6 ms·

This is a little too rose tinted for my tastes. In a high-performing small company, managers aren't necessary. Someone has to be responsible for hiring and fi

This is a little too rose tinted for my tastes. In a high-performing small company, managers aren't necessary. Someone has to be responsible for hiring and firing people, but you can't afford people that don't get what the company's trying to do. If someone has to be managed, they aren't a good fit. If you've never worked at a place like this, or don't believe me, I'd recommend giving it a try. In a large company, management is essential to the adversarial system. Workers can and should take advantage of the company's inability to tell who is contributing. Here management is essential to creating stress and getting any sort of productive output. The idea that most managers have something to teach you, are good judges of your flaws, or can give better advice than you would get from a senior peer is ridiculous. These are great traits that you should seek out in a mentor, but to claim the median manager anywhere has them is insane. In practice managers you encounter in the wild offer none of those things. Promotions, raises, growth, performance reviews etc. is all a psyop to get you to stay for longer and do more work. It's about what you can negotiate, what that promotion would signal to your peers, how much of a flight risk you are. It's never to incentivize good choices concerning how to hone your craft, get rich, or do work you consider meaningful.

082349872349872 3y ago
> If you've never worked at a place like this, or don't believe me, I'd recommend giving it a try. +1 > Here management is essential to creating stress and getting any sort of productive output. I had friends whose company went from "high-performing small" to "large", and the way they described the transition was "we thought adding management was going to be like adding an internal skeleton, a structure that'd help get all the functional parts of the company pulling in the same direction. Instead it turned out to be like an exoskeleton, a carapace that served mostly to constrain and put hard limits on the functional parts of the company."
- szundi 3y ago
  Like flowing into all direction would be good?
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    Another analogy, from the book Blackhawk Down: the Regular Army units ("large company") required full military discipline (TPR reports, planning poker, etc.) just to survive in position. The Special Forces ("high-performing small company") unit didn't bother with hair length or reciprocal salutes, but instead of using the apparatus of the Army Way, they knew how to do things the right way, and so rapidly established a pattern of fire and movement enabling the RA units to break out and rendezvous with the UN rescue team. Obviously any organisation, at some point during growth (at least under the traditional VC model), has to convert from "high-performing small" to "large". My view of the goal of founders and early employees is to (a) spot when this transition occurs, and (b) have arranged to already be liquid. When the settlers outnumber the pioneers and the range is fenced in, it's time to ride off into the sunset.
ZephyrBlu 3y ago
> The idea that most managers have something to teach you, are good judges of your flaws, or can give better advice than you would get from a senior peer is ridiculous. These are great traits that you should seek out in a mentor, but to claim the median manager anywhere has them is insane. In practice managers you encounter in the wild offer none of those things Have you ever had a good manager? Assuming equally competent people, feedback from a senior peer is likely to not be as good as someone who's full-time job is to be a people manager. Good managers are very aware of the strengths and weaknesses of people in the team. Senior peers do not have to be aware of this and as a result, don't tend to be able to articulate these kind of things. They may be able to give good task-specific feedback, but holistic and personal feedback is difficult. The median senior is just as poor at giving feedback as the median manager, and management in large companies isn't inherently adversarial. It's very environment dependent.
- alphazard 3y ago
