If anything, I would argue that management in Silicon Valley is better than average. A Silicon Valley manager knows that if they mistreat their underlings too much, those underlings will quit and go somewhere else. A manager, at say, a manufacturing plant in a Rust Belt city faces no such restrictions. If they fire a worker, that worker has nowhere else to go, and as a result, the line workers in those locations and industries put up and shut up.
Are managers at a pizza shop / drywall contractor / design studio better than the average startup?
We can safely leave out "design studio" as these are much closer conceptually to programming shops.
But going by my own experience working jobs closer the former two categories - I would say "yes, and by a wide margin". The reasons for this are very straightforward:
(1) Both the customer needs, and the performance metrics in business in the "pizza-drywall" camp are generally much more "pure" (dare we say 10x as pure) as those in SD.
As in: "Can you make a pizza so good that not only you would would want to eat it as often as you could - but your friends would brag to their friends and neighbors about it as well? Or at least be good enough for the market / price range we're after? And can you make X per day, every day? And like not be a dick or show up hungover and stuff."
Versus: Are you a "culture fit"? Can you stay on top of the latest buzzwords? Can you spend all your available time for several weeks or months cramming for our ridiculous interview process - and put up with all the whiteboarding, ghosting and other gratuitous humiliations that we expect you to eat, eat, eat, and eat some more of in return for the exquisite pleasure of working with us? And once we deign to let you in - will you go along with our various brainwashing rituals (standups, agile, "DevOps culture", etc)? Or at least pretend to? BTW if you're kind of a dick that's actually okay being as many of us are, as you'll find out eventually.
(2) Infinitely less emphasis on what might loosely be called "theoretical" management techniques (see above) versus, again, nuts-and-bolts: "Can you do the work? Will you be happy doing it? Can we get along?"
Hands-down - while it would never be sustainable economically - I was infinitely happier at many of the food service / delivery / random construction jobs than at at least 50 percent of the tech industry jobs I've had.
The reason the Valley is different is because if you have 35% turnover at most companies, you're out of business.
In Silicon Valley, you can hide it behind more recruiters and funding. I've talked to multiple companies with first hand accounts of that level of turnover, which is rare in other industries because they'd go out of business losing that many people.
I'm not so impressed with this article, and partly it's because of the rather bad news: There's not much to be done about bad management. Peter Drucker, well worth reading if you haven't, said that the thing that makes a manager is character. My definition of character is someone who takes action that may have serious negative personal consequences (extreme version: high-profile whistle blowing). Character can't be built by buying an app or taking a weekend workshop. It's formed early in life. It's an extremely rare commodity. Hence, good managers are scarce on the ground and likely to remain so.
I appreciate the skepticism, but that's a very fixed mindset. People can absolutely change and I've seen it hundreds of times.
It certainly can take a "come to Jesus" moment like you find out your team hates you, you get fired, a wave of employees quit on you, etc, but people can absolutely change when they decide to.
Character is absolutely important, and it does predispose one to being a better manager, but you can become a good manager later in life.
Unfortunately, as we discuss in the article (I wrote it), the incentives aren't always there, nor are the positive examples of what to do.
I'm a developer and I admit the truth is that managers are bad only because developers are worse.
Turnover in tech is extremely high and it's not because devs are constantly being mismanaged, it's because they are egotistical and capable of working independently and often just do without any real penalty. "Oh you fired me, well 9 times out of 10 I'll just be earning more money across the street, good luck recruiting anyone with a bad Glassdoor review!" What incentives does the manager have to get invested with the devs in this situation when employees good and bad can just leave easily.
Anyone who's worked in tach a while has seen cases where a dev has just flat out refused to do something a manager has asked them to do. Why? Ego is the only reason when you get paid either way.
Look at all the egotistical devs on this forum alone saying "all managers are bad" without considering they could be part of the problem.
>> Turnover in tech is extremely high and it's not because devs are constantly being mismanaged, it's because they are egotistical and capable of working independently and often just do without any real penalty. "Oh you fired me, well 9 times out of 10 I'll just be earning more money across the street, good luck recruiting anyone with a bad Glassdoor review!" What incentives does the manager have to get invested with the devs in this situation when employees good and bad can just leave easily.
Let me provide a flip side to this from the dev's perspective: Salaries stagnate for developers in the same company as valuable options in il-liquid private stock serve as golden handcuffs. Companies abuse this position by further underpaying developers as compared to the market. If they can "make more money across the street" that is proof of the situation. Dont you expect developers to have some resentment to this situation?
