What are common mistakes that new or inexperienced managers make?(quora.com)
quora.com
What are common mistakes that new or inexperienced managers make?
http://www.quora.com/Management/What-are-common-mistakes-that-new-or-inexperienced-managers-make?share=1
33 comments
I'd go a step further and answer the question "What are some common mistakes new managers make?" with "Accepting a promotion to management".
If you're coming from a technical role, understand that your new job is not to be an engineer. If you're lucky and are good enough at your new job that you have some spare cycles, you might get to guide some architectural discussions
It can be rewarding to help guide a team towards something you could never accomplish alone, but you must resist the temptation to step and do "do things".
Disclaimer -- I moved up to a director-level position and realized within a year that to be good at it I would probably not be able to continue expanding my technical skills, at least not on company time. I moved on to an "individual contributor" role with a company that provides higher level career opportunities that don't involve having direct reports. The minutia of actual line management wasn't bad as long as there was a good team, but I definitely underestimated the people skills, budgeting, planning, and politics that goes along with being a good manager.
If you're coming from a technical role, understand that your new job is not to be an engineer. If you're lucky and are good enough at your new job that you have some spare cycles, you might get to guide some architectural discussions
It can be rewarding to help guide a team towards something you could never accomplish alone, but you must resist the temptation to step and do "do things".
Disclaimer -- I moved up to a director-level position and realized within a year that to be good at it I would probably not be able to continue expanding my technical skills, at least not on company time. I moved on to an "individual contributor" role with a company that provides higher level career opportunities that don't involve having direct reports. The minutia of actual line management wasn't bad as long as there was a good team, but I definitely underestimated the people skills, budgeting, planning, and politics that goes along with being a good manager.
> I moved on to an "individual contributor" role with a company that provides higher level career opportunities that don't involve having direct reports.
Well, that sounds pretty slick. How's it working out? As someone who was just approached by management about a director position, and this being somewhat familiar ground, I'm concerned about the lack of expansion and technical progression as well. Haven't really seen many "no direct reports" situations in my neck of the woods, unfortunately... but it seems like that could be something to aspire for.
Well, that sounds pretty slick. How's it working out? As someone who was just approached by management about a director position, and this being somewhat familiar ground, I'm concerned about the lack of expansion and technical progression as well. Haven't really seen many "no direct reports" situations in my neck of the woods, unfortunately... but it seems like that could be something to aspire for.
I was probably a bit negative with that reply (though I do think "X is our best engineer, let's have them manage others to make them more like X!" is far too common).
I'm enjoying the new (now 2 year old) role but there are also negatives -- I have less visibility into the direction of the group/company and "stuff happens" that I would've known was coming at the old role. I'm definitely getting to stay hands on, and satisfying the "big picture" itch with involvement in architectural and project planning discussions.
I think if you're considering that sort of move just make sure you find the management challenges interesting and be willing to invest as much time and effort into getting good at the new job as you have at your "individual contributor" role. Have a good relationship with some existing managers and directors and talk honestly about the role with them if at all possible.
I don't regret the short move to management or the move back, and I'd consider either in the future. It's important to understand that they are usually almost completely different jobs though.
I'm enjoying the new (now 2 year old) role but there are also negatives -- I have less visibility into the direction of the group/company and "stuff happens" that I would've known was coming at the old role. I'm definitely getting to stay hands on, and satisfying the "big picture" itch with involvement in architectural and project planning discussions.
I think if you're considering that sort of move just make sure you find the management challenges interesting and be willing to invest as much time and effort into getting good at the new job as you have at your "individual contributor" role. Have a good relationship with some existing managers and directors and talk honestly about the role with them if at all possible.
I don't regret the short move to management or the move back, and I'd consider either in the future. It's important to understand that they are usually almost completely different jobs though.
The company I work for (based in NYC) offers exactly this kind of career track. Individual contributors are comparable with management in every way (salary, seniority, title, etc) but are not forced into management in order to continue advancing. I don't want to hijack this thread with an advertisement, but if anyone is interested in more information feel free to get in touch.
As an aside, anyone got recommendations on learning the skills scottm01 mentions? "people skills, budgeting, planning, and politics"
Maybe as a common mistake, I read a number of "management" books before accepting the promotion. The one that stuck with me was Managing Humans by Michael Lopp. That is much more people skills and some planning.
Budgeting seems to differ significantly by company culture and practices, but is probably the easiest to get help with from peer managers or your accounting department.
Politics I have no idea.
Budgeting seems to differ significantly by company culture and practices, but is probably the easiest to get help with from peer managers or your accounting department.
Politics I have no idea.
I'm working on an app to help managers with the people / soft skills stuff. It helps with 1 on 1s, goals, and personal stuff for your reports.
Would love to talk to you if you're interested (check my profile for contact info).
Would love to talk to you if you're interested (check my profile for contact info).
> dishing out unreasoned mandates to solve things one way or another
This is the problem I've run into most often with management: the command to do things using method or technology A instead of B, not because A is better (in fact, B usually is the better choice both for development and for internal user support), but because A is the pet preference of a manager not involved in the work and who doesn't actually work with any of the people who will be using or supporting the end result.
This is the problem I've run into most often with management: the command to do things using method or technology A instead of B, not because A is better (in fact, B usually is the better choice both for development and for internal user support), but because A is the pet preference of a manager not involved in the work and who doesn't actually work with any of the people who will be using or supporting the end result.
"Good managers realize they have to be managers and can't do an effective job of engineering..."
I can't agree with this strongly enough. When I was a manager (I've since gone back to being a developer), trying to do engineering work at the same time was probably my biggest weakness.
There will be times when there's an emergency (real or imagined) where your upper management wants you to come up with a fix for something right away, and you'll be tempted to drop everything you're doing as a manager and put out the fire. (One rationalization for this might be that you don't want to break the flow of your developers, who are working on important stuff of their own.) Resist this temptation. Not only will your management work remain undone, but if the people on your team don't get experience dealing with emergencies in parts of the code that they don't know much about, you'll be stuck doing this stuff forever and they won't learn these skills. Learn how to delegate, and learn how to set the expectations of your own managers so that they don't assume that every problem can be fixed instantly.
I can't agree with this strongly enough. When I was a manager (I've since gone back to being a developer), trying to do engineering work at the same time was probably my biggest weakness.
There will be times when there's an emergency (real or imagined) where your upper management wants you to come up with a fix for something right away, and you'll be tempted to drop everything you're doing as a manager and put out the fire. (One rationalization for this might be that you don't want to break the flow of your developers, who are working on important stuff of their own.) Resist this temptation. Not only will your management work remain undone, but if the people on your team don't get experience dealing with emergencies in parts of the code that they don't know much about, you'll be stuck doing this stuff forever and they won't learn these skills. Learn how to delegate, and learn how to set the expectations of your own managers so that they don't assume that every problem can be fixed instantly.
I just read your bio blurb – wow, that's pretty damn impressive! I'm a CS grad looking for a job, and am very passionate about Valve and what it stands for (while at uni I tried to create a startup based on basically the same principles).
I don't know how to contact you, so if you ping me at [0] or [1] I can send you a link to my resume. Thanks!
edit: I'm a big dum-dum – it was quite easy to find your Fb profile, I sent you my resume there (check 'Other' messages). :)
0: https://plus.google.com/+AndreiSimionescu
1: my username at gmail
I don't know how to contact you, so if you ping me at [0] or [1] I can send you a link to my resume. Thanks!
edit: I'm a big dum-dum – it was quite easy to find your Fb profile, I sent you my resume there (check 'Other' messages). :)
0: https://plus.google.com/+AndreiSimionescu
1: my username at gmail
Those answers are great, but they're also very high level and general.
One of the best pieces of advice, badly paraphrased below, I've heard from a military context.
Again, this is an a military context where orders flow downhill, but the same applies in other areas of business. An experienced manager knows where they need to set the boundaries within which their staff operate, with as much autonomy and initiative as possible. An inexperienced manager doesn't understand how to balance this equation.
PS if anyone has a better formulation of the above, please share =D
One of the best pieces of advice, badly paraphrased below, I've heard from a military context.
"Any time you instruct a subordinate, you must be
prepared to deliver the same instruction every single
time they perform that action, and expect it to be
performed in that way until otherwise instructed."
Again, this is an a military context where orders flow downhill, but the same applies in other areas of business. An experienced manager knows where they need to set the boundaries within which their staff operate, with as much autonomy and initiative as possible. An inexperienced manager doesn't understand how to balance this equation.
PS if anyone has a better formulation of the above, please share =D
I am reading Dune and this is very similar to the advice Leto gave to Paul. Which came first, I wonder?
Can you please quote which part you refer to?
"Give as few orders as possible," his father had told him . . . once . . . long ago. "Once you've given orders on a subject, you must always give orders on that subject."
I pulled it from http://www.bestlibraryspot.com/ScienceFiction/Dune/16669.htm....
I pulled it from http://www.bestlibraryspot.com/ScienceFiction/Dune/16669.htm....
On a related note, Herbert's "God Emperor of Dune" is an amazing book. Best in the series, in my opinion.
Pretty much every scene/dialogue in it is a worthwhile quote: on leadership, duty, love, humanity...
Check out some of the quotes here (but go read the book!): http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3634588-god-emperor-of-...
