Some good advice. It’s missing one of the most difficult topics: Performance Management.
Most first-time managers have already read a lot of advice about being humble, delegating, celebrating your team’s wins, and the other feel good topics.
If you want to write internet advice that gets upvoted and shared you almost have to avoid the difficult conversation topics and assume that the team is full of perfect people that the manager just needs to serve.
I’m in a semi-private peer group for managers and the number one most common struggle for new managers is their first encounter with employees who aren’t working unless a manager is standing over their shoulder, or who are causing problems within the team. Books like “The Managers Path” can help, but in my experience the best help is to find a more experienced manager you can talk to for advice. A lot of the difficult realities of managing people are messy or even painful and are often intentionally avoided in feel-good internet advice.
This is really nice. I've been doing this for quite a while (and also ping pong ic-em and back). Oh and I've also been "the" poor performer. A couple of observations:
1. Performance management is never easy and I don't think it should be. I don't mean the technique or process of it bit the mental weighing of it. You are affecting a person's livelihood so you don't want to approach it robotically always (despite what the hr training tells you about it not being personal etc)
2. This is a big one. Performance has a huge under rated aspect that is environmental and circumstantial. I've seen really strong performers drop and fail because of personal situations and not being able (or rather not given the space and bandwidth to recover organically). And similarly those with a poor perf in one company go to a supposedly "higher tier" company and really thrive and sky rocket.
Management is really a mixed bag. I loved the coaching, direction setting, strategy, etc but always having to sell opaque higher up decisions as your own and being an inverted $hit umbrella for leadership can be draining. I guess the solution is to just join executive leadership ha.
> I've seen really strong performers drop and fail because of personal situations and not being able (or rather not given the space and bandwidth to recover organically). And similarly those with a poor perf in one company go to a supposedly "higher tier" company and really thrive and sky rocket.
I have, too, but this is the bias I was talking about: We like reading and writing about the situations where managers were able to convert a low performer to a star performer. Similarly, when a high performer becomes a low performer we like reading about how management was at fault.
Yet much less is written about the difficult employees who aren’t responsive to management coaching. Most of what is written is about the stories where good managers turned difficult employees around or bad managers failed to help employees, leaving an impression that the manager is solely responsible for the outcome.
In the peer group I mentioned above a common story is for someone to arrive after trying to coach a problem employee for years without progress. When you’ve been led to believe that a failing employee is really a failure of management it’s hard to let go of them, because letting go is admitting failure. It takes a reality check from someone more experienced to realize that not every employee has good intentions. These situations aren’t written about as much because they’re uncomfortable and many don’t like reading about it.
> Yet much less is written about the difficult employees who aren’t responsive to management coaching. Most of what is written is about the stories where good managers turned difficult employees around or bad managers failed to help employees, leaving an impression that the manager is solely responsible for the outcome.
Maybe off-topic: I think a lot of writing comes from a place of control. The writers want to feel like they're in control and the readers want to feel they're in control too. The internet functions as people's outlet and fantasy environ, so scary writing naturally gets filtered out, i.e. post something uncomfortable and people must retaliate to preserve their comfort, their sense of control.
> Yet much less is written about the difficult employees who aren’t responsive to management coaching.
There are legal, ethical and emotional risks attached to writing about failed relationships with difficult colleagues. These stories are meant to be shared over a hot (or strong) drink.
Clarifying - If the employee is not coachable why spend years? I know you mentioned the "admitting failure" aspect of letting go (this probably makes me a sociopath to even ask this).
Now coachability could mean different things - Are they absolutely unreceptive to feedback? Were they actually hired in the wrong role? fantastic interviewers but terrible on the job, mislevelled, completely wrong area, passion etc? Record of toxicity?
Arent these (except may be the mislevelled bit) grounds for a PIP to begin with. Ive felt these situations were easier to manage in FAANG?MAANGO etc precisely due to the highly process driven cultures. Also i think the "emotion" of it goes away because hiring is extremely generalized and pipelined (best case you see a candidate's interview feedback if you are the HM and usually you only do that if you are happy with the "numeric rating"). Generalized hiring has its own problems but that's another story. Again this may be different at various companies so just trying to job my memory.
Btw I loved this:
> I have, too, but this is the bias I was talking about: We like reading and writing about the situations where managers were able to convert a low performer to a star performer. Similarly, when a high performer becomes a low performer we like reading about how management was at fault.
Often managers are demonized without recognizing that managers themselves are part of the machine that is the company and the culture (and I feel this actually has become so by design).
> I guess the solution is to just join executive leadership ha.
It's really... not? I guess, it probably depends on the person too. But at some level, you have both a lot of power to influence things accidentally in a bad way if you're not careful, and at the same time absolutely minimal power to actually get stuff done (you always need to rely on others for the "doing" part, oftentimes several levels deep/ with a lot of potential for miscommunication).
Those opaque decisions? You _have to_ take decisions, because not taking decisions is very often worse than taking a bad decision. And you don't have the information, you can't have the information, you need to work at a high level of abstraction because it's impossible to know all the details. Unless the relevant details are being communicated to you just in time (spoiler: they won't be), you won't know them. If you actually care about how well you do your job and what is your impact on others, it's not a walk in the park, at all.
I wasnt suggesting that you shouldnt or you cannot take the decisions. We all understand corporate life etc and i think that kind of compartmentalizing is just part of the game. Frankly there is no decision to take - you are just a messenger so you roll with the punches. While we all learn to put up a straight face and explain (nay relay/readout) why sacrificing X000 people because the path to ASI needs new blood etc - if you are not moved by it internally (with your inner self raising that single eye-brow in .... curiosity) then I applaude you for being made of much more sterner stuff than me :)
I was not being clear - I was just trying to say that taking opaque $hit decisions with lots of inverted umbrellas around you is somewhat inevitable and not all fun, either; sure, it's lucrative, so that helps - but otherwise it's not really a solution to the "mixed bag" problem.
1. That's because people are unique and there are infinite people problems to solve, so it will never be easy.
2. I don't believe those are the types that OP was talking about. There are people that will just never work out to begin with, and there are people who have bad days/weeks. The latter are already trusted and deemed worthy, so it's not the same class of problem.
And remember, being a director is just being an inverted $shit umbrella for veeps, so the grass isn't always greener!
It's a good point but I'll add the problem is also the system/incentives of whatever org you are in.
Some shops its easy enough to manage someone out and bring in a new team member who will contribute more. This is a health environment and generally free of the boom-bust hire/fire cycle.
Other shops have very top down hire/fire cycles where if you fire someone now you have no ability to replace them, and worse yet.. when you HAVE to fire someone, you want the low performer around to hit your metrics..
So a lot of shops carry around a lot of dead weight for different reasons, as long as the person is not a net negative contributor.
Aside from that, yeah, how to deal with poor performers is as much an art as a science. I often find, aside from exceptional cases, most of them actually have some part of the job they prefer & are good at, so modifying the task allocation can go a long way.
> I often find, aside from exceptional cases, most of them actually have some part of the job they prefer & are good at, so modifying the task allocation can go a long way.
While this works in the short/naive scenario, I feel like in most cases these low performers prefer the "gravy" work if you will. The type of work that almost everyone prefers and is good at. So you risk setting a bad precedent for perverse incentives by rewarding poor performance with easier work.
In a sufficient sized team you may have boring/rote tasks that your high performers hate & neglect, but sometimes a comparatively lower performer will take on.
In many cases it's the (sometimes perceived but not in practice) higher performers that want the harder exciting high profile tasks, but maybe don't want to do the less fun parts of those tasks. Basic data munging, documentation, testing, monitoring, configuration management, etc... no fun!
A lot of perceived high performing devs I've worked with want to be like surgeons who walk into the OR, put their hands into the gloves, pick up the tools prepared for them on a tray, do the surgery, and leave.
Problem is I don't think we can really pick and choose tidbits like that. You want the person who wrote the code to be the same person that documents it.
Some parts of the job just suck and there's no easy out. I just tell myself this is why they're paying me.
I found the older manager tools podcasts to be more consistently helpful than the newer ones. I see 3/4 of your links are to old episodes, which tracks with my experience.
I sampled some newer episodes in the past few years and was not impressed. One episode was just the host and guest ranting about how remote work isn’t real work and how everyone needs to get back to the office, which was wholly unhelpful for me as a remote manager.
In today's corporate world, it can be difficult or impossible to fire people. It's important to understand that actually removing someone from the organization is a totally separate problem from managing the performance of the team.
People who don't contribute or cause problems need to be sequestered as much as possible. Don't let them bring down the rest of the team. I think "managed out" is the term that's being used now. That is a skill that a manager of any level can use to keep their team performing even when they don't have the authority to remove someone, or the process to remove someone is many months long.
It's just not though. People above you are making decisions to not pay what generally amounts to trivial amounts of money to (in many cases I have seen) completely fuck up their products.
I have worked with enough C levels to understand that most of them just want you to manage all the problems while they collect the money and make "strategic decisions" (follow whatever fad is hot right now.)
It's why I like working with smaller companies, usually not established enough to just make middle management eat shit and ignore customers.
As an IC, one reason I left my old (hated) job was precisely that. The product was barely-functional shit. We once spent 8 months implementing a "feature" that had senior engineers walking off the program in protest, only for them to be validated when said feature caused us to miss our contractual requirements just like said senior engineers said it would, and we spent another 8 months ripping it out.
Naturally I went looking for answers, started asking polite questions of my boss at 1-on-1s, started attending program-level meetings that engineers didn't typically show up to but were large/open enough I could blend into the background, and discovered that the root of the problem was roughly 3 levels into management and they weren't going to give a shit about what some engineers thought they should prioritize, even if we could tie it to financials/hours worked/cost savings (we tried and were politely ignored).
Left for a smaller program at a different company, and it's night and day. I remember suggesting that it would be nice if we could have an additional server for a system we were building and got told "yeah good idea, go ask <PM> if it's in the budget". It was, and we got it. I was in heaven.
It's good to do some snooping up the food chain like that.
I've been at a few small-scaling-to-big firms going through tremendous growing pains. Most of the time it was that they had the insight to hire team leads & ICs with experience from bigger competitors but not any higher up the food chain.
That is - higher extremely experienced, talented people, and have them report to the some guy that was hired 20 years ago because he went to school with the founder, or his buddies kid, or some dude who never worked elsewhere in the industry. So ultimately the deciders and decisions didn't change and it was all window dressing.
Even more well managed projects are just "here's the budget figure it out yourself or come talk to us if it will make us XX% more", but SOCII still manages to make a lot of things take forever even in the best of situations.
> In the US you can fire an employee for any reason at any time
On paper, yes. In practice, especially in a larger company? It's often a long journey that involves a lot of energy on the part of the manager. And then of course you may not get a backfill rec. So then one needs to ask themselves: is this person truly a net negative when compared to the energy that'd be required to jettison them *and* replace them with nothing?
The trouble is this calculus is being done at the local level despite the mantle of responsibility of management; the manager decides it is not worth their personal effort to lose a low performer, because they will generate more work for themselves. Meanwhile, the company suffers the net negative impact of such a decision - arguably even worse for the manager's career.
That's the main challenge I have coaching management folks - now you have the option of doing work, and often you'll be tempted to take the path of least resistance, but that'll usually lead you astray.
Edited to add - sorry I missed your net negative comment - to touch on that, as it's another thing I see often.. Giving up on the org's ability to satisfy your needs is another toxic pattern for management - it is a lose/lose essentially. Management is often in a position of needing to push for the things it needs and advocate for the people relying on them.
the answer is always yes but the org pays the costs not the manager, and the manager isn't accountable to those costs, and the manager IS accountable and vulnerable to political costs
I can't speak to a US perspective but in the UK and some EU countries I've experienced, firing someone is incredibly simple.
In fact every difficulty I've seen is simply that someone didn't follow the clearly defined procedure.
It's literally written out for you. You don't have to think or care how you feel, just follow the process and you're done. If the process says someone should stay then you got something wrong. Simple as that.
To be clear, it's simple for a *company* to fire someone. It often can be a pain in the ass for a *manager* to do it. For instance, a process like this:
1) Need to set up a clear paper trail over a period of time. For instance, a track record of being marked as an underperformed in their reviews with concrete complaints. In places that require this to be tied to the review, and f they only have annual reviews, this can take a LONG time.
2) Bring HR into the process, where they'll do the equivalent of "did you turn it off and on again?" for quite some time
3) If they let you, set up a PIP, which itself will take several weeks
Yes, if that's your process then that's what you're being paid to do.
OTOH, why shouldn't your team be able to say you're a bad manager and just get you fired? There is rarely a simple process to do that.
They're the productive ones so this seems a little backwards.
At any rate I definitely don't see why a managers job should be made easier to avoid the realistic implications of firing someone. If they can't cope with the clearly defined rules then maybe they're just not a competent manager.
IMO the problem from a management perspective isn't really the bad performer staying too long.
Also, dealing with HR as a manager is mostly fine. They actually respect you.
And just having someone that sucks on your team for one extra year is not really much of a burden. Sure you have to do extra paperwork, adjust morale, but that's just the job.
