Hacker News Reader

As an IC, I’ve had about 8 managers in my day. Sadly, I failed to recognize and appreciate great managers due to my own lack of maturity at the time and not understanding the manager role.

Earlier in my career, I had a manager who I initially had pegged as disengaged - he wasn’t, he was just actually delegating and managing without getting bogged down in the IC work he entrusted to his reports. At the time I thought this was not helpful as he couldn’t help me much with my direct tasks, and I had been on the team well before he joined so he would ask more questions to be answered by me than I of him. Frequently in our 1:1s I would not even know what to talk about.

But looking back, I realized I was asking the wrong questions, and he the right ones. He carved out a lot of scope and big projects for me (and others) which greatly advanced my career. He was bullshit shielding and setting up new projects so well that I didn’t realize how good he was at that until he was gone. In his focus time he was prototyping useful but not-critical-path tooling to make us all more productive. I almost want to cry thinking about how critical of him I was (never shared, but sometimes reflected implicitly with how I phrased questions) at the time. Nobody is perfect and I think he did try to communicate, but very vaguely and circuitously in a way I didn’t understand, how he saw his role by telling me an analogy along the lines of him being more of a <well known delegative leader> than a <well known teaching/apprenticeship leader>.

To add to your list, I’d say expect reports to not understand or appreciate what you are doing for them. Maybe it’d help to make it a bit apparent now and then in a way that doesn’t flex the inherent power balance - probably better to show some of the bullshit averted than “look at what I wrote to get you promoted”. Or maybe it’d be good to directly share something like your comment to say “Hey, I’m on your side, and please let me know if you need cover for some incoming BS or want to try something with more scope - I’ll try my best even if I don’t have all our code’s class hierarchies memorized.” Because immature reports like my former self may not realize that a good manager works by entrusting reports and delegating decisions (with some consensus building) if they haven’t encountered that yet.

Just a thought, but maybe send those kind words to your old manager in an email. They'll be happy to hear it from you.

> I almost want to cry thinking about how critical of him I was (never shared, but sometimes reflected implicitly with how I phrased questions) at the time.

Reach out and tell him that. I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

Thanks for this great post. I wish 20-year-ago IC me could have read it then. :-)

> Your only job as a manager is to protect and develop the team under you.

That sounds like the philosophy of a tumor. Clearly, a manager has to care about other things as well, such as - how can my team contribute to the business in the most valuable way?

A manager should have a view about the business, and they must work to give their team the evidence and method of thinking to grasp why that view is correct. Only then will the team properly focus on the goal and execute effectively. This is part of developing the team.

"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

From what I've seen, the biggest role of a manager is interfacing with other parts of the business (i.e. other managers) and actually coming up with what the team should be working on, and how it will fit with what other parts of the business (i.e. teams managed by the other managers) are working on. This is the hard part - it's so easy to just go and build the wrong thing for a couple of years. Managing the internals and the actual work of the team are, in comparison, relatively straightforward part of the job.

FWIW, I've been told I'm an exceptionally effective cross-functional communicator and that I outperform given my ability leverage my resources to recruit and align support for initiatives across orgs.

Imagine how wealthy our society would be if all the claims of by all managers about management success were actually true.

So far as I can tell, nearly all inter-management communication is useless and has, at best, zero impact. Only at the extreme margins or with select relationships does anything useful result. Like you find the IC SME who actually understand the target market, who is willing to sit with your team to set a vision.

Otherwise, nearly all managers you interact with are careerist.

> If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.

And yet, actual shipbuilding operations look, and have historically looked, much more like the former than the latter.

Probably because the first thing that group of yearning men will do is organize the work, and select someone who will be in charge of making sure everybody is in sync.

And boom! That someone is a manager.

To do otherwise ensures that if the ship gets built at all, it will sink in short order.

Wouldn't they then just leave to become sailers? I build account software. If I yearned for the tax laws, I'd stop being a programmer, and start being an accountant.

I think the parent is suggesting that protecting and developing the team is the only important task for a manager that doesn't fail at being a decent human.

The frequent incompatibility between morality and business, even down to simply shipping a shitty product to release at all, right up to building products that are designed to force purchasers to buy a replacement, is a matter that leaders must weigh.

A similar issue also applies to the people they lead. The line of professional detachment, between being too friendly and too military, is very thin indeed.

Generally speaking, while I fully agree with the parent that protecting, developing and coaching team is of paramount importance, I would say that, at the very least, hiring is equally important.

Hire the right people and your job as a manager is the easiest thing in the world.

Of course, in order to be good at any of the above, you must have a solid understanding of the business. It isn't simply a matter of being the people's champion.

> The biggest thing most managers give up is their mind.

The biggest thing they give up is having to do leetcode interviews.

I ended that for my team.

Hiring managers perogative.

I came to appreciate leetcode as a job seeker. Still don't think it is a great signal for HMs, but for the candidate it is a lot stressful than whiteboard coding.

