Hacker News Reader

Comment by edent | Hacker News Reader

HR always say "People don't leave jobs; they leave managers." That is, in my opinion, a cop out.

I've worked for brilliant managers in great teams - and left because the business wasn't able to support my growth. Or because the company was ethically dodgy. Or because they just couldn't pay enough.

And, yeah, sometimes I've left because of a bad boss or grim team members - but that's been a rarity.

But, at the end of the day, a job isn't your life. You don't need to find meaning there - you don't even have to like your co-workers - as long as you have a life outside of work.

View on HN

I believe your overall statement is true, but that doesn't mean "People don't leave jobs; they leave managers." is wrong.

I have left jobs because I had a shit manager, but he was enabled by a shit company culture. My teams were mostly great, the tasks were okay. It might have been time to move on regardless, but the biggest reason was shitty managers and shitty company culture.

“Leaving the manager” is often associated with people leaving because of frustration or other dysfunction. If you’re looking for growth or more pay, that’s fine, but for most people they’re happy to stay in a place that respects and values their opinion/work, even if they’re not getting top dollar. A bad manager is what drives people to the “final straw” that motivates them to look for something else.

That quip doesn't necessarily mean your direct manager, though. If the company doesn't support employee growth, or is ethically dodgy, those are management decisions.

Anecdotal, but I've definitely had a situation where my team and direct manager were fantastic for two years until the director (my manager's manager) got replaced. The new direcror had a big meeting with all the managers re: "things are going to change around here!" Within a week, there was a palpable change in the office atmosphere and everything started going downhill as the managers were forced to implement policies that I know for a fact they had fought against. It wasn't my manager that was bad; but he was put in a bad position by his own management who clearly had no interest in hearing from the plebs. So yeah ... I did leave because of a bad manager; it just wasn't my direct manager.

I think that's said because your immediate manager is whom is responsible for you, your growth, your performance, clearly a path for you, etc. Chances are good they participated in the decision to hire you.

That is, pretty much everything you mentioned - in the context of a team / company - traces back to your manager (directly or indirectly).

Perhaps some of your managers weren't as completely good as you think? That's not a knock, just a question.

While it’s not 100.00% true, I’ve found it a helpful lens to take the line of thinking that I am responsible for me, for my growth, for my performance, and for parts of [clearing] a path for me.

Putting the primary onus on someone else is an error that sub-optimizes your results. If your manager won’t do their minor part while you do your major part, you need to leave, but taking this lens makes that apparent much sooner than waiting for them to “grow you”.

No one is more interested in your career than you.

Nah. When a company says "The training budget this year is zero" - it doesn't matter how good my immediate manager is. They can't fix that for me.

That's not me leaving a manager. That's the job abandoning me.

Not so. Your manage could say, "I don't have hard dollars for you, but I can free up some of your time if you're willing to do some self-training." Or, "I'm told the training budget is zero. What else can I / we do to work on your skills and/or career?"

But a manager that simply says, "No budget. Oh well. Sucks being you." IS failing to fulfill the role of an average manager.

What do you mean, a job can be meaningless?

Nihilist by day, family man by night?

Come on.

Sometimes a job is just a job. It puts bread on the table. Nothing more.

Most people aren't working on something they care about.

You and badpun who replied below, equate meaning with care/not caring. Care or don't that's fine. It is meaning though. You've already committed to a particular meaning and are just making a point about what you'll give up to have less of it.

I won't touch that with a ten foot pole though. You devour the aim, the target and split your life in two, 8hrs at work, 8hrs asleep, when are you living?

Obviously during the other 8 hours.

There is no requirement that you need to be generating meaning every hour of the day. In fact, it's pretty much impossible. There's no way to derive a deeper meaning from the 8 hours spent sleeping. It's just a thing you have to do to survive, and being alive is a prerequisite for finding meaning at some point. Depending on personal circumstances, it's absolutely reasonable to look at work (or rather, the salary) as another necessary prerequisite for attaining whatever meaning one is looking for.

90%+ of people don't care about their jobs (60%+ of them actively dislikes them IIRC), are they all nihilists in your book?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com