  > Have you ever had a good manager? Yes, I have had managers that I consider to be good. But my definition of good is closer to "the person responsible for hiring and firing me, but otherwise leaves me alone" than the definition provided in the OP. I have had managers who match the definition of good provided. It's clear these guys had read too many books and listened to too much Tony Robins. Being a dummy for their management-fu is draining, and every interaction gives NPC vibes. The former got literally 10x more out of me than the later. There is this bad meme going around that because managers are often technically incompetent, they must make up for it in some other way. There's no law of nature that says that must be the case. You can be lacking in many skills, and slip through the hiring process and into a manager role. > The median senior is just as poor at giving feedback as the median manager I didn't say feedback, I said advice. The advice I'm looking for might be how to understand a technology or technique, or how to negotiate a raise. Why would I seek either from someone technically incompetent who has to negotiate against me?
  - ZephyrBlu 3y ago
    The way you describe managers makes it abundantly clear you have never worked with one that is good, or great [0]. It seems like you think they are actively harmful. > There is this bad meme going around that because managers are often technically incompetent, they must make up for it in some other way. There's no law of nature that says that must be the case. You can be lacking in many skills, and slip through the hiring process and into a manager role. I'm not sure why you are so focused on people who are clearly terrible. If they're technically incompetent, managerially incompetent and "slipping through" the hiring process they are obviously not good. My managers have all been technically competent and brought enormous amounts of value to their teams. Providing structure, facilitating the creation of team processes and rituals, correctly dosing chaos and scope for each team member, shielding the team's focus, etc. They also all encouraged me to look around for other jobs and see what I am worth. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/you-havent-seen-greatness/ https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/you-havent-seen-greatness/
icedchai 3y ago
100%. The best software company I've worked for had no real managers. You did technically have a "manager" but all they did was gather feedback and give you reviews once a year. Otherwise, they were senior+ engineers that worked on projects just like you did. On the other hand, I've been at small 20 to 30 person companies with several layers of management. Infact, at one, there were actually more "managers" than individual contributors. It's a big WTF.
- gremlinunderway 3y ago
  There are a lot of business roles where the "manager" is in fact the main "worker" (as in, they have to be involved in EVERYTHING. CC'd on every email. Approval for anything, etc) and they're just given varying groups of personal interns who aren't actually lead or organized into any projects, processes or initiatives but instead just exist to be at the beck and call of the manager.
RamblingCTO 3y ago
I'll say it, even tho I'll drown in down votes: Your attitude gives me "walking red flag" vibes. It sounds paranoid and hostile. Why would I want someone with that attitude in my team or as a colleague? A good manager supports your development, keeps an eye on the big picture (which is quite hard if you're working on the smallest unit of the company, e.g. code), and would also send you home if you work too much. Because time != productivity in general. A promotion means flight risk? What? Just a thought: If everyone else sucks, it can be time to look inward.
- alphazard 3y ago
  I don't mind if you think I'm hostile. My understanding of management and it's role in organizations makes me a threat to many people's livelihoods. Maybe yours included. I would oppose hiring new managers, encourage people to choose companies with less management, dispel bad memes and conventional wisdom about what value, if any, management adds. I'm absolutely bad news. Contrary to your insinuation, everyone does not suck. I've been fortunate enough to work with talented engineers, sales people, VPs, CTOs, CEOs, and founders. I have never come across a talented person who was brought on as a manager. And not one of these talented individuals needed to be managed.
  - RamblingCTO 3y ago
    > VPs, CTOs, CEOs, and founders but aren't these also managers? > Maybe yours included Not really, no. I'm a startup CTO and co-founder and don't consider myself a traditional manager. And, of course, my livelihood isn't endangered by a stranger on the internet ;) It's not that I disagree, you know. It's the black-and-white smell the comment had. And at least for me it's not much about managing someone, but enabling someone. People are no machines. And most people aren't very good with the long term view in my experience. Be it less interest in what happens in the long run or just an attitude, that's what I noticed.
    - alphazard 3y ago
      > but aren't these also managers? No, they were spread way too thin to possibly do anything in the featured article. They hired me and could have fired me though. If that's all a manager is, then yes--box checked.