Pretty much every scene/dialogue in it is a worthwhile quote: on leadership, duty, love, humanity...
Check out some of the quotes here (but go read the book!): http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3634588-god-emperor-of-...
Comes up just before Paul does his sandworm trial.
Having not read Dune myself, I was rather hoping you would quote the relevant passage, so that I and those like myself can compare it to the aforementioned military quote, and perhaps derive some insight from it.
It's worth reading.
I am almost through it and I have to say I am not enjoying it as much as I thought I would. I read books like this mostly because of their significance to the SciFi genre and while I think this books has some really great elements, the fact that Paul is basically infallible irks me. Nobody is that perfect in my experience and I wish I wasn't sure that he'd be successful with everything he starts.
I did read a critique of Dune recently that suggested that Herbert initially wanted to show how dangerous superheros are. This explains a bit about why Paul is a superhero: he has to be to make Herbert's thesis. However, then I'd be rooting for him to fail and I don't like the stories where the protagonist is evil in some subtle way and you are supposed to root for them to fail.
I did read a critique of Dune recently that suggested that Herbert initially wanted to show how dangerous superheros are. This explains a bit about why Paul is a superhero: he has to be to make Herbert's thesis. However, then I'd be rooting for him to fail and I don't like the stories where the protagonist is evil in some subtle way and you are supposed to root for them to fail.
> the fact that Paul is basically infallible irks me.
It's supposed to.
> I did read a critique of Dune recently that suggested that Herbert initially wanted to show how dangerous superheros are. This explains a bit about why Paul is a superhero: he has to be to make Herbert's thesis. However, then I'd be rooting for him to fail and I don't like the stories where the protagonist is evil in some subtle way and you are supposed to root for them to fail.
Paul isn't evil and you aren't supposed to root for Paul to fail; insofar as the critique that Herbert is trying to illustrate that superheroes are dangerous is correct, it is correct in the traditional sense of "superhero" where "evil" is very much not part of the mix.
An evil "superhero" is a supervillain, and illustrating that supervillains are dangerous wouldn't be particularly interesting. Supervillains are useful dramatic tools because their danger is blatantly obvious.
It's supposed to.
> I did read a critique of Dune recently that suggested that Herbert initially wanted to show how dangerous superheros are. This explains a bit about why Paul is a superhero: he has to be to make Herbert's thesis. However, then I'd be rooting for him to fail and I don't like the stories where the protagonist is evil in some subtle way and you are supposed to root for them to fail.
Paul isn't evil and you aren't supposed to root for Paul to fail; insofar as the critique that Herbert is trying to illustrate that superheroes are dangerous is correct, it is correct in the traditional sense of "superhero" where "evil" is very much not part of the mix.
An evil "superhero" is a supervillain, and illustrating that supervillains are dangerous wouldn't be particularly interesting. Supervillains are useful dramatic tools because their danger is blatantly obvious.
The sequel, Dune Messiah, is precisely about this.
You don't know how the GP spends his time. Maybe his day is full of saving people who stepped on landmines in Africa, in which case, it's very much not worth reading.
That answer is a bit useless when someone only asked for the relevant passage.
That answer is a bit useless when someone only asked for the relevant passage.
So at one point I took on a management job, stepping up from a (lead) developer. I felt like the whole thing was kind of a train wreck and I am still slowly analyzing the black box recordings from it. This was my first time having direct reports that were not one or two interns and managing a team of seven other highly intelligent people was quite a chore in itself. What bugged me is that I could never tell if the problem was the environment or something I was doing. I tried to be fair. I mentored people when I could help. I tried to not be overbearing when I had nothing to add. I present challenging problems to the people who I thought would find them interesting. I advocated for my guys to the upper management, trying to improve working conditions. I insisted on being flexible, discarding what was slowing us down, and adopting what was good. None of that seemed to help: my dev team learned to resent me for delivering the bad news (for example the dev team was the fallback for doing data entry for weeks on end when nobody else could handle it and we had no time to finish better data entry tools because of it), and my boss(es) learned to resent me for not delivering what they expected.
I know that there were quite a few problems above me. Lack of leadership carries far and wide and there was a disconnect between what the products did and what the management thought it did. Lack of money (think lack of compensation, lack of tools, lack of time for anything but immediate returns) did not help either. I do keep questioning whether I was doing all the wrong things or if I was put in a situation designed for me to fail, or perhaps both.
After I left I understand the company hired three different people to replace me: a manager, a dev lead, and a support engineer. I suppose that's some kind of a sign that I was trying to do too many things at once. Most of the engineering team also left after I did. The least I could do is give them the great recommendations they all deserved so all of them moved onto exciting new pastures. However, I cannot help but feel like I failed at this task that I felt sure I could tackle and I don't understand why.
Please excuse the rant. These types of topics always trigger those same feelings in me.
Edit: now I work as a developer on 2-3 person teams. I have no reports. I get to be productive again! I can write code that doesn't have to suck to compensate for poorly chosen deadlines. This is good for the soul. I do miss leading a team though; not managing but really leading. One of my proudest moments was when I was allowed to follow a system of estimates and sprints I put together and for 8 weeks my team delivered on schedule and exactly what was promised. That was one of my more joyful moments.
I know that there were quite a few problems above me. Lack of leadership carries far and wide and there was a disconnect between what the products did and what the management thought it did. Lack of money (think lack of compensation, lack of tools, lack of time for anything but immediate returns) did not help either. I do keep questioning whether I was doing all the wrong things or if I was put in a situation designed for me to fail, or perhaps both.
After I left I understand the company hired three different people to replace me: a manager, a dev lead, and a support engineer. I suppose that's some kind of a sign that I was trying to do too many things at once. Most of the engineering team also left after I did. The least I could do is give them the great recommendations they all deserved so all of them moved onto exciting new pastures. However, I cannot help but feel like I failed at this task that I felt sure I could tackle and I don't understand why.
Please excuse the rant. These types of topics always trigger those same feelings in me.
Edit: now I work as a developer on 2-3 person teams. I have no reports. I get to be productive again! I can write code that doesn't have to suck to compensate for poorly chosen deadlines. This is good for the soul. I do miss leading a team though; not managing but really leading. One of my proudest moments was when I was allowed to follow a system of estimates and sprints I put together and for 8 weeks my team delivered on schedule and exactly what was promised. That was one of my more joyful moments.
welcome to low/mid-level management. You get squeezed from the top and bottom. Everybody will hate you, so you just try and hit deadlines.
It also sounds like a typical story where the larger organization was trying to keep management lean, without realizing that it really did take multiple people to do the job.
One place I worked at ground through three managers in 6 months (with 120 people under them) before finally getting the clue and hiring a proper team of 7 to do the job.
It's not uncommon at all and it really is the upper management's responsibility to properly staff their low/mid management teams.
It also sounds like a typical story where the larger organization was trying to keep management lean, without realizing that it really did take multiple people to do the job.
One place I worked at ground through three managers in 6 months (with 120 people under them) before finally getting the clue and hiring a proper team of 7 to do the job.
It's not uncommon at all and it really is the upper management's responsibility to properly staff their low/mid management teams.
How common is 600% turnover in management?
I know turnover in engineering is usually high (if people are moving around every 18 months to 2 years)... but 600%?
I know turnover in engineering is usually high (if people are moving around every 18 months to 2 years)... but 600%?
I think more common than you can believe. low/mid level management is incredibly stressful and hard to build a proper support framework around and hard to do if that framework isn't there.
After you asked, I spent a bit of time thinking of similar situations (high low/mid turnover) and I can think of 2 or 3 other instances I know of personally. Anecdotal I know, but there it is.
After you asked, I spent a bit of time thinking of similar situations (high low/mid turnover) and I can think of 2 or 3 other instances I know of personally. Anecdotal I know, but there it is.
I've seen turnover that bad at past employers. In some cases it continued for years after I left. I think it depends on the company, not necessarily averages.
Ditto for a place where I used to work. Unfortunately for me and my colleagues, the reason for the high turnover was that they kept hiring good dev managers who all quickly identified the projects' major problems and set about trying to solve them. This had the unfortunate side effect of revealing the incompetence of the TD, so they had to go quickly.
TD? Technical Director?
[deleted]
I only know your side of the story, so I know this assessment won't be entirely accurate. However, based on what you have written, it sounds like you were a pretty good manager who just got caught between your employees and your bosses. I especially like how you recognize your team members' intelligence, and tried to advocate for them with senior management. You likely made some mistakes along the way, but every manager on earth makes many mistakes.
Sometimes even the greatest skippers can't keep a boat from sinking. It's helpful to consider how you could have made the situation better or worse. But, based on what I've read, you're putting too much blame on your own shoulders. Rather, remember that it took three people for them to replace you.
Sometimes even the greatest skippers can't keep a boat from sinking. It's helpful to consider how you could have made the situation better or worse. But, based on what I've read, you're putting too much blame on your own shoulders. Rather, remember that it took three people for them to replace you.
One thing I realized later that I did wrong was pushing back on the upper management too much. For example I said I did not want my team working weekends on regular basis as had been the practice up to that point. We ended up not having to anyways but it painted the team in a bad light.
Really this translated into me taking a long time to understand what the priorities of the business were vs the development priorities. Definitely let's of stuff I would consider typical first time manager mistakes.
