Why Silicon Valley has so many Bad Managers
getlighthouse.com
getlighthouse.com
Take for instance:
- Are managers at a pizza shop / drywall contractor / design studio better than the average startup?
- Are managers at IBM / GE / JPM better than ones at Facebook / Apple / Google?
At first blush, I'd think that we're actually better correcting for firm age, but I'd love to see the data/research.
In Silicon Valley, you can hide it behind more recruiters and funding. I've talked to multiple companies with first hand accounts of that level of turnover, which is rare in other industries because they'd go out of business losing that many people.
Really depends on the business. Walmart and Amazon have considerably greater than 35% turnover. Yes, 35% turnover is fatal if you're trying to do specialized, high-skill work. However, most businesses are not doing specialized, high-skill work. They're doing the routine work of delivering the goods and services that people need every day to live their lives. 35% turnover in that situation is arguably an advantage because it prevents bonds from forming between employees. It's a lot harder to organize and form a union to demand rights when you don't even know if that person you're talking to is going to still be there a month from now.
We can safely leave out "design studio" as these are much closer conceptually to programming shops.
But going by my own experience working jobs closer the former two categories - I would say "yes, and by a wide margin". The reasons for this are very straightforward:
(1) Both the customer needs, and the performance metrics in business in the "pizza-drywall" camp are generally much more "pure" (dare we say 10x as pure) as those in SD.
As in: "Can you make a pizza so good that not only you would would want to eat it as often as you could - but your friends would brag to their friends and neighbors about it as well? Or at least be good enough for the market / price range we're after? And can you make X per day, every day? And like not be a dick or show up hungover and stuff."
Versus: Are you a "culture fit"? Can you stay on top of the latest buzzwords? Can you spend all your available time for several weeks or months cramming for our ridiculous interview process - and put up with all the whiteboarding, ghosting and other gratuitous humiliations that we expect you to eat, eat, eat, and eat some more of in return for the exquisite pleasure of working with us? And once we deign to let you in - will you go along with our various brainwashing rituals (standups, agile, "DevOps culture", etc)? Or at least pretend to? BTW if you're kind of a dick that's actually okay being as many of us are, as you'll find out eventually.
(2) Infinitely less emphasis on what might loosely be called "theoretical" management techniques (see above) versus, again, nuts-and-bolts: "Can you do the work? Will you be happy doing it? Can we get along?"
Hands-down - while it would never be sustainable economically - I was infinitely happier at many of the food service / delivery / random construction jobs than at at least 50 percent of the tech industry jobs I've had.
It certainly can take a "come to Jesus" moment like you find out your team hates you, you get fired, a wave of employees quit on you, etc, but people can absolutely change when they decide to.
Character is absolutely important, and it does predispose one to being a better manager, but you can become a good manager later in life.
Unfortunately, as we discuss in the article (I wrote it), the incentives aren't always there, nor are the positive examples of what to do.
My personal journey has included discovering how amazingly angry I was, without even knowing it. It precluded having reasonable (engineering) discussions when people disagreed with me, being able to take and give direction, etc. Therapy helped a lot. Learning to be truthful, disagree reasonably, keep promises, think through problems, treat people kindly are all 'learnable'. But some core elements of our beings are pretty intractable, and I believe having the solid core of 'self' that can stand (again in the face of negative personal consequences) against the often outrageous conduct that's around us in the world is only very occasionally developed in adulthood.
Turnover in tech is extremely high and it's not because devs are constantly being mismanaged, it's because they are egotistical and capable of working independently and often just do without any real penalty. "Oh you fired me, well 9 times out of 10 I'll just be earning more money across the street, good luck recruiting anyone with a bad Glassdoor review!" What incentives does the manager have to get invested with the devs in this situation when employees good and bad can just leave easily.
Anyone who's worked in tach a while has seen cases where a dev has just flat out refused to do something a manager has asked them to do. Why? Ego is the only reason when you get paid either way.
Look at all the egotistical devs on this forum alone saying "all managers are bad" without considering they could be part of the problem.
that will cause a cascade of other problems because it can't be tested properly because no time has been spent automating regression because the managers agreed to unrealistic timelines because they're not the ones who have to deal with the fallout.
I'd break it down into these following factors:
1) youth, young people don't really care about burning bridges their life has pretty much always been on an upswing and they feel "set for life." There peers are bartenders, but they are making more money then their parents year one.
2) male dominated, I don't want to engage in stereotypes here but it just seems this is a factor.
