Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#71

Post by fencepost » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:05 AM UTC

tiffanyh wrote: post #29

wahnfrieden wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bytedance has 50-200 reports per manager in some teams and are wildly successful my suspicion is lower numbers are more a function of worker power (demand for 1:1s, career growth conversation, offloading more tasks to your manager, etc)

If you have 50-200 direct reports, you’re not a “manager”. You’re effectively either a recruiter or procurement.

Given the grandparent was talking about Bytedance, perhaps you're the floor supervisor for dozens of disposable people watching reported or flagged content to identify porn, violence, etc. on TikTok - disposable because depending on what sort of banned content actually gets posted, you might have a lot of mental trauma and burnout that the company would really rather just replace people than deal with.

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#72

Post by jamestimmins » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:09 AM UTC

sharmi wrote: post #54

I am really sorry for all those who have lost their job today. There seems to be a lot of negative view about managers here. If I had to judge managers by my experience at my first job, I would be first in the line decrying them. But, now I see that is the result of faulty processes, promoting too early and for all the wrong reasons. In my second job, my manager was my strength. We didn't have much meetings, rather l…

Really appreciate this perspective.

Unfortunately a lot of folks get promoted into management w/out skills/training, so engineers think all managers are bad. Which is understandable.

But a great manager is a huge value add who will give you what you need to succeed, help you grow, and keep politics from throwing things off track. Once you have a great manager, it's easy to see how valuable they an be.

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#73

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:10 AM UTC

sharmi wrote: post #54

I am really sorry for all those who have lost their job today. There seems to be a lot of negative view about managers here. If I had to judge managers by my experience at my first job, I would be first in the line decrying them. But, now I see that is the result of faulty processes, promoting too early and for all the wrong reasons. In my second job, my manager was my strength. We didn't have much meetings, rather l…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#74

Post by moneycantbuy » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:13 AM UTC

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #68

moneycantbuy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don’t think you’re an idiot, nor a chump. just was wondering how you summoned the strength to persevere even though you didn’t like managing. maybe it’s a generational thing, my parents stayed at the same place for their whole career, but these days we’re expected to jump ship every few years if we want a raise that matches inflation.

Software/tech folks have it better than almost anyone else. We usually get to love our job. We get paid quite well, and work on things that energize and motivate us. The vast majority of the working population work at jobs that don’t really motivate them. Sometimes, they make a lot of money, but the work is a grind. Many times, folks work at jobs for the social responsibility of doing stuff. They don’t like what they…

yeah i loved my first few years at big co which in hindsight was because of my manager. he hired me out of college and somehow brought the best out of me, resulting in many patents, publications, and a huge budget that rewarded our success. then the csuite turned over and my great manager was let go. now i’ve had 3 since and they’ve been progressively worse if measured by team output. so it goes

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#75

Post by dilyevsky » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:17 AM UTC

darth_avocado wrote: post #5

Typical ratio of people to managers in a company is about 1:4, so that tracks. And before this becomes controversial, I don’t mean every manager has 4 reports, but because organization is a tree, for every 4 ICs, there’s one manager. For example, you could have 3PMs, 3 designers and 10 engineers, but the org could have 4 managers: 1 PM manager, 1 Design manager, 1 eng manager with 7 reportees and a sr manager with 3…

When I started my career it was pretty common to have a team of ~12 under one manager with a couple of TLs. Nowadays it's more like 1:4 or even 1:3 - that's 3x management bloat for mostly bureaucratic reasons and with no obvious improvement in productivity or retention. Then there's the thing you said - people with "manager/lead" in title but no obvious managerial responsibilities.

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#76

Post by langsoul-com » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:17 AM UTC

jackcosgrove wrote: post #67

bombcar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel some people have never had a good manager, and so they don’t realize just how much bullshit they can insulate you from.

Maybe also some had good managers but didn't realize it because you don't notice the lack/lessening of bullshit.

The classic so good you don't notice them problem.

In work, always selectively take time off when it's somewhat important. So your skills aren't taken as the norm.

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#77

Post by ironmagma » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:20 AM UTC

moneycantbuy wrote: post #32

firing entire levels of middle management seems to be a fashion these days, but from experience in my org it has been counterproductive. my current manager now has >60 direct reports so can’t even find the time to handle each of our basic hr tasks, let alone provide any leadership. in theory i can see the board salivating to pretend they are elon but in practice it’s a dysfunctional nightmare. plus it’s bad for ic mo…

Managers were rarely any good at leadership anyway. And not everyone can become managers so what's the real difference between then versus now?

