Comment by eqdw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eqdw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I used to believe that middle managers were useless shits who wasted my time and got in the way of work. I imagined that the flat organizational model made more sense: since this is what my day to day life is, anyway, at least we get rid of idiots who get paid more than me.

Then I worked in a place where I had actually good middle management. They were smart and capable. They supported our team and helped us succeed. They shielded us from most of the political BS. They advocated for us to other elements of the business. They invested, both time and money, in our professional development.

To make it concrete: in a company where the other engineering teams (five or six of them) were consistently experiencing churn, having morale problems, and shipping buggy code six months late, our team had zero turnover, a shrinking bug backlog, and consistently delivered things _ahead_ of schedule.

I'm 100% on board with the good old proven management model now. You just need to have an actually good manager.

The problem is that management is basically an art and no one knows how to create consistently good managers. Because it's the epitomy of soft, unmeasurable, skills.

So when people get frustrated with shitty management, they turn to whatever other idea,.

If people read and __actually implemented__ the stuff in Peopleware (or any other classic SWE management book that's highly regarded) we'd all be better off. But instead we're stuck in this equilibrium where we constantly chase management trends (see: open offices which are consistently shown to be nefarious for productivity).

> If people read and __actually implemented__ the stuff in Peopleware

Lol, I feel like that's too much to ask. I'd be happy with management that actually read Brooks instead of just pretending like they did.

Exactly! I had the oppsoite tragectory - first worked in a company with decent mid-management, then no management startup then Google. The lack of oversight seemed liberating at first, but man was I not impressed with the outcome by the end of it (including my own performance). In Google's case it was additionally complicated by the fact that most senior people avoid as much as possible to take on leadership roles - lower levels will have no say on their promo packet.

The problem is it's very difficult to interview your management chain before you take the job.

Why do you think it should be difficult?

I almost always interview my immediate management chain (immediate manager and boss of my immediate manager) before taking a job.

Not at Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com