Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

For some people, it's the content rather than the presentation which makes them feel insulted/humiliated/upset. The only way to prevent the negative feelings is to fail to communicate the "your work sucks" or "your idea won't work" message.

Blaming their feelings on the manager, rather than their own egos, is wrong and harmful.

View on HN

I prefer a "recognize and reward" management style to "insult and humiliate"

Praise in public, criticize in private. Rule 1 of management.

Also, give credit to your team, take blame yourself. That's s rule 2. Any industry, any job, these rules hold, and anyone who doesn't follow them is dysfunctional.

Some people still don't want to hear that their idea sucks, even in private.

I don't get why people are so attracted to this idea that the manager is the only party with any agency or ability to influence outcomes, while underlings are merely mechanical cogs to be properly organized by appropriate managerial incantations and social engineering.

As an underling it's great to be responsible for nothing negative, but this also means you don't really deserve much credit for the positives. Managers might throw false praise your way to manipulate you - as per your suggestion - but who cares about that?

Nothing false about it. If I'm in a management role, and things go hatstand, well the buck stop with me, that's why managers get paid the big bucks. I may have to take measures later with the individual in question if it was negligence on their part, but ensuring the success of the team and the project is what the manager is for. If I have given someone more responsibility than they are ready for, that's on me. If I have failed to implement a failsafe process/procedure that's on me. If my team aren't doing code reviews that's on me. If they are taking on unmanageable technical debt, that's on me. Etc etc.

If I'm in a software development role, and the software doesn't work, well the buck stops with me. I may need to shut down a box and spin up a larger one, but ensuring that hardware is adequate is what the developer is for. If I have given an EC2 instance more load than it is ready for, that's on me.

With this mental model, of course it's false praise, just like it would be false praise for me to give credit to my hardware.

Now I don't buy this model. But this is the logical implication of it - success is the flip side of failure.

And this is why a lot of engineers fail in management, thinking people are like computers

I've never seen a management role as something related to individual performance. I think it's rather clear that a one person team won't work better with additional manager. On average though you won't get uniform team nor a team that gets along well. And even if you do, it has its own dangers. Manager is there to make sure things happen even when people disagree on them, and to make sure the best option wins any argument, not just the loudest. It's really often like juggling with dogs and cats. That are on fire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com