As a manager, your main job is to make your ICs effective at doing their work.
That means you need to be dealing with poor performers, rewarding with outstanding performers, trying to improve uneven performers, managing expectations from your management and shielding your team from the vicissitudes of your bosses as much as possible, fighting for things your team needs while shielding them from the demoralizing realities of working for a big company where HR and IT etc. don’t give two shits about the actual mission (if applicable), keeping an accurate budget, making sure your team is individually recognized for their success but that you take the blame for their failures, responding to changes in direction and getting your team on board, being the face of management even when that’s unpopular, and doing all the other little things required to keep the team going as effectively as possible.
There’s a lot of work to do there, and it can be incredibly rewarding when it’s going well and incredibly frustrating when it’s not.
It can also mean you have days when your team is working all out to deliver and the only thing you can do is order pizza and keep distractions away. Those are boring, often frustrating days.
It’s not for everybody, but that’s what I think a good manager does. I think it’s often easier when you manage a team and aren’t an expert at what they do (although you still need to understand at a relatively deep level), since that minimizes the chances of you trying to dive in and solve the problem.
I agree with all of this. But I can honestly say in my entire career I've only had about two good managers. One of the biggest issues in my experience is knowing who the bad/good performers are. Most managers have no idea. I've seen bad performers just let be, and I've seen great performers fired for seemingly no reason at all. Both kill team morale.
I'll add that if a good manager works with an underperforming IC and makes a meaningful difference, it is VERY UNLIKELY the IC will acknowledge this in a timely way, or perhaps even know it happened. The best case scenario I've ever experienced is several years after the fact. That's a long time to wait for some positive external validation.
Oh for sure. My first comment is pretty much me bagging on managers. But in their defense, it's a really hard job. So hard I've never taken it on because I'm positive I wouldn't be good at it. I think my experience of most managers not being as good as I'd like largely boils down to the job being extremely difficult.
I'm not surprised to hear a manager's work can go unnoticed. That's unfortunate :(
I think management is like sorcery. There is no fixed rules and most of it is interaction between people. I fully understand why many technical people shun management work (even when it pays more).
Good management is really rare. One in five or even ten maybe.
One in five to ten for delivering positive business results in a short period of time. AKA these are good managers. They're able to have good results because of themselves. Under promise over deliver. Set lower expectations.
One in fifty, achieve the above but are able to produce teams that regardless of their manager in the future would produce good results at minimum. Great managers don't seem to just focus on the business but also leveling up each individual on the team.
I think plenty of individuals have had mediocre managers and they would describe them as good.
Working with "the best" ICs reshape your perspective of what is a great ICs. Just like managers. Much earlier in my career I used to believe that great ICs were one in 20, then it became fifty and now, two hundred.
Doing this well also requires building relationships with the team and trust. Recognizing little things like how people can be afraid of a project (and that fear can lead to spinning), and how to break things down/prioritize.
In software I think there are also system changes that can make individuals happier (often stuff described in books like the Phoenix project and working effectively with legacy code). A lot of which enable the things you described.
People are happy when they’re productive and goals are clear/make sense (and they have the space to focus on the work for them) and they get recognized for it.
Many managers are bad but can keep the job for a long time. This is because it's not the people that you are managing that judge your performance. So you can very well be a bad manager and still keep your job. The key here is that you only need to be a manager that delivers results. You don't need to be a manager that is good.
Well, many of my employees chose to give me testimonials on my LinkedIn, and they had nothing to gain from it.
Here's a couple:
> Chris was the best manager I've ever reported to. Period. He was supportive of his team, always motivating us to deliver excellence, even under daunting schedules set by the people above him. Because of Chris' support and commitment to his team, he fostered a deep loyalty and respect from our department.
> Chris is passionate about developing software and about technology in general. This means he is always in touch with the latest trends and best practices in the industry. However, he is careful not to introduce a new process or methodology to his group unless it has clear benefits and he has considered the input of everyone affected.
Chris has always been very well-respected by his engineers because his management style allows their best skills to shine. It's not simply a hands-off approach; he'll look to remove roadblocks where he can and offer help in any way possible. He is good at identifying an inefficiency and reaching out to help improve it.
More than just management skills, Chris is a kind, understanding, sensible and fair human being. At one point, we had a six-year run where no one left the group. I hadn't really noticed or appreciated this stability until someone from our HR department pointed out how remarkable it was. This could not have happened without someone like Chris managing the group.
But, what do they know? I'm sure they were mistaken. BTW: One of them was from a chap I laid off.
Yup. But it wasn't all hate. I worked for a company that I believed in, was a peer with some of the finest scientists and engineers in the world, ran a team of very high-performing engineers, and was proud to be a member of that brand.
