Ask HN: Have you worked under great managers?
Have you had a really great manager? Someone that helped you grow and succeed.
Would you tell us about them, about what made them so good?
Would you tell us about them, about what made them so good?
- They trust their team, but stay engaged/aware enough to know when to ask the right questions
- They run interference for the team and make sure they’re shielded from org BS when possible
- They make sure the team has the tools they need, and when they don’t, they relentlessly pursue a solution
- They establish good relationships with other teams and leaders, and leverage those relationships to help the team (so important when your team has dependencies on other teams)
- They shut down adhoc/direct requests from upper leadership that would distract from current priorities
- They consistently sell the value of the team and highlight its accomplishments
- They convey enough about the business context to make the work more meaningful
- They always have your back in public, even if there might be critical feedback to deliver later
- They elevate the members of the team and don’t take credit for the team’s work; instead, they take pride in creating the environment that allowed the work to thrive
- People want to work for these managers, and you also think hard about leaving them
I’ve been lucky enough to experience all of this in a single manager a few times, but it seems rare.
But also keep in mind that managers are human, often thrown into the position, and while they’re eager to be the kind of manager people want to work for, they may not have the experience.
When I was a principal IC/team lead, I found it useful to “manage up” (I kinda hate this term), and communicate as clearly as possible about what the team needs and how they can help. Especially with newer managers, this is critical. I’ve seen new managers chewed up and spit out by snarky devs who view them as an adversary instead of a member of the team, and in a discussion about good managers, it seems important to mention that there’s a lot a team can do to help a new manager find their stride, and one of the truly good managers I worked for emerged from this kind of situation.
- They take the blame for failures publicly ("the team failed") and then coach individuals privately.
- They are willing to speak upwards to call out BS or to offer suggestions, even if it affects their own standing in the organization.
- They clearly communicate expectations, the "why" of the expectation, and explain how situation within the company may have changed.
- If there is a PIP, layoff or something else coming, they socialize the news subtly so that their reports start looking before the axe falls.
A leader looks after their team, until the last day. Managers only look after themselves.
- Clearly state your values and stick to them - it’s much more comfortable to people to work with a predictable leader and builds trust over time.
- Provide rich context to the team and ask for business outcomes, not specifics.
- Communicate, communicate, communicate - especially if you work in a remote team/company. You need to have a constant dialog going with the team - it’s up to you how, however - there’s a lot of different ways to facilitate.
- Remember your promises and provide people with resolutions to issues they raise, follow up! I know it sounds self explanatory but so many managers just plain forget the things you ask immediately after your 1:1’s.
- Do your 1:1’s for gods sake! Weekly preferably.
I’ve had time periods where weekly wasn’t enough, and others were monthly felt like too much.
The most important thing is to recognize what is needed at the time, and to adapt to what is needed vs. applying some arbitrary formula, IMO.
And strongly implied by this: don’t be the type of manager who always cancels 1:1s because they’re the least important thing on the calendar when that other thing comes up.
I used to think weekly was bad but it depends on the company's context. If things are moving fast, weekly is best. If releases happen slowly, the cadence could be slower.
How do they respond when you give them the feedback that the impact of their not showing up makes you feel like you and your work don't matter?
- They shield you from other organizations or colleagues who would otherwise try to monopolize your time. They actively act as a funnel for such requests.
- When they ask you for input, they don't ignore it out of hand. If they decide to not accept the input, it's because it conflicts with other inputs or organizational priorities.
- They never, _ever_ say "you're the best!" The only people who say that are low-level managers and marketing people who have just cajoled an IT worker to do something ill-conceived.
I do worry a lot about how good a manager I am, mostly because I’ve followed the IT -> management path like many others here on HN have. I’m feel especially concerned what I do unconsciously or unaware — that is, not what I do, but what I don’t do, or do without awareness of its impact. I wrote an article about one aspect, unintentional incentivisation, a while ago. https://daveon.design/what-are-you-optimising-for.html
What do you mean by not using "you're the best"? an exaggerated compliment followed by a methodic and logical explanation of why you are doing good is not necessarily a bad thing.