I work at a tech company on the east coast, and the managers I've talked to don't like managing west coast dev teams for all the reasons you mentioned. They said they'll refuse to show up to meetings, won't answer phone calls/emails/slack, don't document anything, etc., because they think they're code artisans and won't do anything that they think is below them.
It's certainly a two way street between a manager and team member to work well together, but in my experience the best managers in Silicon Valley/tech retain great people for a long time. In fact, many bring former team members with them from company to company, being a talent magnet.
that will cause a cascade of other problems because it can't be tested properly because no time has been spent automating regression because the managers agreed to unrealistic timelines because they're not the ones who have to deal with the fallout.
> Anyone who's worked in tach a while has seen cases where a dev has just flat out refused to do something a manager has asked them to do. Why? Ego is the only reason when you get paid either way.
I don't think I've seen that yet, but if it came up with any of my coworkers, it would be because of ethical concerns. "Hide the cancel button", "Remove the unsubscribe link", etc.
Are you talking about people saying things like "I'm a senior engineer. Get the newbie to do that task"? I can't imagine that flying for a second where I work. You can try making the case that it's a poor use of your time, but flat-out refusing to do something out of ego would be the reddest of red flags.
> Anyone who's worked in tach a while has seen cases where a dev has just flat out refused to do something a manager has asked them to do. Why? Ego is the only reason when you get paid either way.
False.
- You know it's going to cause a problem and
- You know you'll be blamed for it, or
- You know you'll be the one to live with the 4AM calls.
Anyone who's been in any business a while has seen cases where a control freak has to have their way, even if it means running the business into the ground. And while -that- may be their business, your sanity is yours.
You should consider why it is easy for developers to leave a company. It is also because companies hire only people who already know everything and don't train and give chance to people that might need to learn something on the job.
Also, if companies don't provide incentives for people who stay longer, it is only their fault.
Do they also copy the volatile temperament? I've always wondered how important that is to managing creative or groundbreaking teams. I work in architecture, where that temperament is way more common than vision and talent.
Does it really have comparatively bad managers? Are a lack of diversity and prevalence of harassment more common in Silicon Valley than say big pharma, big banking, big investing, or big entertainment?
Certainly finance has its own terrible reputation and problems, but that does not absolve Silicon Valley / Tech companies from doing better. They absolutely have the knowledge, funding, resources to do better.
I don't know if tech companies have worse managers than other companies, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't... but that seems to be missing a rather big point.
If your company can have better managers than its competitors you can gain an advantage. So if you say "eh, we don't have it that bad, other industries suck too," you're leaving that opening for others...
Lighthouse looks like an interesting product, particularly the skip-level insights and 1:1 scheduling.
There is a new type of bad manager taking over, that does all the little things from contemporary management wisdom right, but is adrift as a leader and a bit delusional about the aura of thoughtfulness they project, personal wisdom and ability to mentor. To put it too glibly, it is what happens when one understands the material from Rands and Ask a Manager better than what their company and industry is actually doing.
I would like to see manager assistance software tackle this by guiding the manager by periodically guiding the user through some tough personal questions.
In case it must be said, I am not afflicted with this kind of bad manager; I’m just observing it in other organizations and trying to prevent myself from committing the same overreaction.
Knowing what to do is a hugely uphill battle on its own, but then actually being brave and making the time to have the necessary discussions with your team is another level. Many managers are afraid of doing so or fear the time commitment.
The counter intuitive lesson many leaders have to learn is that when you proactively have these discussions that align interests between employee and company, while also showing some empathy for your team, you fix many problems when they're super easy, instead of massive fires to fight.
With all that in mind, that is exactly why I started Lighthouse; knowing what to do and then actually doing it are two separate things. Keeping it all in Google docs and making your own system from scratch rarely holds together as well as someone automating things and reminding you of the right things to do.
The pervasive problem I've seen is bad accountability models, where the person who knows how to do something is not the one officially responsible (but ultimately it is because they get fired of course, however they're not responding to higher management about it). This causes huge tension and also miscommunication. Knowing how to do something should at least give you more decision power on how to move forward with a problem, but what ends up happening is extra overhead explaining solutions and options just so a decision is made by someone else that might still not understand and make the wrong decision anyway. This also causes a bottleneck and compounds the problem by making the org. very slow to respond to changes in direction.
Unfortunately I don't see an easy solution, and bad managers tend to be the ones that have the least understanding of the problems, but somehow make the most decisions.
> With a manager only a few years older than you, you have a tough experience.
