Hacker News Reader

Comment by MartinCron | Hacker News Reader

Something very similar happened to me at a startup a few years ago and it took me a long time to realize what had happened and why I felt so terrible about it.

Even though my title, salary, and perks were still the same, it was a de-facto demotion. Important parts of my compensation (involvement, agency, sense of ownership, diversity in work effort) were just inadvertently phased out as the company I helped grow was big enough to support product managers who could do just the most rewarding parts of my job but not actually code or anything.

I think (hope) there are things that one can do to guard against this from happening, and just being aware of this phenomenon is valuable.

View on HN

Important parts of my compensation (involvement, agency, sense of ownership, diversity in work effort) were just inadvertently phased out

That's a neat observation, and a pattern I've seen before. As the company (or team, within a larger company) grows, it's possible to lose some of the things you most value about your job -- without even realising it.

The company and management have the best intentions at heart for you, the team and the product -- but is this an inevitable side-effect of growth?

Also, the reason I became a product manager in the first place was because I found the specific stuff you mention invigorating, and coding became a distraction from it; I wouldn't diss all product managers with the same brush, it's just an unfortunate trap that if you're a good engineer then people probably don't think you want to be more product-focused, and don't want to lose your coding contributions.

I don't even mean to diss product managers. I realized that I basically am a product manager who also happens to be an effective technologist. I just have to find a job that lets me be both and realize that my needs may diverge from the needs of my employer, and that's OK.

It would be criminal negligence if I didn't mention Michael O'Church's seminal work on this issue [1]. There is surprising depth and complexity to the power dynamics in companies, both large and small. What you've discovered first hand is that, unfortunately, politics determine the fate of nations and companies alike.

1. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ...

The political is one (valid) way to look at experiences like that. Although there really wasn't anything as conscious as political scheming going on.

For me, it was mostly a lack of mindfulness, both from me and from my manager, about what was going on as the dynamics changed. I'm sure that if I had said "hey, it's important that you don't take this kind of work away from me" before it was too late, it would have worked out much better.

I'm sorry, but it's really difficult to take that "seminal work" seriously when that work is an in-depth analysis of the "MacLeod Model of organizational sociology".

Do you know what the "MacLeod Model" is? A cartoon on the back of a business card, posted to the web without comment nine years ago: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/

Michael O'Church might have some interesting things to say, but when he extrapolates pages of meaning from a cartoon that's just trying to be humorous, it says more about Michael O'Church than anything else.

I enjoy Michael's descriptions because they provide a conceptual understanding of very profound evolutionary principles. As someone who understands the difficulty in simplifying evolutionary psychology for non-experts, I sincerely commend him for his work.

I would classify Michael's work as an introduction to applied evolutionary psychology, using corporations as a case study. If you'd like the reasons behind why his work is valid, I'd recommend starting with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene followed by The Extended Phenotype. The sections on game theory are particularly insightful, as they describe how competing strategies reach equilibrium in a given environment. You will find the strategies described are quite similar to Michael's classifications, thus shedding much light on corporate environments.

Whoa! Given all the reference Michael makes to MacLeod's hierarchy, I'd just tacitly assumed it was a well-known model in organisational studies. I guess the "I should really read the original work" pangs I occasionally have when reading Michael's stuff can go away now...

You really should read the original work. I mean, it's just a cartoon drawn on the back of a business card, how much time could that possibly take?

Is it humorous because it's true or humorous for some other reason? Take Dilbert. A lot of Dilbert comic strips are humorous because they have a grain of inspiration from reality, so people can actually relate to the ludicrous situations, and thereby understand and laugh, even if only sardonically at times. I think this falls into that category.

I don't think we should disregard the ideas in this napkin comic just because it's a napkin comic. We should disregard it if it has no grasp on reality. But when one reads books like The Corporation and also experiences life in the corporate world, some of us can't help but nod our heads depressingly. It's why we quit.

The analysis seems to be based more on Venkatesh Rao's fairly lengthy "Gervais Principle" series rather than MacLeod's cartoon per se: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/

But he SOUNDS so sure of himself!

Now that you mention michealochurch, his stinch as an active HN commenter was short and powerful, wasn't it?

Haven't seen much from him lately.

I recall upvoting a comment of his just yesterday, so he is still around..

The corporate world is even more so plagued by this occurrence and explains why there are so many people in roles that they shouldn't be.

"I helped grow was big enough to support product managers who could do just the most rewarding parts of my job but not actually code or anything"

That's the worst. Asshole idea people who can't code their bullshit design or implementation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com