Yes, You Can Blame Your Pointy-Haired Boss On the Peter Principle 211
Nerval's Lobster writes: You've heard of the Peter Principle, which suggests that all employees manage to rise to the level of their incompetence. (That is to say, everybody is promoted until their skills and strengths no longer align with their current position.) While the Peter Principle is often treated as a truism, a recent Gallup study (registration required)—the result of four decades' worth of research, involving 2.5 million manager-led teams—suggests that it holds a significant degree of real-world truth. "Gallup has found that only 10 percent of working people possess the talent to be a great manager," the study mentions in its introduction. "Companies use outdated notions of succession to put people in these roles." In Gallup's estimation, there are so many bad managers out there that one out of every two employees have "left their job to get away," according to the study. "Managers who are not engaged or who are actively disengaged cost the U.S. economy $319 billion to $398 billion annually." In other words, there are a lot of pointy-haired managers out there.
The good news is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The good news is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it. It's too easy NOT to be.
Just realize that you are NOT smarter than the people reporting to you. You just happened to get stuck in that management slot.
Next, learn that just because you've been TALKING since you were 2 does not mean that you are a master at COMMUNICATION. Take classes. Read books. LEARN to communicate.
Now you can give rapid feedback to your people. Instead of the once-a-year-review aim for the every-2-weeks-review. That way you will remember all the reasons why the main project was delayed. Remember your new communication skills.
Finally, decide whether you're going to fuck your people in order to make other managers look good or whether you're going to help your people get the skills to move up and onward.
Re:The good news is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, just like everybody could be great at higher mathematics if they just studied diligently, and win Olympic races if they would just train regularly.
Recognizing that you're incompetent is an important first step - but it does not directly imply that you can substantially correct the deficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Recognizing that you're incompetent is an important first step - but it does not directly imply that you can substantially correct the deficiency.
I'd be willing to be that in the majority of cases you're still going to be better off than if you made no attempt to improve at all. In many cases, that could be the difference between a good employee staying or leaving.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be a Olympic athlete to be an athlete. Not every job takes the best of the best. And there are surely far more positions for management jobs then there are those both trained and naturals at it.
People just have to accept that sometimes that every person they work with will be an experienced expert, and may sometimes make mistakes now and then. A good organization minimizes them and lets people learn to do their job. A bad one manages by blame.
Some jobs of course there is no learning on the
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. I've been a manager before, and if I'm being honest, I think I did a pretty good job at it. Relatively. Mostly.
But the guy who said, "It's too easy NOT to be." doesn't know what he's talking about. It's really easy to make a dumb managerial decision. It's really hard to be a good manager. For example, he says;
Instead of the once-a-year-review aim for the every-2-weeks-review. That way you will remember all the reasons why the main project was delayed.
So great, now instead of being the absentee manager who doesn't know what's going on, you're the micromanaging asshole who calls constant meetings. As a result, you remember all the reaso
Re: (Score:2)
Many nerds and geeks have poor social skills. I am one/1 of them, and having disabilities doesn't help. :(
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But it doesn't seem like he's a psychopath, so he definitely is not fit for upper management.
Re:The good news is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ha! It WAS me!
I was a really good developer. Then a great developer (in my mind, and others) so I moved up the ranks.
I was pretty good, and made it to the top of the tech heap at a fairly large organization, with 3 levels of employees under me.
It was horrible. I did a really crappy job.
Instead of being a great developer or architect, I become a HORRIBLE business contract negotiator and director. I got involved in 2 HR actions at the same time. I completely failed. In fact I think I 'Petered Out'.
I bailed on that life, and found an organization willing to match my salary- back down at a developer position. I'm a nominal supervisor to 2 people.
I really think I am doing great work again- even better than before, because my viewpoint is even better. I love being a developer, and they love what I'm doing.
The Peter Principal is real. I was promoted beyond my abilities, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Being really good at something doesn't necessarily mean that I'm able to manage a bunch of other people.
Re:The good news is... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was horrible. I did a really crappy job.
Sadly, you were probably better than the guy before you and the guy after you.