Exactly that. Exaggerated compliments come across (to me, anyway) as condescending. Honest feedback is all fine and good, but meaningless pseudo-praise like "you're the best!" sounds to me exactly like fingernails on a chalkboard.
I consider them good for a multitude of reasons that don't necessarily have a coherent theme (e.g. "Servant management" or other fun business catch phrases) and my bias is that they set me up to become a manager myself, when I didn't think that was something I was cut out for, but actually found I excel at in the right org.
There are three that I would consider essential to my own career, and they all had different expressions of the following:
1. self-aware: they knew themselves, and could use that to understand how others reacted around them. They could modulate their behavior to find the 'sweet spot' in situations they were involved in.
2. deliberate and thoughtful. They weren't shy about taking ownership of things, coaching individuals towards getting team goals accomplished, but looking into the potentials of folks to see where "unseen" possibilities may be.
3. calm but resolute: they keep it cool under pressure, but don't have qualms about pushing back when they see other forces stepping offsides.
4. they treat their teams as a 'meta' project that can in fact evolve as the abilities and skills of its members expand and change; rather than just settling into managing a fixed pattern of rigid deliverables, they know that nothing in this industry is 'fixed' or 'rigid' and can improvise or adapt such that it minimizes organizational disruptions.
5. They have personalities. Real ones with quirks, and don't sublimate them into the common trope of detached, milquetoast functionary. That doesn't mean they fly their freak flag and make a spectacle of things, just that they don't act so reserved and distant as to be an enigma. That makes them relatable/approachable, even when you have little in common in terms of practical experiences.
Other than the above, where Haswell said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36390756 is bang on.
You don't work under great managers. You work on top of their support.
He, as mentioned in other comments listens, and does not dismiss out of hand, is competent, thinks before he types and teaches the correct way of doing things, including how to use judgement while taking shortcuts, and helps me understand some of the pitfalls that my approach has that i cannot see (for whatever reason).
I consider him a good manager for several reasons, but most of all because of his insistance on me working as independently as possible. When I started out, his approach was basically "here's the problem you gotta solve, come up with a solution, call me if you need help with something particular", which frustrated me at first, but after a few months grinding the documentation and trying (and failing...) several times to solve the problems I was given, I've developed ability to think very systematically and come up with high-level solutions myself. I now have high confidence in my abilities (and I am not a very confident person) which I am very thankful for.
Trust is also a big part of it. I would trust that guy with my life, and that's the kind of relationship which makes work so much easier and less stressful.
Both were really amazing for my career, and shared some common attributes.
- They shared project goals and documents with me from day 1, so all of us knew what the deliverables were
- Cared about my development, and were willing to make changes to deliverables to align well with my own future goals
- Never managed a large team, always mentioned that big team sizes are unwieldy and ineffective
- Praised my work in public and to other people. They would go to a meeting, where I am not present - and praise my contributions. I had people come up to me months later, because they had heard so many positive things about me from my manager
In all cases there seemed to be 100% overlap with what I’d describe as a “genuine good human”. Plus ofc competent too. Good leadership in the classic corporate sense felt somewhat secondary
As a web developer (front end and/or back end) seeking employment actual programming skills are a bonus, not a requirement despite what the job postings and interviewers claim. A far more important requirement in attaining employment is fashion. This depends upon how you define programming skills. The common ultra modern interpretation is the style of writing instructions in isolation and the current tools you prefer to use. In practice that means the approach to writing code, the vanity, at a very high and superficial level because all larger decisions are expected to be prior qualified by external tooling, such as large frameworks and build tools.
When you deviate from that people become terrified. I am tired of coworkers being constantly terrified to do their jobs, me doing far more work than is required in my code contributions to alleviate those fears, and then only to be challenged when terrified people need something to blame. As a result it is both more challenging to seek employment and also be selected for employment when I view many job postings as littered with hostile red flags and from their perspective that I am outdated and nonconforming. I really enjoy writing software, but in many cases I would rather just make less money in a different line of work.