13 ms·

you say you disagree, but then confirm what the original post said. it wasn't arguing that managers were not useful. it was saying they are decreasing in numb

you say you disagree, but then confirm what the original post said. it wasn't arguing that managers were not useful. it was saying they are decreasing in number.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Good point. I guess I agree with the OP. I disagree that it deserves to die, or that it's a good thing that it's dying. For an example, Google has a supposedly "lightweight" system that, in practice, works quite poorly. A more traditional management structure, at a place like Google, would be an improvement. (I have no idea how Github and Valve work. Their structures might work extremely well.)
- grandpa 14y ago
  On Github, here's an article by Ryan Tomayko, the director of engineering: http://tomayko.com/writings/management-style http://tomayko.com/writings/management-style
  - benforeva 14y ago
    Enlightening.
- nostrademons 14y ago
  FWIW, I'm in Search Quality and I find that the "lightweight" system works quite well for myself and for many of my peers. YMMV.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Google's a huge company and some sectors of it work very well, and it's a great place to work if you land in the right place. I think where Google screwed up is that it instituted a bicameral performance review system without understanding how to implement one. You can have a peer-review system or a manager-driven system. If you're doing things right, you have both and an OR-gate between them. People whose peers think they're doing great but whose managers don't recommend them can still advance, and vice versa. Conversely, to be demoted or fired, people have to fail both. The OR-gate system removes the career SPOFs that lead to degenerate behavior: managers can't exploit their position because people with strong peer support can still succeed at the company, and people don't avoid or shirk low-visibility but important projects The problem with Google's system is that it has an AND-gate for promotions and an OR-game for demotions and firings, and that's a disaster. At Google, you need strong peer reviews (which largely comes down to visibility) to get promoted, but you also need to do well on a "calibration score" stack-ranking system (i.e. Jack Welch vomited, someone put a candle in it and called it a birthday cake) that is strictly manager-driven, extremely opaque, and often deeply unfair. (Google has historically had a problem of managers who abuse the calibration score opacity, giving low ratings to make it impossible for their reports to transfer.) The downside of a manager-driven system is that managers can exploit the power, being career SPOFs. The downside of a peer review system is that people jockey for visibility and work that is important but not visible or "sexy" gets neglected. Google's AND-gate system delivers the negatives of both, but none of the advantages. Google has some really great people, and in many ways, it's a really good company, but their abortion of a "Perf" (look, even the name is imbecilic) system is not one of their strong points.
- ljw1001 14y ago
  I don't believe Google's system works poorly. Any organization of that size will have some successes and some failures, but there is a hell of a lot of great software produced there.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    One of Google's great strengths is that it was founded by engineers, and the engineering DNA is strong in the company. Google has cultural problems as any large company will, but they're fundamentally different (and less damaging to a technical firm) than the kind that MBA-culture creates. You could take 10 random Googlers and ask them to do a startup and they'd probably build something awesome. That's not true of the companies where MBA culture dominates. I think one of Google's weaknesses is that there's an unspoken mentality that engineering is for smart people and everything else is for people who couldn't cut it. That might be why Google has excellent engineers but incompetent PMs and middle managers. If you think that engineering is what smart people do and PM work is for idiots, guess who ends up making product decisions? Another of Google's weaknesses is that there are places where the engineering mentality doesn't apply, and Google doesn't seem to get that. Example 1: the Perf system has those nonsense calibration scores. They don't add anything; they just add another SPOF. It's data collection for the sake of data collection. But it turns out, in the real world, that data can be harmful. It can be used in ways that are really disgusting. (That's why Real Names is such an issue.) Google never got that. Example 2: the 3-word mission statements were a really bad idea. Same with downslotting. Engineers are supposed to fly with crazy ideas and give demos when things are still scrappy and rough. But in management, you really can't deploy an idea until you know whether it's good or not, because it's going to affect peoples' careers, and if you deploy a shitty idea it's hard to backtrack and take it all back. Downslotting never should have gotten through the door. Google has some excellent engineers and many of them are people I'd love to work with again, but the place is losing its culture. Google+ and the executive attitude exhibited on Real Names established that.
    - zaphar 14y ago
      I was really trying not to respond to you here but I can't let this statement stand uncontested: I think one of Google's weaknesses is that there's an unspoken mentality that engineering is for smart people and everything else is for people who couldn't cut it. That might be why Google has excellent engineers but incompetent PMs and middle managers. This is false. Nowhere in the company have I seen this "mentality" you speak of. Either you imagined it or you're making it up. The PMs and Managers I've worked with and encountered have been, without exception, very smart and very well informed and very concerned with helping me do my job as an engineer. Some of them were former engineers who were both very knowledgeable and very good at their jobs who decided they would like a change.