I venture to say that just because you realized you were doing a bad job, you were already doing a better job than the vast majority of managers (especially ones who think of themselves as "good").
Re:The good news is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: The good news is... (Score:2)
Are you managing people, or projects?
I think the problem is, modern managers are expected to herd cats.
The problem isn't the managers, it's the cats.
Re: The good news is... (Score:4, Interesting)
> The problem isn't the managers, it's the cats.
If you're a manager that thinks like that, you're a shitty manager (which according to the above, is the norm).
The process of software development isn't a factory process, despite all the attempts to turn it into one. The qualities that make someone a good software developer does mean that they are more like cats - they've had engage in self-directed learning about their chosen field for most of their career, because it's continually refreshed. It's literally so new, that the gap between those writing the book, forging new tech, and those reading it, learning the new tech, is usually measured in months. This leads to an independent mindset. They are not pack animals. If you want good work, you need to learn to manage this kind of people.
The alternative is what we see in Indian outsourcing outfits. The reason Indian shops are so prized for outsourcing isn't their exemplary skill, it's the Indian culture of deference and respect - which means they are obedient, and toe the line, and work hard on what you told them to work on. They're not cats, they're dogs.
Managers love this because it seems like they are getting exactly what they wanted.
Alas, it means they are getting exactly what they wanted - and the Peter Principle reminds us that this is the wrong thing, because they are not competent to decide this, which means they are spending a lot of money on developing the wrong solution.
So far so good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So far so good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So far so good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that they mention it.. It's one our company ideals that we promote from within. I've seen a lot of good sys admins get thrust into management and fail or leave. I've also seen nontechnical people try to manage IT departments only to find their employees ready to drive them off with pitch forks when they are unable to understand what is going on.
Re:So far so good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've also seen nontechnical people try to manage IT departments only to find their employees ready to drive them off with pitch forks
Something I learned 20 years ago, is that you never, never have a non-tech directly manage techs. They will have no idea what their people are doing, will be incapable of distinguishing good workers from self-promoters, and will quickly lose the respect of their subordinates. It just doesn't work.
Re:So far so good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Something I learned 20 years ago, is that you never, never have a non-tech directly manage techs.
You can say the same thing about recruiters.
Re: Dunning Kruger in action may have killed IBM (Score:2)
Remarkably, Who Says Elephants Can't Dance? demands that "dealing final blows" be praised as "saving" (short-term "rescue" entrenching the long-term demise AKA "Historic Turnaround"). The sections measuring the merits e.g. of OS/2 (and over the years, pretty much any technological asset) by the same standard as consumer packaged goods are particularly saddening.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this just word salad? For the life of me I have no idea what you're saying.
Re:So far so good. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have had a manager like that, in a computer repair firm. Before he was thrust upon us by IBM (Incredible Bureaucratic Machine), morale on the workfloor was excellent, but he managed to get it down to far below zero in no time. He literally told us that 'He did not know what happened on the workfloor, he did not need to know and he did not want to know.' All he looked at was figures: the more repairs one wrote up, the better.
So, someone who just slammed the parts of a laptop together, had a few screws left and just looked if it did switch on after that, got a better qualification than someone who carefully reassembled one and tested the machine before sending it back to the customer. The first did more 'repairs' on a day (but most of those came back because the machines were still broken), the last hardly ever had a re-repair, but trying to explain that on a performance review was totally useless.
Needless to say that every competent repair engineer in the shop hated the guy's guts...
Re: (Score:3)
Determining the right metrics isn't easy. Repairs minus returns and complaints might be a better metric, but event that would be flawed, because a percentage of complaints and returns might be on a false premise. When metrics are emphasized they are usually gamed. Even discounting incompetency a tech might cherry-pick the easy repairs to increase the number. Relying on numbers without understanding of what those numbers mean is a recipe for failure in any industry.
Re: (Score:3)
From a business perspective your asshole manager was right. More repairs=good, doubly good if the repair actually breaks something else leading to repeat business. From an ethical or professional standard he was, well, an asshole.
