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

111–120 of 131 posts

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

#111

Post by rdtsc »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #54
rdtsc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Praising a thirsty horse for drinking, after having to forcibly lead it to the waterhole and show it how to drink just isn't in my wheelhouse. It's beyond a certain very-slightly-autistic line of wrong-ness intrinsic to my very soul. I know this holds me back, but, I ... just ... can't. I will, however, increasingly simplify the explanation of the concept until the conversation reaches acceptance or frustrated dismis…

> I know this holds me back, but, I ... just ... can't

It is messed up, indeed. Better to find another horse. But some people are stuck with their horse for some reason or another.

> I will, however, increasingly simplify the explanation of the concept until the conversation reaches acceptance or frustrated dismissal of the topic altogether. This has had patchy success over the years.

Yeah, that is a better option.

> Surprisingly, that particular horse never died of dehydration. I think that's because the next levels up were also thirsty horses.

Well put. There are thirsty horses all the way up.

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

#112

Post by danaris »

operatingthetan wrote: post #47
fbdab103 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say, it is well accepted that McKinsey and related are nothing more than a way for management to launder unpopular decisions.

That is only one aspect of consulting, so you are over-generalizing.

That's true—but so is pdonis in their description of consultants.

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

#113

Post by pavel_lishin »

> During this meeting it is important to only listen. Especially if you’re at a small company and you are regularly involved in the day-to-day operations, you might feel immediately defensive. Sit with that feeling, and process it later. Don’t unload your emotional state on an employee you have power over.

This is why I rarely give frank feedback to anyone except my direct manager, and only then if I've spent enough time working with them to understand what kind of person they are.

I've had enough meetings where I'm welcomed to candidly share my opinions and observations, only to be told my opinions are wrong and my observations are invalid, and that everything is fine, or will be after this new re-org/initiative/project!

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

#114

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #60
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.…

>> 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 Anecdata follows but I’m certain this has been getting better in recent years. It’s more common today for management to be swayed by data - my recollections of the 2000s were interactions more along the lines of “I’ve been doing this for 20 years son, wha…

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you're the one dismissing them by claiming they only got there because the industry was growing?

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

#115

Post by mateo411 »

chopin wrote: post #85
joeig wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it helps to speak the same „language“ as the manager. Add price tags to the infrastructure development or technical debt. This may add an important perspective to the discussion for both sides.

But exactly that is hard. Backups have a high price tag when missing but none when not needed.

Give the price tag when missing. The argument is we need to fix this in order to insure against this catastrophic event.

Or take the price tag when missing multiply by the probability of needing it over the course of one year. This is a more accurate estimate for the annual cost of not creating the backup.

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

#116

Post by lazyant »

mlrtime wrote: post #100
indrora wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I miss Gerry Weinberg. Used to get lunch with him regularly He credits a man named Sherbie for the three rules. That man was my grandfather. The best advice Gerry gave me was when I was in a tough spot in college. “Expectations are fickle things that we work ourselves up over. Reevaluate them regularly, they have expiration dates long before they begin to smell funny.”

That's a long way of saying what I often tell people. "Disappointment is when expectations don't match reality" Meaning, that depending on the situation simply reevaluating your expectations can lead to satisfaction.

the generalization of this is: "feelings is the clash between expectations and reality"

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

#117

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

hinkley wrote: post #70
dilyevsky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ime it never hurts to share your thoughts candidly with the leadership as long as your thoughts are what leadership wants to hear

Which leadership? I've had one favorite boss get fired, and at least two leave (forced out/encouraged to go) because they agreed with us but their peers or boss didn't. Agreeing with them is fine until it isn't, and then you're a collaborator. And then there's agreeing with the VP or CTO, but the people between you don't, and try to suppress your enthusiasm. If you go over their heads it better be to get transferred…

> And then there's agreeing with the VP or CTO, but the people between you don't

heh, been there. Sometimes I feel sorry for those that high up, especially the ones that DO mostly see the problems but are powerless to do much because of all the shit between them and the solution.

The higher up you go the more power you have but the less control you have. That seems paradoxical but consider the old adage 'if you want something done right, do it yourself'. You may have the power to hire and fire but have little control over the day-to-day decisions that matter.

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

#118

Post by hinkley »

arvinsim wrote: post #76
hinkley wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was watching some interview long ago when the guest hit it square on the head. My guess is that it was Joel Spolsky, but only because no other names come to mind as being plausible. Essentially the rant goes: So all of these people who were not particularly good at people skills in high school go into a career where they think people skills won't matter as much, and check out for 4 years while their fellow classmat…

Then it begs the question: how do you recover out of this mindset in an increasingly disconnected world?

Honestly, I think finding a non-software project to volunteer on is a good start. About half of my better acquaintances are landscapers because that's what one of my hobbies attracts.

Also turns out they don't really like tech for tech's sake. Who knew!

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

#119

Post by hinkley »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #117
hinkley wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which leadership? I've had one favorite boss get fired, and at least two leave (forced out/encouraged to go) because they agreed with us but their peers or boss didn't. Agreeing with them is fine until it isn't, and then you're a collaborator. And then there's agreeing with the VP or CTO, but the people between you don't, and try to suppress your enthusiasm. If you go over their heads it better be to get transferred…

> And then there's agreeing with the VP or CTO, but the people between you don't heh, been there. Sometimes I feel sorry for those that high up, especially the ones that DO mostly see the problems but are powerless to do much because of all the shit between them and the solution. The higher up you go the more power you have but the less control you have. That seems paradoxical but consider the old adage 'if you want…

When your boss hears but the CTO doesn't, sometimes you can get your business partners to tell their boss to tell your boss that they need from your product, at which point it rolls back downhill to you.
Post reply on HN