Really this translated into me taking a long time to understand what the priorities of the business were vs the development priorities. Definitely let's of stuff I would consider typical first time manager mistakes.
If by working the weekends you mean seven-day work weeks on a regular basis, I strongly believe you were doing the right thing.
The health of your employees is a much bigger priority than business or development. They're not human resources, they're people with families and loved ones and the need to have a day off. Unless you were on the verge of curing cancer, there is no reason to work people like that.
You were in a bad situation - it sounds like there were huge problems with upper management - and you did the right thing. Unfortunately doing the right thing doesn't guarantee success. No doubt you made a lot of mistakes too - I've been there and it hurts - but that doesn't sound like one of them.
To me it's a sign in your favor that the team left after you did - if you were the problem, they would have left before you did. I don't think you can expect them to be happy when they're working weekends and (what sounds like professional developers) are doing manual data entry for weeks on end.
The health of your employees is a much bigger priority than business or development. They're not human resources, they're people with families and loved ones and the need to have a day off. Unless you were on the verge of curing cancer, there is no reason to work people like that.
You were in a bad situation - it sounds like there were huge problems with upper management - and you did the right thing. Unfortunately doing the right thing doesn't guarantee success. No doubt you made a lot of mistakes too - I've been there and it hurts - but that doesn't sound like one of them.
To me it's a sign in your favor that the team left after you did - if you were the problem, they would have left before you did. I don't think you can expect them to be happy when they're working weekends and (what sounds like professional developers) are doing manual data entry for weeks on end.
More like working Saturdays for weeks at a time. My personal rule of thumb (after volunteering to work until 2am on Saturdays and then again Sunday mornings to finish a project and launch on Monday, just to have it delayed by another three months) has been to work a weekend once a year. I think that's about the frequency with which true emergencies happen, the kind that affect the bottom line and the livelihood of the organization. Anything more than that and it's just someone trying to squeeze more out of you than you can give.
In this case I took a stand and while I think I did the right thing by saying that I did not want my team working with this pattern, I also misrepresented how dedicated my team was to finishing the product. This created quite a bit of conflict between upper management and the dev team.
Thanks for the kinds words.
In this case I took a stand and while I think I did the right thing by saying that I did not want my team working with this pattern, I also misrepresented how dedicated my team was to finishing the product. This created quite a bit of conflict between upper management and the dev team.
Thanks for the kinds words.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking up for your team. Management does not get to foist their lack of vision/preparation/thoughtfulness onto subordinates in the form of, "but we need this yesterday."
How many business functions are actually so important that they require weekend developers?
How many business functions are actually so important that they require weekend developers?
Sounds like the company was already pretty dysfunctional if your team was working weekends on a regular basis. That's not healthy, and if you were my manager, I'd thank you for standing up for our lives outside of the office.
You had your dev team do data entry. No wonder they resented you.
Wouldn't it be cheaper and better for morale to hire a couple of temps to do the data entry?
Wouldn't it be cheaper and better for morale to hire a couple of temps to do the data entry?
Even better for morale, if temps truly could not be found, would be to advocate for everyone including the management above you to do the data entry. None of you are there to enter data, after all, so it's not like it's more appropriate for engineers to do it on weekends. The upper management would have maybe more incentive to get the proper temps located. And you go from goat to hero.
As I mentioned in another reply, this particular data entry job involved doing math at about college linear algebra level and writing SQL among other things. We got to this point by relying on one of the founders to do all the data entry. Suddenly three things happened: our system got more complex so the old tools no longer helped, we signed on a lot more customers, and the founder stepped away for a well deserved break. Thus, we were up a shit creek without a paddle. If the creation of the data entry tools was a highest priority, this would not have happened. However, being strapped for cash, we had to instead add customers, and also launch the more complex system to get paid on one of the bigger contracts. The price to pay was stalling of all development for a period of over a month to do data entry. Everybody that could, did help out but in the end only the dev team could do it all and do it properly. The high level lesson is to not take on this kind of technical debt. What I could have done to avoid it from where I was standing is still something I am figuring out.
Stepping in and highlighting the problem before it happens come to mind.
If you anticipated that such complexity was involved in data entry at any point, putting upper management in front of their responsibility might have helped, i.e. "how do you think dev morale will look like if they need to do data entry for weeks just so we can make a few more quick sales?"
If you anticipated that such complexity was involved in data entry at any point, putting upper management in front of their responsibility might have helped, i.e. "how do you think dev morale will look like if they need to do data entry for weeks just so we can make a few more quick sales?"
I think this was my biggest mistake. I underestimated the problem and while I explained it to the upper management I did not push it hard enough for them to make it a number one priority.
Would it really have taken longer to automate it, then feed in the data than to do it by hand?
I ask because I have, when presented with similar tasks, spent the time learning how to do it in WSH (sendkey), doing it, then doing more productive things while the script ran.
I ask because I have, when presented with similar tasks, spent the time learning how to do it in WSH (sendkey), doing it, then doing more productive things while the script ran.
So without going into too much detail, yes it would have taken longer. The reason is that we were solving quite a few non-trivial problems in terms of updating geographic road data. Just as an example, a small part of the data entry tools ended up being a road router similar to the one provided by Google Maps, but tuned to our use case. This tuning took quite a bit of work. Another piece was splitting the graph of all roads at each intersection. The algorithm here was simple enough but figuring that this was the right solution took a while.
There's an XKCD for that: http://www.xkcd.com/1319/
> Even better for morale, if temps truly could not be found, would be to advocate for everyone including the management above you to do the data entry.
As an employee, this strategy has always felt fake and look like make believe work. For example, a long time ago, during a previous firm's crunch time, we had the CTO sit and write code. The guy could write code but he was also not as familiar with the code base and it seemed like there were better things he could do with his time than make it seem like he was out there doing his best with the troops.
As an employee, this strategy has always felt fake and look like make believe work. For example, a long time ago, during a previous firm's crunch time, we had the CTO sit and write code. The guy could write code but he was also not as familiar with the code base and it seemed like there were better things he could do with his time than make it seem like he was out there doing his best with the troops.
Having the CTO come in when he doesn't have to seems fake, and might be bad employee relations.
But having the CTO go golfing and spend time with his family while he urges employees work weekends is definitely bad employee relations.
But having the CTO go golfing and spend time with his family while he urges employees work weekends is definitely bad employee relations.
> the dev team was the fallback for doing data entry for weeks on end
Wow, what? It sounds like you were doing the right things, but this is hard to comprehend. Wouldn't temps cost $12/hour for this? No wonder they were angry.
Wow, what? It sounds like you were doing the right things, but this is hard to comprehend. Wouldn't temps cost $12/hour for this? No wonder they were angry.
That's the route we went eventually, but inputting geographic data directly into MySQL is not something that temps could handle. We needed the time to create the tools to be able to hire temps. In the meantime cash flow depended on the data being there.
Thanks for sharing - the description of your situation echoes my self-questioning in similar situations. My own post analysis now makes me always consider if there a clash between my personality and work culture? Sometimes these differ and you don't want to be the manager that the work culture has moulded. I am not a whip or hard ass, I am there to take a certain load that permits the workers to do their job. Management requires all the things you mentioned, but sometimes the workplace has developed a culture where this isn't possible. Most companies mess up management, and often the people that aspire to it don't pull their weight and think it is a promotion to tell other what to do.
Thanks for sharing as well.
It just sounds like you got fucked by upper management. It happens a lot. Sorry to hear it; don't take it too personally.
> I do miss leading a team though; not managing but really leading.
Your title doesn't impact your role on the team. You can easily make a big impact as a leader, without the people management aspect.
Your title doesn't impact your role on the team. You can easily make a big impact as a leader, without the people management aspect.
What I mean by that is putting together a team and creating a product, not just stepping up on a team to take on a more senior role. You are right, you can step up on any team, and that's how I got to do what I did in this instance: stepping up in a small way until someone recognized that I could lead the team officially. I do look forward to one day starting a venture of my own.
I don't think you have enough data points to draw a meaningful conclusion about whether the problem was with you or if it was with the environment you were working in. The best you can do is look at the individual situations and circumstances you were in and think of what (if anything) you will do differently next time when faced with the same scenario. However with that said, it has been my experience that when there is a lack of leadership above in a company, the knock on effect is generally a bad working environment for everyone working in the organization below the bad management.
Lack of leadership two levels above had a huge impact on bit strategy and morale. When you know the CEO is taking it easy while you work 60 hour weeks, it is very demoralizing.
ah ha, i can very well relate to this. While i did not move out of the company i took a individual contributor role after a similar situation. i don't think you could have done anything different because when we are in that position and we manage the show the management thinks it is ok and you can. But when new manager comes on board he can easily put a proposal to the management which will be accepted because there is not a great expectation and new hires typically get a honeymoon period where they can analyze what is required for the optimal performance of the team. I think you will just do fine in large corporates where money is not an issue for projects.
If most of them left after you, you were doing a good job.
Employees know when you are with your back against the wall, but because you deliver the news, you also see the reaction (i would realize that some choises are made above you).
It's a long read, so of it doesn't grab you don't read it. This might explain everything you experienced: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
I love that article. It fits so well with my anecdotal experience that it hurts. Unfortunately, it has made me cynical, since it essentially means that I can't advance within a typical business organization without becoming either predator or livestock.