You might be right if the repairs were not under warranty. But most were, so they cost the company money. And even if the repairs were not under warranty, bad repairs leads to unsatisfied customers and an unsatisfied customer will think twice before buying that brand ever again and will tell everyone to avoid it, while a good repair will lead to a better image and more sales. On the long term, the last will work better.
Re: (Score:3)
That works right up until your customers abandon you for a more reliable vendor.
Re: (Score:3)
That works right up until your customers abandon you for a more reliable vendor.
... and potential new customers read your Yelp reviews, and stay away.
Generalisation overload (Score:5, Informative)
In my 25 year career I've had the pleasure of having two non-technical managers who were far and away the best managers I've ever seen in action. They used their non-techiness to their advantage and built high performing teams that would walk over coals for them. It's called trust.... "I know you are all supremely clever, and know stuff that I don't.... that's why you're the engineers. My job is to trust you all to do your jobs well, make sure nothing gets in the way of you doing your job well, and by the way you lot being a bunch of arrogant techie dicks, and ignoring me as a "non-techie girl" counts as "getting in the way of you doing your jobs well" "
And to the point of the original article - Two of the absolutely worst managers I've had were promoted engineers who weren't good enough to make it into the ranks of "chief engineer / consulting architect / great poo bah of technicality" and felt their only scope for promotion was to take on management. To the credit of one of them, he realised he was totally crap at this management lark, and re-trained. Over time he actually became quite a good manager - not great but pretty good.
The other doofus left in a hail of "thank god he's gone" and continued to wreck havoc wherever he went.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed with Sibling. If the manager doesn't grasp how it is that IT or programming teams should be run (or at least how they run best), and is unable to get up to speed, then it all goes to shit in no time... people skills be damned.
I've worked for an IT manager that knew approximately bupkis about tech. Her MBA was all the qualification you needed, according to her. She trusted you, and yes she could really wrestle money out of the CFO to get you what you really needed. The problem was that she had a solid
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't know enough to know who to trust then you can be in for a world of pain.
When such a person gets promoted it's a very clear sign that whoever has promoted them does not know enough to know who to trust.
Small technical companies can be good places to work because th
Re: (Score:2)
Something I learned 20 years ago, is that you never, never have a non-tech directly manage techs. They will have no idea what their people are doing, will be incapable of distinguishing good workers from self-promoters, and will quickly lose the respect of their subordinates. It just doesn't work.
Just to add to that list the boss is the natural point of escalation when two people butt heads and won't agree. I don't expect my bosses to know the details or even the subject, but they need to understand technical write-ups listing the pros and cons so we can settle it and move on. If the boss clearly has no understanding of the issue and just goes with the person he likes best, of course he'll lose respect.
The other issue is representation, my boss often have to represent our interests in various formal
Re: (Score:2)
Due to people getting parachuted in to positions due to personal or political connections that lesson gets repeated in just about every field you can think of over and over again.
The ones who do the most damage are the ones that skip from role to role faster than the consequences of their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that they mention it.. It's one our company ideals that we promote from within. I've seen a lot of good sys admins get thrust into management and fail or leave. I've also seen nontechnical people try to manage IT departments only to find their employees ready to drive them off with pitch forks when they are unable to understand what is going on.
I don't think "promote within" is a bad policy or ideal to have. It's only bad if it becomes gospel rather than guideline. There are people with strong technical skills that can also be good managers. There is also a risk in bringing in a manager to supervise a group of technical people whose job they don't really understand.
At my company it's pretty clear who has good leadership/management skills and who doesn't. Some of them currently hold technical positions. Further, being given a supervisory role
Re: (Score:2)
Companies should be careful about misplaced pride for "promoting from within". When I was unemployed last winter, I remember being on a phone screen with one company who prided themselves on ONLY promoting from within. Of course, that shielded the flipside of the same coin: the only positions that had external searches were the bottom-of-the-barrel positions, in terms of pay. Even if the position required years of work experience, it was really only suitable for a kid straight out of college, living with
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of "I'd be a better boss than that dimwit" experts don't really understand what most of being in management actually entails.
