Hacker News Reader

Comment by saarp | Hacker News Reader

> Firstly, I have met very few malicious people in my career.

Few people are openly malicious. That doesn't mean they are altruistic or motivated by some concept of "greater good". Most people will go along with the general sentiment though their actions are typically focused on their own benefit. This makes a lot of sense.

Honestly, your perspective feels a little out of touch. If you had some private conversations with individual contributors at multiple levels of your organization, you may get a different perspective. In my experience, most "leadership" is about maximizing the leader's personal gain. They are running their own company within the company and will compete in whatever internal currency the company culture has. This is why incentives are difficult.

Perhaps the simplest way to manage is to a P/L and employee retention. So long as those are healthy, the group is healthy.

View on HN

> Honestly, your perspective feels a little out of touch.

As does yours too me. I have been a senior manager in finance and IT at companies from $15m and a middle-manager at a mega-corp (on the senior management team of a business unit with 600 staff). I have had staff in several countries, I work with people in many more. Honestly most people want to do a good job without their boss shouting at them.

> will compete in whatever internal currency the company culture has

You seem to be agreeing with me.

>> will compete in whatever internal currency the company culture has

>You seem to be agreeing with me.

I'm saying this is a bad thing. The "currency" is often based on perception of what the leader likes. My suggestion here is instead focus on actual dollars and cents. Does the sub-org bring in more than they spend? It will change the way you think about organizations. If the group has no source for income, you have to wonder why it exists.

I have been mostly in tech but also in companies that are not solely tech companies. For you, it seems like "senior management" means you talk to VPs. I have been a "senior manager" but it speaks mostly to my depth of experience. I talk to VPs and directors when I need to, but mostly I'm speaking to folks that are doing the work. I think this is why our perspectives are different. When you're two or more levels away from the point of execution it's very easy to be out of touch.

> The "currency" is often based on perception of what the leader likes

As a leader we could start by making the currency a positive thing? I make it clear that stopping late more than once a twice a year is negative, for instance. People stopped doing it.

>When you're two or more levels away from the point of execution it's very easy to be out of touch.

It is, so make an effort not to be out of touch. I left one job and the cleaner sent an apology for not being able to say goodbye, since she was off. She didn't work for me in any way. Why? Because I talked to her, and listened to her. Last week someone had a tough time who works for someone, who works for someone who works for me. I went and sat with them for a couple of hours.

I don't know everyone's name at the coal face, there are hundreds, but I know what they do and ask them about it. If their area has made an improvement, I go and see it, and say well done. I saw someone limping down the stairs one day, I asked them what happened. When I saw them walking well the following week I remarked on it. They stopped and chatted for a few minutes, then told me all about a problem with one of our systems. It confirmed what I thought. Every time those conversations happen they tell me a bit about what is going on in the real world. I'm careful not to criticise, and to use the info against anyone. I get my tea from the main canteen on the other side of the campus so I bump into people, not just managers. When I get asked to approve spend, I write and ask if I can visit the area so I can understand. If I support it I write to the next person in the approval chain (if there is one after me) and tell them why. I take my team to visit people in other departments, and introduce the other person, and explain what they do, so they know I know. I'm famous for having the longest ever tour of one of our sites, because I asked so many questions about the technology, and spoke to every one I met. I think I have a pretty good idea what is going on.

> As a leader we could start by making the currency a positive thing?

Maybe. I personally feel it lacks sufficient grounding in reality and is prone to bias. How do you value work in a virtual currency that has no external tether outside of the company?

> I get my tea from the main canteen on the other side of the campus

It seems like we're in different geos which may be a factor. I can tell you in US corporate IT organizations where I have worked, there's very little cross-mingling. Leaders may be sent on visits to other orgs that are often planned/staged rather than spontaneous. I'm glad you take an interest. Good leaders often do. In my personal experience, that behavior is atypical. Myself I have never had to more than 1 layer between me and individual contributors and prefer it that way. When I do speak to middle managers, their goals are to avoid causing waves while finding their niche, mostly by ingratiating themselves to some person two levels up and gain enough aforementioned "currency" to advance to the next level. They produce headlines and nothing much of measurable and durable value. A few companies have elaborate internal accounting and review org P/L that way. IBM did in the 90's (not sure if now). AMZN may have some kind of internal recharge model from what I've heard. Most companies just have "budgets" though the allocations rarely have any bearing on any actual or perceived fiscal benefit.

Disclaimer: This is an N=1 opinion. Feel free to take it with as much salt as you like.

> In my personal experience, that behavior is atypical.

Absolutely it is. I am atypical. My atypical behaviour gets results. That is the point of wanting to write about it!

I think you got in a bit deep with the currency thing. People try to show they are doing what the boss wants, that is where we agreed. Unfortunately that is often behaviour that is negative for other people and the team, and I suggest the company as a whole.

Imagine I set a KPI that I want x lines of code per person. A manager will stop being impressed by the team member who refactors pages of nonsense into 1 line, he wants bulk. The best member of the team gets disheartened and leaves. I set a bad KPI, but I also set an expectation that the KPI mattered to me, and therefore meeting it at all costs was what the manager needed to do. This is the currency you described.

Remove the KPI and just take a 'measurement' of lines of code. Next time I meet with the manager he proudly states his team created x lines of code. I ask why. I ask what areas needed more code. I ask what improved. I ask if the code is more stable, needs what resources etc. I ask how the lines of code moved us towards our goals. Do these lines of code make us money? How?

Now the manager sees that I value them not as a stick-bearer, but someone I require to be intellectually engaged in the work their team is doing, and able to summarise that effort so I can run a bigger team. I made the currency based on positive factors. KPIs are a lazy attempt at management.

Others asked about scalability. It is perfectly scalable. If I was the CEO, the questions I ask the CTO are what shows them what I value, the currency if you will. If I am lazy at that, I will generate lazy behaviour.

Measuring anything is fine, but measurement has a cost and you need to be intellectually honest that it is only part of the picture, and your real interest should be what made the measure move, and what does that tell you. I could measure the number of features added, for instance, but I need to understand how hard each feature is and hours much value they add. Same when my PM suggests a new feature, I should interrogate them about why, talk about the cost of maintaining it. I should ask them to weigh that against the fact that our biggest customer is complaining about down time and speed, an incidentally they are not interested in that feature.

You see what we did? We made it clear that I value intellectual rigor in peoples decision making, and understanding of what it is we sell. I created a currency that is more positive than being cocky, good at PowerPoint and meeting KPIs.

You are correct that I'm not in the US, but I have twice worked for US headquartered firms, so I have some insight into how they work. I would say they have informed my view that they tend to fail at motivating people, and especially motivating them to do the right things.

I'm actually not good at traditional corporate climbing. My PowerPoints deliberately have few words on them, because I concentrate on speaking. I also have a bad habit of saying inconvenient truths outloud. I am deliberately exluded from lots of meetings where I might reveal how little they know. I get promoted because just sometimes they need someone to actually get the work done that the company sells. I'm contained and restricted though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com