The grandparent poster slots neatly into the model as a loser selected by a psycho to be promoted to clueless just long enough to absorb the blame for something. After the misdirection, the clueless is discarded, along with any losers that may have attached too strongly. The situation was designed to terminate in failure, as a reset button, so that the psycho in charge could turn a few clicks on his career ratchet.
The grandparent poster slots neatly into the model as a loser selected by a psycho to be promoted to clueless just long enough to absorb the blame for something. After the misdirection, the clueless is discarded, along with any losers that may have attached too strongly. The situation was designed to terminate in failure, as a reset button, so that the psycho in charge could turn a few clicks on his career ratchet.
Yeah. It's a neat fit.
Every time I re-read that article I start seeing sociopaths and losers and 'HIWTYL machinations' everywhere. It's like a 16 year old reading Marx or Ayn Rand seeing reactionaries & class consciousness (or government looters and self righteous moochers) everywhere.
Borderline embarrassing.
Every time I re-read that article I start seeing sociopaths and losers and 'HIWTYL machinations' everywhere. It's like a 16 year old reading Marx or Ayn Rand seeing reactionaries & class consciousness (or government looters and self righteous moochers) everywhere.
Borderline embarrassing.
(HIWTYL = Heads I Win, Tails You Lose)
It's very much like a daily horoscope. Make your classifications broad enough and people can cram anything into the pigeonholes. You could classify people as having "convex" and "concave" personalities, and the true believers would be able to classify everyone into those categories.
The (Gervais) psycho-clueless-loser model basically says that parasitism as a strategy is as successful in human social interaction as it is in biology, if not more so. The sociopaths rise to the top because the clueless have not evolved a defense mechanism. The losers have evolved the defense mechanism of generating no excess productivity.
None of the models you mention--Gervais, Marx, or Rand--really say anything other than some people are selfish pricks, and that other people react negatively to that. And there really are selfish pricks everywhere you look. Giving them a new name is almost like finding a new species of beetle.
You can join them, support them, or resist them. There are positive and negative consequences for each choice. What you can't do is eradicate them, because being a selfish prick is a choice, and anyone with free will can make that choice at any moment.
It's very much like a daily horoscope. Make your classifications broad enough and people can cram anything into the pigeonholes. You could classify people as having "convex" and "concave" personalities, and the true believers would be able to classify everyone into those categories.
The (Gervais) psycho-clueless-loser model basically says that parasitism as a strategy is as successful in human social interaction as it is in biology, if not more so. The sociopaths rise to the top because the clueless have not evolved a defense mechanism. The losers have evolved the defense mechanism of generating no excess productivity.
None of the models you mention--Gervais, Marx, or Rand--really say anything other than some people are selfish pricks, and that other people react negatively to that. And there really are selfish pricks everywhere you look. Giving them a new name is almost like finding a new species of beetle.
You can join them, support them, or resist them. There are positive and negative consequences for each choice. What you can't do is eradicate them, because being a selfish prick is a choice, and anyone with free will can make that choice at any moment.
Wow, that is a great read! Thanks! It definitely explains quite a bit.
You were in a losing situation from the start. You were selected to be the heavy, the patsy and the scapegoat all in one.
It is clear from what you have said that your people were overworked, deadlines were not reasonable and there were not enough proper employees. Yet management persisted with their existing paradigm and you got to be the one that bore the bad news to everyone so they all resented you.
The best you can do in that situation is exit. Which it sounds like you and others figured out.
Sleep well knowing you cared about the people and the results, it was upper managment that did not. They cared only about the money.
As a side note, I hear this excuse a lot, about how money will be lost if we don't do this bad thing or that. Money is brief, setting up the proper business practices is long term. Sure, there are temporary situations that require extra effort... but they are obvious and temporary.
It is clear from what you have said that your people were overworked, deadlines were not reasonable and there were not enough proper employees. Yet management persisted with their existing paradigm and you got to be the one that bore the bad news to everyone so they all resented you.
The best you can do in that situation is exit. Which it sounds like you and others figured out.
Sleep well knowing you cared about the people and the results, it was upper managment that did not. They cared only about the money.
As a side note, I hear this excuse a lot, about how money will be lost if we don't do this bad thing or that. Money is brief, setting up the proper business practices is long term. Sure, there are temporary situations that require extra effort... but they are obvious and temporary.
Thanks. The money thing is tough. On the one hand, I do believe that the company had negative cash flow and was a few months away from closing the doors unless sales ramped up. On the other hand, part of the problem was that new upper management was brought in to replace the CEO who was not doing anything for the company and I believe they took quite a large salary, possibly enough to make take the company from positive cash flow to negative.
At the end of the day, the dev team pulled through and got product out the door, warts and all. This then enabled sales and other teams to get more clients on board and paying, which actually saved the company.
At the end of the day, the dev team pulled through and got product out the door, warts and all. This then enabled sales and other teams to get more clients on board and paying, which actually saved the company.
So the executive office was bleeding the company dry. You, as a middle manager, put in extra effort to save the company. As a result, you lost your middle manager job. You were replaced by three different people.
Were you rewarded in any way for your efforts?
Were you rewarded in any way for your efforts?
I left on my own mostly out of frustration. I was compensated for my work and I own a tiny percentage of equity in a company that is still around. I generally believe that if you are getting paid to do something, you should do it to the best of your ability even if it is not exactly fair. After all you can always leave and that is what I did.
the top answer is really well done, but lacks the gem from the second answer: "One of the major rookie mistakes I have made and see many others make is the assumption that human motivation is tied to economic outcomes"
put another way - you might have a personal ambition to have a title like "VP of Engineering" or make $500k a year, but most others don't. so if you project your motivations / world view on those who work for you, you will have a bad time building a great team with a great culture. knowing what your people value is really important and will help you get the best work from your team.
put another way - you might have a personal ambition to have a title like "VP of Engineering" or make $500k a year, but most others don't. so if you project your motivations / world view on those who work for you, you will have a bad time building a great team with a great culture. knowing what your people value is really important and will help you get the best work from your team.
One of the amazing things I've learned as a manager is how much you can get out of asking people what they want.
Many people haven't really thought about it and so you end up going on a fun journey helping them figure it out. Usually, you discover over time that there are a lot of things more important than money. Being the manager that helped them figure out what they really want (and hopefully get closer to it) builds awesome loyalty and motivation on the job.
Once you have the minimum amount to live comfortably (which in places like SF is actually a non-trivial amount), I've found raises and bonuses have only very short-term happiness that wears off in a week or two. It's feeling fulfillment in your job and making progress on your long term goals that really brings career happiness.
Many people haven't really thought about it and so you end up going on a fun journey helping them figure it out. Usually, you discover over time that there are a lot of things more important than money. Being the manager that helped them figure out what they really want (and hopefully get closer to it) builds awesome loyalty and motivation on the job.
Once you have the minimum amount to live comfortably (which in places like SF is actually a non-trivial amount), I've found raises and bonuses have only very short-term happiness that wears off in a week or two. It's feeling fulfillment in your job and making progress on your long term goals that really brings career happiness.
this is really good advice.
I learned from a superb mentor Laurie Litwack who was a great program manager at microsoft that you should learn about each of your reports "heart, tree, star".
heart: what do you love? tree: what / where do you want to grow? star: how do you feel rewarded?
especially in an environment where you can juggle awards, this can be really helpful, if someone values a bonus and someone else values titles & public recognition, you can balance them out and make everyone happy. and hit a budget. ideally...
I learned from a superb mentor Laurie Litwack who was a great program manager at microsoft that you should learn about each of your reports "heart, tree, star".
heart: what do you love? tree: what / where do you want to grow? star: how do you feel rewarded?
especially in an environment where you can juggle awards, this can be really helpful, if someone values a bonus and someone else values titles & public recognition, you can balance them out and make everyone happy. and hit a budget. ideally...
Interesting...I just ran a Google Search on that one (Heart-Tree-Star) and it came up with a SlideShare presentation from another Microsoft guy mentioning "Meng Phua" as the originator for him...seems like it was taught to quite a few of the folks there at Microsoft at one point perhaps?
http://www.slideshare.net/kaykas/career-planning-framework-h...
http://www.slideshare.net/kaykas/career-planning-framework-h...
I've found its common in a new manager to assume that their people want the same things they want. Happens in relationships too, people act in a way they want to be treated, not in the way the other person wants to be treated.
I'd say it's common in a many people, much of the time, unless they have been made aware of this and are capable, naturally or after training, to consciously think of how people may differ from you.
I'm still stuck at 'training'.
I'm still stuck at 'training'.
Reminds me of this video, "The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
I surely agree with most of what's posted there - a majority of it is straightforward common sense that's barely even specific to management.
"Don't procrastinate, communicate clearly" are to management what "eat less, exercise" is to losing weight or "only buy things you need, spend less than you earn" is to saving money.
The problem isn't managers that they haven't read this compilation of checklists or its equivalent in any of the thousands of management books out there.
The problem is the brokenness of management as a role in general.
Too many organizations are stuck in an broken structure which makes management the most direct if not only way to advance in terms of status, pay, autonomy or all three.
The end result are incompetent managers who need to be taught common sense or unhappy ones who are far better suited to other roles, but recognize them as dead-ends.