The problem IME is when this is used against you. When timelines are tight and the C-Level complain that "you already have N reports", but you can't fire or transfer the person who's disruptive, doesn't delivery or is clearly doing a second job instead, and the C-Level is too lazy to check what's going on.
the "few illegal reasons" are able to be leveraged by almost any employee to write a letter and/or lawsuit suggesting they were fired for the wrong reasons. if you didn't internally document -- exhaustively -- how bad they were, and also assuming they didn't expertly document -- exhaustively -- how great they were and how unfairly treated they were as an employee -- it winds up being a gigantic pain in the ass and almost always better for the company to simply pay them $200k as a settlement to said lawsuit. And that comes out of the budget of a department who doesn't have $200k to spare.
> it winds up being a gigantic pain in the ass and almost always better for the company to simply pay them $200k as a settlement to said lawsuit. And that comes out of the budget of a department who doesn't have $200k to spare.
Lawsuits like this are more common than I expected before I got a peek behind the curtain, but in my experience companies aren’t rolling over for $200K settlements frequently.
The last time I was at a level in a billion dollar company to have some visibility into this, the company had a small team of corporate counsel who were pros at handling these cases. They would get a lot of suits from people hoping to get a quick payday and then spend a minimal amount of time actually engaging them. This either made them go away when the other side realized it wasn’t an easy win, or made them change their tune and ask for a very small settlement (four or five figures, not six).
And I’ve never heard of a company paying these settlements out of the budgets of small departments. That’s weird.
Nevertheless, even paying $200K to separate from a toxic employee would be a long term win relative to paying $200-300K (fully loaded cost with benefits) for multiple years while also risking them making your good team members leave and damaging your product.
> if you didn't internally document -- exhaustively
Even then who knows. I once had to deal with an employee who filed a claim without a leg to stand on. The powers that be had already decided from the get-go I was at fault, even though they clearly didn't even bother to look at what I submitted. When questioned about it they couldn't even speak to it! They initially sided with the worker, but after weeks of phone calls that basically amounted to "read what I gave you already", eventually they relented with "Oh yeah, you are right. I have revised my decision." If it had been a slightly more biased/lazy person instead...
Firing someone "for cause" is an incredibly long and difficult process at many organizations. They eventually get put on a PIP for 3 to 6 months, meanwhile they are looking for another job and continuing to drag down performance of the rest of the team. It would be cheaper to pay them to leave sooner.
Performance management is challenging and has been a problem with my previous managers. I point out that person X is not doing their job well, not reviewing PRs (stamping LGTM on everything after about 30 seconds), writing buggy code, writing zero tests, no updating existing tests, not responsive to communication, not receptive to feedback. "I'll talk to him." No change. Two months later, I have the same discussion.
Yep, I did this once and got thrown under the bus when person X left, citing my behaviour - apparently asking person X to follow coding standards, right tests, implement the feature as requested was not a reasonable thing to do.
Agile Coach / Scrum Master chiming in - I switched from an engineering position to this more people-centric role, and completely agree with you.
What I find fascinating about this is how predictable people become once you know the different personalities and their nuances. It helps tremendously to also be interested in getting to know people. And yes, you will encounter people that are disruptive. Usually, and I can only speak for my environment, the team itself is quite good at handling that. I just need to give them room and provide a setting where they can talk about the issues at hand on a constructive base.
That's why I love my job, and it may sound weird - but I'm the guy who can ask all the obvious questions that come to mind and others don't dare to ask. I love that I can build myself a toolbox to use in different (and difficult) situations. And I love to see my team succeed on the one hand, and learn from failure on the other.
> how predictable people become once you know the different personalities and their nuances
I will never cease to be amazed at managers who don't do this. I've seen enough managers who pick fights with the wrong subordinates then have to scramble to replace key staff when they leave.
I didn't, but guess: a lot of happy-babbly words without much substance or stark opinion. What's the summary? "I love this job, there are challenges, but I can master it well". Well..ok, thanks?
I didn't downvote, but you started out sharing credentials that aren't management and then recounted standard platitudes about collaboration and some personal experience with zero transferable utility. And you posted that in response to a comment saying how difficult topics necessary to succeeding as a manager don't happen often on the internet. I understand why people would evaluate your contribution as detracting from the conversation at hand and downvote.
> You’re not the player, you’re the coach. Sometimes that means strategy and big-picture thinking. Sometimes it means shielding your team from dumb shit. Sometimes it means buying someone coffee and saying, “You’re not crazy. This is hard.”
Guess what good agile coaches or scrum masters are expected to do :-)
Well, yes, but "self-managing team" implies the team manages itself, not that one person picks up the slack. As the sibling poster said, this is a sign of a dysfunctional team.
Yeah, went down that road too. It's really emotionnally difficult/grinding. And I still don't have a clue: you have to find how each person behaves. Lots of talk, influence, repeating the same thing every day, etc. Unfortunately, I've never taken any pleasure in doing that, it was just difficult and exhausting to me...
Jim Keller did a talk somewhere on YouTube about his experience at AMD on the zen project, and one of the things he highlighted in that process was figuring out what was going on with people that was preventing them from working well on the project. Getting at the deeper causes made it easier to try to find mutually beneficial solutions even if those were the employee moving on from the team. People problems are messy though, and you will definitely feel like the bad guy in some cases, even if you are trying to do what is best for everyone.
> you have to find how each person behaves. Lots of talk, influence, repeating the same thing every day, etc.
It doesn’t help that most of the management advice you find on the internet assumes that inside every employee is a happy, productive worker and their manager can unlock it with the right words.
In the real world the range of employee types is very large. Some of them are just toxic and you’re not going to coach it out of them. Knowing when and how to cut your losses is important for preserving the rest of the team.
Your insight is true enough that almost every recruiter asks a manager "have you PIP'd someone before?" in the first phone screen. It's a hard experience that some junior managers cannot, or will not, do for a variety of reasons.
IMHO, besides the messiness, performance management is unspeakable because people generally hate authority. We've all had bad experiences with authority figures. We're also told many fantasies about the morality of groups of people. If the people are blameless, then the the fault lies with the manager who resembles (or opposes) our teacher, our parents, our government. And so forth.
I use to subconsciously think that until I learned, the hard way, it was irresponsible blame-shifting. A recent HN discussion demonstrated some of those dynamics at play https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42273798
It also can be very awkward when you're chosen for a promotion over someone who has been there longer for you. Suddenly you're managing and giving reviews to someone who was sitting next to you for years. I went through this but was extremely lucky that I had a wonderful mentor. It wasn't a big deal, but the first performance review, while it went well, definitely felt strange.
It certainly reflects the process I've gone during some difficult conversations, at least when I did them well. And I've certainly done the other approach where I just dug my trench and they dug theirs; oh lord, is it a terrible approach!
I think even a bad difficult conversation is better than no difficult conversation so just giving the managers I work with some tool to compel action is valuable.
Isnt this just the definition of check-ins? Simply document how many check-ins have not had progress and be done, no need to stand over anybody's shoulder
* You are responsible for sticking to commitments that depend almost completely on other people sticking to theirs.
* You're still on the hook for delivery, so if someone you assigned a subtask can't get that job done, you either have to pass it on to someone else (which often ends up harming the social dynamic of the team) or just do it yourself. Throwing an employee under the bus is not a good look.
* You get to be the "executioner" when a RIF rolls through, even if you get RIFed yourself, and even if you had no input into who is getting RIFed. Those Sunday evening "let's have a chat tomorrow morning" emails, and the following chat, are the most gut-wrenching things I've ever had to do as a manager.
* By the time you become a manager, you're probably one of the most experienced members of the team, so you are still always the "go-to" person when someone needs a gnarly bug fix, or if there's a lore question, or if a sticky situation with a customer comes up. If your reports are too green, it's hard to delegate these things, and this just adds to your own cognitive load.
* You don't have enough clout to make organizational-level changes. So process things that you see that are really inefficient, and you have some ideas how to address them? Now you've got to convince your manager and probably theirs, too, and they usually don't want to rock the boat.
Your best path as a ground-level manager is to not spend too much time here: become a second-tier manager (ie, director) or find a nice landing place as an individual contributor again.
You forgot the worst one imo:
* when re-org happens / changing jobs, you now have no deep knowledge at all in the stacks you are managing. And no time to develop such knowledge before the next re-org anyway. So you are constantly in a state where you are dealing with topics that you only have a superficial understanding about.
I really feel like the tension between <time to develop a deep understanding of your scope> VS <time before the next re-org (or layoff)> is not in your favor.
Problem is: going to Director level takes several years, at least. And even there, you are basically the CEO of a small start-up, in the sense that you need to constantly fight for "market shares", i.e. scope. Else your org risks getting irrelevant pretty fast, and you are in for a lot of trouble.
> "You get to be the "executioner" when a RIF rolls through..."
The other fun bit about that from the worm's eye view is bottom tier managers who haven't really internalized that their direct reports also are very aware that they're stuck with the "executioner" role and, before/during/shortly after layoffs, frequently reach out with "Got a minute to talk?" with no additional explanation or context, giving their reports a mini panic attack every time.
I've received messages from people (who don't even report to me) asking whether they did something wrong because I had forgotten to close some google doc they shared which then showed me as "active on the document" for hours and they thought "he's combing through everything, I'm in trouble" and eventually reached out because they couldn't take it anymore.
People read things very differently based on their perceived (job) safety. If you add culture differences (I'm german in a company with a lot of non-germans; what's normal communication to me makes some people gasp), there's a lot of opportunity to accidentally cause stress.
In your first two points, I think that after you know your team well enough, you will understand where your engineers' skills lie and learn how to delegate effectively to either the person most capable or the one who will learn the most.
Your last point is true in larger enterprises. However, it's not so bad if you are a manager in smaller companies or startups, when you are 1-3 steps from the CEO, you get a lot of independence.
In the other points, I must admit I never went through an RIF and never had a situation where the "engineers were too green." However, I worked at an enterprise company where there was a 1:1 ratio of interns to employees, so it might be a large enterprise. Generally, there is always at least one senior in the team to deal with firefighting.
It depends. I worked at a company with tons of title inflation. The first layer of management was referred to as "director." One of the "directors" literally had one report. The organizational hierarchy was bizarre.
Nothing here is wrong; some of it good, but it's missing the foundational piece that - if you get it right - helps with everything you need to do and mitigates the countless mistakes you are going to make: you need to genuinely care. How you show your team you care is going to be different, but once (ed: if!) you do you get a pass on the little mistakes, they won't jump to the least charitable interpretation when you don't communicate clearly or fully, they will want to help you because you want to help them, and you will win together.
So how do you demonstrate caring? For me (YMMV) I prioritize relationships over everything else at the very start; you will be dropping the ball somewhere but can recover from technical gaps, product knowledge, etc. I get in the trenches with the team, not to do their work but to try and make it easier; the important but non-core stuff that nobody wants to tackle. For each direct I continually ask "where is this person heading and how am I help them get there?".
One tactical tip: too many managers - especially new ones - focus on mentorship, and then maybe coaching but neglect sponsoring. This is so important, very passive but probably takes the most energy because you need to keep your receiver power at 11 and then connect the indirect dots. The act of recognizing and connecting an individual with an opportunity is deceptively hard, but the returns for everybody dwarf any advice you can give.
Agreed. When I was a manager, my sole focus was trying to help my team be maximally successful. That can take many forms but it greatly simplifies how and where to put your focus and effort. It definitely helps to keep the mindset that these aren't people that report to you, these are people that you are responsible for.
One way to show care is to show if you optimize your decisions for the business, versus optimizing for the team which will outlast the business. It is wrong to be 100% aligned to the business, even if you're the business owner, unless you think this is the last ride you'll ever have.
Yes, and setting deadlines is an important aspect of it. If you don't like how close the deadline is, then it's even more important to communicate it to your IC.
You might think that saying "I need this done by the end of Friday" will make your IC sad. No, what will make him or her sad is you coming for the deliverable on Friday when they have just started.
Lots of short deadlines make people very frustrated, because it feels the manager just violently yanked them out of their (comfortable) working zone. Nobody likes that and there better be some huge reward for this very annoying disturbance in the force.
Continously demand short deadlines of the team and they will not get frustrated anymore but very much deathly hate management. Rewards will not cut it. Ever. The line has been crossed and there is not much that will repair this.
Sure, the manager may just only get their assignment that things need to be done asap, but it is also their task not to transfer that frustration to the team. You would be amazed how much respect a manager can get if they just tell 'No' or negotiate a differebt deadline and honestly tells the team just that.
This is a really tough one isn't it? On the other hand I personally don't like when leaders or managers are over communicating (contrasting to this article). Of course I never say it, so the author can claim that nobody has criticised managers for over communicating, but I do despise too frequent check ins, meetings that are going too long, people who talk for too long when I just want to get started already. Managers who repeat the same stuff, talk overly verbose, speak 5 paragraphs of something that could be a sentence, etc.
They are not bad people, but I do personally feel annoyed by it, and I do feel it drains me of energy and flow. I feel like there are too many 1 hour meetings that shouldn't have been there at all or could have summarized in 5 minutes.
Overcommunication is a failure to provide appropriate context, with a side of bad delegation and overinvestment in process.
Without context, manager communication is noise. It's a waste of everyone's time and is functionally sabotage because it disempowers people. Worse, the problem can compound itself when a team gets demotivated and the manager tries to solve "lack of ownership" by spending even more time trying to direct behavior.
