[HN Gopher] Things your manager might not know (2021)
___________________________________________________________________
Things your manager might not know (2021)
Author : piinbinary
Score : 151 points
Date : 2022-10-30 12:51 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jvns.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (jvns.ca)
| Kkoala wrote:
| Hmm, so what is the manager's job then?
| [deleted]
| bb88 wrote:
| Also, your manager might not know:
|
| 1. How to manage people.
|
| Maybe this is kinda snarky, but I've meet a few that didn't know
| basic management principles.
| kennend3 wrote:
| Another manager here and i might be able to provide some
| insight into WHY you find managers who cant manage people.
|
| Most large multinationals have very rigidly defined jobs, job
| descriptions, point levels and compensation bands.
|
| The terminology may not be the same but the overall effects of
| the system are the same.
|
| Lets say you have a great tech, they are a "tech level 3",
| position level 100 and salary range "G".
|
| If they want to make more money they need to move to salary
| range "H" and need a JD that matches that salary range.
|
| So they are promoted to a manager role to keep them, and to pay
| them what it takes to keep them. Did they want to be managers?
| Are they suitable for the job?
|
| I've dealt with this scenario many times in my career.
| Sometimes it would be far better off for everyone of the system
| wasn't so rigid, and that good people could be paid to do their
| jobs and not be artificially promoted to management positions.
|
| It is an interesting "cobra" unintended consequences effect.
|
| The goal of the system was fairness and to manage costs. The
| unintended consequence is having many unqualified managers as
| people game the system to their advantage.
| ralph84 wrote:
| Not surprising that a pay system designed by managers pays
| managers more.
| nouveaux wrote:
| Designing comensation systems for other people is a people
| management tasks. How do you envision a situation where ICs
| are doing management tasks but not given the title and/or
| pay of a manager?
| Asooka wrote:
| Maybe we should dispense with managers except at the very top
| and just choose a random person from the team to be acting
| manager for the week. If some person from the team will end
| up being manager anyway, choosing randomly minimises the
| disruption to work, since your best performer will be saddled
| with managerial duties only occasionally.
| throwaway821909 wrote:
| Had a similar experience: I think regrettably if the
| timescale is this short, no-one knows who to talk to (from
| other teams/the proper managers the level above), there's
| some need for memory/dealing with long-running things, and
| so you end up with backseat driving, revisiting the same
| issues without decisive action taken, etc
| gregmac wrote:
| A lot of managers were well-performing ICs that got a
| promotion, either because a manager position needed to be
| filled (and they were the least bad option) or they needed to
| be promoted to keep them (which in some cases is the only way
| to give them a raise).
|
| Neither of these means they have even the basic skills to be a
| manager at all, let alone a good one.
|
| Unfortunately since these types of managers don't recognize
| good manager skills, they'll go on to promote more unqualified
| ICs below them into manager positions.. and the cycle repeats.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| >Also, your manager might not know: >1. How to manage people.
|
| Manager here. This one hits close to home.
| bb88 wrote:
| The problem is that if your manager doesn't know how to do
| his/her job then some of this advice may actually be harmful,
| as they're viewing everything through the lens of their own
| inadequacies or insecurities.
| [deleted]
| Grothendank wrote:
| Not only does this article make it your job teach the manager how
| to do their job, the article does not admit a cardinal truth: the
| manager unnecessarily eats into the value that you produce and
| should therefore be eaten in turn. If you can manage up, you can
| eliminate the manager, and gain your total share of the value
| production.
|
| Now THAT is a superpower.
| Raidion wrote:
| You can't eliminate a manager just by managing up. Do you want
| to be making the calls of who gets put on a PIP and managing
| them through it (or out?). Do you want to sit in meetings
| talking about business priorities and advocate for yourself and
| your coworkers? Do you want to be the one to manage compliance
| concerns around process for yourself and your co workers? If
| yes, are you then going to complain about meetings and how you
| can't get anything done?
|
| Bad managers are clearly bad, but good managers make it look
| super easy and boring because hard business priorities get
| communicated as a simple and well crafted message, employee
| issues are handled without fuss and out of sight before they
| become big issues, and compliance and audit concerns are solved
| at a system/process level before being rolled out to teams.
