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

Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

charity.wtf

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 192 posts

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#71

Post by re-thc »

lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #47
baz00 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Finding technically competent people is easy. This is not what I've been told by many, many hiring managers over the past few years. > Finding people who continue to give a fuck the moment their trial period is over is difficult. Well... yeah? I've been saying for years now that if passion is a hard requirement to getting a job, then you're begging your applicants to lie to you.

> Well... yeah? I've been saying for years now that if passion is a hard requirement to getting a job, then you're begging your applicants to lie to you.

Caring about the work is not passion. Most of the time work involves politics, paperwork and dealing with all sorts of things that people don't like. I doubt anyone is passionate about this type of thing.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#72

Post by re-thc »

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…

> 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.

Well they are paid for the hours required. That's the problem (as some commenters have already mentioned).

It's not just the pay. It is often unfair. It might not be you but I've seen plenty of managers reward those that do a lot less compared to others. When people start to experience these things, how. do you expect them to care?

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#73

Post by re-thc »

mhss wrote: post #65
xracy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this sounds to me a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want people to care about things, you have to listen to what they care about... I can influence some of what people care about as a manager, but it's long-term steering a spaceship a few degrees at a time. I think too many people see managing a team as "managing the people to do good work." When, in fact, managing is much more about managing th…

> If you want people to care about things, you have to listen to what they care about Ultimately we are all paid to solve the problems the business needs solved, even if the solution is boring and not 'exciting' or 'cutting edge' tech (which is often). The best people finds excitement and challenge in almost any work and are self-motivated. Sure, as a manager you should try your very best to shield the team from crap…

> Ultimately we are all paid to solve the problems the business needs solved, even if the solution is boring and not 'exciting' or 'cutting edge' tech (which is often).

Sadly, we're not. And that's the gist of the problem.

We're paid to do whoever's in power wants us to do and it might not solve any business need. Often some manager or otherwise decides to implement something that might not even be what customers want. It's not about the challenge or anything like that. A lot of people are frustrated at implementing things that make no sense.

> If project x comes along with twice the value of the current project someone is working on, you very much should be able to preempt what someone is working on

Only if think you control your destiny. Your manager above may have their own direction or ideals.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#74

Post by re-thc »

matrix_overload wrote: post #40
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #31

I am sick and tired of pressure to get into management once you get older and lack of other opportunities to be rewarded. If I can do job of 5 other people, I can be compensated like two others and the company is still ahead. Or if that's just my arrogance talking, there can be an objective system to measure work accomplished and set rewards accordingly. Instead all of my questions about advancement are met with dema…

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. It's common in sports teams, e.g. where you sell your star player and buy 5 others hoping to get more value. At the end of the day you're lucky to even get the same value.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#75

Post by xracy »

mhss wrote: post #65
xracy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this sounds to me a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want people to care about things, you have to listen to what they care about... I can influence some of what people care about as a manager, but it's long-term steering a spaceship a few degrees at a time. I think too many people see managing a team as "managing the people to do good work." When, in fact, managing is much more about managing th…

> If you want people to care about things, you have to listen to what they care about Ultimately we are all paid to solve the problems the business needs solved, even if the solution is boring and not 'exciting' or 'cutting edge' tech (which is often). The best people finds excitement and challenge in almost any work and are self-motivated. Sure, as a manager you should try your very best to shield the team from crap…

> Ultimately we are all paid to solve the problems the business needs solved, even if the solution is boring and not 'exciting' or 'cutting edge' tech (which is often). The best people finds excitement and challenge in almost any work and are self-motivated.

I think the best managers are able to find relevant challenges/projects for their reports interests. Everything you're saying says to me, that you depend on in "good employees" is broadly something I see as being an option in "all employees". And I see it as a failing of me, as a manager, if I can't bridge that gap for all of my reports.

> Are you a manager? you very much should be able to change what they do if you are. If project x comes along with twice the value of the current project someone is working on, you very much should be able to preempt what someone is working on.

Yes, I am a manager. I can absolutely try and sell people on a new project. I can't make them work on it. When I was an IC, I ultimately worked on what I thought was most important, and would slowly move to projects that people asked me to work on, (but I didn't want to work on). I was an effective IC, so people couldn't complain. Don't see any reason that wouldn't hold true for the ICs that I work with, now that I'm a manager.

> I mean, delegation and ownership are fine as a mechanism to boost engagement and career growth, but you can't delegate everything (otherwise what are you doing again?). Also, what's up with the "if they think" wording here. Are they making the decision or not, are you tricking them into thinking they're making the decision?

