4 ms·

Actual high performers cannot be managed as they eventually will question why a less capable person is managing them. This is the basic unsolvable quandary eve

Actual high performers cannot be managed as they eventually will question why a less capable person is managing them. This is the basic unsolvable quandary everyone ignored at Google during my 10 years there. What these silly advice columns actually are selling is “how to drain over producers until you can discard them”

derektank 2y ago
I guess it depends on what you mean by less capable. I've had great managers that had pretty negligible technical skills but they were able to provide me with good direction and made sure that I wasn't wasting my time on work that didn't matter. And on the flip side I've had bosses that were way better at my job than I was but they were not at all fun to work for, for a variety of reasons.
- whstl 2y ago
  Same. Some of my best managers weren't really as technical as I was, or were experts in completely different domains. The job of a manager isn't being a "better developer", it's to remove blockers and isolate reports from annoyances, so that they can do their best work.
takemetoearth 2y ago
This won't go over well here, but: we might have to dismantle a lot of the economy if we want to fix draining overproducers until you can discard them...
levocardia 2y ago
This is a silly idea. Managing is a different skill than performing (at any task). Usain Bolt's coach was not a very fast sprinter. LeBron James' coach at Miami was merely a middling basketball player.
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  Stop using sports it’s a poor metaphor and by all account's all coaches are high performing formers players themselves. This is kitchen table economics talk.
antupis 2y ago
Not true theirs is plenty of mediocre players that become great coaches. I really cannot see why IT would be different.
rented_mule 2y ago
I disagree. Sports gives lots of great examples... the all-time greats almost always fail as coaches. But great coaches often come from the ranks of the less successful players and get more out of the greats. I've seen the same over and over in software engineering. Nobody, not even the best, is perfect. Even if they are perfect today, things constantly change, and they need to grow to accommodate change. A good manager will have different context (e.g., from being in more meetings than high performers have capacity for) and be able to synthesize information for them. They will see what is working for other high performers more deeply and share that. They will be a good sounding board. They will be someone who can listen. They will be someone who will be honest about what they are seeing. And they will know when to get themselves and others out of the way. Also, part of being a great high performer is learning how to collaborate with a manager on growth. A manager can't do nearly as much to help if the high performer is not being reflective, looking for opportunity, willing to change / grow, and being vulnerable enough with the manager to share all of that. People who are really good at this can get more out of all but the worst managers. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of terrible managers just getting in the way. But there are great managers too, even those who weren't the highest performers as ICs.
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  Completely false. Almost every NBA player is what you would call a high performer by any metric. And most coaches come from the player base. You wrote a lot here and got the metaphor entirely wrong at a base level. The NBA is a tournament of entirely high performers.
  - rented_mule 2y ago
    Please look for a little more nuance, I promise that it's there. Almost every NBA player is a high performer compared to the levels below. But many NBA players are not high performers when compared to other NBA players. Almost every professional software engineer is a high performer compared to the levels below. But many professional software engineers are not high performers when compared to the rest of the profession. Why is Steph Curry's salary more than 25x some of his teammates' salaries? The same for LeBron James? There is a distribution of performance within the top level of any profession. Why call out performance at all, in the context of coaching / managing / growth, if it's not relative to others at the same level?
jdbernard 2y ago
That's only true if you expect managers to control the people they lead. Another approach is to empower them instead. As a manager my expectation is that each of my direct reports eventually grows to be better at their job than I am at their job. My job is to make sure they have clarity on the team and organizational goals, make sure my management has visibility and confidence in our team, and create a healthy, high trust environment that allows my team members to work at their best. Again, it is my hope and desire that my reports exceed my own expertise. Additionally, management is itself a different skillset.
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  You likely again have never seen a true high performer and are confusing them for high output. High performers will be good enough to fundamentally question leadership decisions at an exec level and will have good reasons to. They will not just he fast at their work. They will be so good at it that it makes you almost unnecessary in the equation. High output just does the work you assign them well.
  - rented_mule 2y ago
    Not who you are responding to here, but I'd put the bar for the highest level of performance significantly higher than that. Any good engineer can "fundamentally question leadership decisions at an exec level". True top performs do it and cause change to happen at that level. I've seen plenty just question and not realize how much (typically non-technical) context they are missing. I've seen multiple ICs regularly effect change at that level and be thanked personally by CEOs and CFOs in multi-billion dollar public companies. These are people who have >50% raises because of their company-changing results (one person had that kind of raise in consecutive companies). These are exceptionally high performers by any standard. I've managed multiple people like that and had them request weekly one-on-ones with me years after I retired (I gladly do it because they are amazing to talk with). I was a highly successful IC for almost 25 years, but nowhere near their level. It turns out some people can coach / manage / mentor well above their own levels. I mention all that because my style had a lot in common with who you are responding to. Nowhere did they say that their reports get 1% ahead of their own abilities and stop there - there is no ceiling. > You likely again have never seen a true high performer I'm not sure why you think you know what everyone else has experienced. Isn't it possible that your experience is less than universal?