| svat wrote:
| (2021). Other posts from the author on related topics (all are
| helpful): https://jvns.ca/#career---work
| axpy906 wrote:
| This just reaffirms my belief after a decade in industry that
| middle management is useless. I wish businesses could move to a
| more decentralized form. You just don't need these people if they
| can't help you in you current or future job.
|
| All managers should know the below. It's proof the job is not
| effective.
|
| > Here are the facts your manager might not know about you and
| your team that we'll cover in this post:
|
| >What's slowing the team down
|
| >Exactly what individual people on the team are working on
|
| >Where the technical debt is
|
| >How to help you get better at your job
|
| >What your goals are
|
| >What issues they should be escalating
|
| >What extra work you're doing
|
| How compensation/promotions work at the company
|
| Edit: It's by Julia Evans too. Awesome.
| hinkley wrote:
| I think this is talking about direct (line) managers.
|
| But I've had managers who lead. I've had managers who
| facilitate. I've had managers who manage their boss (which
| overlaps with facilitation but is different). I've had managers
| who only serves as tiebreakers. All have their value, but it's
| very hard to relate to someone who doesn't want to do any of
| those. Especially ones who are scribes.
|
| Why is being a scribe bad? You only chronicle data that you
| don't participate in so that later you can report on who did
| what. In other words, it's not my fault it was Steve who made
| that decision.
|
| And then we had Mike whose only job seemed to be getting
| promotions. Still have no idea what he did all day, except get
| promotions. Wouldn't lead, wouldn't tie break, didn't
| chronicle, didn't up manage, barely down managed.
| bratbag wrote:
| Middle management is not there for you. They are there to
| provide the same type of support to your managers, that your
| mangers provide to you.
|
| Us lower managers are only human.
| derwiki wrote:
| Are there any current companies you would call decentralized?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Not GP, but I'm in a company which is pretty decentralized
| (after being heavily centralized a decade ago).
| Decentralization puts _different_ pressures to have good
| middle management (at a minimum), but I think in some ways,
| it even increases the pressures on management to make a
| decentralized company effective.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well and I think you've been seeing a lot of it the past
| couple of years. There's some natural informal organization
| if a team is physically collated--which often isn't the
| case and can be good or bad in any case. If everyone is
| remote, a lot of that informal organization doesn't happen.
|
| It's also the case that the realty of any established
| company is budgeting, procurement, etc. There need to be
| processes. I expect a lot of developers wouldn't like to
| spend a day a week on this sort of necessary evil.
| boramalper wrote:
| Valve?
|
| _Valve Handbook for New Employees_
|
| https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/Valve_NewEmployee.
| ..
| salty_biscuits wrote:
| My experience with "flat" structures in the past has been
| the lack of an explicit hierarchy created an implicit
| hierarchy, which caused compensation to not match actual
| role and some diabolical politics. Never again. I've kind
| of moved on to wanting to work at places that run on
| information and not confidence instead. You can work out
| which type of place you are at pretty quickly by talking to
| upper management. Unfortunately most people want confidence
| and not information.
| [deleted]
| agumonkey wrote:
| currently dealing with questions about how to get a fairer TC
| without breaking eggs.. strange venture.
| svat wrote:
| All managers should know everything relevant; all people should
| be perfect. But meanwhile, no one is, and this post is useful
| advice for reality.
|
| I cannot claim to know everything I "ought to" know for my job,
| and I don't expect my manager to either. But that doesn't make
| me, or management in general, "useless". We do what we can.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Then split up the job. If it is obvious you're spread too
| thin, stop doing it and making yourself near useless, split
| the job into multiple and focus.
|
| We've done this with multiple other disciplines. Management
| is one of few continuing to converge and trying to do the
| impossible while insisting they are a net gain on average.
| That's irresponsible from a support role with a
| disproportionate amount of power compared to those they
| manage.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| All the people here must be incredibly awesome because in my
| experience after having worked as a contributor, a project
| manager and a manager, when you leave developers to themselves
| they spend a lot of time fixing issues they care about and
| improving systems they like working on but very little time
| actually wondering if these bugs and these systems were the one
| who needed to be worked on right now to be able to keep the
| engagements we took towards our customers and for the project
| to survive.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Here's a good question to your manager: How did you feel about
| that?
|
| Asking for immediate, gut feedback about something that you did,
| or happened to the team, gives you a read on how much managing up
| is needed, and/or gives your manager an opportunity to say, "I
| was surprised by that and I need to know more" or "That's not the
| direction I was shooting for, let's adjust this."
