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

Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

charity.wtf

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 192 posts

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#121

Post by j-bos »

vasco wrote: post #100
rgifford wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sociopaths, the clueless and losers. This great essay analyzing The Office argues that in a modern business context you're one of the three. [1] Those "functional elites" you mentioned? Usually they're working 20-50% more for 0-25% percent more pay. They're called the clueless because they've been conned into working more for less, usually under some clever guise like company being family or company values or the pro…

Not every place in life is a place of struggle and fight. Some people actually enjoy their work. This just sounds like "class struggle" and "proletariat and bourgeoisie" under different names. Also thinking of your colleagues and people as "elites", "losers" and the "clueless" gives me some understanding to the state of mind of who writes this. To keep it lighter, in the companies I've worked in the architypes of peo…

The article uses struggly words like sociopaths and losers, but defines them very differently from common use, often the 'losers' have the most fulfilling and rounded lives, i.e. true winners

- The "chronic nervous person that is paralyzed by impostor syndrome" - clueless

- The "i find more problems than solutions" guy - clueless

- The "i'm here to socialize, make friends, maybe get married" - loser

- The "i gave up 10 years ago and just want my paycheck" - loser

- The "i'm working on my true passion outside of work while hanging out here with you guys" etc etc - loser

It's a rough model of org interactions with poorly named categories.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#122

Post by willcipriano »

falcor84 wrote: post #114
re-thc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and we need to value ICs more Maybe start by getting rid of the silly term - "IC". What's the difference between a product, project, sales and a people manager? They all manage something. It's people's egos and lust for power that makes this distinction.

I'm against euphemisms in general and don't think we should be changing this word either. As I see it, an IC is anyone whose main contribution is through artifacts or other actions they perform directly, and a manager is someone whose main contribution is through coordinating the actions of others. As such, I'm absolutely ok with "project manager" and "product manager" even if people don't report to them directly. If…

If we are merely IC's when it comes time to get paid, why aren't we all IC's when it comes to returning to office?

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#123

Post by krapp »

j-bos wrote: post #121
vasco wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every place in life is a place of struggle and fight. Some people actually enjoy their work. This just sounds like "class struggle" and "proletariat and bourgeoisie" under different names. Also thinking of your colleagues and people as "elites", "losers" and the "clueless" gives me some understanding to the state of mind of who writes this. To keep it lighter, in the companies I've worked in the architypes of peo…

The article uses struggly words like sociopaths and losers, but defines them very differently from common use, often the 'losers' have the most fulfilling and rounded lives, i.e. true winners - The "chronic nervous person that is paralyzed by impostor syndrome" - clueless - The "i find more problems than solutions" guy - clueless - The "i'm here to socialize, make friends, maybe get married" - loser - The "i gave up…

>The article uses struggly words like sociopaths and losers, but defines them very differently from common use, often the 'losers' have the most fulfilling and rounded lives, i.e. true winners

They're "losers" from the point of view of capitalism and corporate hierarchy. If you're not committing your life to ruthlessly climb the ladder to grasp at wealth and power by any means and you don't buy into the game or its rules, you're basically a defective cog, a useless part of the machine.

If you're unaware that success is a rigged lottery designed to find and promote sociopaths and actually believe that reward comes with hard work, determination and passion, you're clueless. A mark. A rube. If you're smart enough, with enough abuse you'll eventually wake up and become a loser.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#124

Post by rjtavares »

re-thc wrote: post #108
rjtavares wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've actually been in HR discussions telling people managers are overrated and we need to value ICs more. It's really difficult to explain to HR people that managing people isn't[1] a higher responsability job than being an expert at doing something... [1] Of course, sometimes it is. It depends on the team size and seniority, but also depends on the expertise. I'm just saying that a manager does not have to always ha…

> and we need to value ICs more Maybe start by getting rid of the silly term - "IC". What's the difference between a product, project, sales and a people manager? They all manage something. It's people's egos and lust for power that makes this distinction.