If becoming a manager stops being desirable for all the wrong reasons you won't have to remind your new, inexperienced managers not to be lazy or not to manage by intimidation.
"Don't procrastinate, communicate clearly" are to management what "eat less, exercise" is to losing weight or "only buy things you need, spend less than you earn" is to saving money.
The problem isn't managers that they haven't read this compilation of checklists or its equivalent in any of the thousands of management books out there.
The problem is the brokenness of management as a role in general.
Too many organizations are stuck in an broken structure which makes management the most direct if not only way to advance in terms of status, pay, autonomy or all three.
The end result are incompetent managers who need to be taught common sense or unhappy ones who are far better suited to other roles, but recognize them as dead-ends.
If becoming a manager stops being desirable for all the wrong reasons you won't have to remind your new, inexperienced managers not to be lazy or not to manage by intimidation.
It seems like a number of newer, growing startups are making sure there are individual contributor paths for growth. What would you like to see as a solution?
Also - do you think it's that their overwhelmed, under-trained for the new demands of the role, or something else that causes so many managers to fail?
Also - do you think it's that their overwhelmed, under-trained for the new demands of the role, or something else that causes so many managers to fail?
>'It seems like a number of newer, growing startups are making sure there are individual contributor paths for growth. What would you like to see as a solution?'
I think that making available a number of paths for growth is certainly a good thing. I expect there are size limits on such a structure - either for the company as a whole or the extent of the company that gets to experience that track.
This is something I'm very curious about - small companies which have managed to keep their employs happy, well-paid and continuously growing (as individuals).
>'Also - do you think it's that their overwhelmed, under-trained for the new demands of the role, or something else that causes so many managers to fail?'
I doubt there's ever truly a single source for manager failure, but if I had to bet on the most significant variables in failing in a typical situation I'd say:
* Promotion Beyond Competence:
Happens for all sorts of reasons - nepotism, stereotyping, political maneuvering (puppet appointments), adherence to tradition and many more.
However it happens, the person is not properly equipped for the role, in the worst case it's to such a degree that they don't recognize how far they fall short.
* Lack of Ambition / Urgency:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, don't fix it. There's too much risk. No reason to rock the boat and jeopardize a steady, comfortable paycheck.
* Unmanageable People:
I expect lots of people have never worked for a good manager of any measure. That bad experience makes them utterly certain that anyone who isn't 'in the trenches' 100% of the time useless - a drain on their productivity.
So, once the good one comes along - the one who will make him/herself an impenetrable human bullshit shield for 98.6% of every day in exchange for a 5 minute status report - they refuse to offer up that barest minimum.
I think that making available a number of paths for growth is certainly a good thing. I expect there are size limits on such a structure - either for the company as a whole or the extent of the company that gets to experience that track.
This is something I'm very curious about - small companies which have managed to keep their employs happy, well-paid and continuously growing (as individuals).
>'Also - do you think it's that their overwhelmed, under-trained for the new demands of the role, or something else that causes so many managers to fail?'
I doubt there's ever truly a single source for manager failure, but if I had to bet on the most significant variables in failing in a typical situation I'd say:
* Promotion Beyond Competence:
Happens for all sorts of reasons - nepotism, stereotyping, political maneuvering (puppet appointments), adherence to tradition and many more.
However it happens, the person is not properly equipped for the role, in the worst case it's to such a degree that they don't recognize how far they fall short.
* Lack of Ambition / Urgency:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, don't fix it. There's too much risk. No reason to rock the boat and jeopardize a steady, comfortable paycheck.
* Unmanageable People:
I expect lots of people have never worked for a good manager of any measure. That bad experience makes them utterly certain that anyone who isn't 'in the trenches' 100% of the time useless - a drain on their productivity.
So, once the good one comes along - the one who will make him/herself an impenetrable human bullshit shield for 98.6% of every day in exchange for a 5 minute status report - they refuse to offer up that barest minimum.
Your first bullet point is so well known it's called the "Peter Principle" [0].
EDIT: There's also the corresponding "Dilbert Principle" [1] which states that incompetent employees are promoted intentionally to remove them from the productive flow.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle
EDIT: There's also the corresponding "Dilbert Principle" [1] which states that incompetent employees are promoted intentionally to remove them from the productive flow.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle
>I surely agree with most of what's posted there - a majority of it is straightforward common sense that's barely even specific to management.
I agree, and would add that they're not even answering the specific question being asked (which happens a lot on Quora). The question they're all answering is:
"What is good general management advice?"
But the question that was asked is:
"What are mistakes specific to new, inexperienced managers, that are common for that particular class of managers?"
A responsive answer to that question will generally be expressible as,
"The manager will make it a policy/habit that <blank>, thinking that <poor recognition of group dynamics>. In reality, <mechanism happens> and so they encounter <failure mode>."
For example,
"The manager will start a policy of not tracking employee time, on the grounds that the group is responsible and trustworthy, not realizing that this will make it harder to demonstrate progress and efficiency to higher-ups, and result in less leeway being given to the group on important decisions."
[Please don't refute the logic there, I'm not offering it as valid, just showing the form that a responsive answer would have.]
I agree, and would add that they're not even answering the specific question being asked (which happens a lot on Quora). The question they're all answering is:
"What is good general management advice?"
But the question that was asked is:
"What are mistakes specific to new, inexperienced managers, that are common for that particular class of managers?"
A responsive answer to that question will generally be expressible as,
"The manager will make it a policy/habit that <blank>, thinking that <poor recognition of group dynamics>. In reality, <mechanism happens> and so they encounter <failure mode>."
For example,
"The manager will start a policy of not tracking employee time, on the grounds that the group is responsible and trustworthy, not realizing that this will make it harder to demonstrate progress and efficiency to higher-ups, and result in less leeway being given to the group on important decisions."
[Please don't refute the logic there, I'm not offering it as valid, just showing the form that a responsive answer would have.]
The single most common mistake I see managers making is assuming that their job is to manage the people rather than the project, closely followed by trying to micro-manage the project itself. Trust and delegation are key to all of this.
A good manager looks after a project not its people, concentrates on the big picture while letting others deal with the small details. A good manager achieves this by delegation.
Assuming you've hired the right people in the first place you should be able to let people get on with their jobs — if you try to do their jobs for them you will fail through lack of expertise or lack of time.
I would add that iteration is also key - a manager should check on a regular basis that what has been planned is what is being done and that if not ensure there is time to change what is being done as early as possible. Good staff and good managers appreciate that some things will take a few iterations to get right but it is better to iterate than to take the first version of everything (and foolish to plan for this) - not iterating leads to over-design and slow progress as everyone desperately tries to second-guess all the situations their work might have to cover.
Iteration is also the best way to get a feel for individual workers' pace and abilities.
A good manager looks after a project not its people, concentrates on the big picture while letting others deal with the small details. A good manager achieves this by delegation.
Assuming you've hired the right people in the first place you should be able to let people get on with their jobs — if you try to do their jobs for them you will fail through lack of expertise or lack of time.
I would add that iteration is also key - a manager should check on a regular basis that what has been planned is what is being done and that if not ensure there is time to change what is being done as early as possible. Good staff and good managers appreciate that some things will take a few iterations to get right but it is better to iterate than to take the first version of everything (and foolish to plan for this) - not iterating leads to over-design and slow progress as everyone desperately tries to second-guess all the situations their work might have to cover.
Iteration is also the best way to get a feel for individual workers' pace and abilities.
When I first started work out of college I kept a notebook of "things I like/don't like" about my managers, mostly as a training piece for myself. One of the top qualities one of my managers had was his comfort level with admitting to me "I don't know the answer to that, but I think I know where we can find it".
Probably summed up as something like "check your ego at the door". This goes for not only managers, but any member of an organization -- pretending to know something when you really don't and being afraid to ask questions is a huge red flag to me for both managers and employees alike.
And back to the list, IMO that's a pretty good list, especially coming from one person's experiences.
Probably summed up as something like "check your ego at the door". This goes for not only managers, but any member of an organization -- pretending to know something when you really don't and being afraid to ask questions is a huge red flag to me for both managers and employees alike.
And back to the list, IMO that's a pretty good list, especially coming from one person's experiences.
Piecemeal advice, even if you know the answer to all job interview questions answering a straight up "no haven't dealt with that before but I'd tackle it by learning x y z." Will set you apart from pretty much everyone. Being able to confidently tell someone you politely have no fucking clue is pretty rare in my experience.
Example I interviewed for a job I know I was qualified for, they kept asking questions about things I really had no idea about (all stuff I had never dealt with before - only similar things) they were so refreshed by the honesty and how I dealt with not knowing things they offered me the job despite pretty much what I thought at the time was tanking the interview.
Example I interviewed for a job I know I was qualified for, they kept asking questions about things I really had no idea about (all stuff I had never dealt with before - only similar things) they were so refreshed by the honesty and how I dealt with not knowing things they offered me the job despite pretty much what I thought at the time was tanking the interview.
I used to interview people for Google, and "I don't know but here's how I would go about finding out" almost never counted against candidates. What would count against a candidate is if they made a wrong assumption and then blindly proceeded as if that assumption was correct.
What if they said they'd bing for the answer? Would that count against them?