|
| I also once explained that there was only 10 tonnes of concrete
| coming in the next truck and doing both #1 priorities was
| physically impossible, so it was time to choose. My manager,
| laughing, said, ok, so now you're really going to make me choose,
| huh?
|
| Humanitarian logistics was easier than software because sometimes
| the choices were so stark and unavoidable.
| vsareto wrote:
| If you do this, go ask your manager for a raise for doing another
| role on top of your current one. Don't give away your superpowers
| for free.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| If your boss comes from a place with high sycophancy like
| Infosys, TCS, IBM or a similar, don't try this.
| haltingproblem wrote:
| perfecthjrjth wrote:
| Nothing racist about this remark. TCS, Infosys, Wipro, etc.
| produce bad managers, along with additional baggage: they
| inculcate sycophancy across the management chain.
|
| Even though most of the management in American companies is
| incompetent, I won't hire these people for this reason alone:
| they perpetuate chamchagiri/sycophancy across the chain.
| haltingproblem wrote:
| Wipro too. So just Indian consulting companies? Yeah, still
| racist.
| perfecthjrjth wrote:
| Why is it racist? Just because they are Indians? If so,
| you are missing the point: these consulting companies
| don't judge managers by competence, they judge managers
| by the number of tickets closed, by the number of
| billable hours, their chamchagiri(sycophancy).
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| IBM. There, enjoy.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| That is a strong accusation. If you see my comment history
| here you will learn more about how that statement is false.
|
| I am saying that companies like those have a management
| culture that is not tolerant to managees suggesting managers
| what to do.
|
| You can see many employees of those companies in Quora and
| Glassdoor saying the same thing.
| haltingproblem wrote:
| Your past statements do not whitewash your current
| statement. See the unfolding Kayne West saga. Your
| statement stands on its own.
|
| My question was: do you think this is limited to _Indian_
| consulting companies or is endemic to all consulting
| companies? You seem to be doubling down on I would say the
| accusation stands verified.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| You see what you want to see.
| kylevedder wrote:
| Are you trolling?
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| May also be time to look for another boss if that is the case.
| imoreno wrote:
| You would think that keeping the team effective is the basic job
| of a manager. Dealing with people who don't know how to do some
| part of their own job is of course an unfortunate, yet inevitable
| reality. But this is on the level of "developer who doesn't know
| how to code". The article leaps into teaching the manager to do
| their job, but often just switching teams or companies is much
| easier. Plus, after you put in all the effort, not every manager
| can turn around and appreciate it, many will just take credit and
| give you nothing. So if you're going this direction, there should
| be some thought given to deciding whether your manager would
| recognize your efforts.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I mean, if you're in an adversarial relationship with your
| manager you should think of changing that, but a lot of these
| are just misunderstandings and the inability to have the entire
| team in their head at once. Like, as a developer, you can be
| pretty good at writing code and still get useful feedback from
| a code review. Having a communication channel open with your
| manager helps them do their job better and also helps you, and
| doesn't necessarily indicate any sort of personal failing.
| imoreno wrote:
| >if you're in an adversarial relationship with your manager
|
| Where did you get this idea?
| saagarjha wrote:
| There's an "if" in front, to help people recognize that my
| comment applies to healthy relationships and not unhealthy
| ones. No comment on your relationship with your manager.
| gunsch wrote:
| It sounds like you're assuming "managing up" is about managers
| who don't know how to do their job. I don't think this article
| is saying that.
|
| My best managers weren't ones who knew every detail of each
| project and could give unsolicited effective advice. They were
| ones to whom I could tell what was going on on my project,
| could ask for help, could tell them what I needed, and then
| rely on them to follow through on helping make that happen.
| Sometimes that was needing more time for a deadline, sometimes
| it was needing a mediation in a complicated relationship with
| another team, and sometimes it was using manager clout to go
| escalate a request for compute resources.
|
| In any case, two-way communication is going to create a more
| effective relationship than expecting your manager to simply
| _know_ what you need.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Non technical managers are not needed. They get in the way and
| there is rarely any benefit from having them in a technical team.
| twelve40 wrote:
| depends on how big the company. When a large company needs to
| decide where to allocate the resources, a smart non-technical
| manager will be there fighting for you, and that's a full time
| job once you are in the 100's of engineers, because nobody has
| monopoly on truth, and normally the exact allocation has to be
| hashed out in a bunch of fulltime meetings, even in well-run
| orgs. As an IC, I'm glad someone else is doing it for me.