Good managers give their team appropriate context and tools, and then trust the process. Good organizations train and support managers in doing that.
You can both speak the exact same language and still have misinterpretations on what needs to be done. I've witnessed that multiple times. Management team holds a meeting and agree on what needs to be done. Single manager meets his team and tells them something, but not totally the same thing on what needs to be done. Each team member just nods and starts working. Everybody gets annoyed. Somewhere in the communication line something went horribly wrong.
sounds like they have a hammer (the sync, in-person meeting) and go around looking for nails. I don't think the key is simple repetition, but reinforcement. This means the appropriate channel, content and timing - all influenced by the situation and clear understanding of what exactly is the motivating problem for the communication.
Instead of repetition I would prefer written information organized well by priority. You don't have to repeat if I can revisit the information, easily find it when I need it, if I was to forget it. And with text I am happy also with overcommunicating as long as it is done once, not frequently to break my flow. When you ask me to do something always mention priority and the expected due time, do I have to drop other things or no. If you have a question, tell me by when do you need the answer.
Fully agree. Instead of verbal repetition, put things as a DM or in a doc in order of priority, organize textual information well and you don't have to verbally repeat this. That is how I consume information the best, but could vary from person to person.
Especially if you've said something verbally (including on a call or even async text like Slack), it's important to follow up with a written record, ideally email, so that they remember. Also so you have something to point back to if they don't do it.
Leople will also tune out repeated things because they're often unidirectional conversations.
Cool that you want this done today, but "we" are not doing that. Tell the client it's going to take another day instead of planning a scoping meeting and interrupting my dev time
One thing I struggled with when I was a "manager" before going back to individual contributor is that at every job I've had this far - I have never worked directly for my manager nor when was I a manager did I directly oversee my reports.
This seems to be fairly common in tech and consulting. How am I supposed to succeed at a manager if I have no fucking clue what my reports are going to be working on?
I feel like this is a failure in either companies not knowing how to setup management for technical roles, or I was given 0 training on this and it resulted in me not knowing what the hell to do all the time with my reports.
The claim in this article is that my job was no longer to do work, but in every role where I reached manager I absolutely was still expected to do my own work. I just also had to vaguely guide some other person and give them reviews and feedback while never having worked with them in my life.
Maybe I was unlucky but these stints at management left a sour taste. I'm not even sure I would call my experience "management" except companies kept naming it that.
For some reason my high performance meant that in addition to my high performance I should manage these other people working on other projects (that are just as in depth as mine) and this can in no way detract from the amount of work I do.
> I'm not even sure I would call my experience "management" except companies kept naming it that.
What is a manager anyway? I've been in this industry for multiple decades and I honestly still have no clue. They are never willing to assert what they are working on, or what blockers they have, during standups. They aren't striking deals with clients. They aren't building the product. They demonstrate no visible function. What, exactly, are they doing behind the scenes?
That's not to imply they aren't doing anything. I just can't figure out what it is and I'd love to know more. The article says "Learn from them.", but I have never seen anything to learn from. It is all shrouded in mystery.
Great article. As a high-end residential builder, much of this also applies to my project managers and i shared the article with one of my APMs that's been promoted to PM.
The real mindfuck is that everything that made you successful as an IC - being the person with answers, moving fast, shipping stuff - can actually make you a worse manager if you're not careful.
Your new job is to make other people successful, which sometimes means slowing down, asking questions instead of giving answers, and being okay with solutions that aren't exactly what you would have built.
In my experience, managers are like politicians: those who want to become one are not qualified/worth of becoming one, and those who could be good managers are not interested in the job.
This was a great read! Saving this to re-read in the future.
One question I have though is what are you supposed to do if as a new manager you aren't allowed to... well, do your job? I haven't been able to find a lot of resources on what to do in such a situation.
I'm a new engineering manager (~8 months in) and my boss isn't letting me hire full-time devs to replace consultants whenever they leave or their contracts are up and I am not allowed to replace any developers who leave either due to a company-wide hiring freeze. I have lost 4 of my most senior engineers in the last 6 months since I can't replace the consultants or hire anyone new. I'm down to 2 senior devs on my team when we used to have 6, with the same amount of work. They have also implemented mandatory return to office clearly frustrating my team. In addition, I am not allowed to promote any of my team members to try and encourage them to stay.
The heck am I even supposed to do? What is the point of being an EM if you quite literally are not allowed to do your job? I can't hire, I can't promote people, and I need to continue delivering at the same capacity with a significantly scaled-down team. My boss just tells me to try my best to encourage the team through this tough time.
I haven't found any resources on how to handle this kind of situation as a new EM. If I knew this is what was in store for me I would have never taken the job.
It sounds to me like your team is not super important (right now?) to the higher-ups in the company. Obviously I don't know the details, but they're very intentionally attritioning (? Attriting?) the team by any reasonable definition.
Without any other detail, from my experience (10 years doing Eng Manager/Senior Eng Manager roles) I'd advise you to start interviewing. Not necessarily because you're in jeopardy, you'd know that better than me anyway. But think of what you want out of your job: One thing should be professional growth -- going from a new EM to a great EM and being set up for future promotions. You won't get that here without a major mindshift from your boss (and probably up the reporting chain from them too).
Interview and when asked why you're leaving when you just became an EM, say "I love my new role and the team, but XYZ Co seems to be deprioritizing or phasing out the ABC team and I find myself without the resources we need to be successful."
> I need to continue delivering at the same capacity with a significantly scaled-down team.
I'd start by thinking through how much of that "need" is real.
What is driving the things your team "needs" to accomplish? What hard external constraints are you operating under? What are the interaction points between your work and the rest of the organization? How much flexibility do you have? And, holistically, how much flexibility should you have?
After that, it's a matter of negotiation. Given some understanding of the real constraints as well as the personal/political factors driving your manager, how can you come up with a better approach for your team and your work? I personally found the book Splitting the Difference really useful for approaching these sorts of conversations, but I'm also not especially good at that sort of thing naturally!
Unless you have an absolutely awful relationship with your manager, a starting point would be asking these questions to them. The trick is to pose these as legitimately open-ended questions. I learned the value of this first-hand: if I'm trying to convince somebody about something, asking an open-ended question will either get them to rethink their beliefs or they will come back with an answer I didn't think of, and either way I got something valuable out of it.
At the end of the day, you need to find some way to have slack in your work, or the team will fall apart. Slack can come from changing what you're doing and how you're fitting into the broader organization, or it can come from factors the organization does not "see". That latter is where the real risk lies: that's the dynamic that results in unreasonable corner-cutting and then burns people out.
I should add that I have not been in this situation as a manager, but I have been in that situation as a lead with no formal, positional power. That seems similar enough to be a good staring point, but I'm sure it's different enough that you should take everything I say with a grain of salt!
One thing I've realized is that we talk about "plans" and "budgets" and "roadmaps" as something constant and immutable, but they're not. They're just decisions that the organization made. We can make different decisions! But that in particular might be a view that's more useful as a lead than as a formal manager, because it very much goes against the way most organizations are run. This realization changed my perspective on what's going on, but I suspect it would be impolitic to emphasize it when negotiating up the chain.
One more thing: when I've been in analogous situations, one of the difficulties I had was managing my own emotions. I'm still not especially good at that. But one thing that helped me was taking some concrete action to change things, even if it's small and symbolic. Just starting something—even if it means writing up some notes and setting up a meeting—immediately helped manage my own anxiety. It sounds obvious in hindsight, but it took me a while to recognize this! Now I have three coping strategies I reach for:
- write up my thoughts and feelings—sometimes notes to myself, sometimes as docs I can share with others
- talk to somebody—I got a lot out of having mentors to talk to in and outside my job; occasionally they gave me non-obvious advice I found useful, but mostly just talking through something really helped
- do just *one* concrete thing about whatever is worrying me
Honestly, writing comments like this is also a coping strategy! I've repeatedly written about topics like this online and it has really helped me deal with things and work through my own ideas and observations.
In your case, the answer could well just be leaving like others are suggesting. But, even if it is, trying to do something about it at your current place might still be worth the effort in the short term. Even if things don't work out and you leave, it can make you feel better in the short term, and it's a great chance to learn how to handle this kind of situation by actually trying something. (And, in hindsight, that whole paragraph is advice I needed to give to myself just now more than advice for you or anyone else :P)
> You were probably really good at your job. Now your job is to make sure other people can be good at theirs.
Anyone else see the exact opposite, that out of N people that _could_ become managers, it’s the worst individual contributors that do? Mostly because they want it most. People who love being individual contributors are going to become good at it, and they’ll resist management tasks.
I think this is great and very natural. But there’s a kind of zombie myth that engineering managers are the best former engineers that refuses to die. It’s decent engineers with some aptitude and/or desire to manage.
Yep, that "because they want it most" is very dangerous.
Anecdotally, the two worst managers I've had were developers, but I've had three really good managers that were formally developers. Then the best manager I've had used to be a business analyst.
I agree with most of this except the overcommunicating part. If you're setting the right expectations, overcommunicating may be mistaken for micromanaging.
Managers are judged by outcomes, not by contribution. Good leaders know how to shield their team from the chaos above while shielding the managers above from the challenges of managing many different personalities. They are a conduit for collaboration and inspiration.
Bad leaders are chaos agents and are the main drivers of attrition and should be rooted out quickly. They are a poison pill.
One-sided text that don't nearly speak the whole truth.
It fails to take into account that as a manager you may very will end up with employees that are toxic, disrespectful, cheating, lazy, incompetent, intolerant, unmanageable...
And contrary to popular belief, that it is not always the managers fault.
I had a close relative become a manager, tried their utmost for a year but gave up. It was not worth the sleepless nights, stress, therapy and sitting in the parking lot crying their eyes out after work.
The examples I have seen and heard about in software industry were mostly the other way around. Toxic managers who were clueless about actually managing people and who wanted minions instead of colleagues. I have seen many people leave their jobs because of toxic managers.
Just an important note, and a thing that is often confused by new managers - leadership and management are not the same thing. More often than not the skills you want to hone are actually leadership skills not management skills.
The lack of communication one doesn't seem like it needs saying, but I've had managers who literally hid information from me, or would keep me out of meetings, on stuff I would eventually have to work on anyway. Don't be that guy. Spread information throughout the team and invite people to meetings even if they don't need to be there (clarifying that they're optional).
Also keep in mind that as a manager, you are a custodian of culture. What you do and don't do will shape your team's culture which will (in part) shape the whole company's culture. So think about how you can develop positive culture (and also, ask!).
>> At my day job we use a platform called Bonusly for people to give little shout-outs (shouts-out?) to their peers for doing something awesome. I rarely get any awards here, but people on my teams get them all the damn time and to me that speaks incredible volumes.
I view this as you won't see a good manager's fingerprints on the thing that receives the recognition, but you will find them all over the people who are being recognized. It's harder to get a dopamine hit from this but like protein over sugar, it lasts longer & helps build you as a manager.
Nah, this lays out what everyone knows going in and leaves out what you really need to know as a newby.
Budget. Getting some for your team or at least for your priorities. Protecting what you get. Capex vs Opex.
Upward management. Translating messages upwards. Interpreting C suite decrees. Pacing and leading. Inducting new leadership before they fuck things up.
Retention. Keeping the people you need on your team. Cutting the people you don't. Compensation and promotions.
All of which is to say, Politics. How to not come out a loser at the game of thrones next time there is a merger, reorg, budget season, or just end of quarter.
Yeah, handling stack ranking, calibrations, proving your team's worth, priorities, making sure your team gets work that is visible and highly rewarding, selling your team (did we make a mistake because our team is incompetent or because the project was that challenging), etc.
> Budget. Getting some for your team or at least for your priorities. Protecting what you get. Capex vs Opex.
Always spend your budget, ideally about 5-10% over (find out what others do)
If you don't, next year you get less. You can't save 20k this year and spend it next year. You can't even save 20k and get rewarded for being cost efficient as you'll be punished with a lower budget next year.
This was a good article but it doesn't even mention the hardest part of management: hiring and firing people.
I feel like a discussion of management without those components is missing something critical. Maintaining high performing teams requires that you get really good at this. This article makes it seem like the job is really just talking to people and making sure they're motivated, but in my experience that's the easiest part of the job.
Fantastic post. I became a manager in the style of the Steve Jobs philosophy— take one of your best individual contributors and make them oversee the work of others. Professional managers didn’t work out well for Apple, but the approach of letting growing leaders lead did. This post misses out on the important point to rely on your instincts because that’s why you’ve been put in that position.
Great post. I'm still going through this process. I was offered the management cap a few years ago as an escape from the drudgery I was dealing with at the time. Now I am not sure if I regret it or not.
There are different type of leads, not only people managers. There are architects, chief-of-somethings, designers, people who give all their imagination, creativity and experience into leading teams and companies to achieve great things. Clearly that's empowering, and empowering is crucial: Preparing the ground and conditions for people to do their job as good as possible. But it's a lot more, and it's fun and you get feedback and reward.