Why would it count against them theyed still get google search results.
I think that's happened before, not for one of my interviews but for one a friend gave. I don't think it counted against them, but they weren't good enough to meet the bar anyway. (That happens a lot - I've never had a non-intern candidate get through, and I've had friends go for 50 interviews without a single candidate getting hired.) We had a good laugh afterwards.
Similar experience.
I've had two job interviews where I answered a lot of the questions with, "I have no experience with that, how does it work?" or "Not sure, but sounds interesting". In one case they asked me to complete a technical challenge while watching over my shoulder using their tech stack just to see how I would try to solve their problems not a CS 101 exam question - which I would just google anyways). It was a great interview process. We discussed my approach during it, they helped me understand their method, we got to see what it would be like working together. In both job interviews I was offered the position, not based on my immediate IT skill tree, but character compatibility and demonstrated ability to learn.
This hit too close to home. As a subordinate and as a manager, I've always felt totally comfortable saying, "I'm not sure but I'll check this".
As a subordinate, it was quite annoying to deal with one of the worst managers in my career - I call him the "pretender". I already have plenty to do, and no I don't want to spend time on "checking if too many ping requests from other machines caused harddisk space on this machine to get full" (not joking, true story). The "pretender" had a title of "senior project manager" and the only thing true about that was the "senior" part (nothing against competent seniors), hemmed and hawed in the meetings pretending he knew what he was talking about and basically dumped it all on me.
Once I moved up and stopped reporting to him, he had nobody to dump work on, got exposed and last I heard, left.
As a subordinate, it was quite annoying to deal with one of the worst managers in my career - I call him the "pretender". I already have plenty to do, and no I don't want to spend time on "checking if too many ping requests from other machines caused harddisk space on this machine to get full" (not joking, true story). The "pretender" had a title of "senior project manager" and the only thing true about that was the "senior" part (nothing against competent seniors), hemmed and hawed in the meetings pretending he knew what he was talking about and basically dumped it all on me.
Once I moved up and stopped reporting to him, he had nobody to dump work on, got exposed and last I heard, left.
Pretenders are my favorite type of manager to mess with. When they ask if ping requests filled up the disk I would gladly "check" that for them using the "system diagnostic regression suite" and ... nope ... everything looks good there ... But hmmmm ... Seems there was a power surge in the cloud layer ... You better inform upper management that there may a tornado forming in the cloud!!! If you can't argue with stupid at least have some fun with it.
Problems I found with the top answer:
Performance management: It is highly unlikely as somebody new to the team, and brand new to management, that you can work out who the high performers are and who the under performers are within the first few weeks. If you get it wrong then by making it official and documenting by email you will get the entire teams backs up.
Not explicitly managing resources: Really bad advice. How do you know what is important within the first few weeks? Often you will only have a high level view of what the team does within the first few weeks. Try and do this too quickly and again it can backfire.
Performance management: It is highly unlikely as somebody new to the team, and brand new to management, that you can work out who the high performers are and who the under performers are within the first few weeks. If you get it wrong then by making it official and documenting by email you will get the entire teams backs up.
Not explicitly managing resources: Really bad advice. How do you know what is important within the first few weeks? Often you will only have a high level view of what the team does within the first few weeks. Try and do this too quickly and again it can backfire.
When I wrote the answer (that is currently top answer) I was thinking about a longer time window for the "new manager" period, perhaps a year instead of a few weeks. You're right that someone new to the team and new to management won't be able to accurately assess who the top and bottom performers are in their first few weeks. Same for how to allocate resources.
If the "new manager" period is the first year of management then I stick by my answer on those points.
If the "new manager" period is the first year of management then I stick by my answer on those points.
From a years (or even six months) perspective the points make a lot more sense. The question asked about the first few weeks as a manager :). Thanks for taking the time to clarify.
I thought the question was aimed at new to the role not necessarily new to the team?
I found the advice about visibility pretty on the nose. I have yet to have a direct supervisor who hasn't stolen credit a few times. In contrast the guys or girls above them have all been really good at directing it downward. As far as my career has gone anyway.
I found the advice about visibility pretty on the nose. I have yet to have a direct supervisor who hasn't stolen credit a few times. In contrast the guys or girls above them have all been really good at directing it downward. As far as my career has gone anyway.
"share praise, take blame" has worked really well for me in the past. folks who fail at learning this tend not to last long or at least don't advance since no one will want to work for them.
While I agree with this, some of the best, most likeable, and longest-surviving managers I've worked with have had a Teflon-like quality when it comes to blame. It's not that they don't take blame, yet somehow it doesn't stick to them. They attend the meetings and post-mortems when things go wrong; but they have a superficial relationship with blame somehow. They take the issues seriously, yet it feels somehow like they're not actually to blame, even when they've been involved the whole way through. Then one day you look up and notice that they're smiling and chatting with someone on a different project team, they've moved on. Everyone will think their efforts were serious, well-intentioned, appropriate, etc. And the blame is palpably absent from them, while it clings to others like a bad smell. I'm still unsure about how it's done. I suspect it's a deeper personality trait; plain-old likeability perhaps.
Does anyone know more about this particular fun fact of humans? Is it some kind of defense mechanism? Insecurity? Those are the only plausible reasons I can come up with. I guess its all office politics (something else I despise.)
My experience has also been that managers at the "average company" these days are pretty much expected to both manage and be a fully productive individual contributor. Realistically, this means that they spend about 80% of their time working to hit their own goals, which directly point at them, and 20% of their time (at best) really working to enable their team to succeed, which can always be deflected from direct responsibility to some degree. Since most managers' managers are also in the same boat, they can't tell when someone is shooting their own team members for self-preservation because they are too busy to have any sense for the morale and culture they've created.
In my personal opinion, you get a healthier culture if you either 1) have managers and let them manage or 2) admit that you require them to be individual contributors and restrict their "managing" purely to part time HR initiatives and not to actual additive management (something more like extra-curricular mentoring and not talent management, career and skills development).
I should caveat that I've had good managers, bad managers and completely mediocre managers. So I do believe that, although rare, it can be done well and it can provide value to individual contributors' careers and to the company's value. I just don't assume it's automatically the right approach at every company.
In my personal opinion, you get a healthier culture if you either 1) have managers and let them manage or 2) admit that you require them to be individual contributors and restrict their "managing" purely to part time HR initiatives and not to actual additive management (something more like extra-curricular mentoring and not talent management, career and skills development).
I should caveat that I've had good managers, bad managers and completely mediocre managers. So I do believe that, although rare, it can be done well and it can provide value to individual contributors' careers and to the company's value. I just don't assume it's automatically the right approach at every company.
It's usually the way someone was brought up.
Lots of parents spend their days blaming other people for their lot in life, and taking no responsibility themselves. They do this loudly to each other while the kids are there.
Little kids have big ears and learn by imitating.
Once the pattern is set, it's like kiln-fired concrete. When that kid makes it into management - everything good that happens is their doing, everything bad is somebody else's fault. It's unlikely that person will ever change unless they have some sort of epiphany.
Personally I hold myself responsible for all outcomes assigned to me. In the cases where it could be plausibly not be my fault, I still allocate blame for not having foresight to avoid the situation. This is my hack to prevent development of a blame reflex, and to enforce learning from every poor outcome.
Lots of parents spend their days blaming other people for their lot in life, and taking no responsibility themselves. They do this loudly to each other while the kids are there.
Little kids have big ears and learn by imitating.
Once the pattern is set, it's like kiln-fired concrete. When that kid makes it into management - everything good that happens is their doing, everything bad is somebody else's fault. It's unlikely that person will ever change unless they have some sort of epiphany.
Personally I hold myself responsible for all outcomes assigned to me. In the cases where it could be plausibly not be my fault, I still allocate blame for not having foresight to avoid the situation. This is my hack to prevent development of a blame reflex, and to enforce learning from every poor outcome.
I think it's fear. How do you measure that a manager is doing a good job?
If you only judge by the team shipping on time or hitting their number, then a dictator/slave driver looks pretty good early on.
If you judge by employee morale, someone that misses numbers but doesn't overstress their team can look good.
Unfortunately, things like employee churn are lagging indicators, so if a manager wants to look good, the temptation will always be there to take credit for themselves out of self-preservation, even if it's all in their head that they're in any danger of losing their job.
If you only judge by the team shipping on time or hitting their number, then a dictator/slave driver looks pretty good early on.
If you judge by employee morale, someone that misses numbers but doesn't overstress their team can look good.
Unfortunately, things like employee churn are lagging indicators, so if a manager wants to look good, the temptation will always be there to take credit for themselves out of self-preservation, even if it's all in their head that they're in any danger of losing their job.
I think he was one of the team who was promoted and immediately started settling scores. Like you say, bad advice.
If you get it wrong then by making it official and documenting by email you will get the entire teams backs up.
Yep. Much of management theory assumes that employees are passive, like cattle, and that the employee will cluelessly make nothing of the manager who's "documenting". In reality, that puts the person into war mode.
