Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You're barely managing

barely-managing.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: You're barely managing

#61

Post by bluGill »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #28
thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

> 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%? ...…

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…

Your story leaves a number of open questions. Would your manager even know if you were not worthy of the trust given? Was your manager guiding you to work on problems that would best grow you to the future (this is a both where you want to go, and where your organization needs you to be - sometimes the two are in conflict!)? Was your manager taking care of the things his bosses needed to know about you?

Do not make this a person question about you, it is a generic question about everyone your manager is in charge of. The managers job isn't just to hire good people and stay out of the way.

Re: You're barely managing

#62

Post by tyre »

gabereiser wrote: post #45
solumos wrote: post #35

> 1. Bad managers are the cause of a lot of employee unhappiness. > 2. Bad managers are the cause of a lot of workplace failure, i.e., late projects, subpar products, and unmet goals. > 3. Managers are one of the most under-supported cohorts of employees on the planet. Agree on the first two, but for #3: managers are perhaps the most OVER-supported cohorts of employees on the planet. Much of the time, simply by being…

Oh how I wish I could upvote this more. You called it. Managers get support that ICs only dream about. They can fail time and time again and get promoted. They can screw up deadlines and project priorities and continue to do what they do. I’ve had some great managers, I’ve had some bad ones too. I strive the be a great one myself by practicing what I preach. Servant leadership. What are some red flags to look for in…

Lack of accountability is not the same as support.

It actually much closer to the opposite of what the author seems to mean, which is help improving.

I see what you’re saying and deeply feel where you’re coming from, but I think you’re identifying a different malignancy.

Re: You're barely managing

#63

Post by commandlinefan »

gabereiser wrote: post #45
solumos wrote: post #35

> 1. Bad managers are the cause of a lot of employee unhappiness. > 2. Bad managers are the cause of a lot of workplace failure, i.e., late projects, subpar products, and unmet goals. > 3. Managers are one of the most under-supported cohorts of employees on the planet. Agree on the first two, but for #3: managers are perhaps the most OVER-supported cohorts of employees on the planet. Much of the time, simply by being…

Oh how I wish I could upvote this more. You called it. Managers get support that ICs only dream about. They can fail time and time again and get promoted. They can screw up deadlines and project priorities and continue to do what they do. I’ve had some great managers, I’ve had some bad ones too. I strive the be a great one myself by practicing what I preach. Servant leadership. What are some red flags to look for in…

It's not even just that. I've worked for great bosses, but they're never the kind of bosses that get promoted, they stay exactly where they are. It's the massive egomaniacal "going to need you to come in on Sunday, too" types that get actually get promoted and survive every round of layoffs. Every "good manager" opinion piece is invariably somebody's take on how they wish _their_ boss would treat them, not how to be the soulless sycophant that actually makes for a successful manager in corporate America.

Re: You're barely managing

#64

Post by carimura »

Read some of the post and some of the comments here and a thought crossed my mind. Technical people like order, systems, rules, processes. As managers, they try and apply those things to managing people. The problem is people aren't computers. They are highly unpredictable, emotional beings. Put a bunch of them together and, well, chaos ensues. Not in a bad way, and sometimes in great ways, but certainly not in a "oh I read about this in a book" kind of way.

Re: You're barely managing

#65

Post by alwaysbeconsing »

danielvaughn wrote: post #6

I began my first management role a few years ago (through the "successor" path outlined in the article). My manager left for another company, and since I'd been with the team for 4 years at that point, I was asked if I wanted to take over. I agreed, not realizing how much of a shift it was. It's an entirely different profession, and it's made me wonder how realistic the notion of an Engineering Manager is. It's sort…

As a technical person the thing I hope for most is that my direct manager does not try to get involved in technical topics. They need to understand the nature of the labor of course, but they do not need to be thinking about which DB we use or trying to interpret log messages. They are my interface to other managers and other parts of the business. I can and will talk to the other technical people myself.