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#78

Post by thekrowndnf » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

dilyevsky wrote: post #75

darth_avocado wrote: post #5

Typical ratio of people to managers in a company is about 1:4, so that tracks. And before this becomes controversial, I don’t mean every manager has 4 reports, but because organization is a tree, for every 4 ICs, there’s one manager. For example, you could have 3PMs, 3 designers and 10 engineers, but the org could have 4 managers: 1 PM manager, 1 Design manager, 1 eng manager with 7 reportees and a sr manager with 3…

When I started my career it was pretty common to have a team of ~12 under one manager with a couple of TLs. Nowadays it's more like 1:4 or even 1:3 - that's 3x management bloat for mostly bureaucratic reasons and with no obvious improvement in productivity or retention. Then there's the thing you said - people with "manager/lead" in title but no obvious managerial responsibilities.

Leads are expected to do technical work. I wouldn't call them bloat.

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#79

Post by screye » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:30 AM UTC

killjoywashere wrote: post #60

kubrickslair wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, at least among my colleagues - both in the US and India offices.

> India Ok, so, I have a friend who works big tech and he has no chill for Indians (SWEs, PMs, etc). Is there a grain of truth to the “lazy Indian” trope? I always assumed, especially first generation immigrants, would be working balls-to-the-wall. Am I wrong? Is there some sort of incentive misalignment in the H1B program? Is it cultural (e.g. like “island time”, which I’ve learned is at least partially attributable…

Huh, my experience is the opposite. Indians work themselves to death, while Americans have very clear boundaries on when they stop working. Chinese Americans & Indian Americans work about the same as Americans, but 1st generation Chinese immigrants easily take #1 for the most hours put in.

> Is there a grain of truth to the “lazy Indian” trope?

I wonder if it has to do with out-sourcing farms. I have been lucky enough to work with Indians who were all full-time employees and generally my equals. The typical Indian who works at an outsourcing farm makes so little, that they don't exactly care to work hard.

> no chill for Indians (SWEs, PMs, etc).

I'll be honest. I occasionally run into people with very strong and vapid opinions about entire countries based on 1-2 anecdotal experiences. I haven't seen this issue with other fields. It is oddly CS specific. In no other field have I met people who are so obsessed with the productivity of their peers, when the entire organization works on making ads software 5% faster.

Re: Ask HN: 20% of LinkedIn's recent layoffs were managers

#80

Post by quadrifoliate » Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:30 AM UTC

killjoywashere wrote: post #60

kubrickslair wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, at least among my colleagues - both in the US and India offices.

> India Ok, so, I have a friend who works big tech and he has no chill for Indians (SWEs, PMs, etc). Is there a grain of truth to the “lazy Indian” trope? I always assumed, especially first generation immigrants, would be working balls-to-the-wall. Am I wrong? Is there some sort of incentive misalignment in the H1B program? Is it cultural (e.g. like “island time”, which I’ve learned is at least partially attributable…

> Ok, so, I have a friend who works big tech and he has no chill for Indians (SWEs, PMs, etc). Is there a grain of truth to the “lazy Indian” trope?

Indian here. First generation, naturalized American, et cetera. I'll be honest and say that my initial response was, “Ugh! Your friend is a big old racist”.

Moving on from that reflexive thought, I'll attempt to answer your question of:

> I’m asking is there a perceptual issue due to some factor that’s obvious to the typical Nth-generation American?

Well, perhaps. There are a bunch of factors:

- The H1B program is terrible in that it ties your immigration status to your current employer. Couple this with the “you can be legally fired because your boss doesn't like the color of your shoes” climate in the US and you have a pretty stressed-out bunch of people. - A lot of consulting companies seem to pay just enough wages that attract Indian H1B employees of a average to low caliber of talent, and hire them out for random software projects. The Americans on the other side of those contractors get mad at the contractors, who happen to be all Indian. - There is a genuine cultural gap where Indians are more deferential to someone they perceive as having higher authority. It is sometimes possible that a young Indian employee might call you “Sir”, because that was how they addressed superiors.

So...all these are perceptual issues of the sort you are looking at. But honestly, these sorts of cultural misunderstandings are not exactly uncommon among Europeans and Americans as well. Big Tech tends to have far fewer of the issues above. Salaries are high (I don't even work in Big Tech and my salary as an H1B was verifiably higher than some of my American coworkers), and IMO there isn't a huge difference between Indians and the N other cultures that make up the boiling pot of tech.

But then that brings me to the part about “friend who works big tech and he has no chill for Indians”. Like, Indians period? What does he think about Sanjay Ghemawat? What about Vinod Khosla? How about Amit Patel, who came up with Google's “Don't Be Evil”? What about the engineers/PMs/etc. in big tech to whom those issues don't apply?

All of this leads me to conclude (this time after some reflection) that your friend is actually just a...big old racist if he has a problem with all Indians in general, especially those working in Big Tech.

Take from that what you will. Hope you find better friends :)