4 ms·

This blog was essentially my exact strategy over the last few turbulent years. I know it helped my people and I don't regret it. but, man, did it take a lot out

This blog was essentially my exact strategy over the last few turbulent years. I know it helped my people and I don't regret it. but, man, did it take a lot out of me. I've seen a quip out there before about the perfect recipe for burnout being the combination of high expectations with minimal empowerment to achieve those expectations. and this current market is burning leaders in this industry out like I haven't seen in 15 years.

airspresso 1y ago
Man, this hits hard. I've done so much to protect my part of the org chart from the whims of others and the cost-cutting pressure of the organization at large. My team are happy. Personally, I'm burned out to the level that nothing excites me any more and it's really hard to muster the energy to even do what's needed at the job, let alone drive vision and the team forward.
- dwaltrip 1y ago
  Take care of yourself. Your oxygen mask goes on first.
- Propelloni 1y ago
  My sympathies, I've been there, too. You are not alone. What helped me was to talk about my predicament with peers outside my company at face-to-face meetups. It changed my trajectory and allowed me to find purpose again.
data_ders 1y ago
> the perfect recipe for burnout being the combination of high expectations with minimal empowerment to achieve those expectations wow. real!
- euroderf 1y ago
  It seems that burnout is the summation of anxiety over time.
Prcmaker 1y ago
A very good synopsis. I recently had the chance to put myself as the intermediate member between those expectations and our technical team. It raised the expectations on me, but helped reduce the unrealistic side of those from impacting my team. It worked brilliantly for a while, but since things were getting done fast, well, and cheap, the expectations increased. I gave notice two weeks ago without a job lined up.
stevage 1y ago
I saw a definition of burnout as the accumulation of thousands of tiny disappointments and it stuck me. If you're always failing to achieve anything despite effort going in, you burn out.
- an0malous 1y ago
  Burn out is the same as learned helplessness, which is roughly the formula you’re describing here
darth_avocado 1y ago
I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting the blog, but this feels like it suggest you just fall in line with the upper management while providing lip service to the plebs. As an IC I’ve always despised managers who’d be a very sympathetic ear in 1:1s but always be “part of the system” when it mattered the most. Yes it’s always good to not get into public arguments with the upper management, but this gives off a lot of “play both sides” kind of a vibe that’s not actual good management.
- scott_w 1y ago
  So what is your expert advice? A manager runs their mouth off publicly, gets fired/made redundant, and gets replaced with a manager who does buy into the company line? What concrete differences in behaviour would you expect to see?
  - atoav 1y ago
    A good manager gets in a fight with their superior(s) if their superior happens to be wrong. A bad manager will avoid conflict with their superior, nod too unrealistic demands and then badmouth the superior with their team. A catastrophic manager will actively push unrealistic plans towards their superior. For me the main difference between a good and a bad manager is that the good manager is interested in delivering good work in a sustainable way that improves the team, while bad managers are interested primarily in looking good while burning resources and bridges for fast victories. If you think what it takes to for example write a legendarily good piece of software, while building a team that is top class among other comparable teams, the surest way to not reach that is to cower in front of superiors and play both sides. If anything it requires a lot of resilience, patience, diplomacy, persistence and the backbone to defend ones ideals, projects and subordinates.
    - hluska 1y ago
      People get fired doing this. If you’re in a position where you can be fired maybe that’s okay. But you have no way of knowing what your team is getting next. They can all be next out the door if you play this hand wrong. The writer did a very poor job of explaining how to do this. I question how much experience they have writing. But actual diplomacy is necessary in systems like this.
Jare 1y ago
> high expectations with minimal empowerment to achieve those expectations One of the things that I've done multiple times over my career is, to be completely open and clarify expectations on the other side / higher ups. One of the ways this manifests is that I never put my signature on something I don't believe in; I can sign up to get as far as possible, but will be explicit on not guaranteeing a destination that I'm not empowered to reach. Another is to make it clear that my execution decisions are aimed not at doing what you ask me, but doing what future you will be happy I did. Naturally, things like that limit quite a lot the range of responsibilities that I could potentially reach, but also prevent me from going to places where I will not want to be.
- atoav 1y ago
  I tend to do that as well. Usually starting with a clarification of the expectations. Then I ask what budget they are prepared to allocate to meet said expectations. If the answer is "none", I ask them which other expectation shall be lowered. This may seem confrontational, but it isn't really. If you want me to do more stuff without giving me the means and time to do it, something will suffer, and that needs to be made explicit by me, because I am the person facing the consequences when this something else can't be done adequately. I was once asked to become the responsible electrical engineer for my institution. For them this was just a position they had to fill for legal reasons (otherwise they are liable in case of damages) and I have the qualifications, so they asked me. Then I explained to them that legally my role is only seen as valid if I am given the time and the means (equipment, room, powers to stop failings, etc) to do the job properly. Otherwise they would still be liable. I then asked them if they were prepared to dedicate that amount of my work time and an extra budget to that role. Surprise, they were not. So I declined. As of now I am still not sure where that liability went. Too often management wants to have their cake and eat it too, and pointing that out isn't rude. It is one thing to ask someone who is idling have the time to take on tasks that are close to their job. But it is a totally different thing to ask someone who is already at 110% capacity and doing the job of three people to take on yet another job. This is bad management. It is flattering that I am apparently good enough at my job to be constantly offered new responsibilities and asked advice at projects, but that is how you lose people like me.