Another good rule of thumb is that subordinates that spend a lot of time whining and criticizing the boss, and are sure they could do better, actually make the worst bosses once they get promoted into that role.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly a better tech than my boss, even though she came thrugh the tech fields and is no PHB. I'm very definitely not a better boss than she is. At best, I might BS my way through the job, hating every minute until I got fed up and quit. More likely, they'd catch onto my incompetence (in that role) and can me before I quit.
Re:So far so good. (Score:4, Insightful)
I was in management a good part of my career, and I learned this.
What management actually entails is the realization that it's not about you, it's about your employees.
As manager, you are there to do whatever you have to do to help them get their jobs done. Sure, at a certain level you might set direction, etc., but you work for them, not the other way around.
Managers who forget this and think it's about "being the boss" are bound to fail, sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
The structures are fine, it's just that turnover at the higher level is low.
There are usually as many manager as lead level developers in IT (at least there should be, where lead is the technical equivalent of director). The leads manage specific development activities (and should not be micro-managed). And if the manager/director and the lead(s) are competent (or in with upper management, or good at manipulation, I've seen it all), no one else can move up.
So, the senior developers will probably leave, af
Re:So far so good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Management hierarchy and the way the corporate world conflates it with status has always seemed bizarre to me. It's one thing that people are supposed to do what the manager directs. That's pretty much the job. But then it gets all bizarre. Stools for interns, chairs with a small back rest for grunts, full back for managers and high back and reclining for execs seems odd to say the least.
I think they would be better served by considering management to be just another job title. The software gets done the way the designer says because it's his job to make the determination. The department manager's priorities decide what is done when because that's his job. Neither is a somehow superior being.
Note that taken to the fullest, it would get rid of the gigantic security hole that is so often called the CEO. You know, the guy that bypasses all security policy and insists on connecting his kid's laptop and wifi to the corporate network because he is the boss Even though he knows nothing about network security and so really doesn't know enough to be given authority over it. As is proven by the horrific viruses he routinely visits upon the company from that laptop.
Why should a fully generic MBA in middle management be treated as more important to the company than the people who actually understand the product that keeps the money coming in? Why does he get the medium high chair back (cloth, fake leather is for people a rung higher!) and a window?
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed.
The main thing that moved me into management (which I suck at) was the lack of a promotional track for engineers.
We actually had it written into our pay grading that we couldn't ascend above a particular grade unless we managed at least 2 people. I was way more productive as an engineer than a manager. By the time I got to that point, I was paying for more than my annual salary just by dint of having written software replacing stuff with expensive annual license fees. If I'd had a clause in my contra
Re: So far so good. (Score:2)
When my grandmother was alive, nearly every conversation with her included "So how are things going with your job? Have you been promoted yet?" The problem was that, at my company, the only promotion would mean becoming a manager and not coding anymore. I know that I'd make an awful manager, so I didn't even try to get promoted.
Re:So far so good. (Score:5, Funny)
I can't even imagine why.
He enjoys the manager knish?
Re:So far so good. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I worked for old school companies my managers LOVED me.
Why? Because they had to be paid as much or more than me. So every time I _extorted_ the big boss for more money, they got a raise too.
I really didn't appreciate when they told the rest of the team I had taken the entire 'raise budget'. They really didn't appreciate when I told the rest of the team I had taken 150% of the 'raise budget' and they should all grow a pair.
Salary caps? That's what is know as 'a wish'. They wish to keep your salary below that number. Let them wish into one hand and shit into the other...
If you are that good, they will make up a new job category.
Re:So far so good. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was in that situation, programmers, engineers, developers - whatever the title was - had a cap of salary. Meaning your senior architect god's gift to the technical couldn't go above a low level manager's salary. If you wanted more, you gotta go management. And what sucked, many times you topped out at your company, but your pay was waayy above every other company's.
This is pretty much why the Peter Principle exists. We have a bizarre notion that management is somehow "better" or "above" technical work, when in many cases managers are in the job they do because they are not actually good at doing technical work, but they are good at the big picture and knowing where resources need to be spent. Similarly technical people, who are usually more concerned with the problem than the solution, often feel they need to jump to management but are not good at that work and do not want to leave the technical work. So you end up with a lot of unqualified positions they don't truly want to be in, but need the money.