082349872349872 3y ago

> If you've never worked at a place like this, or don't believe me, I'd recommend giving it a try. +1 > Here management is essential to creating stress and getting any sort of productive output. I had friends whose company went from "high-performing small" to "large", and the way they described the transition was "we thought adding management was going to be like adding an internal skeleton, a structure that'd help get all the functional parts of the company pulling in the same direction. Instead it turned out to be like an exoskeleton, a carapace that served mostly to constrain and put hard limits on the functional parts of the company."

szundi 3y ago
Like flowing into all direction would be good?
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Another analogy, from the book Blackhawk Down: the Regular Army units ("large company") required full military discipline (TPR reports, planning poker, etc.) just to survive in position. The Special Forces ("high-performing small company") unit didn't bother with hair length or reciprocal salutes, but instead of using the apparatus of the Army Way, they knew how to do things the right way, and so rapidly established a pattern of fire and movement enabling the RA units to break out and rendezvous with the UN rescue team. Obviously any organisation, at some point during growth (at least under the traditional VC model), has to convert from "high-performing small" to "large". My view of the goal of founders and early employees is to (a) spot when this transition occurs, and (b) have arranged to already be liquid. When the settlers outnumber the pioneers and the range is fenced in, it's time to ride off into the sunset.

ZephyrBlu 3y ago

> The idea that most managers have something to teach you, are good judges of your flaws, or can give better advice than you would get from a senior peer is ridiculous. These are great traits that you should seek out in a mentor, but to claim the median manager anywhere has them is insane. In practice managers you encounter in the wild offer none of those things Have you ever had a good manager? Assuming equally competent people, feedback from a senior peer is likely to not be as good as someone who's full-time job is to be a people manager. Good managers are very aware of the strengths and weaknesses of people in the team. Senior peers do not have to be aware of this and as a result, don't tend to be able to articulate these kind of things. They may be able to give good task-specific feedback, but holistic and personal feedback is difficult. The median senior is just as poor at giving feedback as the median manager, and management in large companies isn't inherently adversarial. It's very environment dependent.

alphazard 3y ago
> Have you ever had a good manager? Yes, I have had managers that I consider to be good. But my definition of good is closer to "the person responsible for hiring and firing me, but otherwise leaves me alone" than the definition provided in the OP. I have had managers who match the definition of good provided. It's clear these guys had read too many books and listened to too much Tony Robins. Being a dummy for their management-fu is draining, and every interaction gives NPC vibes. The former got literally 10x more out of me than the later. There is this bad meme going around that because managers are often technically incompetent, they must make up for it in some other way. There's no law of nature that says that must be the case. You can be lacking in many skills, and slip through the hiring process and into a manager role. > The median senior is just as poor at giving feedback as the median manager I didn't say feedback, I said advice. The advice I'm looking for might be how to understand a technology or technique, or how to negotiate a raise. Why would I seek either from someone technically incompetent who has to negotiate against me?
- ZephyrBlu 3y ago
  The way you describe managers makes it abundantly clear you have never worked with one that is good, or great [0]. It seems like you think they are actively harmful. > There is this bad meme going around that because managers are often technically incompetent, they must make up for it in some other way. There's no law of nature that says that must be the case. You can be lacking in many skills, and slip through the hiring process and into a manager role. I'm not sure why you are so focused on people who are clearly terrible. If they're technically incompetent, managerially incompetent and "slipping through" the hiring process they are obviously not good. My managers have all been technically competent and brought enormous amounts of value to their teams. Providing structure, facilitating the creation of team processes and rituals, correctly dosing chaos and scope for each team member, shielding the team's focus, etc. They also all encouraged me to look around for other jobs and see what I am worth. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/you-havent-seen-greatness/ https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/you-havent-seen-greatness/

icedchai 3y ago

100%. The best software company I've worked for had no real managers. You did technically have a "manager" but all they did was gather feedback and give you reviews once a year. Otherwise, they were senior+ engineers that worked on projects just like you did. On the other hand, I've been at small 20 to 30 person companies with several layers of management. Infact, at one, there were actually more "managers" than individual contributors. It's a big WTF.

gremlinunderway 3y ago
There are a lot of business roles where the "manager" is in fact the main "worker" (as in, they have to be involved in EVERYTHING. CC'd on every email. Approval for anything, etc) and they're just given varying groups of personal interns who aren't actually lead or organized into any projects, processes or initiatives but instead just exist to be at the beck and call of the manager.

RamblingCTO 3y ago

I'll say it, even tho I'll drown in down votes: Your attitude gives me "walking red flag" vibes. It sounds paranoid and hostile. Why would I want someone with that attitude in my team or as a colleague? A good manager supports your development, keeps an eye on the big picture (which is quite hard if you're working on the smallest unit of the company, e.g. code), and would also send you home if you work too much. Because time != productivity in general. A promotion means flight risk? What? Just a thought: If everyone else sucks, it can be time to look inward.

alphazard 3y ago
I don't mind if you think I'm hostile. My understanding of management and it's role in organizations makes me a threat to many people's livelihoods. Maybe yours included. I would oppose hiring new managers, encourage people to choose companies with less management, dispel bad memes and conventional wisdom about what value, if any, management adds. I'm absolutely bad news. Contrary to your insinuation, everyone does not suck. I've been fortunate enough to work with talented engineers, sales people, VPs, CTOs, CEOs, and founders. I have never come across a talented person who was brought on as a manager. And not one of these talented individuals needed to be managed.
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  > VPs, CTOs, CEOs, and founders but aren't these also managers? > Maybe yours included Not really, no. I'm a startup CTO and co-founder and don't consider myself a traditional manager. And, of course, my livelihood isn't endangered by a stranger on the internet ;) It's not that I disagree, you know. It's the black-and-white smell the comment had. And at least for me it's not much about managing someone, but enabling someone. People are no machines. And most people aren't very good with the long term view in my experience. Be it less interest in what happens in the long run or just an attitude, that's what I noticed.
  - alphazard 3y ago
    > but aren't these also managers? No, they were spread way too thin to possibly do anything in the featured article. They hired me and could have fired me though. If that's all a manager is, then yes--box checked.