Most problems solutions are a variation of small set of algorithmic techniques and you learn fast to identify the gotchas in the usually terribly edited problem descriptions.

Once you incorporate practicing coding tests in your life routine, they become an enjoyable passtime and a good substitute for mindless scrolling.

Nah.. I've rejected roles right after getting a leetcode link. Called a recruiter one time while on the bus, just looking at the link. Told her not to bother. I didn't want to work with anyone who would send such a link.

The called me back and said sorry, and I interviewed with their dev manager.

leetcode interviews are only done by a certain subset of companies. You don't have to go into management to avoid them.

You certainly didn't invent the term careerism. It even has its own wikipedia page.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Careerism

> You must be willing to say "I don't know"

does not sound like any manager i ever knew

It may sound different, such as "That's a great question"

i haven't had the good luck to work with enlightened or humble people

I worked for 5 years at an American company in Australia and I heard this multiple times per day from my US colleagues - my conclusion after heard it said to the most basic questions was that it’s mostly a filler phrase used to buy time while the respondent thinks up an answer.

It's a culture thing, I had a similar experience after the company I worked at was bought out by an American company.

In any exchange with the US, any question asked was responded to with, "That's a great question!".

It was probably just filler but definitely came across as incredibly patronising to our ears.

It's certainly filler, but it's usually meant to mean "I'm taking your question seriously, but I don't know the answer at this moment".

Not super relevant but I’ve noticed recently that when I ask someone a question, they start their answer with the word “absolutely” even though the question was not a yes or no question.

Is this a time-filler like “that’s a great question” for extreme people pleasers? Or just an agreeability signal? To me it makes the answerer seem overeager to share. It could just be regional culture.

Depends heavily on how it's said. If it's flat with no derivation from the previous sentences intonation, it is probably filler. If it intentionally stands out, it is probably not.

Personally, I use the phrase often as a Senior IC in a way that makes it clear it t is not filler. I also use phrases such as, "Hell if I know, let's google it and find out together."

I hear it all the time. From ic's and managers.

One of the signs of a healthy culture is that people are not afraid to acknowledge knowledge gaps.

Yeah, if anything, managers bluff and pretend to know significantly more often then engineers. And those who don't, gets removed or are seen as less capable by those over them.

Most managers I've worked with haven't been shy about saying this. It's usually followed by "...but try asking <x>" or "Let me find out and get back to you".

To be honest, if anyone, in any role, never says "I don't know", I begin to question their abilities.

"careerism" is well defined, no need to reinvent it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/careerism

It seems like you're a manager, but how do these two sentiments go together:

> You must be willing to say "I don't know" 10x more than as an IC

> All other approaches will lead to you failing to deliver results, failing to retain, and a drag on the org.

Your advice is contradictory on its face. How can you embrace "not knowing" and having a curious mind, while at the same time declaring that this set of operational activities are "the only way to do it"?

> You must believe deep down in your core that ordering a human being to do something is a sign you must introspect about your failure as a manager, and commit to fixing the problem.

This also just seems like new-age guilt injected into the work place. Don't be a micro manager always in people's faces for no reason but if you're telling yourself you're a failure because _as a manager_ you told someone to do something, I'm not sure how you last more than 2 days on the job.

You must be a merciless judge of what you hold has knowledge (that is, have certainty beyond a reasonable doubt). Misstating as a manager is vastly more damaging than as an IC. Even if you know something, it is often valuable to defer to your team for the answer.

Giving direction and context is different from giving orders.

>> You must believe deep down in your core that ordering a human being to do something is a sign you must introspect about your failure as a manager, and commit to fixing the problem.

>This also just seems like new-age guilt injected into the work place. Don't be a micro manager always in people's faces for no reason but if you're telling yourself you're a failure because _as a manager_ you told someone to do something, I'm not sure how you last more than 2 days on the job.

I don't know. As a parent it's something I do all the time. My aim is very much to lead my kid and I absolutely hate being authoritarian. So whenever I do find myself being so, I try to introspect (not very successfully for the most part) and find a better solution.

Seriously, no knows anything about parenting. Properly considered, it is the most difficult and intellectually challenging task conceivable.

“Here, take this tabula rasa child and, over the course of many years, with virtually no timely feedback about the impact of any of your actions, raise a fully formed rational adult capable of effectively dealing with the problem of human survival on a planet incredibly hostile to life.”

Most children grow up to be decent human beings despite parents having no clue. I don't think you can do much for them, they do it all by themselves... just don't destroy them by being a horrible person and treat them with respect, even knowing you have all the power in the relationship.

Very true, and we are mostly formed by our genetics, and it really helps to keep that in mind.

But as parents that doesn't stop us from overly attributing everything bad that our kids do to our own bad parenting.

Parents tend to take both too much credit and too much blame for how their kids turn out.

>careerism (a term I invented....)

You most certainly didn't invent the term "careerism."