I have been doing this for a while now, I'm still not convinced even one very good manager is worth more than one very good engineer, nor are they harder to find if you don't create a reality via pay grades. My present company perhaps encourages people to stay technical, and we have a few people who would be strong managers who are staying technical because that's where the money is at while the managers have far too much risk of being fired. But most of my previous employers were the opposite: good engineers who got promoted up because they were good engineers, but had no particular managerial talent. HR created the reality where you promote them, or watch them leave. So they got promoted.
Outdated (Score:2)
The idea is kind of outdated though. It comes from a time when people were promoted to management instead of like today, taking special useless degrees to become what they are.
Re:Outdated (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in an organization that struggles with this. One of my guys is a very competent technical resource who deserves to be paid more than we are "allowed" to pay him based on his current title / position. Our company is a consulting company and the compensation model was designed to reward managers who are leading large teams of people on client engagements. The model is not flexible enough to reward people in technical positions who do not have direct reports.
In order to hack the system, we had to setup a bunch of dotted line reports for him on the organization chart. He does not technically "manage" them because he is not responsible for performance reviews and all of those other fun managerial tasks. But since he could technically delegate to them, they count towards his head count requirement.
Re:Outdated (Score:4, Interesting)
I've worked for one company that I thought did a rather smart thing: They separated out the "manager" and "boss" roles.
So they had one person, a "manager", keep an eye on people, keep an eye on projects, allocate resources, and basically manage the group. The "boss" was a rather technical guy who was not good at managing, and did not want to manage, and who mostly worked as part of the team. The "manager" was treated more as a resource to keep the group working effectively, and really wasn't "in charge". For any substantial decisions, the manager would discuss it with the boss, and the boss would make a decision.
Admittedly, it was a small company doing a rather niche set of work, but it worked really well. There seemed to be something to the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
So instead of climbing the ranks 'til they are useless, the go right from MBA degree to useless?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need an MBA to make management even today. You really don't need it if you're a middle manager. Executive? Maybe.
An MBA is buying yourself an opportunity with a piece of paper. That opportunity can be worth it, if you know how to exploit it, but there are other opportunities to be had.
Wait... (Score:2)
Rely on the counterfactual. (Score:5, Informative)
The best way to understand the principle is to imagine the counterfactual.
When does a person *not* get promoted any longer? When they are not actually that great at the position into which they have most recently been promoted. At that point, they do not demonstrate enough merit to earn the next obvious promotion.
So, the cadence goes:
Demonstrates mastery of title A, promoted to title B.
Demonstrates mastery of title B, promoted to title C.
Demonstrates mastery of title C, promoted to title D.
Does not manage to demonstrate mastery of D = is not promoted and stays at that level indefinitely as "merely adequate" or "maybe next year" or "still has a lot to learn."
That's the principle in a nutshell—when you're actually good at your job, you get promoted out of it. When you're average at your job, you stay there for a long time.
Re:Rely on the counterfactual. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a tangential corollary here. Often times employees are expected to do a job / handle the responsibilities of a position for a year or more before they officially given the title and pay that goes along with it. In that way, organizations protect themselves by trying out an employee in a position before promoting them.
While the above is okay, it potentially puts the employee in a disadvantageous position. Unless they are willing to negotiate or leave for another job, they run the risk of getting stuck doing work far above their pay grade without reaping any of the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in practice it's usually a mix of the two, so the principle is more an abstract model than an argument about real, concrete thresholding.
But the general idea is that by the time someone stops being promoted, if they continue in the job that they are in while not being promoted for an extended period of time, it means that they are likely not amongst the highest-merit individuals around for that particular job and responsibility list—because if they were, they'd have been promoted and/or would hav
Re: (Score:3)
This is what I see happening in the industry that I am. We compete with the larger consulting firms (KPMG, Deloitte, etc.) and more often than not, people are changing jobs every 2-4 years. For people who have been in the industry long enough, they often times end up going back to a firm that they might have worked at previously.