you say you disagree, but then confirm what the original post said. it wasn't arguing that managers were not useful. it was saying they are decreasing in number.

michaelochurch 14y ago

Good point. I guess I agree with the OP. I disagree that it deserves to die, or that it's a good thing that it's dying. For an example, Google has a supposedly "lightweight" system that, in practice, works quite poorly. A more traditional management structure, at a place like Google, would be an improvement. (I have no idea how Github and Valve work. Their structures might work extremely well.)

grandpa 14y ago
On Github, here's an article by Ryan Tomayko, the director of engineering: http://tomayko.com/writings/management-style http://tomayko.com/writings/management-style
- benforeva 14y ago
  Enlightening.
nostrademons 14y ago
FWIW, I'm in Search Quality and I find that the "lightweight" system works quite well for myself and for many of my peers. YMMV.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Google's a huge company and some sectors of it work very well, and it's a great place to work if you land in the right place. I think where Google screwed up is that it instituted a bicameral performance review system without understanding how to implement one. You can have a peer-review system or a manager-driven system. If you're doing things right, you have both and an OR-gate between them. People whose peers think they're doing great but whose managers don't recommend them can still advance, and vice versa. Conversely, to be demoted or fired, people have to fail both. The OR-gate system removes the career SPOFs that lead to degenerate behavior: managers can't exploit their position because people with strong peer support can still succeed at the company, and people don't avoid or shirk low-visibility but important projects The problem with Google's system is that it has an AND-gate for promotions and an OR-game for demotions and firings, and that's a disaster. At Google, you need strong peer reviews (which largely comes down to visibility) to get promoted, but you also need to do well on a "calibration score" stack-ranking system (i.e. Jack Welch vomited, someone put a candle in it and called it a birthday cake) that is strictly manager-driven, extremely opaque, and often deeply unfair. (Google has historically had a problem of managers who abuse the calibration score opacity, giving low ratings to make it impossible for their reports to transfer.) The downside of a manager-driven system is that managers can exploit the power, being career SPOFs. The downside of a peer review system is that people jockey for visibility and work that is important but not visible or "sexy" gets neglected. Google's AND-gate system delivers the negatives of both, but none of the advantages. Google has some really great people, and in many ways, it's a really good company, but their abortion of a "Perf" (look, even the name is imbecilic) system is not one of their strong points.
ljw1001 14y ago
I don't believe Google's system works poorly. Any organization of that size will have some successes and some failures, but there is a hell of a lot of great software produced there.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  One of Google's great strengths is that it was founded by engineers, and the engineering DNA is strong in the company. Google has cultural problems as any large company will, but they're fundamentally different (and less damaging to a technical firm) than the kind that MBA-culture creates. You could take 10 random Googlers and ask them to do a startup and they'd probably build something awesome. That's not true of the companies where MBA culture dominates. I think one of Google's weaknesses is that there's an unspoken mentality that engineering is for smart people and everything else is for people who couldn't cut it. That might be why Google has excellent engineers but incompetent PMs and middle managers. If you think that engineering is what smart people do and PM work is for idiots, guess who ends up making product decisions? Another of Google's weaknesses is that there are places where the engineering mentality doesn't apply, and Google doesn't seem to get that. Example 1: the Perf system has those nonsense calibration scores. They don't add anything; they just add another SPOF. It's data collection for the sake of data collection. But it turns out, in the real world, that data can be harmful. It can be used in ways that are really disgusting. (That's why Real Names is such an issue.) Google never got that. Example 2: the 3-word mission statements were a really bad idea. Same with downslotting. Engineers are supposed to fly with crazy ideas and give demos when things are still scrappy and rough. But in management, you really can't deploy an idea until you know whether it's good or not, because it's going to affect peoples' careers, and if you deploy a shitty idea it's hard to backtrack and take it all back. Downslotting never should have gotten through the door. Google has some excellent engineers and many of them are people I'd love to work with again, but the place is losing its culture. Google+ and the executive attitude exhibited on Real Names established that.
  - zaphar 14y ago
    I was really trying not to respond to you here but I can't let this statement stand uncontested: I think one of Google's weaknesses is that there's an unspoken mentality that engineering is for smart people and everything else is for people who couldn't cut it. That might be why Google has excellent engineers but incompetent PMs and middle managers. This is false. Nowhere in the company have I seen this "mentality" you speak of. Either you imagined it or you're making it up. The PMs and Managers I've worked with and encountered have been, without exception, very smart and very well informed and very concerned with helping me do my job as an engineer. Some of them were former engineers who were both very knowledgeable and very good at their jobs who decided they would like a change.