Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

what does a manager actually do in a software business these days?

At Google? Cross org coordination, identifying and prioritizing opportunities, work trading with other teams (you do this and I'll do that), communicating why the team's work matters to mid management that has no idea, helping engineers avoid pitfalls, helping engineers craft project portfolios and a narrative for promotion. Helping engineers develop the right skills to succeed at Google.

They create value [1].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYvhC_RdIwQ

Your link sent me down a rabbit-hole -- their "microservices" video is very good, and excellent commentary on current trends.

So much of this fits under "marketing our value to rest of the org" - which to me (who is convinced democracy matters) says the organisation is lacking ... journalism and open fair competition of ideas.

Having the best idea reliant on top / upper top managers spotting the best idea is ... not great. And I am not convinced that having a "good communicator" as the solution - because what if the well connected manager is on the poorest product solution?

As for the rest - yes google has 8 whatnots for managers that read as a coaching manual - its important yes, but I would be astounded if there are not better things to focus on.

If a good manager is like an army sargeant, who are the colonels and generals? Where is the operational plans? Maybe I just get kept in the dark and fed shit but an open and coherent communication will get people aligned without being micromanaged

Mostly glueing people around. Sounds like a mediocre job, it's as important as writing glue code. Not interesting, but most of the code written nowaway are glue code...

But is it given the importance, remuneration and status of glue code?

No.

I think that is my issue. Most "management" decisions Inthinknwouod be better done in the open, possibly involving voting, discussion / debate.

Not chosen by an unelected cabal with time and stress issues.

Depends how competent the people they manage are. Anywhere from invasive micromanager, to "do little" figurehead that conveys information.

The best people don't need to be managed really, just alignment of direction, but there are far too few of them to depend on that at scale

I am not convinced the best people are few and far between. I think we could have said that about women doctors in the 19C or poor people at any time.

Then again ... maybe

Reply on news.ycombinator.com