I do not really understand it because it is counter to my own career progression during wh
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes they force you to accept a higher position, but in most cases, a key ingredient is that the person in question allows themselves to be moved into that position. There have been plenty of people who I have reviewed who are very good at their jobs and I will neither promote them, nor do they wish to be promoted. We all know that the person in question is not going to do a good job at it.
The reason for the Peter Principle is that *somebody* has to do the job. There are a lot of bad managers, but t
Sure, conceded, at least for my part. (Score:2)
I don't think the principle is meant as a critique so much as a statement of a regrettable tendency in the way that things in employment situations simply are.
Re: (Score:2)
soft skills could also be inspiring dedicated effort from your subordinates or translating squishy goals from the higher ups to concrete goals that your subordinates can achieve.
Re: (Score:2)
My assumption is that a level 1 employee who excels at their job gets promoted to level 2, repeating that cycle until they get to the level where they no longer excel at their job and receive no more promotions.
I think it's debatable whether an employee at their plateau level of promotion is merely good enough or actually incompetent. It's probably both and circumstantial. Someone promoted to their plateau may be just good enough not to get terminated immediately but not good enough to retain the position
Re: (Score:2)
That would be closer to the Dilbert Principle. Something along the lines of "promote idiots to middle-management where they can do the least harm."
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
The Peter Principal is commonly misunderstood.
TFA is accurate but your restatement of it isn't quite right.
You have the skills to do a good job, and you get promoted. That keeps happening until, eventually, you are promoted to a level where your skills aren't quite good enough to meet the requirements. That's where your career plateaus.
Re: (Score:2)
Who makes that decision? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the Peter Principal, that's... something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird way of looking at it (Score:2)
It seems like much less than 10% of working people would be qualified to do any given skilled non-managerial job. When most labor was unskilled you'd promote dirt-common unskilled employees to management if they demonstrated they had the moderately uncommon talent to manage. Now that most "labor" is actually highly skilled, you should get promoted from common manager to skilled worker if you demonstrate you have the rare talent to do that job. Managers should be lower-level employees who do the administr
Re: (Score:2)
Or another way of looking at it is that managers should be so highly skilled that they can do the work of everyone on their team. Those managers should then train their people so that one day, those people can replace the manager.
I know it sounds ideal, but this is exactly what I am doing with my team in my organization. It is working so well that every time I have an open position, I have people on other teams scrambling to apply to the position.
Re: (Score:2)
We have the type of managers you are talking about, we call them project managers. Although, there are some very skilled PMs out there, many are there to call meetings and manage spreadsheets, MS Project, or JIRA. Very useful tasks, that don't require them to know how to do the actual work.
The problem becomes supervision of those skilled employees. You need someone who has authority and skills who can call bullshit and call on their knowledge of how things actually work when they do that.
In reality, you
This is why Captain Picard... (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem isn't the mananger who's NOT engaged (Score:3)
It's the manager who's TOO engaged.
Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Worse Than Managers (Score:2)
What an MBA is supposed to be (Score:5, Interesting)
All I'm saying is, I agree that good managers are hard to come by, and maybe we should have a school for that.
The Video Game Industry Version (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Video Game Industry Version (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are describing is called the "Dilbert Principle" wherein the worst producers are promoted to management to get them out of the productive flow.
Good enough to quit (Score:3)
I seemed to gravitate to management where ever I went. I tried to do real work while organizing and directing the folks that worked for me. After almost 2 decades I finally got good enough at real work that they let me stop managing and just go back to working for a living. Much more enjoyable.
Then again maybe they realized I sucked as a manager.
... then train people. (Score:3)
The problem here is the assumption that because you worked in dept. X for years that you can manage dept. X. That coupled with the belief that management ability is innate rather than learned leads to people being promoted to management with no training, or the support needed to develop as a manager.
Seriously, give people training an mentoring! Nuffsaid!
Diversifying your specialties into obsolescence (Score:2)
I'm in the scenario where my work has continued to diversify to the point that my original strongest skills are now outdated. Truly the "jack of all trades and master of none" scenario. That has also put me in more of the position of taking on design and lead roles for larger projects where that diversity in skills is actually beneficial.
