Hacker News Reader

"I have far far more important things to do"

And your employees have far far more important things to do than commute 5-20 hours every week so they can sit at a desk and stare at a screen and occasionally be physically present in meetings where everyone stares at a screen. We have screens at home.

I agree with you completely.

What makes you think otherwise?

...your tone?

His tone was objecting to the content of the article, not anything about commuting. It was a non sequitur.

It's hard enough to read tone, doubly so in an online forum.

Do you think it's possible that in this article, what was meant by "all middle managers" was actually all of the ones that insist on things like working in person?

(If so, of course that's not all of them but maybe it was a mistake, not an attack towards people like you.)

The article goes out of its way to specifically say there are no exceptions. Like, it literally says "if you think some managers aren't like this, you're wrong and part of the problem".

This makes sense in the mind of the author because their core thesis is that middle management as a concept is broken. According to him, "middle managers are rewarded when they can take work from those who are good at their work but aren’t paid a manager’s salary".

Fundamentally, their view of middle management is the workplace equivalent of economic rent seeking; "In my profession, middle managers usually worked the longest hours but contributed the least, but were somehow graded based on _my_ performance". Rent seeking that requires being physically in the office to be visible: "so many people have gone so far in their careers through the nebulousness of 'management' that has basically no value in a remote setting". And so remote work breaks this model: "Remote work mostly destroys the ability to appear busy, other than having a full calendar."

There's no equivocation or qualification, here. No attempt at nuance. The second last sentence in the article goes so far as to claim "They [middle managers] don’t want to make the office a place where things actually get done, because that’s not the point to them - the point is that they own you."

Had they not gone out of their way to flat out state 'someone insufferable will read this and say “NOT ALL MIDDLE MANAGERS,” and let me tell you, if you’re thinking that, you are probably part of the problem' I suspect I would've found the article a bit narrow-minded and extreme, probably the byproduct of someone who'd been in too many toxic workplace cultures, but I might've understood.

As written? Sorry, but I see no reason to give this a charitable reading. The author is clear on their intent, and their intent is to impugn the work of people like me who are honestly just out here doing our best for the people we work with during some of the toughest circumstances imaginable.

You seem to consider yourself a good middle manager, and I'm sure many people like you exist. There is however a bigger problem in that many managers are not good at the job of being a manager, but they are great at taking credit for the work of others and rising up the ranks of corporations/organizations. Rather they were born with the psychological makeup that directs their actions towards taking credit, as well as other "leadership" roles, but because that specific psychological makeup requires a greedy algorithm, it is actually not very good at orchestration of its subsystems because to be good at orchestrating all the subsystems require being less greedy and understanding each subsystem and their issues well, rather than manipulating, extorting, deceiving, and self promoting (of the work of others as ones work).

I don't want you in your defense of yourself to defend the existence of this coporation/organizational sub-entity because in reality they cost corporations(and governments) an absurdly unjustifiable amount of capital for on average negative result.

Realize that most people if treated like adults know how to work towards a common goal, we are socially adapted creatures by genetic design, and have dominated earth because of it. We actually do not need cult leaders to get to the moon, actually they are more of a hindrance.

Clever. Completely avoid the question.

As an excellent middle manager, is having your staff working from home a problem for you? If so, why?

Not at all. Why would it be?

I have a regular weekly 1:1 with each staff member (a while back I proposed making them bi-weekly but alas they insisted on maintaining this cadence... it's a lot more work for me, but it's what they need) to see how they're individually doing and to make sure they have what they need.

We also have a regular team checkin to update on overall company status, discuss issues, etc.

Through those mechanisms plus regular communication over Slack, email, ad hoc calls, etc, we stay connected and aligned.

Meanwhile, I stay in contact with my management colleagues so we're in sync laterally and all pulling in the same direction.

This isn't rocket science. It's not even that difficult. You just have to be a bit more intentional about staying in touch and connected with folks.

If anything it reinforces for me how important effective middle management is, as done well, it serves as vital glue to keep a remote workforce connected.

Now, I'm not gonna lie, when we first went full remote I was concerned that the 1:1's would be less effective, simply due to lack of body language, etc. But I'll freely admit I was wrong on that point. In fact, we hired and onboarded a new senior staff member during the pandemic and it went as well as any previous onboarding we've done. Though it's a bit strange realizing I've never actually spoken to him in person...

At this point I think I'd be comfortable going full remote, maybe with the odd in-person get-together just to celebrate successes and so forth. I suspect the only thing stopping us is some older school senior management who aren't yet comfortable with that idea.

Off-topic but weekly 1:1s are nuts. I would’ve gladly taken you up on biweekly. I think for me every 3 weeks would be ideal because I do biweekly and it always feels like just a liiiitle too much.

Don't look at me, it's not my idea!

I take it as a compliment that my staff get enough out of them that they feel weekly is worth their time. But I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a giant pain in the ass some weeks. I very much enjoy 1:1's and try to put some real thought and effort into them but they're pretty taxing as a consequence...

Yeah I’m definitely not trying to point fingers, it was just surprising to me. The vast majority of my 1:1s are awesome, and I’ve had some really great conversations, but every so often I find I don’t have much to talk about and I have to google some topics to talk to my manager about lol

Lol, yeah, the other thing I try to remind my staff is that the 1:1 is primarily for them, not me. So if they need the time back or have nothing to discuss, unless I have something important, I'm fine if we just cancel (this is especially common when someone takes days off around the weekend... there ain't much to say if there's only been two work days since the last 1:1!)

A 1:1 has a specific purpose. If it becomes a mindless ritual it loses its value.

I have daily "1:1s" with my manager. I think of what has to change for WFH is that people understand that not every video call is a "meeting". Some of those calls are taking the place of the coffee/lunch conversations that were happening before.

If "1:1" here means those awful 360 review meetings then I can see not wanting to do them weekly (we don't explicitly do those at all anymore) but for me it's just keeping the communication channel open explicitly (as opposed to by happenstance).

I consider myself an excellent middle manager. Having some of my staff work from home is a problem for me because they’ve specifically told me “I hate working from home. It crushes my productivity and happiness.” So I am working to find a future where they can get back to a state they like without sabotaging my reports who prefer working from anywhere.

Yeah, this is my big challenge as well. Hybrid remote is really difficult--if you're not careful it can end up as the worst of both worlds--but not everyone wants a remote work setting and finding a way to be flexible and accommodating to people's preferences is going to be a real challenge going forward.

But, to me, the good news is we can have this conversation now; it's no longer assumed that remote work is inferior. It's just different. Now we get to figure out how to incorporate that into the way we work.