Let's not get dragged down by this stories how pathetic the reality of leadership roles has to be, this all depends on the leadership structure and culture.
this is a good point. I've been a people manager for about 7 years and I try to help these people understand that they are leaders. I actually think it's a much ahrder form of leadership because they don't have the hierarchy crutch like me; their legitimacy has to be earned. Recognizing the diversity of leadership also helps break the "to go up you need to become a manager" idea, which is toxic for technical organizations.
Good advice. Recently, I had to manage a team just because I am a senior employee of the company. I messed up the first project, but they still trust me for the second one. Honestly, the pressure is insanely hard to bear sometimes.
About 30 years ago I was in the early part of my career and was stunned to learn two of my favorite programmers were former managers. I couldn’t understand why they ‘took a step backward’ to return to programming.
One of them explained “In management, they nip at you from the top, and they nip at you from the bottom”. Meaning that you had many more people with demands. A programmer usually has only one, maybe a few.
Later, I learned that many managers are paid less than senior programmers.
I turned down every request to begin managing, and I finished my career happy.
And what's worse is that they push the design work to the bottom of the pay rung, saying "You guys know it better, you should do the design". And that's architechs and higher managers doing this.
I've recently been getting more and more management responsibilities. This article seems very helpful - thank you for sharing! The advice on over-communicating & owning up to your mistakes is very on point.
> The advice on over-communicating [...] is very on point.
Is it? Being on the other side I've left jobs because of manager over-communication.
If you don't have the right communication skills, let someone else do the job. There are plenty of people out there who are very capable of effectively communicating without over-communicating. Just as you wouldn't want a developer who writes excess code to make up for their lack of being able to write good code, same goes for a manager trying to communicate. Going over the top to make up for your shortcomings is never a recipe for success.
I'd say it depends on the person. People who communicate badly often do so because they think they can say all they need to with few words. Those people communicate better by doing what they think of as over-communicating.
>You’re Going To Mess Stuff Up. Repeatedly. [...] Nobody expects you to have all the answers. [...] You’re not expected to be perfect. [...] Messing up is part of the job. What matters more is how you respond. Own your mistakes. Say the awkward thing out loud. Apologize when you blow it. Your team doesn’t need a flawless boss, they need a human one who’s willing to grow in public. That builds trust faster than pretending you’ve got it all figured out.
Emotionally supportive advice like this is probably part of an important foundation. But I've been on the receiving end of management that's trying to figure out how to do their job through osmosis too many times. I move to avoid it, but I just don't have it in me to put my personal drive into work anymore when the generally-accepted way of training a new manager is letting them whoopsiedaisy torpedo a multiyear project or two along the way.
> But if you show up with humility, curiosity, and a genuine desire to make work suck less for the people around you? That’s real leadership.
No. No it's fucking not. That's necessary but not sufficient.
If you fired all the people that build things, then your company could no longer build things. If you fire all the people that sell things, then your company could no longer sell things. Grug brain understand this.
But if you fired all the managers then... What? Wouldn't everything just continue as before? Grug brain has never understood management.
Then no high-level decisions would get made. Any technical argument that spans beyond one person would be at risk of running into an eternal stalemate. No strategic choices would be undertaken.
(Tone indicator: Not a value judgment. I'm not saying that all managers are particularly good at this, same as how observing that "builders build things" does not mean that the builders are necessarily good at building.)
I think you should ask yourself that last question again, and this time really think about it. Why /do/ all companies seem to have managers?
(Tone clarification: I'm not approaching this in a condescending manner, but more of a "let's talk through this problem out loud and see where it gets us." So please don't take this as condescension.)
One way to think about "obvious" solutions to problems, such as a "no manager" solutuon, is this: if it's so obvious, why is no one doing it? For example, I worked for a grocery delivery startup for a while. Every single new hire, without fail, would show up at the end of the first week and say "I have a great idea, why don't we let users shop by recipe?"
On its face, it sounds like a brilliant idea! One intuition-based shortcut to find the answer is: if that's such an obvious thing, why doesn't Amazon or Kroger or Safeway or HEB or any of the major grocery chains let you do that?
And of course, the answer is: that's not how users shop. If it worked, the big players would be doing it. They're not. Are you smarter than Amazon? Probably not. That's not to say a smaller group can't innovate past Amazon, but Amazon has some /really fucking smart people/ working for them, and the odds are fantastically small that you'll out-think them. (You can certainly out-_pivot_ them by doing something faster than they can, but if it turns out to be valuable, in the long run, they'll do it too.)
So when you approach a conversation like this and say, "Maybe just see what a group of seniorish people think?", one way to do a quick sanity check on it is: can you think of successful companies that are run that way?
You probably can't. I certainly can't.
There's a similar problem in the theatre world. It is universally understood that someone doing a 60 second monologue for an audition is _the worst way to evaluate theatrical performance_... except for everything else.
And similarly, it appears, based on scanning the successful companies, that having managers is possibly also the worst way to ensure performance... except for everything else.
So... managers it is. It's unlikely that there's a better way to do this at scale. Many people have tried. Management chains always win.
But the larger point is still true: For every "why don't they just do X? It's so obvious!" you can look around and note that [almost] /nobody/ is doing that, and that should be a pretty big signal about the idea.
My original post is about the intuition behind how to approach questions like that. Whenever anyone says "Why don't they just do $OBVIOUS_THING?" the answer is "because nobody is doing it."
Now, with respect to that particular feature, I can provide some personal experience to explain /why/ [almost] nobody has that feature. As a disclaimer, I don't know HEB's website. They were just someone we dealt with, and I don't live in their service area, so it's interesting that they have the feature.
What I can tell you from experience is that it would not be a significant driver of revenue, certainly not enough to be a majorly supported feature by a major company that has other value props out there. By far the biggest revenue driver for a grocery company are the staples that people buy every single week: the same milk, the same bread, the same cereal, the same ground beef, the same mac 'n cheese.
People, as a general population, are not adventurous at home When you want something new and interesting, you go out to a restaurant. When you want something familiar and comfortable and, most importantly, easy, you make it at home. I would hazard that the number of times that the average American family of four would cook a brand new recipe they've never had before is probably less than a dozen times /per year/.
So if you're a company that gets >90% of its revenue from weekly recurring users and staples, and <1% of its revenue from recipe-driven results, and you have limited resources, which of those do you think you should focus on? Obviously, you focus on the former. A 10% increase in staples sales is worth millions and millions of dollars, whereas a 10% increase in recipe sales is worth, maybe, a few hundred thousand dollars. It's not nothing, but it's not really worth it from an ROI perspective. Maybe if it's a set-it-and-forget-it kind of feature, it might work?
But over the long run you'll have to come back and upgrade dependencies and migrate to the newest framework du jour, and blah blah blah, and the next thing you know you have a team of four full-time engineers working on a feature that brings in half their salary.
HEB doing it is, well, it's interesting. I am supremely confident it is not a significant revenue driver. It might be something that increases NPS scores or something to that effect, but it's not going to move the needle on revenue very much. So it's interesting that they have the feature.
So if you take all of that into account -- you'll just have to trust me that I know what I'm talking about, I'm sorry about that -- then you can see that someone saying "What if we just got senior people in a room to see what they think?" is a question that doesn't deserve much attention. Not because it's a dumb idea, but because it's actually an interesting idea that has no merits when you dig down and look at it.
If it worked, as the intuition goes, the industry at-large would be doing it. And the evidence bears that out.
But if I said "I don't understand the point of brakes. Why do all cars get made with brakes?", then as well as making your point ("look, do you really think you know better than Stellantis!?") there's also a straightforward answer which is "cars need brakes so they can stop instead of killing people."
What's the "straightforward answer" case for the existence of managers? Your answer just suggests that such an answer does exist, without revealing what it is.
>Sometimes it means shielding your team from dumb shit.
I think this is a generally good advice, but can also be misused.
I liked my previous manager, he had a principle for that part. Shielding the team from those crap, especially paperwork stuff. The trouble was that I could see how it was grinding him down, and I knew I could help him with it (because this was Japan, he didn't speak Japanese, I do and language barrier create inefficiencies) but he refused. My manager before him (this time the opposite: Japanese but couldn't articulate himself on English so I took care of all the English team communication) did and it worked smoothly.
If you're a small team (in a startup) doubly so, since grasping the full context of your team & outside is not as big of a task.
Best is to at least be open if your team members are open to helping you with the trickling down bullshit.
I also have a counterpoint to that: manager "shielding" has previously led me into this telephone game sort of thing where I have to guess if there is something going politically wrong or if the ask is actually honest and straightforward. If I exactly understood the politics, or the bs going on, I could give better solutions without tiptoeing around it.
You sometimes hear this described as the "shit umbrella" but it needs to be more like a missle defense system. Similarly it's hard to hit everything you should and you will miss, but you still gotta try. I try to shield the team from the noise, but not the awareness. I'm still trying to get this right.
Now the dark side grows in you. Managers are the anchors in every company. They make sure nothing moves ever again. They are like a parasite sitting on the shoulder of thinking engineers. They get there money for nothing
That's one sided view. As somebody who manages people (I hate it tbh) things which can piss me off the most are engineers who will go out of their way to not do the task or make some stupid excuse why it is not possible to do the task which will fall apart the moment I will start poking into the excuse.
I kind of want to call BS on this. Sure, a bad manager can crush an employee's motivation and will to work. But when an employee is crushing it, I am not sure how much of that is really because the manager "empowered" the employee - unless you mean literally just allowing them to show up and work on something of value to the company?
This seems like a "glass half full/empty" question: The top quintile (or so) of developers need little but to be given a mission statement or overall goals and commit access, but some managers bog down those people with improper use of meetings, process that gets in the way, too much 'digital paperwork' (did you fill out all 15 fields of the Jira ticket? etc), etc.
The bottom quintile never get anything done and hopefully you have fired them or convinced them to stop being bottom-tier. For the rest, to accomplish good work they need (A) to give a shit, which often is directly under your influence: how much they think their boss appreciates and cares about them is important. (B) to know what their strengths and weaknesses are so that they can improve, and (C) to be allowed to focus on the important things and not be pulled in 100 directions, which a good manager constantly keeps aware of and constantly tries to tune. A bad manager fails to do A, B, and C, and as such their teams are less likely to accomplish things.
This is a great article. It echoes a lot of what I went through when transitioning to management. I can also recommend the book "The Making of a Manager", which covers similar ground in more detail.
I have one criticism: no auto-play GIFs, please. They're so distracting. They could be better as short, pausable videos.
Add to it the ability to cut through the bullshit and follow through tasks till completion. The amount of bullshit that ICs, QAs, and products can spin in rounds and add to that the new bureaucracy that comes with being a manager is just unreal.
Some good advice. It’s missing one of the most difficult topics: Performance Management.
Most first-time managers have already read a lot of advice about being humble, delegating, celebrating your team’s wins, and the other feel good topics.
If you want to write internet advice that gets upvoted and shared you almost have to avoid the difficult conversation topics and assume that the team is full of perfect people that the manager just needs to serve.
I’m in a semi-private peer group for managers and the number one most common struggle for new managers is their first encounter with employees who aren’t working unless a manager is standing over their shoulder, or who are causing problems within the team. Books like “The Managers Path” can help, but in my experience the best help is to find a more experienced manager you can talk to for advice. A lot of the difficult realities of managing people are messy or even painful and are often intentionally avoided in feel-good internet advice.
This is really nice. I've been doing this for quite a while (and also ping pong ic-em and back). Oh and I've also been "the" poor performer. A couple of observations:
1. Performance management is never easy and I don't think it should be. I don't mean the technique or process of it bit the mental weighing of it. You are affecting a person's livelihood so you don't want to approach it robotically always (despite what the hr training tells you about it not being personal etc)
2. This is a big one. Performance has a huge under rated aspect that is environmental and circumstantial. I've seen really strong performers drop and fail because of personal situations and not being able (or rather not given the space and bandwidth to recover organically). And similarly those with a poor perf in one company go to a supposedly "higher tier" company and really thrive and sky rocket.
Management is really a mixed bag. I loved the coaching, direction setting, strategy, etc but always having to sell opaque higher up decisions as your own and being an inverted $hit umbrella for leadership can be draining. I guess the solution is to just join executive leadership ha.
> I've seen really strong performers drop and fail because of personal situations and not being able (or rather not given the space and bandwidth to recover organically). And similarly those with a poor perf in one company go to a supposedly "higher tier" company and really thrive and sky rocket.
I have, too, but this is the bias I was talking about: We like reading and writing about the situations where managers were able to convert a low performer to a star performer. Similarly, when a high performer becomes a low performer we like reading about how management was at fault.
Yet much less is written about the difficult employees who aren’t responsive to management coaching. Most of what is written is about the stories where good managers turned difficult employees around or bad managers failed to help employees, leaving an impression that the manager is solely responsible for the outcome.
In the peer group I mentioned above a common story is for someone to arrive after trying to coach a problem employee for years without progress. When you’ve been led to believe that a failing employee is really a failure of management it’s hard to let go of them, because letting go is admitting failure. It takes a reality check from someone more experienced to realize that not every employee has good intentions. These situations aren’t written about as much because they’re uncomfortable and many don’t like reading about it.
> Yet much less is written about the difficult employees who aren’t responsive to management coaching. Most of what is written is about the stories where good managers turned difficult employees around or bad managers failed to help employees, leaving an impression that the manager is solely responsible for the outcome.
