Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If you want people to care about things, you have to listen to what they care about

Ultimately we are all paid to solve the problems the business needs solved, even if the solution is boring and not 'exciting' or 'cutting edge' tech (which is often). The best people finds excitement and challenge in almost any work and are self-motivated. Sure, as a manager you should try your very best to shield the team from crap work and have a healthy balance, understand their interests and find opportunities that match (even outside your team), but ultimately also work is work and is not always, or even often, possible to have super exciting bleeding edge work that fits everyone's interests. Even harder when people have a very narrow set of interests or they don't even know, they're picky, etc.

> I very rarely tell people what to do, because ultimately, I don't have any power to change what they do.

Are you a manager? you very much should be able to change what they do if you are. If project x comes along with twice the value of the current project someone is working on, you very much should be able to preempt what someone is working on. It's not ideal and we all try to avoid project churn, but it happens and needs to be handled effectively by the manager.

> And they'll respect me, and the project, more if they think they're making the decision instead of me.

I mean, delegation and ownership are fine as a mechanism to boost engagement and career growth, but you can't delegate everything (otherwise what are you doing again?). Also, what's up with the "if they think" wording here. Are they making the decision or not, are you tricking them into thinking they're making the decision?



> Ultimately we are all paid to solve the problems the business needs solved, even if the solution is boring and not 'exciting' or 'cutting edge' tech (which is often). The best people finds excitement and challenge in almost any work and are self-motivated.

I think the best managers are able to find relevant challenges/projects for their reports interests. Everything you're saying says to me, that you depend on in "good employees" is broadly something I see as being an option in "all employees". And I see it as a failing of me, as a manager, if I can't bridge that gap for all of my reports.

> Are you a manager? you very much should be able to change what they do if you are. If project x comes along with twice the value of the current project someone is working on, you very much should be able to preempt what someone is working on.

Yes, I am a manager. I can absolutely try and sell people on a new project. I can't make them work on it. When I was an IC, I ultimately worked on what I thought was most important, and would slowly move to projects that people asked me to work on, (but I didn't want to work on). I was an effective IC, so people couldn't complain. Don't see any reason that wouldn't hold true for the ICs that I work with, now that I'm a manager.

> I mean, delegation and ownership are fine as a mechanism to boost engagement and career growth, but you can't delegate everything (otherwise what are you doing again?). Also, what's up with the "if they think" wording here. Are they making the decision or not, are you tricking them into thinking they're making the decision?

Did you read the article? At least in engineering, if you think you're going to make the decisions just because "you're the manager", then I think you're managing backwards. If I need to make a decision, I'm in charge of convincing people it's the right decision. But I also have to listen to those people when they tell me their concerns, and change course if their concerns are reasonable.

It sounds to me, if you're a manager, that you're only an effective manager for people who are already succesful. I think the thing that makes someone a good manager, is that they can make anyone effective. Everyone can grow and flourish under you.


> if you think you're going to make the decisions just because "you're the manager", then I think you're managing backwards.

You're making it sound black and white when is not. You do make some decisions. Judgement is required around what decisions can be made by you (+ provide reasoning) and which ones require building consensus or just be delegated.

> I think the thing that makes someone a good manager, is that they can make anyone effective. Everyone can grow and flourish under you.

If that were true good managers never would PIP or let go anyone, and that's just not true. The opposite is true. If you think everyone can flourish and never let go poor performers you're the one doing a disservice to your team.


> Ultimately we are all paid to solve the problems the business needs solved, even if the solution is boring and not 'exciting' or 'cutting edge' tech (which is often).

Sadly, we're not. And that's the gist of the problem.

We're paid to do whoever's in power wants us to do and it might not solve any business need. Often some manager or otherwise decides to implement something that might not even be what customers want. It's not about the challenge or anything like that. A lot of people are frustrated at implementing things that make no sense.

> If project x comes along with twice the value of the current project someone is working on, you very much should be able to preempt what someone is working on

Only if think you control your destiny. Your manager above may have their own direction or ideals.


> Ultimately we are all paid to solve the problems the business needs solved

There's usually leeway in this: the business has many needs and they get prioritized depending mostly on perception (project impact projections are usually fuzzy with no concrete evidence to back them up)

A manager can be good at pitching interesting/rewarding problems to solve, and get the higher ups' buyin to prioritize them over more boring asinine work.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: