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

What you've got is in fact a people problem

blog.glyph.im

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 131 posts

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#31

Post by rdtsc »

GianFabien wrote: post #11
btbuildem wrote: post #4

It often is a people problem, and when it is, it's likely to be at the leadership level. What stumps me however is how to move past those problems -- when the decision makers at an organization themselves are what's dragging the ship down, how will things ever change? Blog author doesn't cover it, but my uneducated guess is... the consult ends with a technical recommendation, but the people problem remains unresolved…

The majority of managers I have encountered have a superiority complex. Because they are the manager they know better. They have a misguided idea that they were promoted on the basis of some meritocracy instead of being good political operatives or shameless sycophants. That is why only the advice of very expensive consultants is valued. Many times I have had after work drinks with staff who complain that they have b…

> The majority of managers I have encountered have a superiority complex. Because they are the manager they know better. They have a misguided idea that they were promoted on the basis of some meritocracy instead of being good political operatives or shameless sycophants

That is usually true. One fix for that is to play into it. Guide them towards the idea but make them think they came up with it and the praise them for it. I always remember the scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding where the women get Gus to “decide” and come up with the idea that Toula should go work at the travel agency.

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#32

Post by jonchurch_ »

fzzzy wrote: post #9
mlhpdx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an effectively intractable (and common problem). Even when there is a board involved, a skip-level approach to pointing it out is very likely an end of employment situation. Machiavelli had advice for this situation, and it wasn’t kind.

What advice did Machiavelli have?

He didn't so far as I can tell. He wrote The Prince for an audience of rulers, both new and established, aiming to preserve or reinforce their power.

But to be charitable bc that is basically a nit, he would have advised a calculated approach to wielding political influence or instilling fear. He was partial to creating alliances with the adversaries, circumventing them, or otherwise coercing them into agreeing with your priorities.

He was the “Its better to be feared not loved, if you can’t do both” guy so GP is right when they say his advice here would not be kind. Its because his methods are not really what you want to use to make a better environment at work. Ironically, I think all the problems Machiavelli was concerned with were “people problems”, but he wasn’t concerned with fixing them, just doing whatever it takes to maintain stability for a given ruler.

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#33

Post by Aeolun »

macintux wrote: post #3
cebert wrote: post #2

> Talk to your ICs, and — taking care to make sure they understand that you want honest feedback and that they are safe to offer it — ask them what problems your organization has. Can you reasonably expect for there to be a true “safe space” in a professional setting? It’s always good to be candid and transparent, but I’d never assume I’m in a complete safe space no matter which organization I am in.

I used to believe that, but no, at this point in my career I have no confidence that anything I say won't be used against me in the future, or misconstrued in some embarrassing way.

So knowing that, can you still be candid? I guess I make a habit of it, and therefore just do not particularly care about any given instance.

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#34

Post by mlhpdx »

sokoloff wrote: post #29
mlhpdx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an effectively intractable (and common problem). Even when there is a board involved, a skip-level approach to pointing it out is very likely an end of employment situation. Machiavelli had advice for this situation, and it wasn’t kind.

You come at the king, you best not miss. If I got to the point of going to the board about my CEO, it’s already a him-or-me situation, and that almost always means it’s me who’ll be leaving. The CEO currently has the board’s support, at least ostensibly, and I’d be faced with moving them off the status quo; that’s unlikely over a routine leader style topic…

> If an injury must be done to a man, it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.

—- Machiavelli

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#35

Post by nine_zeros »

ilaksh wrote: post #8

My suspicion is that a lot of this comes down to budget pressure causing management to constantly discourage efforts by technical teams to invest time in the quality of their systems rather than push out more features. Then the same problems start popping up and the manager loses faith in their team. The times they said "no" to infrastructure development and working down technical debt may not even enter their mind.…

> My suspicion is that a lot of this comes down to budget pressure causing management to constantly discourage efforts by technical teams to invest time in the quality of their systems rather than push out more features.

This is only partly true. It is true that management sometimes faces budget pressure. But the real skill lies in what they do next. They could - easily - come up with a strategy of feature delivery, and communicate it clearly. Ask engineers to pause red tape, be scrappy for the next few quarters, talk to dependent teams to make certain flows easier. Explicitly use their authority to set the rules aligned with leadership.

But this is not what they do. The average management simply pushes indirectly, via 1:1s or individual blaming.

> After the manager declines to invest in engineering quality a few times, they have sent a clear message that quality and reliability are secondary to the desire to get things our the door. Then they blame the staff for their mistake.

Truth.

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#36

Post by winrid »

nine_zeros wrote: post #20

> your ICs won’t have the full picture. They really may not understand why certain priorities are set the way they are. You’ll need to take that as feedback for improving internal comms rather than “fixing” the perceived problem, and you certainly don’t want to make empty promises. One time, my manager gave me negative ratings out of nowhere. In his review, he wrote that I rolled a feature a few days late. I chatted…

You were given a negative rating because they didn't have the budget for a bonus.

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#37

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

zmgsabst wrote: post #16
PakG1 wrote: post #14

What is fascinating to me about technical people is the particular subculture that sincerely believes that technology will solve the people problem. I recently got into a long thread argument with someone on HN about this. The person was adamant that people problems can NOW finally be solved by designing technology to be able to handle adversarial and incompetent actors. But the problems that such software tries to s…

I’ve also seen the reverse: What’s presented as a technical solution is actually a process solution to address a people problem.

To be honest this is what I usually see, not what GP describes. I've never worked with anyone who was ignorant of the people problems around them. Interns, maybe.

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#38

Post by laurex »

PakG1 wrote: post #14

What is fascinating to me about technical people is the particular subculture that sincerely believes that technology will solve the people problem. I recently got into a long thread argument with someone on HN about this. The person was adamant that people problems can NOW finally be solved by designing technology to be able to handle adversarial and incompetent actors. But the problems that such software tries to s…

There’s a funny arrogance in tech around “solving hard problems.” Social engineering is often much harder to do well than coding.

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#39

Post by atq2119 »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #37
zmgsabst wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve also seen the reverse: What’s presented as a technical solution is actually a process solution to address a people problem.

To be honest this is what I usually see, not what GP describes. I've never worked with anyone who was ignorant of the people problems around them. Interns, maybe.

I would argue that all of the ideology-based advocacy for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is/was advocating to solve a people problem with technology.

Re: What you've got is in fact a people problem

#40

Post by [deleted] »

laurex wrote: post #38
PakG1 wrote: post #14

What is fascinating to me about technical people is the particular subculture that sincerely believes that technology will solve the people problem. I recently got into a long thread argument with someone on HN about this. The person was adamant that people problems can NOW finally be solved by designing technology to be able to handle adversarial and incompetent actors. But the problems that such software tries to s…

There’s a funny arrogance in tech around “solving hard problems.” Social engineering is often much harder to do well than coding.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN