Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#161

Post by hajile » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 2:11 PM UTC

baz00 wrote: post #46

lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they hire anyone who makes duck noises assuming they are ducks. Isn't it more accurate to say they hire anybody making duck noises assuming they are wolves? Technical interviews in no way identify the skills developers are going to use in their daily work.

Finding technically competent people is easy. Finding people who continue to give a fuck the moment their trial period is over is difficult.

It's demotivating when you know you're doing 80% of the work, but getting paid the same as the other 5 people on the team. When a company finds a great dev, they seldom have the sense to pay that person enough to make them feel motivated to outperform their colleagues.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#162

Post by harimau777 » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 2:13 PM UTC

baz00 wrote: post #29

A finding I had when I took a management role was that it's really hard actually getting anyone to do a good job of something. This is utterly frustrating. So many people actually don't give a fuck if what they do works or is of merchantable quality as long as it's perceived they are working for the hours required. I've found that the teams usually divide into functional elites that do the work unattended and I'm dea…

That's kind of why I want to be a manager. As a developer I'm tired of having to work with code written from people who don't give a fuck.

At least as a manager, it wouldn't be my direct problem. If the developers want to crunch to fix last minute issues because they didn't do it right the first time then that's their decision; but I don't want to be part of it anymore.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#163

Post by harimau777 » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 2:19 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #148

krapp wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 r…

> 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. You have too narrow a definition of capitalism and of corporate hierarchy. What you describe is one outworking of them,…

It's BY FAR the most common outworking. Most people won't be lucky enough to find a job that doesn't work that way.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#164

Post by anonymous_sorry » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 2:34 PM UTC

unicornmama wrote: post #113

scottLobster wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an issue of incentives, and sadly my experience is it's often not the immediate management that's the problem, it's structural issues with the company that low-level managers have little if any say in. Speaking for my own experience, program-level and above management often doesn't put their money where their mouth is. Maintenance is chronically under-funded, well-articulated and respectful feedback is ignored w…

> It's an issue of incentives Please do not just oversimplfy a challenging problem into just "incentives". Some people lack resilience, and they will collapse under the pressures of professional and personal life. Some people lack ambition and drive, they don't want to exceed their level of productivity no matter what you do. It's not just a matter of incentives. If you offer the right incentives and opportunites to…

> Some people lack resilience, and they will collapse under the pressures of professional and personal life. Some people lack ambition and drive, they don't want to exceed their level of productivity no matter what you do.

Few people don't want to improve their productivity. Improving your productivity makes you more valuable. But plenty of people don't want to work harder. There is of course a difference!

I deal poorly with stress, and am thankful I have reached a point in my career where I can earn pretty good money in positions where I'm not pushing myself too hard.

I enjoy learning of course, and do want to get better. But that's in balance with the demands of family and the happiness and fulfillment I find in other pursuits.

I have been promoted reasonably quickly over the past 5 years without playing political games. My productivity has improved through experience, and it seems like that got recognised through promotion. But I guess it's possible I got lucky with managers making bad decisions in my favour.

I don't know if you'd want to hire me. I'm not sure I'd want to work for you. Do you find success with your approach compared to peers with a more empathetic approach to management?

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#165

Post by robertlagrant » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 2:51 PM UTC

harimau777 wrote: post #163

robertlagrant wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You have too narrow a definition of capitalism and of corporate hierarchy. What you describe is one outworking of them,…

It's BY FAR the most common outworking. Most people won't be lucky enough to find a job that doesn't work that way.

Can you cite where you know this from?

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#166

Post by karaterobot » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 3:08 PM UTC

Some more:

* The politics and alliance building required to get anything done is both absurd and exhausting.

* You get it from both sides: leadership is pissed off because of X, individual contributors are pissed off because of Y. In both cases they are pissed off at you, or at least pissed off at something and using you as a pin cushion.

* You have to pretend to care about things. A good individual contributor can get away with an attitude of "I'll work on whatever you want me to work on, but this is just a job to me", whereas a manager is expected to be a loyal and excited booster of whatever stupid shit the company is up to.

* Generally I worked harder as a manager than as an IC, and the work was more stressful. The pay bump was not as significant as the stress bump. I've also worked at places (like my current job) where ICs make more than PMs. I am an IC here, and have no idea why anyone would ever take a PM job here. Sure enough, we can't keep them around.

* Do you like to consider all options and really think through a decision before you make it? Well, get used to being asked for definitive, snap judgments all day, every day.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#167

Post by harimau777 » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 3:20 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #165

harimau777 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's BY FAR the most common outworking. Most people won't be lucky enough to find a job that doesn't work that way.

Can you cite where you know this from?

Personal experience and the experience of the developers that I've met.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#168

Post by harimau777 » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

sph wrote: post #133

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are other ways to break out of the cycle. Keep looking. What are these ways (besides founding a startup or something similar)?

Working for oneself is how we're meant to work, not to be a cog in someone else's machine. It is sad that for the past ~100 years it has become the norm and we idolize entrepreneurs, as if they are mythical creatures.

Many people lack the business skills, resources, or temperament for starting their own business. So this is certainly an option but not a panacea.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#169

Post by noufalibrahim » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

BowBun wrote: post #150

noufalibrahim wrote: post #139

I was a technical IC for the majority of my career and apart from leading small teams technically, didn't do much management. However, i picked it up when i started my own company and it has considerably changed my pov. Hard conversations, managing time, developing people, building the organisation, delivering value to clients and a ton of other things which i couldn't dream of doing as an IC have been possible and e…

Your experience is very, very different than what the article was about. Starting your own company means you have ownership and pride of everything going on in the business. That motivation and entrepreneurial spirit will obviously paint everything in pink, at least for a while. Imagine having those responsibities, but nearly no decision-making power. All those messy human behaviors are now coming at you from above a…

Thanks. That's a useful perspective.

I read it as a general screed on managers in general. Not on improperly structured environments that don't enable managers to do good work which I understand is what you read from the article.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#170

Post by matrix_overload » Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 4:41 PM UTC

re-thc wrote: post #74

matrix_overload wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business likes predictability. The chance of 5 people deciding to leave all at once is exponentially lower than a chance of 1 person. Hence, unless you are the owner/founder, your replaceability will be valued more than your performance.

> The chance of 5 people deciding to leave all at once is exponentially lower than a chance of 1 person. And the chance of 5 random people producing something compared to the 1 you know is a huge contributor is exponentially lower too. > Business likes predictability. That's great. Then they should actually stick with it i.e. reward the 1 that's been contributing rather than gamble on something that might not work. I…

>And the chance of 5 random people producing something compared to the 1 you know is a huge contributor is exponentially lower too.

When a customer presses a button to book a taxi ride, they don't care whether the underlying database query takes O(log N) or O(N^2). As long as the price is good and they get a response within 3-5 seconds, they're cool.

This works for the absolute majority of real-world projects. Technical excellence has very little impact on the revenue, compared to other factors (product/market fit), so people making business decisions don't care about it.

>That's great. Then they should actually stick with it i.e. reward the 1 that's been contributing rather than gamble on something that might not work.

Business is always a gamble. You don't know how the market will take your product before you launch it. You don't know what the competitors will do, how the sentiment will change, let alone global events like the COVID money printing followed by an interest rate squeeze. It's like you are trying to navigate a ship in a storm, and the mechanic keeps telling you how he can shove coal 5x faster than others and hence needs to be paid more. Except, you never need it that fast, and need to have 2 onboard anyway, in case one gets sick.