Did you read the article? At least in engineering, if you think you're going to make the decisions just because "you're the manager", then I think you're managing backwards. If I need to make a decision, I'm in charge of convincing people it's the right decision. But I also have to listen to those people when they tell me their concerns, and change course if their concerns are reasonable.

It sounds to me, if you're a manager, that you're only an effective manager for people who are already succesful. I think the thing that makes someone a good manager, is that they can make anyone effective. Everyone can grow and flourish under you.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#76

Post by singron »

gundmc wrote: post #52
danielovichdk wrote: post #25

When adults can't be responsible for themselves they need to be managed. When adults can be responsible they need more than one other adult to address issues and challenges with. To learn from and to teach to. Management is a industrial and corporate construct. Its put in place to force labour intense industries to tell others what they need to do. Tell is often a monologue. There is indeed need for adults to be arou…

This comment reads like something #6 from the OP would say.

I think it's actually agreeing with a lot of points from #11 and #16. Obviously this is an article about why you shouldn't be a manager, so it doesn't have any reasons why you should be a manager or why management is important. They alude to the fact that someone has to do performance reviews, fire people, and resolve conflicts.

The less edgy and more academic version of this is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#77

Post by starwatch »

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…

I've found that culture is king in terms of governing what's shipped. From day 1 new hires are looking at what their peers are doing, and more importantly what's being tolerated by the manager and the rest of the team.

As an uninvited specific action recommendation: I've made it a habit to look through PR's (merged and unmerged) regularly. I point out opportunities for improvement, and more importantly I call out excellent solutions. The excellence can be in the form of elegance or just hard graft finding a bug. It's a small action that's additive and doesn't interrupt work. But it does wonders at setting the tone.

One thing I've found very hard indeed is if the team you manage is surrounded by peers that "don't give a fuck if what they do works or is of merchantable quality". However, if you reinforce your culture of excellence it becomes resilient to it ... and then the tricky thing becomes avoiding arrogance within the team.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#78

Post by rgifford »

scottLobster wrote: post #67
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…

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…

Sociopaths, the clueless and losers. This great essay analyzing The Office argues that in a modern business context you're one of the three. [1]

Those "functional elites" you mentioned? Usually they're working 20-50% more for 0-25% percent more pay. They're called the clueless because they've been conned into working more for less, usually under some clever guise like company being family or company values or the promise of a promotion that's always a cycle or two away. The essay then goes on to argue that losers are really just the clueless once they "get it." Losers understand the treadmill and lean into the tedium always aiming to save their time by playing dumb as needed. Sociopaths break out of the cycle by operating only with concern for power and switching up how they talk to folks based on whether they're clueless, losers or fellow sociopaths.

Sociopaths speak in powertalk -- an exchange of information on clear terms. It's usually veiled because the clueless and losers listen in and it makes them feel uncomfortable. If it weren't veiled it would probably sound like lawyer-jargon with lots of plausible deniability, conditions, arguing and explicit shared definitions.

Losers and clueless speak in their own languages based on who they're talking with. It's basically just lots of trying to feel okay... except for when it comes to losers speaking with sociopaths. There the only communication is straight talk, which is basically just direct requests of a master-slave dynamic (i.e. "do this"). The essay is well worth the read!

1. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-...

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#79

Post by nullc »

baz00 wrote: post #48
lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Finding technically competent people is easy. This is not what I've been told by many, many hiring managers over the past few years. > Finding people who continue to give a fuck the moment their trial period is over is difficult. Well... yeah? I've been saying for years now that if passion is a hard requirement to getting a job, then you're begging your applicants to lie to you.

It's really easy. The problem they have is finding technically competent people in the desired budget.

Disagree. Openly offer a million dollars a year and the extra competent people you get will be buried under a neigh uncountable number of additional pretenders. So no matter what you pay it's never easy.

Re: Reasons Not to Be a Manager (2019)

#80

Post by hintymad »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #31

I am sick and tired of pressure to get into management once you get older and lack of other opportunities to be rewarded. If I can do job of 5 other people, I can be compensated like two others and the company is still ahead. Or if that's just my arrogance talking, there can be an objective system to measure work accomplished and set rewards accordingly. Instead all of my questions about advancement are met with dema…

I grew up reading all kinds of articles and books about how engineering itself is a career track and I believed it. However, when I looked at the great engineers, it seems they eventually turned into executives. Jeff Dean, for instance, is one the greatest engineers. He has deep technical skills. He is versatile, as we can see that he made key contributions in storages, distributed systems, and machine learning. Yet his end game? SVP of Google. And how many people can really be Jeff Dean?
Post reply on HN