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

People leave managers, not companies

blog.intercom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 186 posts

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#91

Post by alphonsegaston »

Greed wrote: 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…

But also for teams to be successful, employees have to be able to trust their managers. I just quit a job after a month because, within that short time, my manager twice misrepresented the scope of a task so he could either leave early or have the day off.

I knew after those incidents that there was no point in continuing. It would be foolish to trust someone in any larger way who would casually treat a new employee in that fashion.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#92

Post by philipodonnell »

sudhirj wrote: post #76
subsubsub wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's an interesting read by Taleb: https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person... The argument made is that being a "good employee" and following the rules is a signal to your employer that you're willing to make personal sacrifices to be dependable - the implication being that someone who follows the rules almost all the time is by necessity sacrificing some part of their personal interest. It's…

Thank you for that. I think the takeaway for some of the other commentators here is that if you are getting flack for coming in late, it means you are not the type of employee who can really effect the bottom line.

That is not a judgement, not everyone can effect the bottom line and it is not guaranteed that everyone finds themselves in that position over the course of their career.

But, if you have a manager who keeps telling you what a big effect you're having (perhaps to justify a lower salary or discourage a move to a new role) but also gives you flack for coming in late, it should shine a light on the truth as to how they see your role.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#93

Post by maxxxxx »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #79

I think this article misses an important point, which is that managers, or at least line managers, are often the messenger for decisions made in upper management. If I think back on the jobs I've had in the past, it's very rare for me to have issues with line managers. However, I had serious doubts about the competency of upper management in multiple companies that I've worked for. In this case, unless upper manageme…

As manager in the middle you often feel helpless. You want to help your people but you have nothing to offer. Can't give raises, no place to promote people, top management doesn't support your initiatives. It's a difficult place to be in.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#94

Post by maxxxxx »

k__ wrote: post #16

Problem is, managers shape companies. Last company I left went bankrupt and got bought by a VC who replaced the whole management. The new managers were running around telling people how to do things because of the "company spirit". A few people, including me, were in the company for over 7 years and we knew the company spirit, because well, we lived and formed it. Now some newly hired MBAs try to tell me that I'm wro…

"ow the company has the old name and product, but noone of the people that created or formed it remained."

That's probably by design.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#96

Post by speby »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #79

I think this article misses an important point, which is that managers, or at least line managers, are often the messenger for decisions made in upper management. If I think back on the jobs I've had in the past, it's very rare for me to have issues with line managers. However, I had serious doubts about the competency of upper management in multiple companies that I've worked for. In this case, unless upper manageme…

> I think this article misses an important point, which is that managers, or at least line managers, are often the messenger for decisions made in upper management.

You are 100% correct on this. In many, if not most companies, though definitely not all or everywhere, line managers have limited freedom as to what they can decide to do with their teams in terms of people, process, and technology without having to "get permission" or have the blessing of more senior leaders. Certainly hiring new people to the team, the line manager will have nearly full control over a yes or no, barring some extenuating circumstance. Although with firing a team member, it is quite the process, not just because of the corporate HR and legal red tape but also because frequently senior leaders will be interested in or meddle in the the decision and process of letting a team member go.

Finally, as you said about the messenger role, it is very common for senior leaders to have their weekly or monthly or bi-weekly or whatever meeting with their managers where they cover issues of policy or process and certain decisions will get made there and then need to be funneled down to individual teams. It is here where line managers, even if they don't agree, may be forced to deliver a chance (and the associated announcement of said change) to the team and there is little, if anything, they can do about it.

On the other hand, there are strong line managers and weak line managers. Strong line managers will be move actively involved in cross-cutting team concerns, particularly those that may affect their own team. And as such, they may be influencers themselves, in which case they do have a lot more sway because in many cases, they will have been the proponent or even instigator of a change that does get rolled across and out to multiple teams. Weak line managers, on the other hand, may suffer from lack of experience, poor peer relationships, or some other factors that leave them in the lurch and that means their role is much more marginalized in the context of the wider organization.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#97

Post by dagw »

maxxxxx wrote: post #93
ZenoArrow wrote: post #79

I think this article misses an important point, which is that managers, or at least line managers, are often the messenger for decisions made in upper management. If I think back on the jobs I've had in the past, it's very rare for me to have issues with line managers. However, I had serious doubts about the competency of upper management in multiple companies that I've worked for. In this case, unless upper manageme…

As manager in the middle you often feel helpless. You want to help your people but you have nothing to offer. Can't give raises, no place to promote people, top management doesn't support your initiatives. It's a difficult place to be in.

My last manager quit because of that feeling of helplessness. Basically my manager left his manager.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#98

Post by tnolet »

Not disagreeing with the point made, but why is this "article" (or rehash of other people's management philosophy) on the intercom site? What does it have to do to with them outside the fact they probably have managers. I might be a sour old man, but I honestly don't get these infomercial type blog posts. It makes me have a lesser opinion of companies publishing these types of things, although with intercom their beep boop sound already pretty much destroyed any sympathy. /s

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#99

Post by _pmf_ »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #3

Likewise, there probably isn't such a thing as a 10X developer, but I totally believe 10X managers exist (they provide cover, they have empathy, they are able to lead people who otherwise aren't very manageable). I've only met very few of them in my career, most managers are 1X or even negative.

Agreed completely. I've had a manager who was able to really leverage persons to create whole new verticals (that were actually profitable), but they hinged on single person's continued interest and commitment. He was borderline psychopathic (in the sense of being extremely manipulative on a personal level), though, and while the work I've done has been the most interesting in my career, the atmosphere was emotionally draining on a very personal level for most of us who worked for him.

However, I'm not sure that there exist 10x managers that are not manipulators / psychological exploiters.

Re: People leave managers, not companies

#100

Post by speby »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #22

At my previous job, I left due to the company, not the management. My direct supervisor was great. He was a good manager on most levels. I left because the company had no future, they weren't going bankrupt, but they weren't growing either. I never got a pay rise, probably never would. My benefits actually shrunk as time went on, staff social functions were cut (e.g. team lunches), use of networking funds became more…

As somberi commented awhile ago, people leave due to managers -> company -> cause, in roughly that order. So even good managers will lose people if the company has traction issues or the cause is unclear or there is no future. So it absolutely can happen and it is fair to say that a single manager's performance, in isolation, is not the only reason for retention.
Post reply on HN