The distinction is useful because people managers have some specific tasks related to HR processes. The fact that the distinction has an ego implication is the problem, not the distinction itself.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#125

Post by rjtavares »

willcipriano wrote: post #122
falcor84 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm against euphemisms in general and don't think we should be changing this word either. As I see it, an IC is anyone whose main contribution is through artifacts or other actions they perform directly, and a manager is someone whose main contribution is through coordinating the actions of others. As such, I'm absolutely ok with "project manager" and "product manager" even if people don't report to them directly. If…

If we are merely IC's when it comes time to get paid, why aren't we all IC's when it comes to returning to office?

Again, the problem is the "merely". Sports stars are ICs and they're well paid.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#126

Post by tmpX7dMeXU »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #31

I am sick and tired of pressure to get into management once you get older and lack of other opportunities to be rewarded. If I can do job of 5 other people, I can be compensated like two others and the company is still ahead. Or if that's just my arrogance talking, there can be an objective system to measure work accomplished and set rewards accordingly. Instead all of my questions about advancement are met with dema…

> there can be an objective system to measure work accomplished and set rewards accordingly.

You’ve now undoubtedly made your life and that of those around you worse basically on the basis that you need to be proven wrong about being a “5x engineer”.

Engineers hate the hand-wavey nature of labour markets almost as much as they hate any attempts to remotely objectively quantify their performance.

The everybody-compromises happy medium is defined career tracks with largely qualitative and certainly subjective measures of actual responsibility. Nowhere in that are you going to get the reassurance that you’re after: that you’re worth 5 other engineers, or whatever. That’s just not how things work, even in IC roles. The fact that you pose this as a means of measurement in my eyes speaks volumes as to where you’d land on this imagined scale.

Honestly 99% of professions out there wouldn’t get away with being as entitled as software engineers are. Which, yes, market forces and all that. But let’s not pretend that there are many if any unreasonable aspects of a typical dev job.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#127

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

higeorge13 wrote: post #98
oytis wrote: post #91

Anecdotally I haven't observed managers having more difficulties job hopping than engineers. In fact managers are often the first to jump the ship in stormy weather.

And once they reach the director/vp/c levels it’s even easier to do so, independent on their achievements. They always throw the classic ‘grew the team from x to y people, and from i teams to k teams’ and get an offer.

Why would it be easier? The higher up you go, the less positions are available, and the competition for them is stronger.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#128

Post by willcipriano »

rjtavares wrote: post #125
willcipriano wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are merely IC's when it comes time to get paid, why aren't we all IC's when it comes to returning to office?

Again, the problem is the "merely". Sports stars are ICs and they're well paid.

I've only seen people get upset when others act like ICs on sports teams. "Ball hog" and the like. I don't think that's a example of one.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#129

Post by dspillett »

mook wrote: post #66
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #31

I am sick and tired of pressure to get into management once you get older and lack of other opportunities to be rewarded. If I can do job of 5 other people, I can be compensated like two others and the company is still ahead. Or if that's just my arrogance talking, there can be an objective system to measure work accomplished and set rewards accordingly. Instead all of my questions about advancement are met with dema…

Remember that all the people up the chain deciding compensation are managers. It's natural that they would perceive the management track as more important, because they're on it.

Another factor is that going to management to get more compensation is a given around many industries. You aren't going to get more where you are if you don't want to move into management, because you won't get more elsewhere either in the same state and they know that. They are not trying to pay you what will keep you happy, they are trying to pay you what will stop you taking your knowledge/experience elsewhere.

You just have to be aware of the market you are locking yourself into. I'm well aware I could be making more as a manager, or even if I let myself be called a “senior” which often overlaps in terms of having some responsibility for people/things in a manager-y way, but I pootle along as I am anyway because I know while I'm not exactly happy ATM I'd be less so the other way and I don't think that the extra compensation would balance that.

We may fall foul of AI in the not too distant future and end up stacking shelves for Tesco, but then again a lot of those management reports and decisions look rather automatable by the same LLMs too, if not more so…

Post reply on HN