4 ms·

Hi, sometime middle-manager here. The goal isn't to have me make decisions, its to let people around me make decisions quickly and well enough that most of the

by fizx 2y ago

Hi, sometime middle-manager here. The goal isn't to have me make decisions, its to let people around me make decisions quickly and well enough that most of the time it works out, and when it doesn't, we can roll back easily. If this isn't working out, I hire experts to improve the quality of decision-making, with me making decisions as a last resort.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xingped 2y ago
I mean you can say that, but that has never been my experience. Neither, I'm sure, has it been many other peoples' experiences either.
- sodapopcan 2y ago
  Naw, it was my experience once. It’s rare, though.
jncfhnb 2y ago
So… the goal is for you to do nothing? Except not impede people making decisions and hiring consultants when you, not the person closer to the issue, thinks it’s not working?
- pgwhalen 2y ago
  A more charitable interpretation might be that their goal is to create space for good decisions to be made, and to de-risk those decisions. Unless your mental model of a manager is "person who make decisions," than that is far from "doing nothing."
- kbenson 2y ago
  As someone squarely in this position for the last few years (from a prior senior engineering position), I would say my job is to try to emulate the decisions and guidance my manager would give, but to more people than he has time to do it for. This is fairly obvious because for a while he was doing that for too many people because we couldn't find a person for the position. If I can speed up answers and feedback and provide direction quickly in a way that's similar to what he would have do for people that often ended up waiting for him because his schedule was too busy, then I'm doing at least one part of my job well. The more layers of this there are the more likely the message might be garbled by that game of telephone, but ultimately people can only handle so many relationships successfully, especially when they require specific regular action, and delegation (which is all middle management is essentially) is one approach that's been found to work around this. When I'm doing my job well, the people I manage have clear directions and expectations, and if the company is managed well those expectations are seen as achievable by all involved, and if they aren't it's my job to communicate that either up or down the structure. I don't think it's sane to assume that will just naturally occur once a workforce gets big enough, so something is needed to help that along, and managers are one way to do so.
  - toyg 2y ago
    Basically you're describing a lieutenant/sergeant relationship. The sargeant will try to give each private the same commands that the lieutenant would give, with necessary adjustments for the immediate realities of the field.
    - 9659 2y ago
      a time honored and tested management philosophy.
      - toyg 2y ago
        Indeed. Unironically, a lot of modern war material like "Band of Brothers" is relevant to management and leadership in vertical organizations - which is what most companies are, at the end of the day.
    - matwood 2y ago
      Yep. It's frowned upon in some companies to use the military as an example, but military management has been forged often times in blood. The concept that you're hitting on is called 'commanders intent'. Basically we need to climb that hill over there, but the commander is not going to tell someone exactly how because they won't be in the situation. They trust the people on the ground will make good decisions. I give my team all the information I have, convey my/the company's intent, and let them work. That way, I don't have to make every little decision. I trust they will make good decisions and come to me if there's a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(military)#Commander's_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(military)#Commander's_... Commander's intent (CSI) plays a central role in military decision making and planning. CSI acts as a basis for staffs and subordinates to develop their own plans and orders to transform thought into action, while maintaining the overall intention of their commander. I'll also add that it builds ownership since the people doing the work are making the execution plans. IMO, it's the really the only way to manage if the goal is to get things done.
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jmopp 2y ago
  It's kind of like how the north star for a programmer is to automate themselves out of the job. A good manager will bring the best out of their reports, which leads to making good decisions and executing on them.
- adastra22 2y ago
  In the same sense that a machine maintenance person’s job is to not be involved in the machinery. Their job is not to operate the machine, but to make sure the machine operates correctly all on its own without intervention. Doing this correctly does take a lot of work.
  - seb1204 2y ago
    I like this, but I think also that a machine maintenance person has a very clear job description, defined set of tools and schedule to follow.

by fizx 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

xingped 2y ago

I mean you can say that, but that has never been my experience. Neither, I'm sure, has it been many other peoples' experiences either.

sodapopcan 2y ago
Naw, it was my experience once. It’s rare, though.

jncfhnb 2y ago

So… the goal is for you to do nothing? Except not impede people making decisions and hiring consultants when you, not the person closer to the issue, thinks it’s not working?

pgwhalen 2y ago
A more charitable interpretation might be that their goal is to create space for good decisions to be made, and to de-risk those decisions. Unless your mental model of a manager is "person who make decisions," than that is far from "doing nothing."
kbenson 2y ago
As someone squarely in this position for the last few years (from a prior senior engineering position), I would say my job is to try to emulate the decisions and guidance my manager would give, but to more people than he has time to do it for. This is fairly obvious because for a while he was doing that for too many people because we couldn't find a person for the position. If I can speed up answers and feedback and provide direction quickly in a way that's similar to what he would have do for people that often ended up waiting for him because his schedule was too busy, then I'm doing at least one part of my job well. The more layers of this there are the more likely the message might be garbled by that game of telephone, but ultimately people can only handle so many relationships successfully, especially when they require specific regular action, and delegation (which is all middle management is essentially) is one approach that's been found to work around this. When I'm doing my job well, the people I manage have clear directions and expectations, and if the company is managed well those expectations are seen as achievable by all involved, and if they aren't it's my job to communicate that either up or down the structure. I don't think it's sane to assume that will just naturally occur once a workforce gets big enough, so something is needed to help that along, and managers are one way to do so.
- toyg 2y ago
  Basically you're describing a lieutenant/sergeant relationship. The sargeant will try to give each private the same commands that the lieutenant would give, with necessary adjustments for the immediate realities of the field.
  - 9659 2y ago
    a time honored and tested management philosophy.
    - toyg 2y ago
      Indeed. Unironically, a lot of modern war material like "Band of Brothers" is relevant to management and leadership in vertical organizations - which is what most companies are, at the end of the day.
  - matwood 2y ago
    Yep. It's frowned upon in some companies to use the military as an example, but military management has been forged often times in blood. The concept that you're hitting on is called 'commanders intent'. Basically we need to climb that hill over there, but the commander is not going to tell someone exactly how because they won't be in the situation. They trust the people on the ground will make good decisions. I give my team all the information I have, convey my/the company's intent, and let them work. That way, I don't have to make every little decision. I trust they will make good decisions and come to me if there's a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(military)#Commander's_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(military)#Commander's_... Commander's intent (CSI) plays a central role in military decision making and planning. CSI acts as a basis for staffs and subordinates to develop their own plans and orders to transform thought into action, while maintaining the overall intention of their commander. I'll also add that it builds ownership since the people doing the work are making the execution plans. IMO, it's the really the only way to manage if the goal is to get things done.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jmopp 2y ago
It's kind of like how the north star for a programmer is to automate themselves out of the job. A good manager will bring the best out of their reports, which leads to making good decisions and executing on them.
adastra22 2y ago
In the same sense that a machine maintenance person’s job is to not be involved in the machinery. Their job is not to operate the machine, but to make sure the machine operates correctly all on its own without intervention. Doing this correctly does take a lot of work.
- seb1204 2y ago
  I like this, but I think also that a machine maintenance person has a very clear job description, defined set of tools and schedule to follow.