Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#51

Most bosses are aware of the issues, so an engineer playing a rebel and bringing them up wins nothing. The only way to attract attention is to leave.

> The only way to attract attention is to leave

That only makes sense if you don't like your job and your new job is better. People who leave are quickly forgotten.

Otherwise, if you like your job, it's in your best interests to figure out how to fix it.

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#52
post #33
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once had a series of exit interviews that went all the way up to the vp of engineering. I think they all knew the issues but didn’t want to admit it. I was also being coached on what to say to the higher levels. I really did not appreciate that.

Having never done an exit interview, are they required? Did you have to do them or lose some back-pay/benefits?

No, withholding pay for failure to participate in an exit interview is totally illegal. They can offer incentives to participate, but they cannot withhold due compensation. Whether you do the interview is optional and up to you, but regardless, you have complete control over what you say during the interview, so you never have to bring up problems. It’s rarely a good idea to bring up what you think are systemic problems during your exit interview; there is usually zero upside for you to vent your feelings, and you could accidentally open yourself to liability and/or to reputation damage with your future employers. The time to speak up about problems is long before you leave, while you’re trying to participate in the solution. The best “stated” reasons to leave are because you found something that better fits your own goals, something that is out of the control of the employer you’re leaving, and not because you’re fed up with their inability to fix something (even if it’s true).

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#53
post #42
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's not adult and professional about increasing your tc by 30-40% every time you jump ship

Who's talking about comp? While that's a perfectly valid reason to leave, we're talking about interpersonal interactions between a manager and an IC.

What do you think usually causes ICs to begin looking for new jobs in the first place

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#54

Feedback on how I am doing as your manager. This isn't a dictatorship, it's a partnership. What can I do to change/help you? Most of my team is quiet on this sort of thing. Perhaps it's cultural? (Is this common for individuals who grew up in eastern Europe?)

It’s not a partnership, you’re their manager, you have more power by definition. It’s risky to offer any criticism to a manager. Does your team know that doing so is a safe action, regardless of what they say? (And is it true?) Do you request anonymous feedback? What is the upside for them if they offered critical suggestions? If they say you’re not doing something well that you think you do, how do they know it won’t cause them problems down the road? Will you be defensive or open to hearing it if they say something you disagree with? IMO this can be risky for you too, because you may have a wider point of view on things, which could cause you to have to disregard some points of criticism, which could in turn make it look like you’re not respecting your team’s opinion. I know from experience both as a leaf node in the company and as a manager, that sometimes people being managed can get the wrong idea about how things are going down and start to believe that they see obvious/easy solutions, while the manager’s point of view is broader and problems are not so easily fixed.

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#55
post #36
post #4

At least at big corporations it should be about all the corporate double talk and broken policies/promises. Edit: why downvote? This has been my experience. If we dont talk about it, then it will never be fixed.

No idea about the downvotes, but I could humbly offer a bystander’s constructive suggestions about how to improve the original comment. I’m not sure what you mean about corporate double talk and broken policies and promises, and the first sentence didn’t make clear it was your experience. It could help to elaborate with some examples of what needs to be fixed. It could help to work through why and how discussing it w…

Thank you for the comment.

"Personally I’m working for a large corporation and I don’t see a lot of double-talk or broken policies or broken promises."

That's good, but I know there are people at my company that would say the same thing. A lot of it depends on the individual's experience. Is it possible that you are getting good reviews or your manager likes you, while someone else is getting poor reviews based on a made up reason?

As for some personal examples, I have seen multiple company policies violated. I have also seen the company try to sell us an idea that's junk while telling us it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The company says that an average rating should be based against defined standards and not be competitive. I know of departments that will require managers to 'pick' someone on their team for a below average rating if they picked someone for an above average rating to "balance it out". They will also fo point counting in some departments eventhough HR says they aren't allowed to (the rating process is secretive wo you'd have to throw a manager friend under the bus to prove anything). There are also some additional part-time roles (security champion) that are supposed to be evaluated as part of your core job responsibilities, yet most departments view them as extracurricular.

