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

No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

ablg.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 361 posts

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#151

Post by karaterobot »

KittenInABox wrote: post #147
al_borland wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just that, but the union would likely end up capping their salary much lower so the wealth can be spread around. How hard is the 10x engineer on the team going to work when the compensation is the same regardless? This is where people end up working multiple jobs, if they can keep up with their peers only working one day per week.

Couldn't unions just follow actors' guilds and the like where there are no salary caps?

When we're looking to the actors guilds for direction, you know the future of our industry might be in trouble.

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#152

Post by dbetteridge »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #47
1121redblackgo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why people are jumping out of buildings, actually and metaphorically, in 996 cultures.

i think Amazon only had one person jump out of a building last year. it's not as common as you might think.

One is too many...

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#153

Post by appellations »

tyre wrote: post #100
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i agree. but. there's something in the behaviour of these unicorns that should be examined. the idea that an engineer can be a ninja, 10x or unicorn independent of the processes of their environment and working group is laughable. i have known several people who were identified as "highly productive" and they all had some individual traits like a) they were very good with individual time management, b) were not afrai…

I've been an early employee (sub 10 and 20) in two unicorns and another (a presidential campaign) that didn't have a valuation but did the equivalent. People did not work 40 hours per week, and I feel comfortable saying that the companies could not have been as successful if people had. The common threads were: - incredible ICs - founders who spiked in the most important areas for that market - a mission that everyon…

Are you saying people worked less than 40 hours a week or more than 40 hours a week in those organizations? I’m assuming over, but it’s unclear to me from the tone of your post.

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#154

Post by thedevilslawyer »

Herring wrote: post #35
pyrale wrote: post #27

> I know several top 1% engineers in the Valley who disengage from recruiting processes when 996 or something similar is mentioned. A few years back, on this board, 996 was something people made fun of when it was reported that some Chinese companies did it [1]. And now, the strongest claim this blog can make is that some engineers in the US would disengage from recruiting? That the issue with working on saturdays is…

It’s better to look at what didn’t happen: unionization. Americans often remind me of Steve Jobs trying to cure cancer using diets & acupuncture. You know what the solutions are, you just don’t like them.

Unionization does not happen because it's typically anti-immigrants. It's an unworkable solution, and liking it will magically make it work.

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#155

Post by numpy-thagoras »

exabrial wrote: post #148
pyrale wrote: post #27

> I know several top 1% engineers in the Valley who disengage from recruiting processes when 996 or something similar is mentioned. A few years back, on this board, 996 was something people made fun of when it was reported that some Chinese companies did it [1]. And now, the strongest claim this blog can make is that some engineers in the US would disengage from recruiting? That the issue with working on saturdays is…

Former Alibaba employee for a season of my life. I have to be careful with my next sentences because on the internet because it's easy for people to read things in a vacuum and interpret in the worse possible way, so don't do that because thats not how I mean it. The 996 hours are not useful work. It's appearance over productivity.

Yep, if you were to watch what happens at a 996 shop, it's people literally living their at-home life with their fellow employees for most of the time.

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#156

Post by johnfn »

> Motivation is a hired trait. The only place where managers motivate people is in management books.

This seems entirely false to me. To be honest it is so incorrect it significantly puts into question the rest of the article.

1. I have absolutely had managers motivate me to work harder. I have also had managers completely demotivate me and cause me to quit. How on earth can anyone who has worked in the industry for any amount of time say that "The only place where managers motivate people is in management books"?

2. Of course most of the facile strategies mentioned in the article (like 996, micromanaging, etc) won't work. The article then generalizes this to all strategies - but "if terrible methods can't solve it, nothing possibly can" feels like a shaky argument at best. A good manager understands this, and motivates by helping you understand how the things you are doing are actually critical to the success of the team and the company. (If success of the company isn't something you're interested in, then yes, it's going to be hard to motivate you.) A poor manager sabotages motivation in a hundred different ways - he makes you feel like your efforts are totally wasted, or fails to articulate why they are important.

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#157

Post by oenton »

thedevilslawyer wrote: post #154
Herring wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s better to look at what didn’t happen: unionization. Americans often remind me of Steve Jobs trying to cure cancer using diets & acupuncture. You know what the solutions are, you just don’t like them.

Unionization does not happen because it's typically anti-immigrants. It's an unworkable solution, and liking it will magically make it work.

Curious, what do you mean by 'anti-immigrants'?

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#158

Post by data-ottawa »

al_borland wrote: post #53
bob001 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until recently American engineers made a lot of money at comparatively cushy jobs. A decent engineer in the US could make 5x their equivalent in most European nations. Staff+ engineers at FAANG could make 5x that. People in a good position tend to not like rocking the boat.

Not just that, but the union would likely end up capping their salary much lower so the wealth can be spread around. How hard is the 10x engineer on the team going to work when the compensation is the same regardless? This is where people end up working multiple jobs, if they can keep up with their peers only working one day per week.

I find it hard to believe workers would vote for a union to lower or cap their wages. That feels like a total straw man.

In my experience unions suck when they overemphasize fairness over real world practicalities (see almost anything seniority based). They don't have to be that way.

Re: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

#159

Post by wavemode »

tayo42 wrote: post #130
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we used to say "employees don't quit jobs, they quit managers." i was very happy at Amazon until they moved me under a sub-optimal manager. i quit less than a month later. that manager got promoted. this will tell you everything you need to know about working at Amazon. maybe they were trying to get me to quit. maybe that area's director was incompetent. maybe both.

Do managers ever get fired or fail? All of my worst managers seem to keep moving up the ladder from what I see on LinkedIn. I don't understand it.

Managers have to manage up and manage down. Lots of managers succeed in their careers by being good at managing up, despite being awful at managing down.
Post reply on HN