I felt good about what I did, even though I didn't enjoy it.
> 27 years is a long time to stay in a job you hate.
This statement shows that we are in a privileged place, indeed. We get to have a career, where we can do work that we enjoy, and make a lot of money at it.
The great majority of people don't get that. Most of my friends don't like their jobs. Some, are very good at what they do, and make a lot of money.
The job was relatively easy. I liked the company I worked for, and my peers. I felt a great deal of Responsibility towards the company, my peers, and my employees. I made enough to live on, and save. I could have made a lot more money, elsewhere. Despite the obvious sneers and judging that I get, I'm actually no slouch.
Nowadays, I work for free, on software that helps others.
I'm an engineering manager with only 4 years in the role, and I think it's more of a lot of things I hate with intense periods of excitement, joy and satisfaction. You might be able to get 20+ years of that, depending on the details. That's why the OP's original analogy of a far less dangerous, corporate version of military combat resonated with me.
It’s hard. At least for me, this is the hardest classes of employees to manager—-it’s much easier to get rid of somebody who is clearly failing or reward and further develop a high performer.
When I say uneven, I’m thinking of somebody who either: (a) is excellent at certain key aspects of their jobs but clearly below expectations in others to the point that it’s an issue, or (b) somebody who performs well but doesn’t always put in enough effort. In both cases, it’s subjective and difficult to determine that it’s to the point where intervention is required, because that’s usually an uncomfortable conversation. Often, you’re the first manager ever telling the person that they need to improve—-even if you’re not the first person to think there’s an issue. Typically, the other person will think you’re an asshole. As another commenter said, they may recognize later on that you were right but normally in the near term, you’ll have strained the relationship. (That’s why managers avoid those conversations. Sometimes it’s cowardice, sometimes it’s deciding that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze today.)
As for how to work on improvement, that always has to be case-by-case considering the issue and the personality. Sometimes the “stop doing that” conversation is enough. Sometimes coaching or mentoring or development experiences can help. If those don’t work, can you shift responsibilities around or find a different role that is a better fit?
Normally you try to gently do those things anyway before you have the direct conversation, and then hope the direct conversation provides some motivation/insight to take it more seriously.
If you’re on the receiving end of that conversation, I guess my advice would be to try to critically self-reflect and see if you can understand where your manager is coming from. If you can, then you’ve both got a common place to start from towards improvement. If you can’t, or you think they’re just being unreasonable about expectations, then it is probably time to move on or hope they move on quickly.
Thanks. Basically I'm told that some stories I complete quickly while others drag out. I'm on a team that works with multiple systems (10ish), multiple languages, multiple stacks/architectures, and am expected to be full stack.
The "improvements" I've been told to make is to document why stories are slow - mostly context switching from prod support, context switching from my role as ASC, and of course just being slow when working with a system or language that I haven't worked on in a while.
So my perspective based on the feedback is, this isn't a performance issue (if it was it would be under communication instead of speed). It solely addresses visibility of the switching. I have requested consistent work, like being full stack in a single stack. The whole point of specialization of labor is to increase speed and quality, yet it seems this management tenent is wholly missed by my organization. You want consistent speed? Give me consistent work.
The best part is I got a 4.5% pay cut, yet they say they want to retain me. All while the company is talking about across the board increases (which I won't be eligible for) and having trouble filling roles that typically stay open for 6 months. Which is it - do I suck, or do you want to keep me?
> The best part is I got a 4.5% pay cut, yet they say they want to retain me. All while the company is talking about across the board increases (which I won't be eligible for) and having trouble filling roles that typically stay open for 6 months. Which is it - do I suck, or do you want to keep me?
They want to keep you, they just don't want to pay you (more than they have to).
After you leave, they will have to hire a new person and give them 120% of your current pay. (And the new person will be less productive, at least at the beginning, simply because they will be new.)
But the company is making the bet that you will stay, at least for a few years, because apparently most people do.
I can assure you that much of underperformance is a perception and miscommunication issue. If the employee is motivated and not stupid then if he's underperforming it's because objectives were not communicated or the manager failed to realize that the assignment was impossible not to underperform due to missing some challenging detail.
Many managers don't realize this. Even managers that have a ton of experience, all they do is fire or have harsh conversations with people who "underperform." The truth of the matter is a good manager is rare. 1 out of 10 literally and it's not an experience issue. A good manager is one who is highly highly unbiased and people are generally not like this.
The person you replied to is not a good manager. Based on his reply he is actually below average.
Basically for these managers good employees are those that can predict what the manager wants and how he thinks. If the person is able to guess and predict what his manager wants on a consistent basis, then objectives are more clear to this employee and as a result he can achieve them. These people are then perceived as "good employees".