So I'm pretty early in my career but have already had multiple experiences having managers who are a little younger than me. I want it to be fine, but it's just hard to see them as any kind of authority. How do other folks make this work?
If you're doing it right as a manager, it's not about authority. Instead, you should be working to align interests and support your team.
Having someone younger than you as a manager can feel awkward, but if they actually invest in you and listen to you, it can be a great relationship...especially if you know you don't want to be a manager. Then, it's like this person is doing you a favor, so you can stick to the IC work you like.
I mentioned my problems, with my manager, to very senior coworkers and they strongly recommended that I quit.
As a result of their advice, I mentally quit my job.
My old job was to make successful products for customers.
My new job is to overcome the limitations of my manager.
I've tried very obvious things. I have worked out a path to be successful despite the efforts of my manager to prevent it. I included my skip level manager in the conversation. I very carefully review my manager's actions and tell them constructively in our 1on1 when they are managing badly. I spend a lot of time reviewing my progress to make sure my path is the best. I built relationships with other coworkers without my manager involvement so they can support my efforts when performance reviews are due.
If I kept the notion that was doing my old job I would be unhappy; changing my point of view has helped a lot.
I mean I don't expect much out of managers so whether they are younger or older doesn't really matter to me. I see leadership of any sort as service. Truth and service should be the motto of every leader. They seek the truth out methodically, thoughtfully and doggedly.
Truth seeking is ultimately about accepting reality and calling things like they are which is, of course, harder than it sounds. We have all sort of motivations to lie to others and, more importantly, ourselves. As a manager this is compounded because you don't have control over what you are responsible for, you're relying on other people to do the work you are held accountable for so you start lying to yourself about how your team is doing, how communications is happening or not happening and a host of other things. The good managers learn to not do this.
As a manager, I feel that whenever I have to use authority I've failed.
If a manager is unable to convince a team member and forces them to take some path by pulling rank, isn't it a recipe for disaster regardless of age? In my experience, begrudging compliance is not a recipe for quality code.
In my experience everywhere has bad managers. I’ll volunteer that until I got wise to my own failings and quit being one that I was one of them. It’s a hard job. What we need is for our educational system to incorporate management training from the earliest grades. I’m not talking about books on business or BS like that, but teaching the soft skills that people need to manage other people. Irrespective of the field one goes into, those soft skills can help.
In engineering Hiring good managers is not what they optimize for. Yes Engineering management should still have a high level of understanding of engineering principals within that domain, but management also because a people skill. Out of all my interviews, people skills and EQ are very often overlooked.
EQ has already been co-opted as a term and rendered essentially meaningless. One job, there was a craze for it, starting at the top, so naturally we all eventually had to go to this wretched little one day course on it. I kid you not, everything was about either "fear" or "love." If that sounds familiar, if it sounds like Donnie Darko, you would be right ... almost everything we were "taught" in this emotional intelligence course was almost directly out of that mindset, done straight and not as a parody.
Fear and love are the only real motivators, apparently, and we don't want to be afraid of things, blah blah, it was such a wretched simplification and so absurd in its manipulative outlook ("do it, you wouldn't want to be ... afraid ... now would you?") that I began to wonder if this was some kind of larger test on who could keep from laughing.
> That VP who delivered your best quarter ever sexually harassed someone, again: Do you sweep it under the rug?
No. And the idea that this is a decision at all is frankly pretty disgusting. Some things are more important than having a good quarter, like your self respect and the physical and emotional safety of your employees. If your company can’t survive having criminals removed, then maybe it shouldn’t.
My friend's wife texted me recently to talk to her very unhappy husband. During my conversation, he mentioned that he has a really good relationship with his skip level manager. Based on what he told me, I advised him to work to replace his bad manager.
If you want to be successful (however you want to define success) and anyone or anything stands in your way then make it your job to overcome it.
[+] [-] nickpinkston|5 years ago|reply
Take for instance:
- Are managers at a pizza shop / drywall contractor / design studio better than the average startup?
- Are managers at IBM / GE / JPM better than ones at Facebook / Apple / Google?
At first blush, I'd think that we're actually better correcting for firm age, but I'd love to see the data/research.
[+] [-] quanticle|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanusa|5 years ago|reply
We can safely leave out "design studio" as these are much closer conceptually to programming shops.
But going by my own experience working jobs closer the former two categories - I would say "yes, and by a wide margin". The reasons for this are very straightforward:
(1) Both the customer needs, and the performance metrics in business in the "pizza-drywall" camp are generally much more "pure" (dare we say 10x as pure) as those in SD.