derektank 2y ago

I guess it depends on what you mean by less capable. I've had great managers that had pretty negligible technical skills but they were able to provide me with good direction and made sure that I wasn't wasting my time on work that didn't matter. And on the flip side I've had bosses that were way better at my job than I was but they were not at all fun to work for, for a variety of reasons.

whstl 2y ago
Same. Some of my best managers weren't really as technical as I was, or were experts in completely different domains. The job of a manager isn't being a "better developer", it's to remove blockers and isolate reports from annoyances, so that they can do their best work.

takemetoearth 2y ago

This won't go over well here, but: we might have to dismantle a lot of the economy if we want to fix draining overproducers until you can discard them...

levocardia 2y ago

This is a silly idea. Managing is a different skill than performing (at any task). Usain Bolt's coach was not a very fast sprinter. LeBron James' coach at Miami was merely a middling basketball player.

tsunamifury 2y ago
Stop using sports it’s a poor metaphor and by all account's all coaches are high performing formers players themselves. This is kitchen table economics talk.

antupis 2y ago

Not true theirs is plenty of mediocre players that become great coaches. I really cannot see why IT would be different.

rented_mule 2y ago

I disagree. Sports gives lots of great examples... the all-time greats almost always fail as coaches. But great coaches often come from the ranks of the less successful players and get more out of the greats. I've seen the same over and over in software engineering. Nobody, not even the best, is perfect. Even if they are perfect today, things constantly change, and they need to grow to accommodate change. A good manager will have different context (e.g., from being in more meetings than high performers have capacity for) and be able to synthesize information for them. They will see what is working for other high performers more deeply and share that. They will be a good sounding board. They will be someone who can listen. They will be someone who will be honest about what they are seeing. And they will know when to get themselves and others out of the way. Also, part of being a great high performer is learning how to collaborate with a manager on growth. A manager can't do nearly as much to help if the high performer is not being reflective, looking for opportunity, willing to change / grow, and being vulnerable enough with the manager to share all of that. People who are really good at this can get more out of all but the worst managers. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of terrible managers just getting in the way. But there are great managers too, even those who weren't the highest performers as ICs.

tsunamifury 2y ago
Completely false. Almost every NBA player is what you would call a high performer by any metric. And most coaches come from the player base. You wrote a lot here and got the metaphor entirely wrong at a base level. The NBA is a tournament of entirely high performers.
- rented_mule 2y ago
  Please look for a little more nuance, I promise that it's there. Almost every NBA player is a high performer compared to the levels below. But many NBA players are not high performers when compared to other NBA players. Almost every professional software engineer is a high performer compared to the levels below. But many professional software engineers are not high performers when compared to the rest of the profession. Why is Steph Curry's salary more than 25x some of his teammates' salaries? The same for LeBron James? There is a distribution of performance within the top level of any profession. Why call out performance at all, in the context of coaching / managing / growth, if it's not relative to others at the same level?

jdbernard 2y ago

That's only true if you expect managers to control the people they lead. Another approach is to empower them instead. As a manager my expectation is that each of my direct reports eventually grows to be better at their job than I am at their job. My job is to make sure they have clarity on the team and organizational goals, make sure my management has visibility and confidence in our team, and create a healthy, high trust environment that allows my team members to work at their best. Again, it is my hope and desire that my reports exceed my own expertise. Additionally, management is itself a different skillset.

tsunamifury 2y ago
You likely again have never seen a true high performer and are confusing them for high output. High performers will be good enough to fundamentally question leadership decisions at an exec level and will have good reasons to. They will not just he fast at their work. They will be so good at it that it makes you almost unnecessary in the equation. High output just does the work you assign them well.
- rented_mule 2y ago
  Not who you are responding to here, but I'd put the bar for the highest level of performance significantly higher than that. Any good engineer can "fundamentally question leadership decisions at an exec level". True top performs do it and cause change to happen at that level. I've seen plenty just question and not realize how much (typically non-technical) context they are missing. I've seen multiple ICs regularly effect change at that level and be thanked personally by CEOs and CFOs in multi-billion dollar public companies. These are people who have >50% raises because of their company-changing results (one person had that kind of raise in consecutive companies). These are exceptionally high performers by any standard. I've managed multiple people like that and had them request weekly one-on-ones with me years after I retired (I gladly do it because they are amazing to talk with). I was a highly successful IC for almost 25 years, but nowhere near their level. It turns out some people can coach / manage / mentor well above their own levels. I mention all that because my style had a lot in common with who you are responding to. Nowhere did they say that their reports get 1% ahead of their own abilities and stop there - there is no ceiling. > You likely again have never seen a true high performer I'm not sure why you think you know what everyone else has experienced. Isn't it possible that your experience is less than universal?