Maybe off-topic: I think a lot of writing comes from a place of control. The writers want to feel like they're in control and the readers want to feel they're in control too. The internet functions as people's outlet and fantasy environ, so scary writing naturally gets filtered out, i.e. post something uncomfortable and people must retaliate to preserve their comfort, their sense of control.
> Yet much less is written about the difficult employees who aren’t responsive to management coaching.
There are legal, ethical and emotional risks attached to writing about failed relationships with difficult colleagues. These stories are meant to be shared over a hot (or strong) drink.
Nobody writes books about managing your manager, which seems odd. I practiced it, and it worked well for me.
"Managing up" is the term: https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/managing-up.
It's secret knowledge!
It's rather obvious. He is your customer. Figure out what he wants and deliver it.
Ah but the art is in figuring out what he actually wants! Not what he ideally would want, says he wants, or is supposed to want.
Asking him is always a good start! It also puts you way ahead of your peers, because they don't.
Clarifying - If the employee is not coachable why spend years? I know you mentioned the "admitting failure" aspect of letting go (this probably makes me a sociopath to even ask this).
Now coachability could mean different things - Are they absolutely unreceptive to feedback? Were they actually hired in the wrong role? fantastic interviewers but terrible on the job, mislevelled, completely wrong area, passion etc? Record of toxicity?
Arent these (except may be the mislevelled bit) grounds for a PIP to begin with. Ive felt these situations were easier to manage in FAANG?MAANGO etc precisely due to the highly process driven cultures. Also i think the "emotion" of it goes away because hiring is extremely generalized and pipelined (best case you see a candidate's interview feedback if you are the HM and usually you only do that if you are happy with the "numeric rating"). Generalized hiring has its own problems but that's another story. Again this may be different at various companies so just trying to job my memory.
Btw I loved this:
> I have, too, but this is the bias I was talking about: We like reading and writing about the situations where managers were able to convert a low performer to a star performer. Similarly, when a high performer becomes a low performer we like reading about how management was at fault.
Often managers are demonized without recognizing that managers themselves are part of the machine that is the company and the culture (and I feel this actually has become so by design).
> I guess the solution is to just join executive leadership ha.
It's really... not? I guess, it probably depends on the person too. But at some level, you have both a lot of power to influence things accidentally in a bad way if you're not careful, and at the same time absolutely minimal power to actually get stuff done (you always need to rely on others for the "doing" part, oftentimes several levels deep/ with a lot of potential for miscommunication).
Those opaque decisions? You _have to_ take decisions, because not taking decisions is very often worse than taking a bad decision. And you don't have the information, you can't have the information, you need to work at a high level of abstraction because it's impossible to know all the details. Unless the relevant details are being communicated to you just in time (spoiler: they won't be), you won't know them. If you actually care about how well you do your job and what is your impact on others, it's not a walk in the park, at all.
I wasnt suggesting that you shouldnt or you cannot take the decisions. We all understand corporate life etc and i think that kind of compartmentalizing is just part of the game. Frankly there is no decision to take - you are just a messenger so you roll with the punches. While we all learn to put up a straight face and explain (nay relay/readout) why sacrificing X000 people because the path to ASI needs new blood etc - if you are not moved by it internally (with your inner self raising that single eye-brow in .... curiosity) then I applaude you for being made of much more sterner stuff than me :)
I was not being clear - I was just trying to say that taking opaque $hit decisions with lots of inverted umbrellas around you is somewhat inevitable and not all fun, either; sure, it's lucrative, so that helps - but otherwise it's not really a solution to the "mixed bag" problem.
1. That's because people are unique and there are infinite people problems to solve, so it will never be easy.
2. I don't believe those are the types that OP was talking about. There are people that will just never work out to begin with, and there are people who have bad days/weeks. The latter are already trusted and deemed worthy, so it's not the same class of problem.
And remember, being a director is just being an inverted $shit umbrella for veeps, so the grass isn't always greener!
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"
It's a good point but I'll add the problem is also the system/incentives of whatever org you are in.
Some shops its easy enough to manage someone out and bring in a new team member who will contribute more. This is a health environment and generally free of the boom-bust hire/fire cycle.
Other shops have very top down hire/fire cycles where if you fire someone now you have no ability to replace them, and worse yet.. when you HAVE to fire someone, you want the low performer around to hit your metrics..
So a lot of shops carry around a lot of dead weight for different reasons, as long as the person is not a net negative contributor.
Aside from that, yeah, how to deal with poor performers is as much an art as a science. I often find, aside from exceptional cases, most of them actually have some part of the job they prefer & are good at, so modifying the task allocation can go a long way.
> I often find, aside from exceptional cases, most of them actually have some part of the job they prefer & are good at, so modifying the task allocation can go a long way.
While this works in the short/naive scenario, I feel like in most cases these low performers prefer the "gravy" work if you will. The type of work that almost everyone prefers and is good at. So you risk setting a bad precedent for perverse incentives by rewarding poor performance with easier work.
Really depends actually!
In a sufficient sized team you may have boring/rote tasks that your high performers hate & neglect, but sometimes a comparatively lower performer will take on.
In many cases it's the (sometimes perceived but not in practice) higher performers that want the harder exciting high profile tasks, but maybe don't want to do the less fun parts of those tasks. Basic data munging, documentation, testing, monitoring, configuration management, etc... no fun!
A lot of perceived high performing devs I've worked with want to be like surgeons who walk into the OR, put their hands into the gloves, pick up the tools prepared for them on a tray, do the surgery, and leave.
Problem is I don't think we can really pick and choose tidbits like that. You want the person who wrote the code to be the same person that documents it.
Some parts of the job just suck and there's no easy out. I just tell myself this is why they're paying me.
For anyone struggling with this:
https://www.manager-tools.com/map-universe/hall-fame-highly-...
This podcast has made me a 10x better manager.
Good starters:
- https://www.manager-tools.com/2007/04/effective-hiring-set-t...
- https://www.manager-tools.com/2008/03/the-management-trinity...
- https://www.manager-tools.com/2010/01/how-manage-arrogant-pr...
- https://www.manager-tools.com/2008/02/the-management-trinity...
- https://www.manager-tools.com/2018/06/manager-tools-onboardi...
I found the older manager tools podcasts to be more consistently helpful than the newer ones. I see 3/4 of your links are to old episodes, which tracks with my experience.
I sampled some newer episodes in the past few years and was not impressed. One episode was just the host and guest ranting about how remote work isn’t real work and how everyone needs to get back to the office, which was wholly unhelpful for me as a remote manager.
Agree. Pre-2016 was mostly great. Post-2020 it went downhill.
Edit: I also linked the wrong feedback episode. The correct one was from 2008...
In today's corporate world, it can be difficult or impossible to fire people. It's important to understand that actually removing someone from the organization is a totally separate problem from managing the performance of the team.
People who don't contribute or cause problems need to be sequestered as much as possible. Don't let them bring down the rest of the team. I think "managed out" is the term that's being used now. That is a skill that a manager of any level can use to keep their team performing even when they don't have the authority to remove someone, or the process to remove someone is many months long.
It's just not though. People above you are making decisions to not pay what generally amounts to trivial amounts of money to (in many cases I have seen) completely fuck up their products.
I have worked with enough C levels to understand that most of them just want you to manage all the problems while they collect the money and make "strategic decisions" (follow whatever fad is hot right now.)
It's why I like working with smaller companies, usually not established enough to just make middle management eat shit and ignore customers.
As an IC, one reason I left my old (hated) job was precisely that. The product was barely-functional shit. We once spent 8 months implementing a "feature" that had senior engineers walking off the program in protest, only for them to be validated when said feature caused us to miss our contractual requirements just like said senior engineers said it would, and we spent another 8 months ripping it out.
Naturally I went looking for answers, started asking polite questions of my boss at 1-on-1s, started attending program-level meetings that engineers didn't typically show up to but were large/open enough I could blend into the background, and discovered that the root of the problem was roughly 3 levels into management and they weren't going to give a shit about what some engineers thought they should prioritize, even if we could tie it to financials/hours worked/cost savings (we tried and were politely ignored).
Left for a smaller program at a different company, and it's night and day. I remember suggesting that it would be nice if we could have an additional server for a system we were building and got told "yeah good idea, go ask <PM> if it's in the budget". It was, and we got it. I was in heaven.
It's good to do some snooping up the food chain like that.
I've been at a few small-scaling-to-big firms going through tremendous growing pains. Most of the time it was that they had the insight to hire team leads & ICs with experience from bigger competitors but not any higher up the food chain.
That is - higher extremely experienced, talented people, and have them report to the some guy that was hired 20 years ago because he went to school with the founder, or his buddies kid, or some dude who never worked elsewhere in the industry. So ultimately the deciders and decisions didn't change and it was all window dressing.
Even more well managed projects are just "here's the budget figure it out yourself or come talk to us if it will make us XX% more", but SOCII still manages to make a lot of things take forever even in the best of situations.
> In today's corporate world, it can be difficult or impossible to fire people
Really? In the US you can fire an employee for any reason at any time (aside from a few illegal reasons: union activity, racism, etc.).
> In the US you can fire an employee for any reason at any time
On paper, yes. In practice, especially in a larger company? It's often a long journey that involves a lot of energy on the part of the manager. And then of course you may not get a backfill rec. So then one needs to ask themselves: is this person truly a net negative when compared to the energy that'd be required to jettison them *and* replace them with nothing?
Often the answer is no.
The trouble is this calculus is being done at the local level despite the mantle of responsibility of management; the manager decides it is not worth their personal effort to lose a low performer, because they will generate more work for themselves. Meanwhile, the company suffers the net negative impact of such a decision - arguably even worse for the manager's career.
That's the main challenge I have coaching management folks - now you have the option of doing work, and often you'll be tempted to take the path of least resistance, but that'll usually lead you astray.
Edited to add - sorry I missed your net negative comment - to touch on that, as it's another thing I see often.. Giving up on the org's ability to satisfy your needs is another toxic pattern for management - it is a lose/lose essentially. Management is often in a position of needing to push for the things it needs and advocate for the people relying on them.
the answer is always yes but the org pays the costs not the manager, and the manager isn't accountable to those costs, and the manager IS accountable and vulnerable to political costs
As a mediocre person, this gives me comfort.
I can't speak to a US perspective but in the UK and some EU countries I've experienced, firing someone is incredibly simple.
In fact every difficulty I've seen is simply that someone didn't follow the clearly defined procedure.
It's literally written out for you. You don't have to think or care how you feel, just follow the process and you're done. If the process says someone should stay then you got something wrong. Simple as that.
To be clear, it's simple for a *company* to fire someone. It often can be a pain in the ass for a *manager* to do it. For instance, a process like this:
1) Need to set up a clear paper trail over a period of time. For instance, a track record of being marked as an underperformed in their reviews with concrete complaints. In places that require this to be tied to the review, and f they only have annual reviews, this can take a LONG time.
2) Bring HR into the process, where they'll do the equivalent of "did you turn it off and on again?" for quite some time
3) If they let you, set up a PIP, which itself will take several weeks
4) Finally the person is let go
Yes, if that's your process then that's what you're being paid to do.
OTOH, why shouldn't your team be able to say you're a bad manager and just get you fired? There is rarely a simple process to do that.
They're the productive ones so this seems a little backwards.
At any rate I definitely don't see why a managers job should be made easier to avoid the realistic implications of firing someone. If they can't cope with the clearly defined rules then maybe they're just not a competent manager.
I agree with you and upvoted you but:
IMO the problem from a management perspective isn't really the bad performer staying too long.
Also, dealing with HR as a manager is mostly fine. They actually respect you.
And just having someone that sucks on your team for one extra year is not really much of a burden. Sure you have to do extra paperwork, adjust morale, but that's just the job.
The problem IME is when this is used against you. When timelines are tight and the C-Level complain that "you already have N reports", but you can't fire or transfer the person who's disruptive, doesn't delivery or is clearly doing a second job instead, and the C-Level is too lazy to check what's going on.
You're absolutely right that this is a problem when you're trying to break into the C suite.
This is a deliberate tactic. Don't accept their framing. You are following the correct procedure and...
This is the tough bit, you need to call out whoever is trying to keep you down.
the "few illegal reasons" are able to be leveraged by almost any employee to write a letter and/or lawsuit suggesting they were fired for the wrong reasons. if you didn't internally document -- exhaustively -- how bad they were, and also assuming they didn't expertly document -- exhaustively -- how great they were and how unfairly treated they were as an employee -- it winds up being a gigantic pain in the ass and almost always better for the company to simply pay them $200k as a settlement to said lawsuit. And that comes out of the budget of a department who doesn't have $200k to spare.
That's why it's so hard.
> it winds up being a gigantic pain in the ass and almost always better for the company to simply pay them $200k as a settlement to said lawsuit. And that comes out of the budget of a department who doesn't have $200k to spare.
Lawsuits like this are more common than I expected before I got a peek behind the curtain, but in my experience companies aren’t rolling over for $200K settlements frequently.
The last time I was at a level in a billion dollar company to have some visibility into this, the company had a small team of corporate counsel who were pros at handling these cases. They would get a lot of suits from people hoping to get a quick payday and then spend a minimal amount of time actually engaging them. This either made them go away when the other side realized it wasn’t an easy win, or made them change their tune and ask for a very small settlement (four or five figures, not six).
