And I can’t see a reason why it should be equal. Even if you strip the relationship down to its most basic principle, there is asymmetry. One party provides work with the expectation of pay, the other party providess pay with the expectation of work.
But the asymmetries don’t end there. Terminating employment is a far greater threat to the employee than the employer. This creates a power imbalance which could easily be exploited by malicious or incompetent employers. That power imbalance is fundamental to this relationship and is reason enough (in the opinion of many countries) to bolster worker rights.
I would be impressed by one of my reports saying “We’ve worked together to get me ready for the next step in my career, and I think more face time with our execs will help me take that step. Can you help me find opportunities to get it?”
This is assuming we’re on the same page about how ready they are to take that step. But if we’re not on the same page, then I’ve already failed in performance reviews and feedback.
Crazily oversimplified view of people. Just one thing you’ve missed: in addition to the axis of good/bad there’s an axis of experienced/inexperienced. Managers can be both good and inexperienced, in which case feedback is absolutely necessary to improve their lives and yours.
Then proceeds to add one axis, getting the total up to 2! :-)
> Managers can be both good and inexperienced, in which case feedback is absolutely necessary to improve their lives and yours.
If they are good and inexperienced, I don't think they need to be taught that if they don't set priorities, they should not be disappointed when they realise that... no priorities have been set. So they are still good.
If they are bad "because they are inexperienced", then they are still bad. They should not be a manager. They can acquire experience without being a manager though, e.g. by having a manager in the first place.
Planned obsolescence isn't only a thing with fast moving technology either. Engineers design bridges with a finite lifespan in mind as well, and it's not because they think there'll be a much better bridge in X years. It's just that the relationship between the expected lifespan of a thing and its cost to develop is exponential.
I'm also an engineering manager, currently working in a department that feels on fire, and I think there is good wisdom in the article. The part about not fostering a "us vs them" mentality was good food for thought, as I do find it tempting to build short term camaraderie. When faced with big picture issues that can't be changed (believe me, they can't) it's easy to reach for a "We all know that these exec decisions don't make sense, but we can still do right for each other among this BS" type of conversation. But it's worth thinking about what that will do for the long term motivation of that team member at the company.
It sounds like you are trying to rationalize a toxic environment.
Most of us don't actually have to stay at a company that is on fire. Plenty of companies (and managers) will try to convince us to stay at a company that "feels" on fire. That's what I hate about this "wartime software" bullshit. Like, if you enjoy being at war, cool, go at it. But if you don't want to feel horrible, find a different job. There is no prize to win for being a hero. Just a life of pain from an entity that will drop you as soon as is convenient.
Rationalise - maybe. Romanticise - definitely not. If people want to leave I wouldn't blame them at all, and will happily write them a reference. But there's no point in me optimising for that decision, I need to optimise for the scenario where they want to stay.
I can say that I'm staying because I hunted for this job last year through the "winter of tech" and that nearly broke me as much as this toxic workplace does. So I have reasons not to jump ship, and I can't imagine I'm the only one. So for anyone reporting to me who would also rather not leave, I should do what I can to reduce the shittiness for them as much as possible.
There is a middle around between seeking camaraderie by total bad-mouthing of the executives and singing praises of the management while wagging your tail vigorously.
From the article:
> When you receive a new headcount, you need to prioritize hiring experienced, self-sufficient, autonomous engineers who can tolerate (even better, strive) in high-stress environments and are experienced enough to contribute immediately.
Yeah, such people would be able to spot and smell "this BS" from a mile and trying to sell it to them by re-packaging won't exactly help raise motivation. I would wager that most of them can probably appreciate the truth behind "this is what we are paid to do so we need to do the best we can for what needs to be done" - they are probably exercising that discipline in their personal lives too.
I think both things are true. If you're on the struggle bus then you should prioritise self-sufficiency in the hiring process (as the post suggests) and be honest about what people are walking into (as you kind of suggest). But I think no amount of honesty will help if you hire someone who needs some amount of hand-holding when your team doesn't have the bandwidth to provide it.
Seems obvious - don't hire people when you can't give them what they need to succeed in-role. But I think the blog author wasn't trying to say much more than that with the sentence you quoted.
What about what "this BS" does to morale and motivation? If a manager acknowledges dysfunction, I feel significantly better working for them than one who tries to convince me that everything is fine.
I'm a 30-40 year old with absolutely no interest in making music, but I want every single thing which crosses my news feed from Teenage Engineering. So yeah, that checks out.
Out of curiosity, do you think those things are intrinsically hard, or is there a mutual escalation at play in some of these? Like I can imagine inspections are as hard as they are because you need to be prepared if weather becomes difficult to manage (for example). And then I imagine comms is hard/demanding because you can't assume that planning and inspections were done correctly. Etc.
I do wonder if reducing human error in some parts of this challenge stack would make it possible to lighten some of the other imposed burdens.
Not all progress is good progress. Adding lead to paint was progress at the time. Same with using asbestos for insulation. We’ve since decided that the costs outweigh the benefits there.
Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.
> Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.
That might or might not be wrong, but is certainly a typically European perspective. The U.S. Bill of Rights is full of clauses specifying things like "Congress shall make no law regarding..." freedom of speech, establishments of religion, etc. because of the notion that the government's inability to reliably get it right is indeed a good reason to stop altogether.
As a manager in a company with an in-office policy which I don’t like - I will tow the policy line if I’m asked in an official capacity, otherwise it’s my ass. But if my DRs shirk the policy then the only reason I’ll take action is if HR catches on (they do occasionally look at data from the building access logs), or if it causes waves in the team.
It’s also possible (I’d say - likely) that your boss knew, and had no desire to do anything about it.
> It’s also possible (I’d say - likely) that your boss knew,
Yeah, that part of the GP's comment stood out. To even imagine that "bosses" don't notice that their employees are not showing up to the office is pretty far fetched especially for the length of time described. At some point, even the other employees will start talking about it.
Opportunistic applications are totally normal, and yes I’m a hiring engineering manager. If those aren’t caught in the recruitment process, then it’s the process that’s flawed.
But the asymmetries don’t end there. Terminating employment is a far greater threat to the employee than the employer. This creates a power imbalance which could easily be exploited by malicious or incompetent employers. That power imbalance is fundamental to this relationship and is reason enough (in the opinion of many countries) to bolster worker rights.