The company says the standard working hours are 7.5 hours per day unless the position specifically says otherwise. Now, I know that stuff like elevations, pre support, or critical deadlines can mean occasional extra hours - that's fine. I was told that all I needed to do to get to a senior level was stay until 5pm. Ok, so I work 8-4 and you want me to work 9-5? Nope, they want me to work 8.5 hours every day. So why should I take a rate cut for a position with more responsibilities? I work for a financial company that's always saying they want IT to have more financial acumen. Yet they can't explain to me why I should increase my working hours by about 13% for a 7% raise, meaning I will be paid less per hour. This is an even better deal for the company since a large expense for them are the benefits not related to pay, like health insurance.

They changed the promotion structure so there are more levels. They tried to sell this as a good thing. But to get to the same level of compensation, you require more promotions. The typical path was 3 10% promotions. Now it's 4 7% promotions to get similar base pay, but you would need a 5th promotion to reach a similar overall compensation due to the profit sharing structure. Now this might sound similar enough, but it doesnt account for time. That 5th promotion is pretty rare, and the 4th takes a long time to get to. The earlier you are saving money, the more it compounds. So when you hit each level under the old structure you could hit it at the same time as you could under the new structure but the raise is almost 50% higher. Now you also have to wait longer to hit the highest level, further delaying that "extra" income and it's compounding effect. The reason they made this change was because they were losing too many people to earlier retirements. Yet they sell this negative change as a positive.

The bug plug in the interview was that they don't outsource and they never layoff. They do both now. I lost my specialty to outsourcing.

I had a manger tell me he was going to give me the highest rating but I "slacked off" in the last month. I was on PTO for 2.5 weeks for my wedding and honeymoon and put in extra hours for the prior 2 weeks to get things done or turned over. So much for that policy that PTO won't be held against you...

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#56

Feedback on how I am doing as your manager. This isn't a dictatorship, it's a partnership. What can I do to change/help you? Most of my team is quiet on this sort of thing. Perhaps it's cultural? (Is this common for individuals who grew up in eastern Europe?)

you need a tremendous amount of trust in your manager and confidence in your job security to raise genuine issues with management style, manager performance. I've only felt comfortable doing that as I've moved into a upper-senior engineer position with a staff promotion on the horizon. At earlier stages in my career I cared much more about making sure I had a job next month than I did about making the teams I work with/for work more effectively together. Questioning the bossman puts you in jeopardy!

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#57

Feedback on how I am doing as your manager. This isn't a dictatorship, it's a partnership. What can I do to change/help you? Most of my team is quiet on this sort of thing. Perhaps it's cultural? (Is this common for individuals who grew up in eastern Europe?)

Is it really a partnership? Do they have as much say in your continued employment as you have in theirs?

What I found works best is giving them advanced notice of what type of feedback is expected and when. Schedule a one on one a week in advance. Let them know what you are looking for. Don't combine it with anything else.

The worst thing you can do (and what almost everyone does) is tack it on to the end of a yearly performance review.

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#59
post #38
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1: Assume nothing. 2: Voice your opinion directly to your supervisor in a respectful manner, and ask for follow-up. 3: Wait for follow up and track any changes made to processes or whatever. 4: Give a reasonable amount of time. 5: Then leave. If you skip to 5, you're not really trying to fix the problem. You're just jumping ship - that's not a solution, really. Being an adult professional in the workplace requir…

What's not adult and professional about increasing your tc by 30-40% every time you jump ship

>Most bosses are aware of the issues

This is not about compensation.

Leaving for compensation is absolutely a valid reason. Again, though, the same rules apply. Express to your employer you have received a job offer at X% more, with X improved benefits, and would gladly stay for a match. The worst they can say is no, correct?

Either way, the original conversation was about issues with the employer/manager. Not necessarily compensation.

Re: Ask HN: What do engineers never talk to their bosses about, but should?

#60
post #4

At least at big corporations it should be about all the corporate double talk and broken policies/promises. Edit: why downvote? This has been my experience. If we dont talk about it, then it will never be fixed.

Managers need to be no nonsense and direct in order to be respected.

PS: I think voting needs to be disambiguated orthogonal to agreeing/disagreeing (because it vital to community health rather than quietly-silenced) but split into dimensions of insight, on-/off-topic, and seriousness-hilarity-or-pointless for sorting based on personal preferences (hide humor, hide off-topic).

Post reply on HN