It's interesting. I agree with everything in that article. At the same time , I also agree with similar but opposing articles complaining about people who did train to be managers (by going through university program) now leading technical people without having a clue on what those people are doing, how their problems are solved, etc. I think this is a generalized class of frequent hiring / placement problem: I have…
The thing is: soft skills aren't that needed at the entry level. I've noticed that no one cares that I trained a lot of soft skills by doing a psych bachelor, an honors program based on soft skills, hundreds of hours of meditation. They just want to know: - Can you code according to the requirements of the business? Sometimes soft skills are needed for that, but not nearly to the level that I trained them at. So, the…
You're barely managing
51–60 of 105 posts
Re: You're barely managing
#52> How many managers do you know who studied to be managers of people? > I mean more than a couple of one-day courses; I mean someone who studied to be a manager the way someone studied to be a software engineer or doctor. > I personally don’t know anyone, and while those degrees definitely exist, it’s got me wondering: of the total managers in the world, how many of them have those qualifications? Is it even 1%? ...…
The vast majority of literature in management (definitely in the tech sector) is essentially a long form opinion of a single person. I personally only started to take more seriously the writing of people who a) have been managing for a long while successfully, and b) regularly sync up with other managers so that their pieces aren't a sample size of 1.
Re: You're barely managing
#53> Just imagine if other professions had that split of self-taught vs. formally taught. Plumbers, doctors, _lawyers_... There would be massive variability in the quality of their work and their overall success, and yet that’s the exact gamble every company around the world is taking. Fun fact about lawyers - in many places there's still the ability to enter the profession through the concept of "Reading law" which is…
Re: You're barely managing
#54I mean, this objectively untrue if you consider IT and tech.
The author makes good points, but there's no widely accredited skillset for a 'manager' to have. Is the goal of a manager to guide their employees on their career path or to help the business make money? My personal feeling is the former, but every company I've worked for obviously leans toward the latter.
Re: You're barely managing
#55https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Project...
It is my favorite book when it comes to practical advice on managing software development teams.
Re: You're barely managing
#56> How many managers do you know who studied to be managers of people? Isn't this one of the aims of officer training in the armed forces?
They also have a couple other benefits:
1) The clear command structure, obviously—however, I think the “they gotta follow your orders” aspect gets overstated in importance, and is actually a minor part of it.
2) There’s minimal experimentation and bike shedding. Low and mid level managers have little room to fuck around with whatever new method from the idiotic airport book they read last week. Here’s how we do it: now, go do that. This is how you manage, and how you run things, if you don’t know what to do, here’s the document you read, and here’s who you talk to.
3) Crucially, 2 is supported by having a well-defined way things run. Most corporations are an absolute mess of tribal knowledge and fucked-up procedures that nobody with perspective realizes are fucked up, by comparison. Officers and high-level NCOs move around every couple years, and everything’s got to be ready to keep running even if the #1, #2, and #3 guys in, say, a brigade, all get killed at the same time. Your military’s simply fucked if it’s dysfunctional in the same empire-building, managers running around doing their own half-baked thing, onboarding is an afterthought, any new VP can radically shake up the way whole segments of the company run on a whim (and different divisions might run totally differently, probably not for any good reason), way that most corporations are.
4) They actually train leaders. How many companies do that? Of the ones that do, how many take it even 1/10 as seriously? Almost none. Companies act like leaders have to be minted by an MBA (and, let’s face it, being the Right Sort) and like most people aren’t really cut out to be leaders and have to prove they can do it before they get any support or training at all, or like leadership is some secret that only those who’ve figured it out on their own deserve to know (why, imagine if leadership became too common a skill! The horror—for managers’ salaries). The military’s approach is that leadership’s not rocket science, and most folks with half a brain can be taught to achieve some useful level of leadership skill. Will they all be great? Will they all be generals? No, but most folks could be trained to be bottom-of-the-pyramid managers at least without doing too horrible a job of it, on average. And unlike an MBA that’s full of learning about business more broadly with practical leadership training as a kind of side-quest, military leadership training is focused on leadership per se. It’s efficient, and honed to reliably produce fairly OK results, at least.
Re: You're barely managing
#571. Leadership is a taught skill. Most people DO NOT realize this. People aren't natural born leaders. You learn by learning the principles of leadership, and practicing them day in and day out. Alas, not everyone leads the same way. We all have our own tricks and style.
2. Communications Skills: This is also a taught skill. Yes, we all have our own style, but knowing how to communicate within your style is critical.
3. Negotiations: Any time 2 people have to discuss getting anything done. It is a negotiation. Alas, most people don't understand basic negotiation theory. Never mind the advanced stuff. I'm not talking used car salesman shit. That doesn't get you anywhere long term. But how to get to real win-win situations, or at least the least lose-lose you can manage.
4. Expectations: A manager has to learn to work with what they have. Not what they wish they have. Or 5 mini-me's. Learning to have your own expectations right, when to push, and when to let go is a critical part.. you only get so many "shits to give". So if you give a shit... make sure it is about the right topic. How many times have you seen a CEO give a shit about something they just shouldn't care about? ... Learn the lesson now.
Leadership is a different skill from programming. Very different.
And I've only seen 1 non-technical leader in my career who was any good. That said... I've seen plenty of bad technical leaders who knew everything. :)
Re: You're barely managing
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do attorneys have managers? No, they have senior partners, that are also attorneys. They have clerks to handle the mundane stuff. The wrong model is being applied to software. Managers are redundant.
But attorneys usually don't work in large teams.
> But attorneys usually don't work in large teams.
You are both onto something. Tech managers have to manage/support entire teams - like sports teams. Any single individual is not as relevant as the systems governing their work together. Often those are technical systems, and often those are day-to-day systems.
But most managers treat management like they need to manage individual people. They over-index on people behaviors and outcomes instead of the team together. This shows up in performance reviews, stack ranking, a culture of nitpicking and fear instead of blameless growth.
Ultimately even the business just wants good outcomes and it is in the best interest of companies that managers help their team produce outcomes instead of managers spending time managing each individual.
Perhaps the title of managers should be changed to executive assistants. They should be removed from front-line engineering and should only do the mundane work. And they should not be responsible for performance reviews or stack ranking.
Re: You're barely managing
#59Nothing provided in this person's internet footprint provides me with answers to those questions.
Re: You're barely managing
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
management is a lifetime of experience and they themselves often don't entirely understand what they're doing. My favorite manager of all time just left me alone and believed everything I told him when communicating back to the business. It was never clear to me if that was on purpose (he trusted me) or if he was just a lazy ass. And I don't care, I loved working for that man. But if you were to ask him to lay out wh…
He probably loved you because you left him alone. You loved him because you're a self starter and didn't want to deal with bullshit and he probably was checked out of life and just wanted to coast. The business you worked for benefited from your goal alignment. Sometimes you have to take non synchronous goals and mash them through a form to press out a result. The middle manager is there drive results, end of story.…
Where in the post you’re replying to did you get enough information to make this assumption?
As a manager, it’s not my job to prescribe one universal management style for every employee. If I trust someone, they ask for autonomy, are proactive when they need help, and can execute, then a very solid baseline is to let ‘em cook.