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

Managing People

klinger.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Managing People

#61

Post by afdsasdfe »

xelxebar wrote: post #53
afdsasdfe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked fine for me. The brevity is exactly what I need instead of wading through tons of often unnecessary text. It's all common sense - which too many of my bosses just didn't have - and the summary form help bring them to focus. IMO it's good. YMMV, I appreciate.

Not OP, but "It's all common sense" is exactly the problem, as I see it. Common Sense usually means Big Hairy Ball of Experience-Grounded Implicit Knowledge Wrapped Up Into Pithy Statements, in my experience. Sure, each point in the article may sound reasonable, but there are also 1000 other bullet points that also make sense. How do you sort out all the "good" Common Sense from the "bad"? Not to mention that every b…

Do you find no value in this at all?

Let's take this then

> Common Sense usually means Big Hairy Ball of Experience-Grounded Implicit Knowledge

I don't agree, here's some very straightforward 'common sense' statements that I've seen not followed at so many companies

Don't micromanage.

Do trust, but verify.

Treat your staff like humans, not like crap.

If the staff you employed know more than you, listen to them.

Focus on business outcomes, not the tech.

All good rules with few if any gotchas. All horribly broken at various places I've worked.

Re: Managing People

#62

Post by Mumps »

andrewingram wrote: post #60
wreath wrote: post #13

The author mentions firing people in almost every point. Is firing people in the US so easy that it is a go-to solution to solve these problems?

IIRC the UK is at-will for the first two years of your employment too. Some startups leverage this to an almost toxic degree. I had one manager (who then became CTO and is now CEO of another startup) who, by all appearances, treated firing as the only tool in his arsenal for dealing with any personnel problem. I was never on the receiving end, but in a few cases I know for a fact that he lied (or hugely exaggerated)…

I believe this is partially correct: https://www.gov.uk/dismissal

* you can demand written explanation if you've worked for at least two years

But, for most contracts here a 3/6 month probationary period seem to be the norm for tech/professional roles, and then a 3-month notice period (to quit or be let go).

Re: Managing People

#63

Post by okl »

afdsasdfe wrote: post #61
xelxebar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but "It's all common sense" is exactly the problem, as I see it. Common Sense usually means Big Hairy Ball of Experience-Grounded Implicit Knowledge Wrapped Up Into Pithy Statements, in my experience. Sure, each point in the article may sound reasonable, but there are also 1000 other bullet points that also make sense. How do you sort out all the "good" Common Sense from the "bad"? Not to mention that every b…

Do you find no value in this at all? Let's take this then > Common Sense usually means Big Hairy Ball of Experience-Grounded Implicit Knowledge I don't agree, here's some very straightforward 'common sense' statements that I've seen not followed at so many companies Don't micromanage. Do trust, but verify. Treat your staff like humans, not like crap. If the staff you employed know more than you, listen to them. Focus…

> Treat your staff like humans, not like crap.

That statement is vacuous because no decent human being would say: "I want to treat my staff like crap". It is easy to agree with your points because they are universal but don't provide any meaningful way to differentiate, e.g., what is and what isn't "treating your staff like crap".

Re: Managing People

#64

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

I will admit that the 'everything is your fault' resonated with me. The best boss operated exactly this way ( and I hope I will be able to emulate him one day ). I am obviously not talking about self-flagellating. In a corporate environment, it can easily backfire.

Still, the moment you are the boss, it really is your show.

Re: Managing People

#65

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

wreath wrote: post #51
choilive wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, most states are "at-will", which means you can be fired for any non-illegal reason at any time, barring any existing contracts.

But is that at the will of your direct boss or there is a process that they have to go through? Like, if for some reason I piss off my manager, they get mad and fire my ass on the spot? How common is this in tech companies?

Short answer is yes. Long answer is yes, but reasonable companies will try to find some reasons first as firing for no reason will only increase company's unemployment insurance.

Re: Managing People

#66

Post by Ecstatify »

TameAntelope wrote: post #31

Maybe it’s just the mood I’m in, but I found this list/notes style basically impossible to parse. Why are any of these things true? Credentials alone are not going to get me to blindly accept any of this; maybe some reasoning would help, a few anecdotes, conversations with other experts (or at least quotes) so I can relate this content to other content and start to fit this info in with everything else I already know…

Very generic advice, nothing that hasn't been said in a thousand other blog posts.

Honestly one of the worst blogs I've ever seen from a readability perspective.

Re: Managing People

#67

Post by afdsasdfe »

okl wrote: post #63
afdsasdfe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you find no value in this at all? Let's take this then > Common Sense usually means Big Hairy Ball of Experience-Grounded Implicit Knowledge I don't agree, here's some very straightforward 'common sense' statements that I've seen not followed at so many companies Don't micromanage. Do trust, but verify. Treat your staff like humans, not like crap. If the staff you employed know more than you, listen to them. Focus…

> Treat your staff like humans, not like crap. That statement is vacuous because no decent human being would say: "I want to treat my staff like crap". It is easy to agree with your points because they are universal but don't provide any meaningful way to differentiate, e.g., what is and what isn't "treating your staff like crap".

> because no decent human being would say: "I want to treat my staff like crap".

Go not by what they say but what they do, and I've known plenty who have treated their staff like utter crap, from screaming abuse at them to ignoring them to undervaluing them to psychological bullying and more. I guess all your workplaces must be like heaven compared to what I've seen.

I don't understand where you're coming from. To me it's a decent and useful post and you are just tearing it down for no reason I can see.

Re: Managing People

#68

Post by ziggus »

This is a pretty good list, in particular the section on 'Feedbacking People' is an excellent summary of the importance of using performance reviews to actually review how systems and processes are hindering or helping someone's performance, versus just trying to review performance without any context.

Re: Managing People

#69

Post by okl »

afdsasdfe wrote: post #67
okl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Treat your staff like humans, not like crap. That statement is vacuous because no decent human being would say: "I want to treat my staff like crap". It is easy to agree with your points because they are universal but don't provide any meaningful way to differentiate, e.g., what is and what isn't "treating your staff like crap".

> because no decent human being would say: "I want to treat my staff like crap". Go not by what they say but what they do, and I've known plenty who have treated their staff like utter crap, from screaming abuse at them to ignoring them to undervaluing them to psychological bullying and more. I guess all your workplaces must be like heaven compared to what I've seen. I don't understand where you're coming from. To me…

No, I've never been treated like that at work and I wouldn't take it. But I see where you're coming from.

Regardless, I'd rather you evaluate the post's content on its own merits rather than from your or my personal background.

Re: Managing People

#70

Post by gwbas1c »

> Avoid back and forth

> Processes are expectations made explicit

Processes should avoid back-and-forth. They need to ensure that clear communication happens when work is handed off from one person to another.

Assuming you're working on tickets, do you need to ask 200 questions every time you get an incoming ticket? That's a process problem; the process should ensure that whoever created the ticket puts in the information you need to do their work; and the process should ensure that whoever created the ticket knows how to fill in the information you need.

IE: If QA is filling out a ticket, they should know how to write a bug report, steps to reproduce, and how to collect diagnostic information that's unique to the product.

If support is filling out a ticket, they should know how to clearly explain the customer's problem, and what questions to ask the customer to collect diagnostic information that's unique to the product.

Post reply on HN