Hacker News Reader

People quit because the modern, zero-loyalty, everyone-for-hire company does not provide a long term strategy for providing intrinsic motivation (autonomy, mastery, purpose)

Rands refers to this as your "shields down" moment.

http://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/

That was an interesting article, but I really didn't like the phrase 'shields down'. It sort of implies that the default state, that you should protect, is keeping your current job.

I think the default state should be you being happy, fullfilled and well compensated in your job. And if you take a better offer somewhere else, it's not because you 'dropped your shield', it's because you're looking out for your own interests.

For anyone who hasn't read Rands, he's got a bunch of these and they're largely pretty fantastic.

Managing Humans / Being Geek are also great books if you like this type of writing. I've shared them with lots of new managers/engineers and they've always been well received.

Any reviews about their leadership slack? Am always looking for good communities to join, but the signal to noise ratio is very very high in most.

It's like the idea of being mercenary is inconceivable. I'm loyal to whoever has the best deal. If my friend invites me to coffee to talk over a better deal than the one I have, I'll take it.

I hate this approach to management. Why should I be "shielded" from a better opportunity? That only protects my manager, and gives me no valuable protection.

Translation: "I didn't read the link, here's a non sequitur."

The "shield" is just your day-to-day (sometimes minute-to-minute) SELF-evaluation of your current job satisfaction and willingness to leave. It has nothing to do with you being shielded from anything by anyone else.

I did, in fact, read the link, and I'm reacting to the condescending language used throughout. The unspoken attitude in the article is that the employee is a dirty traitor and a fool for wanting to move on. 'Shields down' is a telling choice of words because the manager feels that the employee is protected by being his. It's a patronizing, parental sort of attitude towards employees that irks me to no end.

To pull another quote:

  "If I’m sitting here talking with you it means two things: I don’t want you to leave and, to the best of my knowledge, you didn’t want to leave either but here you are leaving."

Here he's either assuming he can read the minds of his employees, or that his employees should share every dissatisfaction and stray thought with him. Hyperbole, perhaps, but not by much. I don't want a nosy dad for a boss.

I agree that the author is condescending. Also, despite writing a lot on the subject, he doesn't actually seem to be a good manager. Very authoritarian.

He worked at Apple, a company known for a certain authoritarian tendency. (I like Rands' writings though.)

The problem is with the implied meaning.

Calling this mode "shields up" implicitly means that it's something good for you, protecting you - but it's not quite so, this "shield" is protecting the company/manager instead of you. The exact same thing might be called not "shields up" but "complacent mode" or "ignoring opportunity" for the opposite implied evaluation.

> it's best to look at your directs as someone to help them advance for their next job.

I'm happy to say this is my manager's position. I joined this team nearly 2 years ago mainly on the strength of a great discussion with him during the interview process, and our team is clearly excellent thanks to him, with significant investment in growth, responsibility and empowerment (I know they're buzzwords but ick, I don't know how better to say it).

(Just want to stem the tide of inevitable gripes that are going to show up)

I feel this way about my boss, I have stayed a long time after it does not make financial sense because she

A) takes my ideas seriously even if she doesn't see the end game. Just says go for it and see what happens.

B) comes up with trainings and stuff that match my role that she can send me on.

C) holds me to a high standard without being a jerk about it.

I will be bummed to leave and stop learning from this person's example. I'm taking a hit financially but I've come a really long way. So I'm being reaaaal slow in the job hunt. I know when I'm in a good work environment, and I might not find that. At the next job.

As a manager myself, I will go out of my way to retain a good employee. Our wages are low (nonprofit) but we can be very flexible to the needs of an employee. Diligent, dedicated people who care about doing a good job are worth their weight in gold.

So... Why not find your boss her next job, and follow her there? Not suggesting something Machiavellian or that you have direct ability to do so, but if you think she's awesome you should be interested in her advancement. Put her name out there a little in places you respect. You never know what will happen.

This is a great idea. Although, if I was staying in the nonprofit social work sector I would probably not even leave this company (I consider it to be a really high quality provider in its area). Unfortunately, like a lot of people, I'm being pulled towards web development. Partly by the large income difference, but more because I find I feel really at home in that world and I am hooked by the work. I'm getting to grow my programming skills at this company by solving little problems and writing useful tools. Similarly at my other job, I'm taking over the website. However, eventually, it would be nice to have only one job, and for it to be full time development. I'd bring my boss if I could!

Funny how if you embrace it, it actually helps retention :)

  People quit because the modern, zero-loyalty, everyone-for-hire company does not provide a long term strategy for providing intrinsic motivation (autonomy, mastery, purpose); they don't want to pay for retention and therefore don't provide perks for retention.

The culture around ROI is a massive factor. Too short? Too long? It has to be balanced.

Another belief I hold: most people want to be told what to do.. to a certain degree. That's the trick.

The political way of phrasing this is that leadership also has to be balanced. Too much results in predictability and people getting bored. Too little results in people feeling lost.

In depth article on the quitting economy.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-work-changed-to-make-us-all-passi...

I've quit several jobs because of the first reason. I've avoided quitting jobs for the second reason because I've been lucky enough that my "I do not want to manage" stance has been accepted.

P