5 ms·
I agree about the hidden work, but you describe it in a reactionary manner. A huge amount of management effort goes into being proactive so you don't even need
by _puk 2y ago
I agree about the hidden work, but you describe it in a reactionary manner.
A huge amount of management effort goes into being proactive so you don't even need to get to the point in the conversation where they voice wanting to leave. Or when they do, you've seen it coming, have plans in place and they move on with your blessing.
* Creating a culture where employees (and managers) feel valued and have autonomy.
* Ensuring employees are clear about where they are headed, giving them something to work towards.
* Proactively identifying and unblocking issues before they become crises, often across functions.
* Identifying areas of frustrations for teams and individuals.
That's just a small number of the things you'll be doing, and whilst scope varies massively by company size (though until you get to the large corp environment most of this is still covered up to the VP / CTO level), you'll be juggling it all alongside technical input, cross functional leadership responsibilities (VP may well be in the SLT if the company isn't huge), horizon scanning, constant process refinement.. The pillars of people, process and technology all need to be constantly considered..
Having done this repeatedly from IC all the way through Head, Director and VP level (and up to CTO), I can say that being a proactive problem solver is always required of a good manager / Director / VP.
Edit: Having read the actual article ;)
IC paths map this quite well too..
Tech Lead maps to manager, Staff maps to Director, Principal to VP
- AdamN 2y agoYou can only be so proactive. At a ginormous company, the pace of change is glacial. You can push really hard and get buy-in from leaders with hundreds of people under them and still get blocked trying to improve things about the office/culture that are simply beyond one's control - even with VP buy-in. Big companies need to federate out more if they want this type of proactive management - or just accept it and maybe that makes sense too.
- code_biologist 2y agoIndeed, don't ignore obvious issues like team morale, career paths for ICs, but there's a certain zen to the balance between proactive and reactive. Don't do too much proactive work if there isn't incremental return on it. Don't burn yourself out or set yourself up for deep disappointment. Mid-pandemic I saw another manager go from enthusiastic to despondent overnight when his upcoming hiring headcount was cut to zero and his lovingly cultivated recruiting pipeline was basically worthless. He left shortly after, unsurprisingly. It was painful to watch and taught me a lesson in contingent value in management. I don't mean to say I know better though, he was definitely a better manager than me lol.
- mmooss 2y agoIf you are a manager, would you accept that from a subordinate who failed to do their job successfully? The nature of work is that it's not a cleanroom lab or a business school case study; lots of difficult and unfair obstacles exist, and your job is to overcome them. To me, that defines 'job' like the sea defines 'sailor'. You're very lucky when that isn't the case. Realistically, there is some judgment involved and matters of degree, and there are limitations, but the best people find a way using the resources they have.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago"Reactive" - reactionary is a popular political alignment
- astrange 2y agoWell I hope it's not a popular one. A populist one?
- wahnfrieden 2y agoHave you looked around?
- astrange 2y agoYes, I'm a big fan of it. Mostly what you learn is things you see online aren't real. Also that people love free parking.
- Henchman21 2y agoHave you?
- wahnfrieden 2y agoYes
- Henchman21 2y agoAnd to your point what sort of reactionary behavior do you see offline vs online? Which of the political parties is more reactionary?