3) education system, typically it has pushed people towards research and novelty. When I told my professor I wanted to get into web development he said "pfft that's just plumbing" definitely plays into factor two, the typical egotistical dev feels emasculated writing and email template. Not a good vibe for a manager.
> They said they'll refuse to show up to meetings
There's usually FAR TOO MANY MEETINGS. This is even more prevalent the more bad managers and engineers exist. Talking and assigning 'action items' is a good way to deflect attention from the fact that you have no clue what the heck you are doing. And bad engineers get shielded by the collective (as long as they can show some work done on their "action item", or indicate that they are blocked because of someone else).
If you actually have good engineers, they will see the meetings for what they are and start pushing back.
If you can't or won't do a coding job I hire you for, I would back-fill for myself and you would be on the street. (Cost of capital for startups isn't cheap!)
Let me provide a flip side to this from the dev's perspective: Salaries stagnate for developers in the same company as valuable options in il-liquid private stock serve as golden handcuffs. Companies abuse this position by further underpaying developers as compared to the market. If they can "make more money across the street" that is proof of the situation. Dont you expect developers to have some resentment to this situation?
This is especially stark when different members of a team were hired in different years, and thus got the prevailing market salary for a particular vintage of hires. You can get situations where an identical position is paying a 30% difference, only some of it due to negotiation.
The result is the developers "calibrate" themselves, many work less and less until they feel the situation is "fair." Many are working on their next startup, doing gigs, consulting, etc.
I find the technology industry to be a total mess as compared to management consulting (where I began my career.) There was some strangeness, but usually everything was in generally consistent bands. In comparison, my friends in big law describe a completely orderly situation.
Keeping old timers, they will take charge and be harder to manage.
Each newcomer, will be at your mercy, to be formed and taken hostage for many years.
Besides, an influx of chaos is good for grabbing more power. As it's really someone else's problem after all: Win win.
So such situations are because someone benefits from the situation, even though the organization bleeds. Look at incentive structures and follow the money. Though even if unintentional, it follows from simple cause and effects.
I don't think I've seen that yet, but if it came up with any of my coworkers, it would be because of ethical concerns. "Hide the cancel button", "Remove the unsubscribe link", etc.
Are you talking about people saying things like "I'm a senior engineer. Get the newbie to do that task"? I can't imagine that flying for a second where I work. You can try making the case that it's a poor use of your time, but flat-out refusing to do something out of ego would be the reddest of red flags.
(fwiw, I'm in Austin, not SV.)
Devs will also just argue that doing some UI related changes are pointless even though managers have requested them repeatedly and clearly prioritize them. I've seen all forms of recalcitrance.
Or not, but I can imagine many exceptions besides ego that would be reasonable. If it's just a Rockstar tantrum, then you're better off firing that dev asap and I can't even imagine such a person getting away with it, though I've never worked in SV.
False.
- You know it's going to cause a problem and - You know you'll be blamed for it, or - You know you'll be the one to live with the 4AM calls.
Anyone who's been in any business a while has seen cases where a control freak has to have their way, even if it means running the business into the ground. And while -that- may be their business, your sanity is yours.
Also, if companies don't provide incentives for people who stay longer, it is only their fault.
* Managers don't get proper training.
* ICs don't get proper training.
* No one want to train juniors and interns.
* Very few companies offer yearly refreshers.
* Yearly raises are not a thing in most companies.
* Small companies tend to offer crappy insurance.
* etc.
Most of them failed at one or most of these:
- They could never get a technical co-founder to work with them
- They were wrong about the market
- They were wrong about design
- They didn't have the means to self-finance their businesses (think Pixar and Next)
- They didn't have the connections
What they had was the college drop-out part and some ideas.
Getting berated or public raked over the coals from a jackass 'founder', but you've got decent $ coming in - some people can justify that to themselves, at least for a while. Expecting people to take that shit when they're working for 'equity'? Have seen that and it's insane. Good thing was/is that I've not seen it much, and haven't seen those situations play out successfully. But... the Apple/Jobs myth was powerful on that part for a long time (probably still is?).
But I didn't get close enough with most of them to know if they too had kids whose paternity they denied. I only have so much time after all.
How many managers model their behaviour upon these fake depictions of success?
I am speculating the answer is "no".
The question is, is the quality of management in Silicon Valley worse than it is in other industries and other locations. I would argue no. I would argue that the quality of management in Silicon Valley is at worst average, and is likely above average. In Silicon Valley, workers have far more bargaining power than they have in other areas of the country, and, as a result, if the management is truly awful, they'll simply leave.
