the wages of contractors, that always seem to happen at the same time. In this case a lot of companies and CEOs actually think 'it's what the other guy is doing as well' and 'it's good for the company'. Except it's not the same, and there is a competitive advantage of getting the best people from the other guy. Companies that are doing this, are losing their best people, and their competitors are gaining them. If remote work and 'the internet' didn't work, we wouldn't have nice things like Linux, Postgres and so on.

This is pretty funny. You’re also more likely to get a raise by finding a new job. So basically management is just providing more incentive for the top performers to quit? How is this a good idea?

polotics 3y ago

From a games-theory standpoint: - Top performers need less management. - Top-performers may be competing for your management job. - Top performers are more likely to annoy colleagues and/or make them feel threatened.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 3y ago
This is an interesting perspective. Out of curiosity, are you describing some profession other than software engineering? At least in the context of SWE, I think all of those points are exactly the opposite: > Top performers need less management. Any halfway-competent engineering manager knows she should spend more of her time with her top people, because anything she can do to improve their performance is that much more impactful for the business. > Top-performers may be competing for your management job. SWE at the higher-levels tends to be "dual track" (and frankly this is a model that should be applied to more professions). A strong IC is better off being given more breadth/depth for their IC impact, rather than being forced into management -- and that's usually what they prefer, too. > Top performers are more likely to annoy colleagues and/or make them feel threatened. What a horrifyingly insecure company culture that must be.
- mythhabit 3y ago
  I think GP means less management in the sense that you give them guidelines and goals, and then let them do their thing. Of course you should remove impediments and in general make it such that they are distracted less. But less performing IC often needs to be managed much more. They need guidance selecting work, they need guidance to help prioritising, estimating, structuring, and taking important things into account. Dependable top performancers rarely need that.
- inigoalonso 3y ago
  > Any halfway-competent engineering manager knows she should spend more of her time with her top people, because anything she can do to improve their performance is that much more impactful for the business. I guess the point is that to improve their performance the best managers can do is "get out of their way", not "spend more of her time" with them.
  - q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 3y ago
    Yeah, that's my point though -- that's a common belief, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Consider some common scenarios: If you have a tech lead who's cooking up some new architecture, some new idea, whatever -- it's valuable to both of you to spend time together on it. The manager can make connections to work going on with other teams/customers, can help pressure-test the business reasoning for particular design choices, and can help line up the right people to work on it alongside the TL. Meanwhile, the TL benefits by having their design strengthened up front and getting connections to the right people, without having to spend tons of time meandering around the business. By contrast, a junior engineer isn't going to benefit from a doubling or tripling of the manager's time. Their work is straightforward. The manager's only job is to ensure they have good tickets, make sure they have a nearby mentor in a mid-level/senior engineer, and then get out of the way. Tying back to the article, the top/senior people are exactly the ones who are going to be doing new and creative things, so they -- and therefore the business -- benefit the most from the manager's time.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      I'm not sure you understand what it means to be a senior engineer. A senior engineer can generally do every single role involved in the process, from PM all the way down to developer. They often don't because they don't have the time to fill 3 or 4 roles, but they _can_. One of the roles they can fill is manager and reaching out to others in order to coordinate and facilitate work amongst others. A senior is _not_ a junior who can program faster or better. A senior is someone who has a much broader set of skills than a junior.
  - ozim 3y ago
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  What he wrote perfectly applies to SWE, too. Top performers do need less management (and what you describe is not management) and they are threatening. These are 'natural' consequences of high competency and human nature.
- orwin 3y ago
  Agree with your second and third points, but doesn't your first one clash with your second? In my experience, top perfomers/good dev will spend a lot less time with their own middle managers than average ones, except where the culture is terrible. But they might spend more time with managers for other teams and low-level executives.
pg_1234 3y ago
Actually, for the typical environment, top performers who work from home are effectively opting out of the management track. So from a game-theory standpoint they remain an asset, but not a threat.

vaicorinthians 3y ago

which corporate newspeak did y'all hear lately in justification of RTO ? I really do find them amusing

datadeft 3y ago
We are between two mandatory vaccination programs pushed by the pharma lobby and now is the time to really get back to the office. I think we should get back the control of our lives from corporations. At this stage it is about profit and control maximalization above all else.
- WJW 3y ago
  What do you think corporations were founded to do in the 1800s? The term "robber baron" didn't come about because executives were all socially-minded back then.

polygamous_bat 3y ago

I think the flawed assumption there is thinking management is there for the good of the company. In my experience, much of the time management is there for the good of itself, and when it’s good for the company it’s mostly a byproduct. Just like how we use yeast to make bread and beer.

DrBazza 3y ago

In some industries companies are well aware of what others are doing such as 'cost saving' redundancies, or "adjusting" the wages of contractors, that always seem to happen at the same time. In this case a lot of companies and CEOs actually think 'it's what the other guy is doing as well' and 'it's good for the company'. Except it's not the same, and there is a competitive advantage of getting the best people from the other guy. Companies that are doing this, are losing their best people, and their competitors are gaining them. If remote work and 'the internet' didn't work, we wouldn't have nice things like Linux, Postgres and so on.