Due note that a good manager makes objectives for each task unambiguous and crystal clear. A bad manager leaves a lot of room to fuzzy concepts like "quality of work" because he himself isn't clear about what he wants.
I have seen it many times. Employees who are basically geniuses fired because the manager wasn't able to realize how smart the person was. Instead the manager left the employee with vague instructions and expected him to just "get it." The manager didn't know that the employee is an expert in infrastructure and deployed him on writing algorithms...
This is an unwise and inefficient deployment of resources. It is the managers job to determine what each of his employees like and what they are exceptional at and deploy resources accordingly. It is also the managers job to understand in detail the nature of the assignment given to an employee so tasks can be handed out efficiently.
Bad managers tend to throw random people at random tasks without fully understanding the task or the person. In these cases there is an element of luck involved. How hard the task is versus if the person assigned to the task is suited for that task. An employee who handles the task well or is able to temper the expectations of the manager through communication is perceived as "good."
These managers are easily recognizable. I will tell you how to identify them. They perceive the world as employees who are "underperformers" and those who are not. The person you replied to put the world in 3 tiers lol. The world is very nuanced and it is impossible to divide people into three buckets like this. He is the quintessential example of "bad manager."
>"trying to improve uneven performers"
>How do you do that? Apparently I'm an inconsistent performer now.
I'm unsure if you are asking for advice on how to improve because your current manager marked you as inconsistent or if you think GP is calling all people "who are trying to improve as inconsistent"
I'm a manager. I want to improve ALL of my team. To rephrase, I want each of my members to work on things that benefit themselves (they improve) and benefit the team - if we can't do that, I zoom out: how can they benefit the team, department, the company, the industry, the world. You might notice this means I may find a better place for them on a different team or even outside the company. All of this. ALL OF THIS is trying to help the person in an area that he/she wants to grow in.
Growth opportunities are very diverse: coding a new language, learning at a seminar, teaching at a seminar, side projects, art, games, mentorship
The earlier guy you replied to was a "bad manager". This guy you just replied to is a good one. He gets it. Note how I said a good manager very much assigns the right task to the right people.
> As a manager, your main job is to make your ICs effective at doing their work.
Its a lie manager making dev's effective at their job. All a manager needs to do is communicate the requirements properly most preferably in a written document. That is the only useful thing. Everything else like motivating are just BS which has become very clear in the post covid WFH situation.
Now looking back i can feel the needless interference by managers that slowed down the progress of work. The other sad thing is they assume they have power to fire people to some extent which usually junior engineers believe for the first few years.
Before concluding i had a bad manager, let me say i have had over 10 managers in the past 20 years and its not manager's fault its the job that's BS.
Let’s say that’s the manager’s only job. But “communicating requirements in a written doc” is serious hard work, the same way “typing code in a text editor” is a lot of work. To do the former requires negotiating with other teams, understanding the limits of the audience, estimating effort, and basically developing a rough sketch of the solution in your head to make sure the request is reasonable.
> But “communicating requirements in a written doc” is serious hard work
Precisely. Hence managers delegate this to devs to figure it out themselves and make documentation easy enough for them to understand on a higher level so they can make it look like they understand whats going on. This is what been exposed with WFH.
The important thing that pisses me off is the salary of manager is about 50% higher than IC's. IMO it should not be 70% of IC's salary considering the skills it requires. Manager does not have more responsibility than IC. Manager never takes responsibility for projects failure, its always blamed on IC. Its easy for a manager to get away because usually about 5 IC's will be in a project and one or two failure to deliver features are tolerated. Combine this with attrition its so easy for a manager to not take any responsibility.
That means you need to be dealing with poor performers, rewarding with outstanding performers, trying to improve uneven performers, managing expectations from your management and shielding your team from the vicissitudes of your bosses as much as possible, fighting for things your team needs while shielding them from the demoralizing realities of working for a big company where HR and IT etc. don’t give two shits about the actual mission (if applicable), keeping an accurate budget, making sure your team is individually recognized for their success but that you take the blame for their failures, responding to changes in direction and getting your team on board, being the face of management even when that’s unpopular, and doing all the other little things required to keep the team going as effectively as possible.
There’s a lot of work to do there, and it can be incredibly rewarding when it’s going well and incredibly frustrating when it’s not.
It can also mean you have days when your team is working all out to deliver and the only thing you can do is order pizza and keep distractions away. Those are boring, often frustrating days.
It’s not for everybody, but that’s what I think a good manager does. I think it’s often easier when you manage a team and aren’t an expert at what they do (although you still need to understand at a relatively deep level), since that minimizes the chances of you trying to dive in and solve the problem.