And I’ve never heard of a company paying these settlements out of the budgets of small departments. That’s weird.
Nevertheless, even paying $200K to separate from a toxic employee would be a long term win relative to paying $200-300K (fully loaded cost with benefits) for multiple years while also risking them making your good team members leave and damaging your product.
> if you didn't internally document -- exhaustively
Even then who knows. I once had to deal with an employee who filed a claim without a leg to stand on. The powers that be had already decided from the get-go I was at fault, even though they clearly didn't even bother to look at what I submitted. When questioned about it they couldn't even speak to it! They initially sided with the worker, but after weeks of phone calls that basically amounted to "read what I gave you already", eventually they relented with "Oh yeah, you are right. I have revised my decision." If it had been a slightly more biased/lazy person instead...
Firing someone "for cause" is an incredibly long and difficult process at many organizations. They eventually get put on a PIP for 3 to 6 months, meanwhile they are looking for another job and continuing to drag down performance of the rest of the team. It would be cheaper to pay them to leave sooner.
Performance management is challenging and has been a problem with my previous managers. I point out that person X is not doing their job well, not reviewing PRs (stamping LGTM on everything after about 30 seconds), writing buggy code, writing zero tests, no updating existing tests, not responsive to communication, not receptive to feedback. "I'll talk to him." No change. Two months later, I have the same discussion.
Yep, I did this once and got thrown under the bus when person X left, citing my behaviour - apparently asking person X to follow coding standards, right tests, implement the feature as requested was not a reasonable thing to do.
Agile Coach / Scrum Master chiming in - I switched from an engineering position to this more people-centric role, and completely agree with you.
What I find fascinating about this is how predictable people become once you know the different personalities and their nuances. It helps tremendously to also be interested in getting to know people. And yes, you will encounter people that are disruptive. Usually, and I can only speak for my environment, the team itself is quite good at handling that. I just need to give them room and provide a setting where they can talk about the issues at hand on a constructive base.
That's why I love my job, and it may sound weird - but I'm the guy who can ask all the obvious questions that come to mind and others don't dare to ask. I love that I can build myself a toolbox to use in different (and difficult) situations. And I love to see my team succeed on the one hand, and learn from failure on the other.
> how predictable people become once you know the different personalities and their nuances
I will never cease to be amazed at managers who don't do this. I've seen enough managers who pick fights with the wrong subordinates then have to scramble to replace key staff when they leave.
Curious to know why my comment received a downvote / downvotes.
I didn't, but guess: a lot of happy-babbly words without much substance or stark opinion. What's the summary? "I love this job, there are challenges, but I can master it well". Well..ok, thanks?
I didn't downvote, but you started out sharing credentials that aren't management and then recounted standard platitudes about collaboration and some personal experience with zero transferable utility. And you posted that in response to a comment saying how difficult topics necessary to succeeding as a manager don't happen often on the internet. I understand why people would evaluate your contribution as detracting from the conversation at hand and downvote.
Understandable. Thanks for pointing it out!
Being an agile coach isn’t management
The author of the article writes:
> You’re not the player, you’re the coach. Sometimes that means strategy and big-picture thinking. Sometimes it means shielding your team from dumb shit. Sometimes it means buying someone coffee and saying, “You’re not crazy. This is hard.”
Guess what good agile coaches or scrum masters are expected to do :-)
Very little of that. Agile coaches don’t deal with under performers, promo packets, retention issues, etc.
Agile coaches are also not able to shield the team from dumb shit. They don’t have the power to make priority calls on what the team is doing.
Off topic, but:
It's interesting how everyone thinks they're "managers" in "agile" teams.
Scrum Masters, Product Owners. I've even had Designers and QAs trying to make decisions on behalf of the team.
> It's interesting how everyone thinks they're "managers" in "agile" teams.
In scrum in particular, teams are supposed to be "self-organizing and self-managing". Perhaps that's why :-)
Well, yes, but "self-managing team" implies the team manages itself, not that one person picks up the slack. As the sibling poster said, this is a sign of a dysfunctional team.
> QAs trying to make decisions on behalf of the team
Oof, hits close.
Suggestion from a QA to implement some feature that is hugely difficult to implement? Business agrees so developers now need to make it happen.
That sounds like a dysfunctional team to me, to be honest.
It is indeed.
Leadership and Management are two pair of shoes, I get that.
I don't consider Agile bureaucrat positions leadership either.
At best they're clerical support and training. In practice they can become officious ticket minders.
Obviously, I strongly disagree.
Hope you will experience better Agile Coaches through your career.
Yeah, went down that road too. It's really emotionnally difficult/grinding. And I still don't have a clue: you have to find how each person behaves. Lots of talk, influence, repeating the same thing every day, etc. Unfortunately, I've never taken any pleasure in doing that, it was just difficult and exhausting to me...
Jim Keller did a talk somewhere on YouTube about his experience at AMD on the zen project, and one of the things he highlighted in that process was figuring out what was going on with people that was preventing them from working well on the project. Getting at the deeper causes made it easier to try to find mutually beneficial solutions even if those were the employee moving on from the team. People problems are messy though, and you will definitely feel like the bad guy in some cases, even if you are trying to do what is best for everyone.
> you have to find how each person behaves. Lots of talk, influence, repeating the same thing every day, etc.
It doesn’t help that most of the management advice you find on the internet assumes that inside every employee is a happy, productive worker and their manager can unlock it with the right words.
In the real world the range of employee types is very large. Some of them are just toxic and you’re not going to coach it out of them. Knowing when and how to cut your losses is important for preserving the rest of the team.
> Knowing when and how to cut your losses is important for preserving the rest of the team.
Too right. Hire slow and fire fast was a saying that I saw recently.
Your insight is true enough that almost every recruiter asks a manager "have you PIP'd someone before?" in the first phone screen. It's a hard experience that some junior managers cannot, or will not, do for a variety of reasons.
IMHO, besides the messiness, performance management is unspeakable because people generally hate authority. We've all had bad experiences with authority figures. We're also told many fantasies about the morality of groups of people. If the people are blameless, then the the fault lies with the manager who resembles (or opposes) our teacher, our parents, our government. And so forth.
I use to subconsciously think that until I learned, the hard way, it was irresponsible blame-shifting. A recent HN discussion demonstrated some of those dynamics at play https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42273798
It also can be very awkward when you're chosen for a promotion over someone who has been there longer for you. Suddenly you're managing and giving reviews to someone who was sitting next to you for years. I went through this but was extremely lucky that I had a wonderful mentor. It wasn't a big deal, but the first performance review, while it went well, definitely felt strange.
Agree 100%.
This is the difficult conversation template I put together and use:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gHyfR0XAc5ehRoqRImV1yAFh...
Great template.
It certainly reflects the process I've gone during some difficult conversations, at least when I did them well. And I've certainly done the other approach where I just dug my trench and they dug theirs; oh lord, is it a terrible approach!
Thanks! I tried to distill down what was in Difficult Conversations:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004CR6ALA?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_a_con...
I think even a bad difficult conversation is better than no difficult conversation so just giving the managers I work with some tool to compel action is valuable.
Isnt this just the definition of check-ins? Simply document how many check-ins have not had progress and be done, no need to stand over anybody's shoulder
just ordered "The Managers Path" because of your post here, looking forward to read it.
Bottom tier manager is the worst role in tech.
* You are responsible for sticking to commitments that depend almost completely on other people sticking to theirs.
* You're still on the hook for delivery, so if someone you assigned a subtask can't get that job done, you either have to pass it on to someone else (which often ends up harming the social dynamic of the team) or just do it yourself. Throwing an employee under the bus is not a good look.
* You get to be the "executioner" when a RIF rolls through, even if you get RIFed yourself, and even if you had no input into who is getting RIFed. Those Sunday evening "let's have a chat tomorrow morning" emails, and the following chat, are the most gut-wrenching things I've ever had to do as a manager.
* By the time you become a manager, you're probably one of the most experienced members of the team, so you are still always the "go-to" person when someone needs a gnarly bug fix, or if there's a lore question, or if a sticky situation with a customer comes up. If your reports are too green, it's hard to delegate these things, and this just adds to your own cognitive load.
* You don't have enough clout to make organizational-level changes. So process things that you see that are really inefficient, and you have some ideas how to address them? Now you've got to convince your manager and probably theirs, too, and they usually don't want to rock the boat.
Your best path as a ground-level manager is to not spend too much time here: become a second-tier manager (ie, director) or find a nice landing place as an individual contributor again.
You forgot the worst one imo: * when re-org happens / changing jobs, you now have no deep knowledge at all in the stacks you are managing. And no time to develop such knowledge before the next re-org anyway. So you are constantly in a state where you are dealing with topics that you only have a superficial understanding about.
I really feel like the tension between <time to develop a deep understanding of your scope> VS <time before the next re-org (or layoff)> is not in your favor.
Problem is: going to Director level takes several years, at least. And even there, you are basically the CEO of a small start-up, in the sense that you need to constantly fight for "market shares", i.e. scope. Else your org risks getting irrelevant pretty fast, and you are in for a lot of trouble.
> "You get to be the "executioner" when a RIF rolls through..."
The other fun bit about that from the worm's eye view is bottom tier managers who haven't really internalized that their direct reports also are very aware that they're stuck with the "executioner" role and, before/during/shortly after layoffs, frequently reach out with "Got a minute to talk?" with no additional explanation or context, giving their reports a mini panic attack every time.
I've received messages from people (who don't even report to me) asking whether they did something wrong because I had forgotten to close some google doc they shared which then showed me as "active on the document" for hours and they thought "he's combing through everything, I'm in trouble" and eventually reached out because they couldn't take it anymore.
People read things very differently based on their perceived (job) safety. If you add culture differences (I'm german in a company with a lot of non-germans; what's normal communication to me makes some people gasp), there's a lot of opportunity to accidentally cause stress.
It depends a lot.
In your first two points, I think that after you know your team well enough, you will understand where your engineers' skills lie and learn how to delegate effectively to either the person most capable or the one who will learn the most.
Your last point is true in larger enterprises. However, it's not so bad if you are a manager in smaller companies or startups, when you are 1-3 steps from the CEO, you get a lot of independence.
In the other points, I must admit I never went through an RIF and never had a situation where the "engineers were too green." However, I worked at an enterprise company where there was a 1:1 ratio of interns to employees, so it might be a large enterprise. Generally, there is always at least one senior in the team to deal with firefighting.
Nitpick, but directors are typically considered executive-tier, not n-tier-management.
It depends. I worked at a company with tons of title inflation. The first layer of management was referred to as "director." One of the "directors" literally had one report. The organizational hierarchy was bizarre.
Depends on the company, but in my experience that is not true. VP is the first executive level. Directors are middle management.
One of the more real management comments I've read on Hacker News. Most people just post LinkedIn feel-good spam when it comes to management.
Nothing here is wrong; some of it good, but it's missing the foundational piece that - if you get it right - helps with everything you need to do and mitigates the countless mistakes you are going to make: you need to genuinely care. How you show your team you care is going to be different, but once (ed: if!) you do you get a pass on the little mistakes, they won't jump to the least charitable interpretation when you don't communicate clearly or fully, they will want to help you because you want to help them, and you will win together.
So how do you demonstrate caring? For me (YMMV) I prioritize relationships over everything else at the very start; you will be dropping the ball somewhere but can recover from technical gaps, product knowledge, etc. I get in the trenches with the team, not to do their work but to try and make it easier; the important but non-core stuff that nobody wants to tackle. For each direct I continually ask "where is this person heading and how am I help them get there?".
One tactical tip: too many managers - especially new ones - focus on mentorship, and then maybe coaching but neglect sponsoring. This is so important, very passive but probably takes the most energy because you need to keep your receiver power at 11 and then connect the indirect dots. The act of recognizing and connecting an individual with an opportunity is deceptively hard, but the returns for everybody dwarf any advice you can give.
Agreed. When I was a manager, my sole focus was trying to help my team be maximally successful. That can take many forms but it greatly simplifies how and where to put your focus and effort. It definitely helps to keep the mindset that these aren't people that report to you, these are people that you are responsible for.
One way to show care is to show if you optimize your decisions for the business, versus optimizing for the team which will outlast the business. It is wrong to be 100% aligned to the business, even if you're the business owner, unless you think this is the last ride you'll ever have.
"Be Clear. Painfully Clear.
You think you’re being obvious. You’re not. Spell out expectations. Over-communicate. Set goals in plain language."
Lots of managers i had the pleasure of working with, missed this memo entirely...
Yes, and setting deadlines is an important aspect of it. If you don't like how close the deadline is, then it's even more important to communicate it to your IC.
You might think that saying "I need this done by the end of Friday" will make your IC sad. No, what will make him or her sad is you coming for the deliverable on Friday when they have just started.
Lots of short deadlines make people very frustrated, because it feels the manager just violently yanked them out of their (comfortable) working zone. Nobody likes that and there better be some huge reward for this very annoying disturbance in the force.
Continously demand short deadlines of the team and they will not get frustrated anymore but very much deathly hate management. Rewards will not cut it. Ever. The line has been crossed and there is not much that will repair this.