| yrgulation wrote:
| I dont think anyone expects ics to play management roles.
| What i am for is management with a technical background,
| otherwise its like mixing water with cooking oil. One sits on
| top and pretends to mix.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| Replace the aqueous part with vinegar or lemon juice and
| you have yourself an emulsion, which also makes a delicious
| salad dressing. What sort of role is like acetic acid in
| your analogy?
| yrgulation wrote:
| You lost me there but people with tech skills should lead
| technical people. Otherwise its like sending the senate
| to lead soldiers on the battlefield. They have no clue
| and either lose wars or use large numbers to win battles.
| And thats what some of the companies do - they hire loads
| and loads and loads of people to achieve what could be
| done with fewer, better organised, and better led people.
| Without exception, unicorns and faangs have been built by
| engineers working directly with stakeholders. Then they
| go down the path of layered management and bloat and end
| up the chryslers and fords of tomorrow.
|
| Instead all non technical management should he fired,
| including pdf certified scrum masters and other imaginary
| roles, and tech people with skill and interest should be
| promoted.
| [deleted]
| joshthecynic wrote:
| [deleted]
| ok123456 wrote:
| This is 100% correct.
|
| All they know is to say "that's nice, can you do it in half the
| time you estimated with half the resources?" because that's the
| only way they can justify their job. This is what they learn in
| MBA school or from their project management certificates.
| ThalesX wrote:
| tl;dr; do your manager's job also because they don't have a clue
| and it's up to you to clue them in.
|
| There's also a pretty conclusion where if you suck up and do your
| manager's job, you get the superpower of being appreciated by
| your manager, it makes you more valuable than the dumb engineers
| that just do their job.
| [deleted]
| JW_00000 wrote:
| I don't read the article like that: it's not a list of (all)
| things your manager doesn't know, it's a list of (some) things
| your manager might not know. In other words, these are all
| things your manager should know, but they might not know some
| of them. And then the advice is to tell them. (But with
| concrete examples and more worked out.)
| ThalesX wrote:
| > I don't read the article like that: it's not a list of
| (all) things your manager doesn't know, it's a list of (some)
| things your manager might not know.
|
| I have a feeling this is the same core truth, but worded
| differently and with less distaste for managers.
|
| > In other words, these are all things your manager should
| know, but they might not know some of them.
|
| Should, but don't, is not doing their job. Most engineers
| don't have the luxury of using this defense their day to day
| job. Yeah, I _should_ be doing testing, but I don 't know. I
| _should_ be writing clean code, but I don 't know. I _should_
| be communicating with my colleagues, but I don 't know. I
| _should_ know what weight this bridge can hold, but I don 't
| know.
|
| Most of these examples wouldn't work with just 'tell them'.
|
| > And then the advice is to tell them
|
| Tell them what? Manager, this isn't working? I'd be laughed
| at for this kind of approach. Maybe it would work if I went
| in a structured approach, with my homework done, with
| actionable items in the context of the company, but then I'd
| end up doing their job.
|
| ----
|
| I don't want my point to be that managers shouldn't be told
| what issues might exist, I hope the point I get across is
| that we shouldn't be doing their jobs and it's their
| responsibility to get this information through the numerous
| tools they hold under their belt, and not depend on engineers
| to spoon feed them.
|
| Imagine if this is the only way a manager gets the know how.
| If I'm an engineer with a loud mouth I can crash the entire
| department by feeding my manager select information.
| sbuk wrote:
| Yes, but in order to do the level of management you are
| asking, it necessitates they become micro managers. This is
| a considerably worse state of affairs, as you allude.
| Managing is about helping you grow as an employee, helping
| you with your career and helping you do your job. The best
| managers are the ones that stand in the way of things that
| block these. How do you suppose they do this without you
| telling them what you _need_?
| ThalesX wrote:
| I gave the article another read and found some advice
| even weirder. I'm not going to go through all of it, but
| this bit stood out to me.
|
| > I've found it really valuable to start out
| conversations about compensation / promotions in a fact-
| finding way - instead of saying "hello, i want a raise",
| it's a lot easier for everyone to start with "hey, how
| does this work? can you explain it to me?".