That also will mean heading closer and closer to a management position. I'm not sure this is too bad of a thing, honestly. I may not be able to sit down and directly ut
only one good manager in five years (Score:5, Interesting)
I just quit Micro^h^h^h^h for this exact reason.
Over a period of 5 years:
Hired in.
Report to a guy who looks 12, but turns out to be an Excellent Manager*.
Do my best work in a decade.
Excellent Manager reorg'ed from Inspiring General Manager to Disastrous Director.
Excellent Manager is driven out by political fuckery by Disastrous Director.
Disastrous Director is fired for malfeasance.
Inspiring General Manager won't come back, had enough, quits managing to do research.
Report to Microsoft Lifer, old EM's technical manager a who does a passable job leading.
Microsoft Lifer is reorg'ed under General Manager/Bottlewasher who can't stop micromanaging.
Lifer gets ruthlessly fucked with, has entire team's work credited to incompetent Level 67 Blowhard.
Lifer's team is reorg'ed under Blowhard, except for me+handful.
Old EM's peer Last Asskicking Manager quits because he won't work for Blowhard.
GM/Bottlewasher can't stop micromanaging everyone.
Lifer gives up and takes a non-mgmt job.
Report to McManager hired from military, who used to manage 600.
GM/Bottlewasher can't stop micromanaging everyone.
McManager reorg'ed, team reduced to 5.
Blowhard steals work output from McManager, leaving no credit.
GM/Bottlewasher lines up all resources behind Blowhard.
McManager demoted to my peer.
Report to new guy Perennial Survivor, brought in by another reog.
Lifer demoted to my peer.
Old Excellent Manager quits to work for Amazon, because it's saner(!!!).
Survivor admits 80% of Botlewasher's 2015-16 yearly plan is bullshit makework.
Fuck this noise, quit. Even a startup is saner.
*only one in 5 years.
It's easier for incompetence to hide in large enterprises. They used to write books about how great Redmond managers were. Now the entire enterprise is infested with pointy-haired, risk-averse, beige, wannabe-hipsters who can't make any decisions other than to stab each other in the back. And front. And sides. Precious few people do actual work, when so much effort is devoted to bad management and the shielding of productive people from that bad management.
Managers need to learn their place. (Score:3)
And their role. Sadly, many think it's their job to tell people how to do their job. A former boss of mine, who I owe a lot of my knowledge on management, put it best: When you're coaching an NFL team, you needn't tell them how to play football. They know that. You have to make sure they can do it.
Management is not about breathing down your people's back and crack the whip. That's not going to accomplish jack. Maybe it feeds your ego. Ok. But I don't care about your ego, I care about results. And results, you won't get that way. You will get workers that spend more time pondering how to find a new job without a gap in their resume rather than doing any meaningful work. Which will only tell those idiots that they didn't crack that whip hard enough.
Good management is not about squeezing your people dry and getting the last bit out of them. Good management means that this isn't even necessary to get peak performance. Of course, that means that the manager has to actually work rather than just sit or stand there and yell at people.
My job as a manager is to "pave the way". To clear out obstacles for the people working for me to make sure that they can do their job without interruption, distraction or stumbling blocks. I have to make sure they have the resources they need, timely and completely.
Yes, correct. I am working for them. That's the whole point. That's why I have the clout and the "power" that my position carries. They can't go and stand against a department head who doesn't want to cooperate. I can. I can make decisions and I can back them up. And I can get a decision from other departments and I can ensure that they will deliver. I can do that. They cannot.
Of course, cracking the whip and burning your staff is easier, and it sure will not make you appear "difficult" to your peers in management who have to deal with you instead of someone they can brush aside. But that is your damn job as someone who should manage his team. You're the manager not because you're the best in whatever your team is doing. You're their manager because you can get them what they need to do their job!
So do your damn job, manager!
PH1B (Score:5, Funny)
A shortage of managers? We gotta import more! The PH1B program is born.
Corollary to the Peter Principle (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are not getting promoted you have already risen to your level of incompetence.
Is there more than 10% great at doing anything? (Score:2)
Top 10% seems about right to be considered great.