That's not true elsewhere. If you're working for say, Epic Systems in Madison, Wisconsin, and you have a bad manager, what are your options? Sure, you can quit... and go work for who else, exactly? The employee's next-best opportunity isn't nearly as valuable, so management can get away with being less competent.
This isn't a theoretical consideration, either. I've moved from the West Coast to the Midwest, for family and cost of living reasons, and one of the things I've noticed is that the management here just really isn't as good, especially with regards to software projects, as it is on the West Coast. Partially that's down to the companies here being less software oriented than they are on the West Coast. But I would also argue that a significant part of it is that the management here is simply less competent.
Who are they going to get to replace you?
If your company can have better managers than its competitors you can gain an advantage. So if you say "eh, we don't have it that bad, other industries suck too," you're leaving that opening for others...
There is a new type of bad manager taking over, that does all the little things from contemporary management wisdom right, but is adrift as a leader and a bit delusional about the aura of thoughtfulness they project, personal wisdom and ability to mentor. To put it too glibly, it is what happens when one understands the material from Rands and Ask a Manager better than what their company and industry is actually doing.
I would like to see manager assistance software tackle this by guiding the manager by periodically guiding the user through some tough personal questions.
In case it must be said, I am not afflicted with this kind of bad manager; I’m just observing it in other organizations and trying to prevent myself from committing the same overreaction.
The counter intuitive lesson many leaders have to learn is that when you proactively have these discussions that align interests between employee and company, while also showing some empathy for your team, you fix many problems when they're super easy, instead of massive fires to fight.
With all that in mind, that is exactly why I started Lighthouse; knowing what to do and then actually doing it are two separate things. Keeping it all in Google docs and making your own system from scratch rarely holds together as well as someone automating things and reminding you of the right things to do.
Unfortunately I don't see an easy solution, and bad managers tend to be the ones that have the least understanding of the problems, but somehow make the most decisions.
So I'm pretty early in my career but have already had multiple experiences having managers who are a little younger than me. I want it to be fine, but it's just hard to see them as any kind of authority. How do other folks make this work?
I've tried very obvious things. I have worked out a path to be successful despite the efforts of my manager to prevent it. I included my skip level manager in the conversation. I very carefully review my manager's actions and tell them constructively in our 1on1 when they are managing badly. I spend a lot of time reviewing my progress to make sure my path is the best. I built relationships with other coworkers without my manager involvement so they can support my efforts when performance reviews are due.
If I kept the notion that was doing my old job I would be unhappy; changing my point of view has helped a lot.
Truth seeking is ultimately about accepting reality and calling things like they are which is, of course, harder than it sounds. We have all sort of motivations to lie to others and, more importantly, ourselves. As a manager this is compounded because you don't have control over what you are responsible for, you're relying on other people to do the work you are held accountable for so you start lying to yourself about how your team is doing, how communications is happening or not happening and a host of other things. The good managers learn to not do this.
Having someone younger than you as a manager can feel awkward, but if they actually invest in you and listen to you, it can be a great relationship...especially if you know you don't want to be a manager. Then, it's like this person is doing you a favor, so you can stick to the IC work you like.
If a manager is unable to convince a team member and forces them to take some path by pulling rank, isn't it a recipe for disaster regardless of age? In my experience, begrudging compliance is not a recipe for quality code.
Fear and love are the only real motivators, apparently, and we don't want to be afraid of things, blah blah, it was such a wretched simplification and so absurd in its manipulative outlook ("do it, you wouldn't want to be ... afraid ... now would you?") that I began to wonder if this was some kind of larger test on who could keep from laughing.
Those training sessions are also terrible. Even if they did have good content (instead of rah-rah and feel good BS), you can only remember so much at once, which even has a name for it: the Ebbinghaus Forgetting Curve https://peakmemory.me/2013/06/29/hermann-ebbinghaus-and-the-...
EQ would be more about using empathy to connect to others, try to understand other's points etc. Of course, if you "teach" such stuff to manipulative people, you get wretched results.
No. And the idea that this is a decision at all is frankly pretty disgusting. Some things are more important than having a good quarter, like your self respect and the physical and emotional safety of your employees. If your company can’t survive having criminals removed, then maybe it shouldn’t.
If you want to be successful (however you want to define success) and anyone or anything stands in your way then make it your job to overcome it.