|
| How does what work? If I want to learn more about
| compensation / promotions, I ask about that. If I want a
| raise, I want to discuss the raise. We can conflate them,
| but why?
|
| But the conclusion I would like to summarize my point:
|
| > Being good at telling your manager the right
| information at the right time and asking for what you
| need is a superpower. It makes you way more valuable to
| have on a team (because your manager knows they can trust
| you to give them the information they need), and it's
| more likely that you'll get what you want (because you're
| making it easy for them to do that!).
|
| Flipping this upside down, "being good at asking your
| team the right questions at the right time and asking for
| what you need is a superpower. [...]". This is great
| advice! Both for a team member and for a manager. The
| difference is that the team member has to deal with the
| actual production also, while the manager's 'production'
| is the actual thing being flipped. So if things are
| flipped and I end up micro-managing myself, is the
| manager actually doing his job?
|
| Of course when there are issue that makes sense to bring
| it up, we should do it, but I'd argue that it's more of
| the manager's job to be on top of things and ask the
| right questions, at the right time, without
| micromanaging, because that's his job, and it's why it's
| such a hard job to do right. It's a lot easier in my
| opinion to find good engineers than to find good
| managers, and I believe this advice is good for engineers
| that have bad managers and it's worth calling it out.
| sbuk wrote:
| I think this is a much clearer take, well, at least to
| me! The key here, and if I'm mistaken - forgive me, is
| that a good manager needs to be a good communicator, but
| doesn't get in your way. By the same token, it can be
| said that to help them help you, communicating with them
| is essential. It may seem obvious, but I'm sure lots of
| us have experienced bad managers that don't do this...
| dasil003 wrote:
| > _Should, but don 't, is not doing their job. Most
| engineers don't have the luxury of using this defense their
| day to day job. Yeah, I should be doing testing, but I
| don't know. I should be writing clean code, but I don't
| know. I should be communicating with my colleagues, but I
| don't know._
|
| This is needlessly antagonistic. All teams have gaps, but
| effective teams help each other out. For instance, a good
| manager will give you air cover when things are
| underestimated or unforeseen difficulties arrive.
| Similarly, good engineers will point out risks and
| potential problems even if it is not directly in their
| execution path.
|
| The most toxic teams are ones where everyone keeps their
| head down and looks for every opportunity to say "not my
| job" whenever any larger or unusual challenges are
| identified. Based on your comment it seems like you think
| that ICs can't get away with this, but managers can, and I
| assure you that neither is true.
| haltingproblem wrote:
| OT but I am making a year-end resolution to skim everything Julia
| and Patrick have written on their site, then make a list of deep-
| dive pieces.
|
| The amount of useful content these two crank out is mind-
| boggling. They hold down day-jobs and write more useful stuff
| than 98.3413% of writers out there!
|
| I would love to see a fire-side chat on how their process works.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| At a typical startup they might not know much of anything. Except
| someone else in management who is a personal friend.
| scruple wrote:
| Yeah. I interviewed with a startup at the beginning of this
| year and the Engineering Director was telling me how he brought
| his friends on-board like it was some sort of selling point.
| People he has known since high school. Hard pass.
| hfourm wrote:
| Friends plural is slightly worrisome, but we're they
| qualified for the positions?
|
| I personally love the idea of recruiting friends and working
| alongside them. Obviously I could see this going both ways,
| but given that everyone is qualified I don't see the problem.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| This is a great list. Especially the summary regarding how all of
| this can be a superpower.
|
| There's also a few other tougher scenarios.
|
| - they might not know you're doing parts of their job.
|
| - they might know of problems but fail to let their manager know.
|
| - they might not know your career aspirations.
|
| - they might know someone is problematic on the team.
|
| - they might not know they get in the way more than they help.
|
| - etc
| ar_lan wrote:
| > they might not know your career aspirations
|
| This is something I really didn't understand when I started my
| career, and I realized I just got lucky with my managers for
| looking out for me.
|
| I still kind of don't get how managers don't assume their staff
| want to promote upward (at least as a default), but I respect
| that I am also not a manager and don't know the amount of
| things they need to juggle.
| Raidion wrote:
| Manager here: Because not everyone does!
|
| Think (some) single parents with kids, (some) people doing
| elderly care for their parent(s), people who have decided the
| work/life tradeoff isn't worth it, etc. Almost every team has
| at least one person who wants to interact as little as
| possible and have a decent salary, and in return, turns out
| quality code and meets expectations to the letter, then logs
| off.