airspresso 1y ago

Man, this hits hard. I've done so much to protect my part of the org chart from the whims of others and the cost-cutting pressure of the organization at large. My team are happy. Personally, I'm burned out to the level that nothing excites me any more and it's really hard to muster the energy to even do what's needed at the job, let alone drive vision and the team forward.

dwaltrip 1y ago
Take care of yourself. Your oxygen mask goes on first.
Propelloni 1y ago
My sympathies, I've been there, too. You are not alone. What helped me was to talk about my predicament with peers outside my company at face-to-face meetups. It changed my trajectory and allowed me to find purpose again.

data_ders 1y ago

> the perfect recipe for burnout being the combination of high expectations with minimal empowerment to achieve those expectations wow. real!

euroderf 1y ago
It seems that burnout is the summation of anxiety over time.

Prcmaker 1y ago

A very good synopsis. I recently had the chance to put myself as the intermediate member between those expectations and our technical team. It raised the expectations on me, but helped reduce the unrealistic side of those from impacting my team. It worked brilliantly for a while, but since things were getting done fast, well, and cheap, the expectations increased. I gave notice two weeks ago without a job lined up.

stevage 1y ago

I saw a definition of burnout as the accumulation of thousands of tiny disappointments and it stuck me. If you're always failing to achieve anything despite effort going in, you burn out.

an0malous 1y ago
Burn out is the same as learned helplessness, which is roughly the formula you’re describing here

darth_avocado 1y ago

I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting the blog, but this feels like it suggest you just fall in line with the upper management while providing lip service to the plebs. As an IC I’ve always despised managers who’d be a very sympathetic ear in 1:1s but always be “part of the system” when it mattered the most. Yes it’s always good to not get into public arguments with the upper management, but this gives off a lot of “play both sides” kind of a vibe that’s not actual good management.

scott_w 1y ago
So what is your expert advice? A manager runs their mouth off publicly, gets fired/made redundant, and gets replaced with a manager who does buy into the company line? What concrete differences in behaviour would you expect to see?
- atoav 1y ago
  A good manager gets in a fight with their superior(s) if their superior happens to be wrong. A bad manager will avoid conflict with their superior, nod too unrealistic demands and then badmouth the superior with their team. A catastrophic manager will actively push unrealistic plans towards their superior. For me the main difference between a good and a bad manager is that the good manager is interested in delivering good work in a sustainable way that improves the team, while bad managers are interested primarily in looking good while burning resources and bridges for fast victories. If you think what it takes to for example write a legendarily good piece of software, while building a team that is top class among other comparable teams, the surest way to not reach that is to cower in front of superiors and play both sides. If anything it requires a lot of resilience, patience, diplomacy, persistence and the backbone to defend ones ideals, projects and subordinates.
  - hluska 1y ago
    People get fired doing this. If you’re in a position where you can be fired maybe that’s okay. But you have no way of knowing what your team is getting next. They can all be next out the door if you play this hand wrong. The writer did a very poor job of explaining how to do this. I question how much experience they have writing. But actual diplomacy is necessary in systems like this.

Jare 1y ago

> high expectations with minimal empowerment to achieve those expectations One of the things that I've done multiple times over my career is, to be completely open and clarify expectations on the other side / higher ups. One of the ways this manifests is that I never put my signature on something I don't believe in; I can sign up to get as far as possible, but will be explicit on not guaranteeing a destination that I'm not empowered to reach. Another is to make it clear that my execution decisions are aimed not at doing what you ask me, but doing what future you will be happy I did. Naturally, things like that limit quite a lot the range of responsibilities that I could potentially reach, but also prevent me from going to places where I will not want to be.

atoav 1y ago
I tend to do that as well. Usually starting with a clarification of the expectations. Then I ask what budget they are prepared to allocate to meet said expectations. If the answer is "none", I ask them which other expectation shall be lowered. This may seem confrontational, but it isn't really. If you want me to do more stuff without giving me the means and time to do it, something will suffer, and that needs to be made explicit by me, because I am the person facing the consequences when this something else can't be done adequately. I was once asked to become the responsible electrical engineer for my institution. For them this was just a position they had to fill for legal reasons (otherwise they are liable in case of damages) and I have the qualifications, so they asked me. Then I explained to them that legally my role is only seen as valid if I am given the time and the means (equipment, room, powers to stop failings, etc) to do the job properly. Otherwise they would still be liable. I then asked them if they were prepared to dedicate that amount of my work time and an extra budget to that role. Surprise, they were not. So I declined. As of now I am still not sure where that liability went. Too often management wants to have their cake and eat it too, and pointing that out isn't rude. It is one thing to ask someone who is idling have the time to take on tasks that are close to their job. But it is a totally different thing to ask someone who is already at 110% capacity and doing the job of three people to take on yet another job. This is bad management. It is flattering that I am apparently good enough at my job to be constantly offered new responsibilities and asked advice at projects, but that is how you lose people like me.