The old phrase about never pulling a gun unless you intend to kill someone? It also applies to HR practices and "documenting". You only do that if you're sure you're going to fire someone as quickly as you can, because there's absolutely no way to turn back once down that road. The best route is to fire same-day with a generous severance, but most middle-managers don't have that leeway (either to fire quickly or to give severances). Which gets to the crux of why being a middle manager sucks so hard. You have major responsibilities (hiring, firing, defining and canceling projects) but none of the power to do them properly. You often get stuck between self-serving, arrogant executives (MacLeod Sociopaths) and checked-out minimum-effort players (MacLeod Losers) and can very easily be cleaning up the messes of both.
Yep. Much of management theory assumes that employees are passive, like cattle, and that the employee will cluelessly make nothing of the manager who's "documenting". In reality, that puts the person into war mode.
The old phrase about never pulling a gun unless you intend to kill someone? It also applies to HR practices and "documenting". You only do that if you're sure you're going to fire someone as quickly as you can, because there's absolutely no way to turn back once down that road. The best route is to fire same-day with a generous severance, but most middle-managers don't have that leeway (either to fire quickly or to give severances). Which gets to the crux of why being a middle manager sucks so hard. You have major responsibilities (hiring, firing, defining and canceling projects) but none of the power to do them properly. You often get stuck between self-serving, arrogant executives (MacLeod Sociopaths) and checked-out minimum-effort players (MacLeod Losers) and can very easily be cleaning up the messes of both.
In other news, Quora doesn't blur out the second answer and ask for you to log in?
Because the submitter added ?share=1 to the link
edit: I personally use https://github.com/sindresorhus/quora-unblocker in Chrome to do this for me so I don't have to think about it. I also made https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quora-share/ to do the same thing in FF.
edit: I personally use https://github.com/sindresorhus/quora-unblocker in Chrome to do this for me so I don't have to think about it. I also made https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quora-share/ to do the same thing in FF.
Interesting. Removing the ?share=1 has no effect if you've already visited the site, but opening the plain URI in another browser blurs the answer as usual. It must use cookies.
> Because the submitter added ?share=1 to the link
That was us. Maybe we should make the software do it?
That was us. Maybe we should make the software do it?
I wonder if sama has seen this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4503910
I think that's a great idea.
Interesting I just close the tab.
In other news is anyone else still put off by the site even when it isn't all blurred? Its kinda weird I still get a gut rench feeling looking at their logo. They got a ways to go I guess.
More seriously, thanks, sometimes they are useful and the share hack will come in handy.
In other news is anyone else still put off by the site even when it isn't all blurred? Its kinda weird I still get a gut rench feeling looking at their logo. They got a ways to go I guess.
More seriously, thanks, sometimes they are useful and the share hack will come in handy.
I definitely dislike the blurred answers scheme. I think I even had Quora blocked from my searches when that was possible (without a plugin). Sometimes, though, they look like the only hit likely to provide useful info to a question I'm really interested in at the moment, so I eventually gave in and just removed the friction of reading the site by installing/making plugins for it.
[deleted]
There are some old IEEE articles on management for techies that, in my humble opinion, are simply brilliant.
Delegation: (usually the first failure I see) http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/art5.html
And the rest: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/index.html
Delegation: (usually the first failure I see) http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/art5.html
And the rest: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/index.html
The hard part for me was that managing engineers takes a lot of time and energy, it's not possible to be a full time engineer and a full time manager.
Over time your understanding of the technical details of the work your team is doing will atrophy and where once you may have been an expert on all aspects of the system you must now rely on the judgement of the senior members of your team when making decisions. This is hard for a lot of people, to know that you don't know enough to make a decision and then to trust your team enough to help you make the right one.
Building that trust is important, because without it you'll make bad (or at least uninformed) technical decisions. it's easier if you moved up into a managerial role from a team you worked on instead of being hired to manage a team you just met.
Over time your understanding of the technical details of the work your team is doing will atrophy and where once you may have been an expert on all aspects of the system you must now rely on the judgement of the senior members of your team when making decisions. This is hard for a lot of people, to know that you don't know enough to make a decision and then to trust your team enough to help you make the right one.
Building that trust is important, because without it you'll make bad (or at least uninformed) technical decisions. it's easier if you moved up into a managerial role from a team you worked on instead of being hired to manage a team you just met.
What really always rubbed me up the wrong way was approaching me to come up with the question "OK, how long then?". Because "managers" tend to ask this when neither scope nor current state of the project are visible, and are then getting offended when one points out to them that it's an impossible question. They then usually proceed to ask you to just make something, clearly demonstrating that they don't want to improve the disaster state of the project or care for your opinion in any shape or form, but instead prefer some randomly made up number.
So whenever I hear this question in that very particular tone, I already plan my exit strategy because I know it's going to be a train wreck.
So whenever I hear this question in that very particular tone, I already plan my exit strategy because I know it's going to be a train wreck.
A number of the points in the top answer are really symptoms of not being aware of what is going on with your people. One of the fatal flaws (for the manager if not the company) I have observed in poor managers is a lack of spending time with the team members.
At least in tech, many managers are promoted from individual contributor roles and they only carve out a little time to be a manager. Usually that means they don't know what is going on, and when issues do come to their attention those issues have been festering for quite a while.
At least in tech, many managers are promoted from individual contributor roles and they only carve out a little time to be a manager. Usually that means they don't know what is going on, and when issues do come to their attention those issues have been festering for quite a while.
I've always been stunned how few tech companies and startups do 1 on 1s. It's the single, easiest way to surface a lot of this. As long as you don't completely ignore what's brought up in them, you'll get in front of a lot of trouble.
@abdinoor - what tactics do you use to get in front of these issues?
@abdinoor - what tactics do you use to get in front of these issues?
@jevanish you're right about the one-on-ones being the easiest way. But just doing the meeting is not enough. You would be surprised how many managers walk into a 1:1 with no agenda and are just asking "What's up?"
It is also not enough to just talk about the day-to-day. The 1:1 is not a smaller standup meeting. Just because there is "nothing on your plate" does not mean you skip the 1:1.
I generally prepare by reviewing notes from previous meetings and any goals that we have set together. Also bring a number of questions about company direction, transparency, colleagues, etc. Over the course of many 1:1s I can build a pretty comprehensive understanding of what makes this person tick and how they feel about their work and colleagues.
It is also not enough to just talk about the day-to-day. The 1:1 is not a smaller standup meeting. Just because there is "nothing on your plate" does not mean you skip the 1:1.
I generally prepare by reviewing notes from previous meetings and any goals that we have set together. Also bring a number of questions about company direction, transparency, colleagues, etc. Over the course of many 1:1s I can build a pretty comprehensive understanding of what makes this person tick and how they feel about their work and colleagues.
fwiw in one on ones I go over all the tasks/responsibilities of the next position above them, and we see if they did any of those kind of tasks in the last sprint. If they did we record them. We also look if there are any opportunities to do tasks in the next level above as well so they can be assigned that work in the next sprint. That waY i can make a strong argument when the person is ready for a promotion too.
I wish there was a way to share this list with a manager without seeming like a dick.
I've felt this way several times in the past.
What I've found is that its a good indicator of when I need to launch a new job search.
Under good management, I usually don't feel the need to share a list like this. If I do, then I can usually have a 5 minute chat with the manager to get things worked out. If that doesn't work, a longer discussion can be in order.
Under bad management, I usually feel like any attempt at change is more likely to hurt me than help me. I once took the risk of sharing the netflix culture slide deck [0] (a quick and insightful must read) with a manager. His response was that, if I was attracted to that sort of culture, then maybe I should get a job at netflix. Fail. You can probably guess at the number of management discussions we had after that.
[0] http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
What I've found is that its a good indicator of when I need to launch a new job search.
Under good management, I usually don't feel the need to share a list like this. If I do, then I can usually have a 5 minute chat with the manager to get things worked out. If that doesn't work, a longer discussion can be in order.
Under bad management, I usually feel like any attempt at change is more likely to hurt me than help me. I once took the risk of sharing the netflix culture slide deck [0] (a quick and insightful must read) with a manager. His response was that, if I was attracted to that sort of culture, then maybe I should get a job at netflix. Fail. You can probably guess at the number of management discussions we had after that.
[0] http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
That Netflix culture slide deck sounds pretty idyllic, but it's also 5 years old. Netflix has faced a number of challenges since then, and I wonder if they've changed their approach at all.
Print and leave on desk.
Once was a time that inter-office mail existed for situations just such as this. Spares you the delivery even.
The biggest mistake I see managers make is that they think they are there to deliver completed projects to upper management. They are playing project manager when they should be playing people manager.
A good manager's job is to make sure their direct reports have everything they need to get their job done. The proper information, tools, training, time, motivation, etc. If they have the proper staff the rest of the success will stem from that.
I have employed that as a manager and expect it as a direct report and have only ever seen success when it is employeed both in the military and the private sector.
A good manager's job is to make sure their direct reports have everything they need to get their job done. The proper information, tools, training, time, motivation, etc. If they have the proper staff the rest of the success will stem from that.
I have employed that as a manager and expect it as a direct report and have only ever seen success when it is employeed both in the military and the private sector.
Mistake #1: It's not about you, it's about them.
Mistake #2: Not having frequent one-on-one meetings with your direct reports. For this I recommend you listen to: http://www.manager-tools.com/manager-tools-basics. One-on-ones are considered the core of the management trinity.
Mistake #3: Not giving timely, frequent feedback.
Mistake #4: Not coaching your team to help them grow.