Sure, the manager may just only get their assignment that things need to be done asap, but it is also their task not to transfer that frustration to the team. You would be amazed how much respect a manager can get if they just tell 'No' or negotiate a differebt deadline and honestly tells the team just that.
This is a really tough one isn't it? On the other hand I personally don't like when leaders or managers are over communicating (contrasting to this article). Of course I never say it, so the author can claim that nobody has criticised managers for over communicating, but I do despise too frequent check ins, meetings that are going too long, people who talk for too long when I just want to get started already. Managers who repeat the same stuff, talk overly verbose, speak 5 paragraphs of something that could be a sentence, etc.
They are not bad people, but I do personally feel annoyed by it, and I do feel it drains me of energy and flow. I feel like there are too many 1 hour meetings that shouldn't have been there at all or could have summarized in 5 minutes.
Overcommunication is a failure to provide appropriate context, with a side of bad delegation and overinvestment in process.
Without context, manager communication is noise. It's a waste of everyone's time and is functionally sabotage because it disempowers people. Worse, the problem can compound itself when a team gets demotivated and the manager tries to solve "lack of ownership" by spending even more time trying to direct behavior.
Good managers give their team appropriate context and tools, and then trust the process. Good organizations train and support managers in doing that.
You can both speak the exact same language and still have misinterpretations on what needs to be done. I've witnessed that multiple times. Management team holds a meeting and agree on what needs to be done. Single manager meets his team and tells them something, but not totally the same thing on what needs to be done. Each team member just nods and starts working. Everybody gets annoyed. Somewhere in the communication line something went horribly wrong.
sounds like they have a hammer (the sync, in-person meeting) and go around looking for nails. I don't think the key is simple repetition, but reinforcement. This means the appropriate channel, content and timing - all influenced by the situation and clear understanding of what exactly is the motivating problem for the communication.
Instead of repetition I would prefer written information organized well by priority. You don't have to repeat if I can revisit the information, easily find it when I need it, if I was to forget it. And with text I am happy also with overcommunicating as long as it is done once, not frequently to break my flow. When you ask me to do something always mention priority and the expected due time, do I have to drop other things or no. If you have a question, tell me by when do you need the answer.
The article also forgot: don’t make communication synchronous when it could be sent as text. People generally can read faster than you can speak.
Lots of people speak instead of write for no reason other than they are bad at typing.
It’s not that annoying or burdensome to be repeated to in text.
Some people don’t read, but those people can be special cased with meetings and talk.
Fully agree. Instead of verbal repetition, put things as a DM or in a doc in order of priority, organize textual information well and you don't have to verbally repeat this. That is how I consume information the best, but could vary from person to person.
Repetition is critical.
Especially if you've said something verbally (including on a call or even async text like Slack), it's important to follow up with a written record, ideally email, so that they remember. Also so you have something to point back to if they don't do it.
People will start to tune out things you don't repeat enough very quickly.
Leople will also tune out repeated things because they're often unidirectional conversations.
Cool that you want this done today, but "we" are not doing that. Tell the client it's going to take another day instead of planning a scoping meeting and interrupting my dev time
Repetition of key values is more what I'm leaning at. Repeatedly demonstrating them too.
One thing I struggled with when I was a "manager" before going back to individual contributor is that at every job I've had this far - I have never worked directly for my manager nor when was I a manager did I directly oversee my reports.
This seems to be fairly common in tech and consulting. How am I supposed to succeed at a manager if I have no fucking clue what my reports are going to be working on?
I feel like this is a failure in either companies not knowing how to setup management for technical roles, or I was given 0 training on this and it resulted in me not knowing what the hell to do all the time with my reports.
The claim in this article is that my job was no longer to do work, but in every role where I reached manager I absolutely was still expected to do my own work. I just also had to vaguely guide some other person and give them reviews and feedback while never having worked with them in my life.
Maybe I was unlucky but these stints at management left a sour taste. I'm not even sure I would call my experience "management" except companies kept naming it that.
This time 100,000.
For some reason my high performance meant that in addition to my high performance I should manage these other people working on other projects (that are just as in depth as mine) and this can in no way detract from the amount of work I do.
God I want to quit.
> I'm not even sure I would call my experience "management" except companies kept naming it that.
What is a manager anyway? I've been in this industry for multiple decades and I honestly still have no clue. They are never willing to assert what they are working on, or what blockers they have, during standups. They aren't striking deals with clients. They aren't building the product. They demonstrate no visible function. What, exactly, are they doing behind the scenes?
That's not to imply they aren't doing anything. I just can't figure out what it is and I'd love to know more. The article says "Learn from them.", but I have never seen anything to learn from. It is all shrouded in mystery.
Great article. As a high-end residential builder, much of this also applies to my project managers and i shared the article with one of my APMs that's been promoted to PM.
The real mindfuck is that everything that made you successful as an IC - being the person with answers, moving fast, shipping stuff - can actually make you a worse manager if you're not careful.
Your new job is to make other people successful, which sometimes means slowing down, asking questions instead of giving answers, and being okay with solutions that aren't exactly what you would have built.
Comments within this thread are quite interesting perspectives on the challenges of being a manager.
In my experience, managers are like politicians: those who want to become one are not qualified/worth of becoming one, and those who could be good managers are not interested in the job.
This was a great read! Saving this to re-read in the future.
One question I have though is what are you supposed to do if as a new manager you aren't allowed to... well, do your job? I haven't been able to find a lot of resources on what to do in such a situation.
I'm a new engineering manager (~8 months in) and my boss isn't letting me hire full-time devs to replace consultants whenever they leave or their contracts are up and I am not allowed to replace any developers who leave either due to a company-wide hiring freeze. I have lost 4 of my most senior engineers in the last 6 months since I can't replace the consultants or hire anyone new. I'm down to 2 senior devs on my team when we used to have 6, with the same amount of work. They have also implemented mandatory return to office clearly frustrating my team. In addition, I am not allowed to promote any of my team members to try and encourage them to stay.
The heck am I even supposed to do? What is the point of being an EM if you quite literally are not allowed to do your job? I can't hire, I can't promote people, and I need to continue delivering at the same capacity with a significantly scaled-down team. My boss just tells me to try my best to encourage the team through this tough time.
I haven't found any resources on how to handle this kind of situation as a new EM. If I knew this is what was in store for me I would have never taken the job.
It sounds to me like your team is not super important (right now?) to the higher-ups in the company. Obviously I don't know the details, but they're very intentionally attritioning (? Attriting?) the team by any reasonable definition.
Without any other detail, from my experience (10 years doing Eng Manager/Senior Eng Manager roles) I'd advise you to start interviewing. Not necessarily because you're in jeopardy, you'd know that better than me anyway. But think of what you want out of your job: One thing should be professional growth -- going from a new EM to a great EM and being set up for future promotions. You won't get that here without a major mindshift from your boss (and probably up the reporting chain from them too).
Interview and when asked why you're leaving when you just became an EM, say "I love my new role and the team, but XYZ Co seems to be deprioritizing or phasing out the ABC team and I find myself without the resources we need to be successful."
In all seriousness you need to be looking for a new job. Like now! Because you and your role will be next in line to cut.
The good news is you have management experience now so you may be able to land another Manager level at a company that is not in a downward cycle.
Sounds like you're fucked.
In all seriousness, the trick is not to burn yourself trying to change things you have no control over. Maybe that's means letting the company burn.
> I need to continue delivering at the same capacity with a significantly scaled-down team.
I'd start by thinking through how much of that "need" is real.
What is driving the things your team "needs" to accomplish? What hard external constraints are you operating under? What are the interaction points between your work and the rest of the organization? How much flexibility do you have? And, holistically, how much flexibility should you have?
After that, it's a matter of negotiation. Given some understanding of the real constraints as well as the personal/political factors driving your manager, how can you come up with a better approach for your team and your work? I personally found the book Splitting the Difference really useful for approaching these sorts of conversations, but I'm also not especially good at that sort of thing naturally!
Unless you have an absolutely awful relationship with your manager, a starting point would be asking these questions to them. The trick is to pose these as legitimately open-ended questions. I learned the value of this first-hand: if I'm trying to convince somebody about something, asking an open-ended question will either get them to rethink their beliefs or they will come back with an answer I didn't think of, and either way I got something valuable out of it.
At the end of the day, you need to find some way to have slack in your work, or the team will fall apart. Slack can come from changing what you're doing and how you're fitting into the broader organization, or it can come from factors the organization does not "see". That latter is where the real risk lies: that's the dynamic that results in unreasonable corner-cutting and then burns people out.
I should add that I have not been in this situation as a manager, but I have been in that situation as a lead with no formal, positional power. That seems similar enough to be a good staring point, but I'm sure it's different enough that you should take everything I say with a grain of salt!
One thing I've realized is that we talk about "plans" and "budgets" and "roadmaps" as something constant and immutable, but they're not. They're just decisions that the organization made. We can make different decisions! But that in particular might be a view that's more useful as a lead than as a formal manager, because it very much goes against the way most organizations are run. This realization changed my perspective on what's going on, but I suspect it would be impolitic to emphasize it when negotiating up the chain.
One more thing: when I've been in analogous situations, one of the difficulties I had was managing my own emotions. I'm still not especially good at that. But one thing that helped me was taking some concrete action to change things, even if it's small and symbolic. Just starting something—even if it means writing up some notes and setting up a meeting—immediately helped manage my own anxiety. It sounds obvious in hindsight, but it took me a while to recognize this! Now I have three coping strategies I reach for:
Honestly, writing comments like this is also a coping strategy! I've repeatedly written about topics like this online and it has really helped me deal with things and work through my own ideas and observations.In your case, the answer could well just be leaving like others are suggesting. But, even if it is, trying to do something about it at your current place might still be worth the effort in the short term. Even if things don't work out and you leave, it can make you feel better in the short term, and it's a great chance to learn how to handle this kind of situation by actually trying something. (And, in hindsight, that whole paragraph is advice I needed to give to myself just now more than advice for you or anyone else :P)
> You were probably really good at your job. Now your job is to make sure other people can be good at theirs.
Anyone else see the exact opposite, that out of N people that _could_ become managers, it’s the worst individual contributors that do? Mostly because they want it most. People who love being individual contributors are going to become good at it, and they’ll resist management tasks.
I think this is great and very natural. But there’s a kind of zombie myth that engineering managers are the best former engineers that refuses to die. It’s decent engineers with some aptitude and/or desire to manage.
Yep, that "because they want it most" is very dangerous.
Anecdotally, the two worst managers I've had were developers, but I've had three really good managers that were formally developers. Then the best manager I've had used to be a business analyst.
I agree with most of this except the overcommunicating part. If you're setting the right expectations, overcommunicating may be mistaken for micromanaging.
Managers are judged by outcomes, not by contribution. Good leaders know how to shield their team from the chaos above while shielding the managers above from the challenges of managing many different personalities. They are a conduit for collaboration and inspiration.
Bad leaders are chaos agents and are the main drivers of attrition and should be rooted out quickly. They are a poison pill.
One-sided text that don't nearly speak the whole truth.
It fails to take into account that as a manager you may very will end up with employees that are toxic, disrespectful, cheating, lazy, incompetent, intolerant, unmanageable...
And contrary to popular belief, that it is not always the managers fault.
I had a close relative become a manager, tried their utmost for a year but gave up. It was not worth the sleepless nights, stress, therapy and sitting in the parking lot crying their eyes out after work.
The examples I have seen and heard about in software industry were mostly the other way around. Toxic managers who were clueless about actually managing people and who wanted minions instead of colleagues. I have seen many people leave their jobs because of toxic managers.
"Your Job Isn’t to Do the Work Anymore."
Unless you work somewhere under-staffed with an org chart that's mostly an aspiration.
This is also only true (maybe) of the officer class of manager. The NCO class (tech leads??) certainly do the work on the ground with their staff.
Tech leads aren't managers.
Just an important note, and a thing that is often confused by new managers - leadership and management are not the same thing. More often than not the skills you want to hone are actually leadership skills not management skills.
The lack of communication one doesn't seem like it needs saying, but I've had managers who literally hid information from me, or would keep me out of meetings, on stuff I would eventually have to work on anyway. Don't be that guy. Spread information throughout the team and invite people to meetings even if they don't need to be there (clarifying that they're optional).
Also keep in mind that as a manager, you are a custodian of culture. What you do and don't do will shape your team's culture which will (in part) shape the whole company's culture. So think about how you can develop positive culture (and also, ask!).
>> At my day job we use a platform called Bonusly for people to give little shout-outs (shouts-out?) to their peers for doing something awesome. I rarely get any awards here, but people on my teams get them all the damn time and to me that speaks incredible volumes.
I view this as you won't see a good manager's fingerprints on the thing that receives the recognition, but you will find them all over the people who are being recognized. It's harder to get a dopamine hit from this but like protein over sugar, it lasts longer & helps build you as a manager.
Nah, this lays out what everyone knows going in and leaves out what you really need to know as a newby.
Budget. Getting some for your team or at least for your priorities. Protecting what you get. Capex vs Opex.
Upward management. Translating messages upwards. Interpreting C suite decrees. Pacing and leading. Inducting new leadership before they fuck things up.
Retention. Keeping the people you need on your team. Cutting the people you don't. Compensation and promotions.