As in: "Can you make a pizza so good that not only you would would want to eat it as often as you could - but your friends would brag to their friends and neighbors about it as well? Or at least be good enough for the market / price range we're after? And can you make X per day, every day? And like not be a dick or show up hungover and stuff."
Versus: Are you a "culture fit"? Can you stay on top of the latest buzzwords? Can you spend all your available time for several weeks or months cramming for our ridiculous interview process - and put up with all the whiteboarding, ghosting and other gratuitous humiliations that we expect you to eat, eat, eat, and eat some more of in return for the exquisite pleasure of working with us? And once we deign to let you in - will you go along with our various brainwashing rituals (standups, agile, "DevOps culture", etc)? Or at least pretend to? BTW if you're kind of a dick that's actually okay being as many of us are, as you'll find out eventually.
(2) Infinitely less emphasis on what might loosely be called "theoretical" management techniques (see above) versus, again, nuts-and-bolts: "Can you do the work? Will you be happy doing it? Can we get along?"
Hands-down - while it would never be sustainable economically - I was infinitely happier at many of the food service / delivery / random construction jobs than at at least 50 percent of the tech industry jobs I've had.
[+] [-] jevanish|5 years ago|reply
In Silicon Valley, you can hide it behind more recruiters and funding. I've talked to multiple companies with first hand accounts of that level of turnover, which is rare in other industries because they'd go out of business losing that many people.
[+] [-] lcuff|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jevanish|5 years ago|reply
It certainly can take a "come to Jesus" moment like you find out your team hates you, you get fired, a wave of employees quit on you, etc, but people can absolutely change when they decide to.
Character is absolutely important, and it does predispose one to being a better manager, but you can become a good manager later in life.
Unfortunately, as we discuss in the article (I wrote it), the incentives aren't always there, nor are the positive examples of what to do.
[+] [-] question000|5 years ago|reply
Turnover in tech is extremely high and it's not because devs are constantly being mismanaged, it's because they are egotistical and capable of working independently and often just do without any real penalty. "Oh you fired me, well 9 times out of 10 I'll just be earning more money across the street, good luck recruiting anyone with a bad Glassdoor review!" What incentives does the manager have to get invested with the devs in this situation when employees good and bad can just leave easily.
Anyone who's worked in tach a while has seen cases where a dev has just flat out refused to do something a manager has asked them to do. Why? Ego is the only reason when you get paid either way.
Look at all the egotistical devs on this forum alone saying "all managers are bad" without considering they could be part of the problem.
[+] [-] TuringNYC|5 years ago|reply
Let me provide a flip side to this from the dev's perspective: Salaries stagnate for developers in the same company as valuable options in il-liquid private stock serve as golden handcuffs. Companies abuse this position by further underpaying developers as compared to the market. If they can "make more money across the street" that is proof of the situation. Dont you expect developers to have some resentment to this situation?
[+] [-] dx87|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jevanish|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] commandlinefan|5 years ago|reply
that will cause a cascade of other problems because it can't be tested properly because no time has been spent automating regression because the managers agreed to unrealistic timelines because they're not the ones who have to deal with the fallout.
[+] [-] lkbm|5 years ago|reply
I don't think I've seen that yet, but if it came up with any of my coworkers, it would be because of ethical concerns. "Hide the cancel button", "Remove the unsubscribe link", etc.
Are you talking about people saying things like "I'm a senior engineer. Get the newbie to do that task"? I can't imagine that flying for a second where I work. You can try making the case that it's a poor use of your time, but flat-out refusing to do something out of ego would be the reddest of red flags.
(fwiw, I'm in Austin, not SV.)
[+] [-] didip|5 years ago|reply
* Managers don't get proper training.
* ICs don't get proper training.
* No one want to train juniors and interns.
* Very few companies offer yearly refreshers.
* Yearly raises are not a thing in most companies.
* Small companies tend to offer crappy insurance.
* etc.
[+] [-] csharptwdec19|5 years ago|reply
False.
- You know it's going to cause a problem and - You know you'll be blamed for it, or - You know you'll be the one to live with the 4AM calls.
Anyone who's been in any business a while has seen cases where a control freak has to have their way, even if it means running the business into the ground. And while -that- may be their business, your sanity is yours.
[+] [-] petr25102018|5 years ago|reply
Also, if companies don't provide incentives for people who stay longer, it is only their fault.