|
| There is also a very fine line to walk with an employee who
| wants to get to the next level for salary/prestige/ego, but
| isn't willing to push themselves or improve, and constant
| conversations of "hey, if you want level N+1 you need to be
| more involved in code reviews and be better at meeting your
| commitments (or estimating those commitments)". It's not fair
| to try to hold a level N to a level N+1 standard in the name
| of "career development", and there is a point where it's not
| worth your (or the employees) time and stress to "pull" them
| up to the next level.
| ar_lan wrote:
| Yeah, I guess it's tricky. As a new parent I had
| essentially told my manager I wanted to put the brakes on
| career progression for one year, and he was very receptive.
| So I understand that perspective a bit.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I think management as we know it is dying.
|
| In the fifties management studies (Drucker etc) was focused on
| the manager as a systems creator - who would bestride the
| business world fixing, innovating creating smooth clockwork
| systems.
|
| Today Google's eight rules for managers is basically a cross
| between HR and a life coach.
|
| Systems are now run by software - and the inevitable conclusion
| is that _coders are the new managers._
|
| As more and more software eats more and more of the world, there
| is less and less need for anyone who is not coding or talking
| about the code.
|
| We may see the end of rigid hierarchies at the same time (a
| similar but related issue), which kind of points to two things
|
| - code is the thing. And discussions around the code matter. And
| the prime examples of doing this are in FOSS - so expect more
| open public disagreements leading to better quality code
|
| - Public (internal) discussion of issues means a lot of self-
| governance and a lot of "politics". This goes on anyway but if it
| is kept public it is kept honest
|
| - management has always been about resource allocation and it is
| best to view senior management as financiers not executives -
| this might be the best split internally - senor management buying
| from internal self organised resources.
|
| - Incodentslly I think a lot of the problems facing most
| companies today are that they cannot work out how to measure
| quality work during rmeote work and cannot get people to
| communicate if they are not all in the office. Having a big email
| discussion list is unwieldy - but if that is your organisation
| then conways law will explain how your software works. if you
| don't like it, it is waaay easier to adjust your email lists than
| move offices.
|
| Edit: imagine Bezos' two pizza teams - each can be viewed as a
| independent contract supplying a business-micro-service - at a
| doctrinal level style guides and devleads / linting rule, and at
| an operational level it's which micro-services, how to combine
| their output, etc etc
|
| (i need to expand this but Amazon might not be a great company to
| work for but the organisational design seems to point i the right
| direction )
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| You do realise that a lot of things happening at most companies
| have absolutely nothing to do with code?
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| But why not?
|
| I mean a company is effectively "just" a machine to deliver a
| service / outcome from inputs. It is a set of processes -
| which can be codified. why not in software? And if you want
| to chnage the process, make a release.
| throwaway821909 wrote:
| I mean, I'm not convinced by the comment, but I think the
| article is talking about managers of developers, nearly all
| of the people here are involved in development, mostly at
| companies which are predisposed to trying to replace humans
| with software (because their product does the same)
|
| So the interesting question is, in that context is a manager
| becoming ever less necessary
| analog31 wrote:
| >>>> Systems are now run by software - and the inevitable
| conclusion is that coders are the new managers.
|
| I shudder at the thought of being managed as badly as most code
| works. Most sufficiently complex technologies have to be
| operated in manual override mode most of the time.
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| Its freedom to manage yourself, if you can hack the system
| sufficiently enough, that it avoids interacting with you. So
| as strange as it sounds, if you are clever and already
| managing your manager, nothing changes.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >Today Google's eight rules for managers is basically a cross
| between HR and a life coach.
|
| Is Google something to aspire to? They got early into a very
| lucrative market and have basically been milking it for
| decades. Good for them but luck isn't reproducible. Their
| ability to deliver new products is so bad it's literally a
| joke. I can't even remember any viable new product from them in
| the last decade (the 10th iteration of chat doesn't count). In
| terms of productivity they were known as a rest and vest
| company. Great for engineers but I can't imagine it's great for
| a company without a near infinite spigot of money.
| donclark wrote:
| I feel like this list may be applied to parenting, teams in
| school, etc. Good communication is a big part of successful
| relationships and teams/groups.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-30 23:00 UTC)