Mistake #5: Not wanting to let go of your individual contributor responsibilities.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Can't we ban links to the Quora website? It doesn't let people read the page without logging in.
[deleted]
Who's we? And no, you don't have to log in, try it.
OP lists all the issues from the point of view of management.
From the employee point of view, here are some common manager problems:
Employee comes in earlier, leaves earlier than manager: manager assumes employee is only working the hours they see; they act on this and insult/piss off the employee with their assumption of slacking.
Manager optimizes group for his own metrics e.g. maximize resources/minimize commitments to increase likelihood of meeting all objectives. Company loses (spending way too much for the minimal accomplishments); employee loses when manager won't permit taking on anything but the most mundane projects.
Manager cherry-picks opinions in group to justify the approach manager Wants to take, instead of letting the experienced employees make their own plan. Managers don't 'get to' make decisions; they are supposed to gather information to make the Right decision.
From the employee point of view, here are some common manager problems:
Employee comes in earlier, leaves earlier than manager: manager assumes employee is only working the hours they see; they act on this and insult/piss off the employee with their assumption of slacking.
Manager optimizes group for his own metrics e.g. maximize resources/minimize commitments to increase likelihood of meeting all objectives. Company loses (spending way too much for the minimal accomplishments); employee loses when manager won't permit taking on anything but the most mundane projects.
Manager cherry-picks opinions in group to justify the approach manager Wants to take, instead of letting the experienced employees make their own plan. Managers don't 'get to' make decisions; they are supposed to gather information to make the Right decision.
I think the biggest mistake new managers make is to forget that you are principally managing people. Even though day to day there's a lot of email, meetings, project management and office politics it pays to remember that you succeed through your staff as much if not more than through your personal efforts.
Do you manage anyone? How do you remember that?
> Lowering the bar - Inexperienced managers have low standards, or lower their standards, in an effort to make a hire. Good managers know that they're much better off keeping a high bar and waiting for the right candidate.
I'm facing this argument right now, and it's unclear to me on what my manager's opinion on this is. I'd rather not trade quality. While I agree with the quoted answer, I can't think of a good argument to back it up, and the answer doesn't provide one. Can someone give something more concrete here, especially something more concrete than, "well, a weak hire will cost you more in training / patience / bringing them up to speed / constant mentoring"? (or is that really the argument?)
I'm facing this argument right now, and it's unclear to me on what my manager's opinion on this is. I'd rather not trade quality. While I agree with the quoted answer, I can't think of a good argument to back it up, and the answer doesn't provide one. Can someone give something more concrete here, especially something more concrete than, "well, a weak hire will cost you more in training / patience / bringing them up to speed / constant mentoring"? (or is that really the argument?)
Software development.
1. Don't have experience programming(medium is okay for fast debug).
2. Don't have experince in meeting room.Altitude
E.g don't play with your phone in meeting room
don't voice opinion.. It you don't talk how people would
knew it ?
3. Follow Up Client And Vendor .Some new born or over experience take think as simple.(Serious Issue).
4. No Money Manager.Just wanted to request people work for them without money(Serious issue).
There's a lot to write here.. but above seem important to me dealing with problematic manager.
There's a lot to write here.. but above seem important to me dealing with problematic manager.
"Thinking too small - A successful leader is going to create growth and opportunity for their team. A leader who thinks small is unlikely to do either. Instead of planning how to grow your business 100%, plan how to grow it 10x or 100x."
This attitude could potentially backfire. It can lead to a closed-loop that eventually results in dishonesty to meet unattainable numbers. Better to plan growth empirically and adjusting for things like regression to the mean at the team and company level.
This attitude could potentially backfire. It can lead to a closed-loop that eventually results in dishonesty to meet unattainable numbers. Better to plan growth empirically and adjusting for things like regression to the mean at the team and company level.
I probably have made all of those mistakes at one time or another. Some of the mistakes where bad enough to nearly sink a company. Hopefully I make fewer of them now.
It is humbling to have a great team actually letting you manage them, especially when you mess up and the tell you and they let you learn from your mistakes.
When you have teams like that it is easy to manage. If you do, take really good care of your team. They are worth it.
It is humbling to have a great team actually letting you manage them, especially when you mess up and the tell you and they let you learn from your mistakes.
When you have teams like that it is easy to manage. If you do, take really good care of your team. They are worth it.
I have a hard time respecting the authority of people who are visibly fallible. It has led to me pursuing a working relationship where I'm a self-directed independent worker in more of a team where we each have our own corner to nibble away at and that has been working well.
Lately I have felt the desire within me to lead, or to create employment for others as I see so many of my peers selling themselves short, slaving away for terrible managers who have no idea what managing is.
I'm grateful to see you and others in this thread who approach management with a 'what can I do for these people' attitude. Do you have any advice for a young guy like me who one day wants to be one of the 'good managers' or hire people under me but has zero management experience so far?
I'm thinking it might be good for me to run workshops or hackathon projects or short-term commitments to limit my faults so if I make a mistake it's over soon and I can reflect on it and do better next time. Do you think a lot of short-term projects would be like management training speed-dating, or is there a better way to work on these skills?
Lately I have felt the desire within me to lead, or to create employment for others as I see so many of my peers selling themselves short, slaving away for terrible managers who have no idea what managing is.
I'm grateful to see you and others in this thread who approach management with a 'what can I do for these people' attitude. Do you have any advice for a young guy like me who one day wants to be one of the 'good managers' or hire people under me but has zero management experience so far?
I'm thinking it might be good for me to run workshops or hackathon projects or short-term commitments to limit my faults so if I make a mistake it's over soon and I can reflect on it and do better next time. Do you think a lot of short-term projects would be like management training speed-dating, or is there a better way to work on these skills?
What kinds of things do you like to do to take really good care of them?
It probably varies a bit from what type of organisation you are running.
Then, listen to people, understand where they are at, offer something which means that they develop personally. Make sure everyone is really clear on what you are trying to achieve and then give them the rains to lead and achieve that together. My product development teams have a very strong idea of where we are going with the products and they do 95% of their work without any input from me.
Again, listen to people. Attend meetings, not to control things but essentially keep your ear on the ground for issues or friction then resolve it quickly with the person in focus. Also I attend meetings to inform people on what is going on in the rest of the organisation.
We run a very open organisation, so we discuss budgets and how we approach things very openly. Open discussions about how we are expanding are important. One effect of this is that we have very little in the form of politics in the organisation.
A lot of this can sound like clichés, and it is, if you don't do it well and with people in your focus. The organisation we run is there to support a great group of people doing great things. Not the other way around.
Then, listen to people, understand where they are at, offer something which means that they develop personally. Make sure everyone is really clear on what you are trying to achieve and then give them the rains to lead and achieve that together. My product development teams have a very strong idea of where we are going with the products and they do 95% of their work without any input from me.
Again, listen to people. Attend meetings, not to control things but essentially keep your ear on the ground for issues or friction then resolve it quickly with the person in focus. Also I attend meetings to inform people on what is going on in the rest of the organisation.
We run a very open organisation, so we discuss budgets and how we approach things very openly. Open discussions about how we are expanding are important. One effect of this is that we have very little in the form of politics in the organisation.
A lot of this can sound like clichés, and it is, if you don't do it well and with people in your focus. The organisation we run is there to support a great group of people doing great things. Not the other way around.
Micromanagement is the #1 problem I've seen with inexperienced managers (and some experienced ones, too). I'm surprised the article didn't mention that, although a couple of the commenters did, at least.
You have to hire good people that you can trust to do the job, up front. Then you have to trust them to do the job. It's as simple as that.
You have to hire good people that you can trust to do the job, up front. Then you have to trust them to do the job. It's as simple as that.
A handful:
Not delegating.
Not working through others.
Not managing a group's resources.
Promoting one's self while failing to support one's boss.
Appropriating others' work as one's own.
Not growing relationships with other groups in a non-protective, non-clique, non-silo'd way.
Following, rather than questioning, organisational policies (i.e. not managing upwards).
Not delegating.
Not working through others.
Not managing a group's resources.
Promoting one's self while failing to support one's boss.
Appropriating others' work as one's own.
Not growing relationships with other groups in a non-protective, non-clique, non-silo'd way.
Following, rather than questioning, organisational policies (i.e. not managing upwards).
One thing I didn't see on any of the lists is ethics. Truly world class managers and team builders are also very careful about ethics, and see it as more important than their project, job and career.
Not knowing when someone has to go or worse, having the confidence to make them go. Far too many cannot organize their thoughts properly to justify it to themselves or even HR.
Listen. Don't think. Keep it simple stupid. Let the leads lead, and we'll just listen.
Praise publicly, criticize privately (with the person you are criticizing, not behind their back).
Wish, I could post it on my company's intranet.
The best managers I've had have sighed wistfully and wished out loud that they could do engineering, but made a conscious decision not to. The really good managers will be very interested in how you are getting along with your career, and it will often not come as a surprise to them when it comes time for you to leave ("time to go, grasshopper").
The bad managers were bad for numerous reasons, but many of the worst were micro-managing, getting in the way, having technical arguments, dishing out unreasoned mandates to solve things one way or another, or generally trying to be Boss Engineers without actually being part of the team. Sucked hard. The times I've switched jobs underneath these bozos, I've called it "Firing my boss."