All of which is to say, Politics. How to not come out a loser at the game of thrones next time there is a merger, reorg, budget season, or just end of quarter.
Yeah, handling stack ranking, calibrations, proving your team's worth, priorities, making sure your team gets work that is visible and highly rewarding, selling your team (did we make a mistake because our team is incompetent or because the project was that challenging), etc.
> Budget. Getting some for your team or at least for your priorities. Protecting what you get. Capex vs Opex.
Always spend your budget, ideally about 5-10% over (find out what others do)
If you don't, next year you get less. You can't save 20k this year and spend it next year. You can't even save 20k and get rewarded for being cost efficient as you'll be punished with a lower budget next year.
Yes it's stupid.
It's interesting how the article equates Manager with Boss. If you're a "Line Manager" that's true but for Tech Leads, maybe less.
This was a good article but it doesn't even mention the hardest part of management: hiring and firing people.
I feel like a discussion of management without those components is missing something critical. Maintaining high performing teams requires that you get really good at this. This article makes it seem like the job is really just talking to people and making sure they're motivated, but in my experience that's the easiest part of the job.
Fantastic post. I became a manager in the style of the Steve Jobs philosophy— take one of your best individual contributors and make them oversee the work of others. Professional managers didn’t work out well for Apple, but the approach of letting growing leaders lead did. This post misses out on the important point to rely on your instincts because that’s why you’ve been put in that position.
Never let the accumulated trauma from your managers (the unbearable ones) turn you into one of them. That's my takeaway here!
Great post. I'm still going through this process. I was offered the management cap a few years ago as an escape from the drudgery I was dealing with at the time. Now I am not sure if I regret it or not.
There are different type of leads, not only people managers. There are architects, chief-of-somethings, designers, people who give all their imagination, creativity and experience into leading teams and companies to achieve great things. Clearly that's empowering, and empowering is crucial: Preparing the ground and conditions for people to do their job as good as possible. But it's a lot more, and it's fun and you get feedback and reward.
Let's not get dragged down by this stories how pathetic the reality of leadership roles has to be, this all depends on the leadership structure and culture.
this is a good point. I've been a people manager for about 7 years and I try to help these people understand that they are leaders. I actually think it's a much ahrder form of leadership because they don't have the hierarchy crutch like me; their legitimacy has to be earned. Recognizing the diversity of leadership also helps break the "to go up you need to become a manager" idea, which is toxic for technical organizations.
Good advice. Recently, I had to manage a team just because I am a senior employee of the company. I messed up the first project, but they still trust me for the second one. Honestly, the pressure is insanely hard to bear sometimes.
About 30 years ago I was in the early part of my career and was stunned to learn two of my favorite programmers were former managers. I couldn’t understand why they ‘took a step backward’ to return to programming.
One of them explained “In management, they nip at you from the top, and they nip at you from the bottom”. Meaning that you had many more people with demands. A programmer usually has only one, maybe a few.
Later, I learned that many managers are paid less than senior programmers.
I turned down every request to begin managing, and I finished my career happy.
"Later, I learned that many managers are paid less than senior programmers."
Not in Europe.
And what's worse is that they push the design work to the bottom of the pay rung, saying "You guys know it better, you should do the design". And that's architechs and higher managers doing this.
Exactly. At least where I'm, not even remotely (30% to 40% more as a manager)
I've been down the toxic boss / burn out road. This article is spot on. Very good!
I've recently been getting more and more management responsibilities. This article seems very helpful - thank you for sharing! The advice on over-communicating & owning up to your mistakes is very on point.
> The advice on over-communicating [...] is very on point.
Is it? Being on the other side I've left jobs because of manager over-communication.
If you don't have the right communication skills, let someone else do the job. There are plenty of people out there who are very capable of effectively communicating without over-communicating. Just as you wouldn't want a developer who writes excess code to make up for their lack of being able to write good code, same goes for a manager trying to communicate. Going over the top to make up for your shortcomings is never a recipe for success.
I'd say it depends on the person. People who communicate badly often do so because they think they can say all they need to with few words. Those people communicate better by doing what they think of as over-communicating.
This is why I won't become a manager
>You’re Going To Mess Stuff Up. Repeatedly. [...] Nobody expects you to have all the answers. [...] You’re not expected to be perfect. [...] Messing up is part of the job. What matters more is how you respond. Own your mistakes. Say the awkward thing out loud. Apologize when you blow it. Your team doesn’t need a flawless boss, they need a human one who’s willing to grow in public. That builds trust faster than pretending you’ve got it all figured out.
Emotionally supportive advice like this is probably part of an important foundation. But I've been on the receiving end of management that's trying to figure out how to do their job through osmosis too many times. I move to avoid it, but I just don't have it in me to put my personal drive into work anymore when the generally-accepted way of training a new manager is letting them whoopsiedaisy torpedo a multiyear project or two along the way.
> But if you show up with humility, curiosity, and a genuine desire to make work suck less for the people around you? That’s real leadership.
No. No it's fucking not. That's necessary but not sufficient.
If you fired all the people that build things, then your company could no longer build things. If you fire all the people that sell things, then your company could no longer sell things. Grug brain understand this.
But if you fired all the managers then... What? Wouldn't everything just continue as before? Grug brain has never understood management.
Then no high-level decisions would get made. Any technical argument that spans beyond one person would be at risk of running into an eternal stalemate. No strategic choices would be undertaken.
(Tone indicator: Not a value judgment. I'm not saying that all managers are particularly good at this, same as how observing that "builders build things" does not mean that the builders are necessarily good at building.)
I feel like "making choices" and "making decisions" isn't really a full time job. Maybe just see what a group of seniorish people think?
I don't sort of "hate managers" or anything. Just curious about why businesses always seem to think they have to have them.
I think you should ask yourself that last question again, and this time really think about it. Why /do/ all companies seem to have managers?
(Tone clarification: I'm not approaching this in a condescending manner, but more of a "let's talk through this problem out loud and see where it gets us." So please don't take this as condescension.)
One way to think about "obvious" solutions to problems, such as a "no manager" solutuon, is this: if it's so obvious, why is no one doing it? For example, I worked for a grocery delivery startup for a while. Every single new hire, without fail, would show up at the end of the first week and say "I have a great idea, why don't we let users shop by recipe?"
On its face, it sounds like a brilliant idea! One intuition-based shortcut to find the answer is: if that's such an obvious thing, why doesn't Amazon or Kroger or Safeway or HEB or any of the major grocery chains let you do that?
And of course, the answer is: that's not how users shop. If it worked, the big players would be doing it. They're not. Are you smarter than Amazon? Probably not. That's not to say a smaller group can't innovate past Amazon, but Amazon has some /really fucking smart people/ working for them, and the odds are fantastically small that you'll out-think them. (You can certainly out-_pivot_ them by doing something faster than they can, but if it turns out to be valuable, in the long run, they'll do it too.)
So when you approach a conversation like this and say, "Maybe just see what a group of seniorish people think?", one way to do a quick sanity check on it is: can you think of successful companies that are run that way?
You probably can't. I certainly can't.
There's a similar problem in the theatre world. It is universally understood that someone doing a 60 second monologue for an audition is _the worst way to evaluate theatrical performance_... except for everything else.
And similarly, it appears, based on scanning the successful companies, that having managers is possibly also the worst way to ensure performance... except for everything else.
So... managers it is. It's unlikely that there's a better way to do this at scale. Many people have tried. Management chains always win.
I agree with your broader consensus, but, for that example you give, HEB absolutely lets you shop by recipe on their website.
But the larger point is still true: For every "why don't they just do X? It's so obvious!" you can look around and note that [almost] /nobody/ is doing that, and that should be a pretty big signal about the idea.
My original post is about the intuition behind how to approach questions like that. Whenever anyone says "Why don't they just do $OBVIOUS_THING?" the answer is "because nobody is doing it."
Now, with respect to that particular feature, I can provide some personal experience to explain /why/ [almost] nobody has that feature. As a disclaimer, I don't know HEB's website. They were just someone we dealt with, and I don't live in their service area, so it's interesting that they have the feature.
What I can tell you from experience is that it would not be a significant driver of revenue, certainly not enough to be a majorly supported feature by a major company that has other value props out there. By far the biggest revenue driver for a grocery company are the staples that people buy every single week: the same milk, the same bread, the same cereal, the same ground beef, the same mac 'n cheese.
People, as a general population, are not adventurous at home When you want something new and interesting, you go out to a restaurant. When you want something familiar and comfortable and, most importantly, easy, you make it at home. I would hazard that the number of times that the average American family of four would cook a brand new recipe they've never had before is probably less than a dozen times /per year/.
So if you're a company that gets >90% of its revenue from weekly recurring users and staples, and <1% of its revenue from recipe-driven results, and you have limited resources, which of those do you think you should focus on? Obviously, you focus on the former. A 10% increase in staples sales is worth millions and millions of dollars, whereas a 10% increase in recipe sales is worth, maybe, a few hundred thousand dollars. It's not nothing, but it's not really worth it from an ROI perspective. Maybe if it's a set-it-and-forget-it kind of feature, it might work?
But over the long run you'll have to come back and upgrade dependencies and migrate to the newest framework du jour, and blah blah blah, and the next thing you know you have a team of four full-time engineers working on a feature that brings in half their salary.
HEB doing it is, well, it's interesting. I am supremely confident it is not a significant revenue driver. It might be something that increases NPS scores or something to that effect, but it's not going to move the needle on revenue very much. So it's interesting that they have the feature.
So if you take all of that into account -- you'll just have to trust me that I know what I'm talking about, I'm sorry about that -- then you can see that someone saying "What if we just got senior people in a room to see what they think?" is a question that doesn't deserve much attention. Not because it's a dumb idea, but because it's actually an interesting idea that has no merits when you dig down and look at it.
If it worked, as the intuition goes, the industry at-large would be doing it. And the evidence bears that out.
Yes, I take your point.
But if I said "I don't understand the point of brakes. Why do all cars get made with brakes?", then as well as making your point ("look, do you really think you know better than Stellantis!?") there's also a straightforward answer which is "cars need brakes so they can stop instead of killing people."
What's the "straightforward answer" case for the existence of managers? Your answer just suggests that such an answer does exist, without revealing what it is.
The people who decide that managers are mandatory, are, the managers.
>Sometimes it means shielding your team from dumb shit.
I think this is a generally good advice, but can also be misused.
I liked my previous manager, he had a principle for that part. Shielding the team from those crap, especially paperwork stuff. The trouble was that I could see how it was grinding him down, and I knew I could help him with it (because this was Japan, he didn't speak Japanese, I do and language barrier create inefficiencies) but he refused. My manager before him (this time the opposite: Japanese but couldn't articulate himself on English so I took care of all the English team communication) did and it worked smoothly.
If you're a small team (in a startup) doubly so, since grasping the full context of your team & outside is not as big of a task.
Best is to at least be open if your team members are open to helping you with the trickling down bullshit.
I also have a counterpoint to that: manager "shielding" has previously led me into this telephone game sort of thing where I have to guess if there is something going politically wrong or if the ask is actually honest and straightforward. If I exactly understood the politics, or the bs going on, I could give better solutions without tiptoeing around it.
You sometimes hear this described as the "shit umbrella" but it needs to be more like a missle defense system. Similarly it's hard to hit everything you should and you will miss, but you still gotta try. I try to shield the team from the noise, but not the awareness. I'm still trying to get this right.
Now the dark side grows in you. Managers are the anchors in every company. They make sure nothing moves ever again. They are like a parasite sitting on the shoulder of thinking engineers. They get there money for nothing
That's one sided view. As somebody who manages people (I hate it tbh) things which can piss me off the most are engineers who will go out of their way to not do the task or make some stupid excuse why it is not possible to do the task which will fall apart the moment I will start poking into the excuse.
Try to run a company without any managers for a while and then come back here and tell us all about how productive it was.
I kind of want to call BS on this. Sure, a bad manager can crush an employee's motivation and will to work. But when an employee is crushing it, I am not sure how much of that is really because the manager "empowered" the employee - unless you mean literally just allowing them to show up and work on something of value to the company?
This seems like a "glass half full/empty" question: The top quintile (or so) of developers need little but to be given a mission statement or overall goals and commit access, but some managers bog down those people with improper use of meetings, process that gets in the way, too much 'digital paperwork' (did you fill out all 15 fields of the Jira ticket? etc), etc.
The bottom quintile never get anything done and hopefully you have fired them or convinced them to stop being bottom-tier. For the rest, to accomplish good work they need (A) to give a shit, which often is directly under your influence: how much they think their boss appreciates and cares about them is important. (B) to know what their strengths and weaknesses are so that they can improve, and (C) to be allowed to focus on the important things and not be pulled in 100 directions, which a good manager constantly keeps aware of and constantly tries to tune. A bad manager fails to do A, B, and C, and as such their teams are less likely to accomplish things.
This is a great article. It echoes a lot of what I went through when transitioning to management. I can also recommend the book "The Making of a Manager", which covers similar ground in more detail.
I have one criticism: no auto-play GIFs, please. They're so distracting. They could be better as short, pausable videos.
Add to it the ability to cut through the bullshit and follow through tasks till completion. The amount of bullshit that ICs, QAs, and products can spin in rounds and add to that the new bureaucracy that comes with being a manager is just unreal.