And you can blame the Peter Principle... (Score:2)
on *his* pointy-haired boss!
The peter principle only applies if.... (Score:2)
In my experience, companies don't promote people to having additional responsibilities before that worker has already proven that they are capable of handling those responsibilities, perhaps through a management training program. Such a promotion must actively be sought out by the employee.
The only other "promotions" that I know of are something like annual cost-of-living salary increases that the most re
Re: (Score:2)
I feel very lucky (Score:2)
Worse: they're multiplying (Score:4, Interesting)
Place I work at had a single manager over the entire department. Under two expansions, she still managed consistently good performance reviews and kept the idiocy of other departments at bay.
She was replaced by two managers. One was forced to retire early after a near fatal accident she caused, and the other...
There were week long celebrations after her retirement. I can only imagine it was similar to the relief felt when Carly Fiorina was drummed out of HP. It was that bad.
Now we have four additional middle managers. The entire department is a clusterfuck of miscommunication and petty turf wars. They haven't quite grasped the exodus that has been happening with people quitting, and certainly seem oblivious to the contempt the underlings have for them. Lawsuits are starting, and the complaints are written off as the disgruntled.
And of course, since we are short-staffed now with increasing demands, there is talk of... even more managers and dividing the department into smaller departments, since it is too unwieldy for 6 people to handle.
Fuck me.
Re:Many years ago ... (Score:5, Insightful)
there are two bedrock norms in America that cause all sorts of distortions in the labor pool:
* you can promote people but not demote them
* you can give people raises but not cut their base pay.
As a result of these norms, it's easier to fire 10% of your workforce then lower all pay by 10%. Similarly they can cut benefits (ie by lowering their retirement contribution or increasing health costs) which is effectively a salary reduction. If you're hourly they also will cut back your hours, but not your pay.
This is how societal norms distort what economists like to imagine is the free market.
Re:Many years ago ... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a result of these norms, it's easier to fire 10% of your workforce then lower all pay by 10%.
I know this may be the exception that proves the rule, but my former company did just that; across the board 10% pay cut to the entire organization, including management. Every one of us hated it, but the smarter of us did realize that it probably saved some peoples' jobs. It had the unintended side effect of taking top performers and encouraging them to perform at 90% (or less), however...
Re: (Score:3)
I've never worked anywhere that, if 'they' could identify the right 10%, they wouldn't have increased productivity by firing them.
Companies that fire 10% per year are idiots (the whole place starts politicking the system) but to think that an occasional house cleaning isn't needed is foolish.
The first 'fire 10%' is an opportunity.
Re: (Score:3)
his is how societal norms distort what economists like to imagine is the free market.
That is why there are two areas of study micro-economics and macro-economics. On the micro-scale, it usually is better to fire 10% of your staff. After all the people who are working hard and doing good work usually know it. If you give them a 10% pay cut they will be butt hurt about it, they won't work as hard, or do as good a work. You will most likely see a greater than 10% loss in productivity.
On the other hand hand if you fire 10% of workforce, those that "survive" will feel threatened and if any
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In tech, they usually can.
Re: (Score:2)
>If you demote someone, they may legally quit and (surprise, surprise!) file for employment insurance as this is considered constructive dismissal. Once again, if this happens more than very rarely, the company will be on the hook to give more money to the government or other employees they demote (who then quit).
I don't know where you live, but in CA this sounds really iffy. link?
Re: (Score:2)
Because engineers, sysadmins and tech support drones are generally still doing the job they were hired to do initially. Maybe they've been given additional responsibility they didn't deserve, but it's still the same *type* of job. Management is the weird one out, because it's so common for a company to say, "you are an excellent engineer/sysadmin/tech support person/etc., so we are going to 'promote' you to a job you are totally unqualified for, have no desire to do, and that isn't why we hired you." That d
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's some manager term. Must be one of their buzzwords they use to feel like they're important or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Managers clearly have a greater influence, but any second-rate employee can be a morale killer that hurts the economy.
Except a good manager won't allow that employee to continue as-is. Fix 'em or fire 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you are not self-motivated. What happens when you get eventually get your PHD and then get tenure?