[+] [-] cblconfederate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 908B64B197|5 years ago|reply
Most of them failed at one or most of these:
- They could never get a technical co-founder to work with them
- They were wrong about the market
- They were wrong about design
- They didn't have the means to self-finance their businesses (think Pixar and Next)
- They didn't have the connections
What they had was the college drop-out part and some ideas.
[+] [-] person8645|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Consultant32452|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ci5er|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uberman|5 years ago|reply
I am speculating the answer is "no".
[+] [-] jevanish|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] majormajor|5 years ago|reply
If your company can have better managers than its competitors you can gain an advantage. So if you say "eh, we don't have it that bad, other industries suck too," you're leaving that opening for others...
[+] [-] jevanish|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1123581321|5 years ago|reply
There is a new type of bad manager taking over, that does all the little things from contemporary management wisdom right, but is adrift as a leader and a bit delusional about the aura of thoughtfulness they project, personal wisdom and ability to mentor. To put it too glibly, it is what happens when one understands the material from Rands and Ask a Manager better than what their company and industry is actually doing.
I would like to see manager assistance software tackle this by guiding the manager by periodically guiding the user through some tough personal questions.
In case it must be said, I am not afflicted with this kind of bad manager; I’m just observing it in other organizations and trying to prevent myself from committing the same overreaction.
[+] [-] jevanish|5 years ago|reply
The counter intuitive lesson many leaders have to learn is that when you proactively have these discussions that align interests between employee and company, while also showing some empathy for your team, you fix many problems when they're super easy, instead of massive fires to fight.
With all that in mind, that is exactly why I started Lighthouse; knowing what to do and then actually doing it are two separate things. Keeping it all in Google docs and making your own system from scratch rarely holds together as well as someone automating things and reminding you of the right things to do.
[+] [-] proc0|5 years ago|reply
Unfortunately I don't see an easy solution, and bad managers tend to be the ones that have the least understanding of the problems, but somehow make the most decisions.
[+] [-] xchip|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the-dude|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waylandsmithers|5 years ago|reply
So I'm pretty early in my career but have already had multiple experiences having managers who are a little younger than me. I want it to be fine, but it's just hard to see them as any kind of authority. How do other folks make this work?
[+] [-] jevanish|5 years ago|reply
Having someone younger than you as a manager can feel awkward, but if they actually invest in you and listen to you, it can be a great relationship...especially if you know you don't want to be a manager. Then, it's like this person is doing you a favor, so you can stick to the IC work you like.
[+] [-] justin_oaks|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swframe2|5 years ago|reply
I've tried very obvious things. I have worked out a path to be successful despite the efforts of my manager to prevent it. I included my skip level manager in the conversation. I very carefully review my manager's actions and tell them constructively in our 1on1 when they are managing badly. I spend a lot of time reviewing my progress to make sure my path is the best. I built relationships with other coworkers without my manager involvement so they can support my efforts when performance reviews are due.
If I kept the notion that was doing my old job I would be unhappy; changing my point of view has helped a lot.
[+] [-] iamthepieman|5 years ago|reply
Truth seeking is ultimately about accepting reality and calling things like they are which is, of course, harder than it sounds. We have all sort of motivations to lie to others and, more importantly, ourselves. As a manager this is compounded because you don't have control over what you are responsible for, you're relying on other people to do the work you are held accountable for so you start lying to yourself about how your team is doing, how communications is happening or not happening and a host of other things. The good managers learn to not do this.
[+] [-] aeternum|5 years ago|reply
If a manager is unable to convince a team member and forces them to take some path by pulling rank, isn't it a recipe for disaster regardless of age? In my experience, begrudging compliance is not a recipe for quality code.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bwanab|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jevanish|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angryasian|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at_a_remove|5 years ago|reply
Fear and love are the only real motivators, apparently, and we don't want to be afraid of things, blah blah, it was such a wretched simplification and so absurd in its manipulative outlook ("do it, you wouldn't want to be ... afraid ... now would you?") that I began to wonder if this was some kind of larger test on who could keep from laughing.
[+] [-] marsdepinski|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehlike|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atty|5 years ago|reply
No. And the idea that this is a decision at all is frankly pretty disgusting. Some things are more important than having a good quarter, like your self respect and the physical and emotional safety of your employees. If your company can’t survive having criminals removed, then maybe it shouldn’t.
[+] [-] swframe2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fungiblecog|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swframe2|5 years ago|reply
If you want to be successful (however you want to define success) and anyone or anything stands in your way then make it your job to overcome it.