Live data from Hacker News

People leave managers, not companies

blog.intercom.com

181–186 of 186 posts

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME this kind of experience comes when you have a manager who has no fundamental understanding of what it is that they are managing and has no particular reason to trust you. A manager who can monitor your output by reading your pull requests simply won't engage in this type of behavior whereas a manager who can't will usually instinctively gravitate to terrible metrics like "does he show dedication by being in at 9a…

Is turning up on time for your job a terrible metric? To me being on time is just a very basic low level requirement of being a professional. As the initial commenter said: trust goes both ways. Turning up on time is a good way to show your manager that you can be trusted. Edit: Actually, turning up on time may not make your manager trust you more, but turning up late will definitely make them trust you less.

[deleted]

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#182
post #18

One of the issues I've had that isn't mentioned here is the value of mutual trust. Communication and trust are the two cornerstones of a really solid manager managee relationship in my experience. Whether that lack of trust manifests itself as micro-management, constant check-ins, or a constant threat of surveillance it can easily turn an above average performer into an apathetic and demoralized employee. I used to w…

IME this kind of experience comes when you have a manager who has no fundamental understanding of what it is that they are managing and has no particular reason to trust you. A manager who can monitor your output by reading your pull requests simply won't engage in this type of behavior whereas a manager who can't will usually instinctively gravitate to terrible metrics like "does he show dedication by being in at 9a…

This is very true in india. Almost most of the managers go in to management because they can't code and to evalulate an employee they take every metric other than looking in to the commits.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>consistently being late is a sign of disrespect. What I'm reading here is that you're perceiving it (perhaps accurately, perhaps not) as a threat to one's dominance as manager. I think you may be using the word respect as, say, a capo would - as in, "respect the chain of command" or as cartman would say "respect mah authoritah"! If true, then that signals a certain level of insecurity over one's position which I thi…

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I can certainly see how you could interpret my remarks on disrespect as "perceiving it (...) as a threat to one's dominance", but this was certainly not my intention. My context is of never having had a 'bad' manager, they have always been agreeable and pleasant with a good technical understanding and (I can only assume) high self-esteem. I think I have used the word respect in…

>When I talk about disrespect in the context of a manager I mean it on more of an interpersonal relationship level, not as a struggle for dominance in some sort of power structure.

Except the manager/employee relationship is fundamentally about dominance in a power structure so I don't see how you can separate the two.

Think about it this way: absent any kind of inconvenience (like an interrupted meeting), would a manager ever apologize to an employee for coming in at 9:05am?

If the answer is yes, this may be about mutual respect. Since the answer is no, this is intrinsically about respecting the chain of command.

>Adding the bit about "technical incompetence" sound to me like you are projecting certain other attributes on the hypothetical manager that we are discussing. What has been your experience with managers?

Yes, I am. Because, in my experience, there has always been a strong correlation between one attribute and the other. As in, mild technical competence usually means that they care, but not hugely and deep technical incompetence means they end up caring a ton.

>When you have few bills to pay and/or other obligations then this attitude is fine

I'm aware others can not afford this attitude because they are up against the wall with credit card debt, mortgages and kids and whatnot but as far as I see it the point you and my previous boss were making was a rhetorical one. Point being that it doesn't work as a rhetorical question because I really didn't mind.

I think there may have been some sort of implied threat there - i.e. "you fulfill your end of the bargain by coming in before 9:05am and I'll fulfill mine by not paying you a day late". And I was like, ok, pay me a day late then.

>The point I was trying to make in the paragraph about "programmers acting any way they like" was that this may be an accept/successful strategy in the short term, but it may not be optimal long term. However indispensable you are now there is someone somewhere out there looking to optimize your job or make your skill set irrelevant.

Ok, so now you've branched on to a different topic. I agree that this is the case, but they will keep trying to do that however servile you act and behaving like a slave isn't going to stop it from happening. While they are trying to optimize your job and make your skill set irrelevant, you should instead be trying to optimize your performance and make your skill set more and more relevant while maintaining a healthy savings buffer that protects against unemployment.

As far as I can tell the biggest threats are actually directed at those with the least relative power.

>It seems like you view the employer/employee relationship in a very adversarial way

Yes. The largest military uprising in the United States since the civil war (battle of blair mountain) was fundamentally an employee/employer conflict. The relationship is a naturally adversarial and naturally parasitic. That doesn't mean it has to be all about that in every instance, but that is still its natural tendency.

>I have had jobs in the past (mainly part time service worker type jobs) where I feel that this attitude is valid. However, most companies I have worked for as a programmer have been small/medium level and started/funded by the same people (no VC money, no faceless career CEO or public shareholders). In these situations I have found that there is no calculated malice or attempt to 'enslave' you

I think that is in and of itself an artefact of the difference in power disparity. As a programmer you had more power so they didn't feel like they could fuck with you with impunity. As a part time service worker they could so they did.

I think some of those nice people you worked with might have changed their tune had they seen your relative power slipping. I have definitely seen this happen.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a manager is about being loyal to the company and not individuals. It pays more precisely because it causes pain to peoples' consciences to put an abstraction above fellow employees. Talking about a CEO catching bullets in their teeth is ridiculously inflated language. Why use such imagery? Because the mission of a typical company does not sufficiently compensate for the guilt produced by putting the organizati…

> Being a manager is about being loyal to the company and not individuals. That's not true at all. Being a manager requires you to balance both the needs of individuals with the needs of the company. Being a good manager means you can correctly handle when those two needs come into conflict.

I don't see why you disagree. Beyond asserting that my statement isn't true, you seem to be merely paraphrasing what I wrote in a more euphemistic way.

My former boss was laid off because he didn't "correctly" handle the conflict we're talking about. I think we're in agreement about what correctly means - being loyal to the company, or people who have power over you, rather than your subordinates.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#185
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a manager is about being loyal to the company and not individuals. It pays more precisely because it causes pain to peoples' consciences to put an abstraction above fellow employees. Talking about a CEO catching bullets in their teeth is ridiculously inflated language. Why use such imagery? Because the mission of a typical company does not sufficiently compensate for the guilt produced by putting the organizati…

No. Putting the organization ahead of individuals isn't what's happening. The individuals ARE the organization. So if you put yourself ahead of the organization, you're putting everyone else behind you, including your boss. This is a challenge for millennials especially, who are used to always being put first, and having their emotions managed. A good manager doesn't put themselves before their boss or anyone else. H…

You assert that "a good manager puts the organization first", but first does not mean "ahead of individuals". So what is it ahead of, if not individual interests?

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I can certainly see how you could interpret my remarks on disrespect as "perceiving it (...) as a threat to one's dominance", but this was certainly not my intention. My context is of never having had a 'bad' manager, they have always been agreeable and pleasant with a good technical understanding and (I can only assume) high self-esteem. I think I have used the word respect in…

>When I talk about disrespect in the context of a manager I mean it on more of an interpersonal relationship level, not as a struggle for dominance in some sort of power structure. Except the manager/employee relationship is fundamentally about dominance in a power structure so I don't see how you can separate the two. Think about it this way: absent any kind of inconvenience (like an interrupted meeting), would a ma…

You make some very compelling arguments, thanks for taking the time to dig deeper into this with me.
Post reply on HN