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

People don't work as much as they say

drmaciver.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 313 posts

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#271

Post by BigRedDog1669 »

ahelwer wrote: post #203
caseysoftware wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think "hands on keyboard coding" is the primary/only form of work that matters, then you've missed out on a lot. Of the best managers I've worked for, one of the most obviously important things they did was keep other teams off our backs. Constant interruptions, shifting priorities, "just a quick question", and the like do more to destroy a team and its progress than anything else. Their name doesn't get attac…

If you want that then hire someone to stand outside your office with a stick and reply rudely to emails. We don't need to give them hiring/firing/promotion/rewards authority.

As an IC you can't tell other teams managers or higher ups or PMs to fuck off if they call you directly and tell you they think what you are doing isn't good. Or if they ask for unreasonable stuff. At least without fear of getting fired. A manager needs to prevent this from happening

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#272

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

deltaonefour wrote: post #260
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, well...the consensus seems to be that I was a decent manager. I hated the job, but they kept me for 27 years, so I guess something went well. Glad it's behind me, though.

Many managers are bad but can keep the job for a long time. This is because it's not the people that you are managing that judge your performance. So you can very well be a bad manager and still keep your job. The key here is that you only need to be a manager that delivers results. You don't need to be a manager that is good.

Well, many of my employees chose to give me testimonials on my LinkedIn, and they had nothing to gain from it.

Here's a couple:

> Chris was the best manager I've ever reported to. Period. He was supportive of his team, always motivating us to deliver excellence, even under daunting schedules set by the people above him. Because of Chris' support and commitment to his team, he fostered a deep loyalty and respect from our department.

> Chris is passionate about developing software and about technology in general. This means he is always in touch with the latest trends and best practices in the industry. However, he is careful not to introduce a new process or methodology to his group unless it has clear benefits and he has considered the input of everyone affected.

Chris has always been very well-respected by his engineers because his management style allows their best skills to shine. It's not simply a hands-off approach; he'll look to remove roadblocks where he can and offer help in any way possible. He is good at identifying an inefficiency and reaching out to help improve it.

More than just management skills, Chris is a kind, understanding, sensible and fair human being. At one point, we had a six-year run where no one left the group. I hadn't really noticed or appreciated this stability until someone from our HR department pointed out how remarkable it was. This could not have happened without someone like Chris managing the group.

But, what do they know? I'm sure they were mistaken. BTW: One of them was from a chap I laid off.

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#273

Post by ahelwer »

BigRedDog1669 wrote: post #271
ahelwer wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want that then hire someone to stand outside your office with a stick and reply rudely to emails. We don't need to give them hiring/firing/promotion/rewards authority.

As an IC you can't tell other teams managers or higher ups or PMs to fuck off if they call you directly and tell you they think what you are doing isn't good. Or if they ask for unreasonable stuff. At least without fear of getting fired. A manager needs to prevent this from happening

So the problem managers solve is the problem of there being other managers?

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#274

Post by ahelwer »

sulam wrote: post #269
ahelwer wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mistaken, this is literally - word for word - my imagination of what managers do.

Well then you are mistaken in your characterization of this not being work.

Replying to emails and sitting in meetings thinking of the best way to tell other people how to do the actual work isn't work, no.

Oh I forgot - we give the people who do this control over the employment of the people who do the actual work. Very weird system.

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#275

Post by deltaonefour »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #272
deltaonefour wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many managers are bad but can keep the job for a long time. This is because it's not the people that you are managing that judge your performance. So you can very well be a bad manager and still keep your job. The key here is that you only need to be a manager that delivers results. You don't need to be a manager that is good.

Well, many of my employees chose to give me testimonials on my LinkedIn, and they had nothing to gain from it. Here's a couple: > Chris was the best manager I've ever reported to. Period. He was supportive of his team, always motivating us to deliver excellence, even under daunting schedules set by the people above him. Because of Chris' support and commitment to his team, he fostered a deep loyalty and respect from…

I never said you were bad. I'm just saying being kept around for a long time doesn't mean someone is a good manager.

Testimonials from employees are a good indicator for a good manager.

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#276

Post by sulam »

ahelwer wrote: post #274
sulam wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then you are mistaken in your characterization of this not being work.

Replying to emails and sitting in meetings thinking of the best way to tell other people how to do the actual work isn't work, no. Oh I forgot - we give the people who do this control over the employment of the people who do the actual work. Very weird system.

And yet one that billions of people participate in. You are either a genius of epic proportions or just wrong in your thinking here. As long as people in coordinated groups get more done than individuals, I believe you are wrong.

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#277

Post by Viliam1234 »

giantg2 wrote: post #256
_n_b_ wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard. At least for me, this is the hardest classes of employees to manager—-it’s much easier to get rid of somebody who is clearly failing or reward and further develop a high performer. When I say uneven, I’m thinking of somebody who either: (a) is excellent at certain key aspects of their jobs but clearly below expectations in others to the point that it’s an issue, or (b) somebody who performs well but doesn’…

Thanks. Basically I'm told that some stories I complete quickly while others drag out. I'm on a team that works with multiple systems (10ish), multiple languages, multiple stacks/architectures, and am expected to be full stack. The "improvements" I've been told to make is to document why stories are slow - mostly context switching from prod support, context switching from my role as ASC, and of course just being slow…

> The best part is I got a 4.5% pay cut, yet they say they want to retain me. All while the company is talking about across the board increases (which I won't be eligible for) and having trouble filling roles that typically stay open for 6 months. Which is it - do I suck, or do you want to keep me?

They want to keep you, they just don't want to pay you (more than they have to).

After you leave, they will have to hire a new person and give them 120% of your current pay. (And the new person will be less productive, at least at the beginning, simply because they will be new.)

But the company is making the bet that you will stay, at least for a few years, because apparently most people do.

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#278

Post by rdtwo »

Grustaf wrote: post #244
rdtwo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is always more stuff to do but a smart person would quickly notice that only things that show up on metrics or are personally fulfilling are worth doing. The managers I’ve seen promoted chase metrics only and don’t sweat the other stuff. The good ones also take care of the people. The terrible ones try to do everything and anything that they think might be good for the company and ultimately piss everyone off a…

> smart person would quickly notice that only things that show up on metrics or are personally fulfilling are worth doing In other words, only stupid people have a work ethic?

If you want to word it that way… seems a bit crude you can have work ethic and channel it towards metrics instead

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#279

Post by ahelwer »

sulam wrote: post #276
ahelwer wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replying to emails and sitting in meetings thinking of the best way to tell other people how to do the actual work isn't work, no. Oh I forgot - we give the people who do this control over the employment of the people who do the actual work. Very weird system.

And yet one that billions of people participate in. You are either a genius of epic proportions or just wrong in your thinking here. As long as people in coordinated groups get more done than individuals, I believe you are wrong.

People in coordinated groups do not necessarily require someone to sit around in meetings and send emails telling the rest of them what to do.

Re: People don't work as much as they say

#280

Post by flyinglizard »

ahelwer wrote: post #279
sulam wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet one that billions of people participate in. You are either a genius of epic proportions or just wrong in your thinking here. As long as people in coordinated groups get more done than individuals, I believe you are wrong.

People in coordinated groups do not necessarily require someone to sit around in meetings and send emails telling the rest of them what to do.

How is coordination achieved otherwise?
Post reply on HN