Re: You're barely managing

#66

Post by gabereiser »

commandlinefan wrote: post #63
gabereiser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh how I wish I could upvote this more. You called it. Managers get support that ICs only dream about. They can fail time and time again and get promoted. They can screw up deadlines and project priorities and continue to do what they do. I’ve had some great managers, I’ve had some bad ones too. I strive the be a great one myself by practicing what I preach. Servant leadership. What are some red flags to look for in…

It's not even just that. I've worked for great bosses, but they're never the kind of bosses that get promoted, they stay exactly where they are. It's the massive egomaniacal "going to need you to come in on Sunday, too" types that get actually get promoted and survive every round of layoffs. Every "good manager" opinion piece is invariably somebody's take on how they wish _their_ boss would treat them, not how to be…

Optics. The person who says “yeah, about those TPS reports” is the same person providing upper leadership with reports where they are showing detailed progress towards initiatives. Regardless of how they get there. They see resources, not people, because they themselves are a resource for upper leadership. Empathy flows downhill. Maybe all those opinion pieces about how to be a good manager are from folks needing an outlet to vent about their bad one. That’s ok. The point is, results are what the business wants to see. Bad managers often deliver those “good results” at the expense of those “resources” beneath them. Constantly hiring empty chairs to fulfill the requirements to getting results.

It’s a tough game.

Re: You're barely managing

#67

Post by turtles3 »

zingababba wrote: post #15
danielvaughn wrote: post #6

I began my first management role a few years ago (through the "successor" path outlined in the article). My manager left for another company, and since I'd been with the team for 4 years at that point, I was asked if I wanted to take over. I agreed, not realizing how much of a shift it was. It's an entirely different profession, and it's made me wonder how realistic the notion of an Engineering Manager is. It's sort…

I've had the misfortune on being on a highly technical team where a thoroughly business minded manager was hired. Most of the team including myself was gone within 6 months. Absolute disaster.

Arguably they weren't 'business minded' if that was the outcome. I know what you mean, but at the same time understanding what the technical members of the team do and how they get that work done is an essential part of succeeding as a manager.

The only way that your manager could be classed as a success is if you and the others who left were not necessary to the business. As mercenary as that sounds, we are talking pure business outcomes here.

Re: You're barely managing

#68

Post by wpietri »

alostpuppy wrote: post #52
angarg12 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you give us some links to writings you found particularly inspiring?

Please also give the things you did not find inspiring but did find useful after trying them out. I think one of the flaws of modern management is that it often ends up being about the feelings of managers. I'd expect there to be significant negative correlation between the things that feel inspiring upon reading versus those that are practically helpful to the work and the people being managed.

Re: You're barely managing

#69

Post by helpfulContrib »

If you ask me, its not just 'management' that is the issue, but the nature of 'executive', itself, in the order of things.

Like, what does it mean, to execute? To manage? What's the difference between the two things, and why do we have the layer/abstraction?

Its somewhat akin to the differences/identities/similarities of the "Product Manager" versus "Project Manager" conundrum/befuddlement. Does anyone really produce if they can't project? Can you project without actually producing a product? Do you have an issue with the fact that, as a project manager, you must indeed project? Are you aware that the word issue doesn't just mean problem, but is also rather a benign statement of fact, and a verb as well as a noun...

These fuzzy boundaries are ripe for misgivings and, in my humble opinion, an exceptional source of contemporary misanthropy across the classes.

Just getting these differences right, like absolutely tweaked, for your company, can make all the difference in the world. But yet, time and again .. too much be, not enough do ..

Re: You're barely managing

#70

Post by wpietri »

linuxftw wrote: post #20
danielvaughn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my general perception as well, but I'm not sure what the alternatives are. I suppose I shouldn't have narrowly focused on business school - what I really mean is just what the author describes. Someone who has specifically trained to become a manager.

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.

If you're looking for other models, I recommend reading Artful Making: https://www.amazon.com/Artful-Making-Managers-About-Artists/...

For me it was a nice contrast to the "industrial age corporation" and "widget factory" models that are in common use.

Post reply on HN