

Ask HN: Why are managers so bad? - aspir

In all of the talk about flat structures and the removal of bosses, &quot;managers&quot; seem to be a major scapegoat. So, what is it that makes &quot;managers&quot; or &quot;management&quot; so bad?<p>I get the impression that many small companies instill a no-management policy because they had experiences with horrible management. When large companies (Zappos) restructure with this goal, it seems like a well-architected recruitment plan.<p>So, are there any objective reasons that managers&#x2F;bosses&#x2F;hierarchies are bad?
======
Dwolb
I dunno, I've done RF design work and I've lead an embedded Linux product
(touch screens, USB, Wifi, Bluetooth, the whole shebang).

My manager when I was in design engineering was really really smart and would
help me solve technical problems. My boss on during the embedded Linux project
knew how to Get Shit Done. He was more people savvy and taught me that
navigating a large bureacracy is a skill (even though it shouldn't be). It's
tough a lot of times knowing which approach to take to gain organizational buy
off to allow technical teams to progress forward.

I will note that my Get Shit Done boss has vouched for his direct reports and
has won for us on many occasions.

------
busterc
I've worked with some, few, excellent managers. So, they're not all bad.

I believe all aspiring and current managers should heed Peopleware.

In summary of Peopleware:

"Almost all project failures are due to sociological problems"

"Most managers are prone to one particular failing: managing people like
modular components."

\--
[http://javatroopers.com/Peopleware.html](http://javatroopers.com/Peopleware.html)

------
dpweb
In non-tech big companies at least, you don't need any clear skill set to be a
manager. The really bad ones have zero skills whatsoever. A plumber has to
know to fix a sink, a dev, write the codez. You'll be found out likely before
too long if you manage to get hired and then have no idea (it does happen).

Many managers of technical people are not technologists, they're professional
managers, and have no clear skill sets. There's not one useful thing they can
do incredibly well that not everyone could handle. (This the ONLY reason you
can make $100k in the US by just writing code, by the way, many people can't
handle, nor want to handle, programming in C++).

They do have "Managerial Experience", and that gets them hired, even if they
suck.. bad.. Even over the incredible technologist.

In their defense however, I would say the very good non-technical technical
managers I've worked with, they know nothing about tech, but are so smart and
savvy that you could throw complex stuff at them and they know exactly what
you're talking about. They protect their people from political bullshit,
defend them to outsiders when needed, sometimes hear out the occasional
programmer temper tantrum, and schedule the work. That's where they add value.

------
timmm
From a programmer's perspective they don't produce stuff like we do, they tend
to not be as technical or smart, they just tell people to do their jobs ect.

That being said my boss is a non-technical manager who does a great job of
making sure, internally, we are all communicating when we should be (but for
her we just wouldn't know what each other are doing for the most part). She
brings to our attention work that falls through the cracks. She makes sure we
have the resources we need, mobile devices to test on, laptops when we need
them, the latest and greatest software tools; photoshop, zendesk, salesforce,
browserstack, ect.

She facilitates hiring new team members or even create new positions if we as
a team express a need. This is not fun by the way she has to interview and
bring in people constantly, which 95% of the time we end up rejecting.

Honestly she is there to support us and champions us every chance she gets.
Our client support is far better having a manager directing our team, which
translates to value for the company.

Granted I'm sure not all managers work in that way.

------
IvyMike
The standard answer has been The Peter Principle

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle)

TLDR: People who are good at their job get promoted. But once they are
mediocre at their job, they stop getting promoted. So you have a bunch of
middle managers who have all risen to their maximal level of incompetence.

~~~
aspir
That makes sense as to the cause. But surely not all managers fall victim to
this. At least I hope the horrible managers get quickly identified and
corrected/dismissed.

~~~
Nevermark
Without an automatic way of removing manager responsibility, it is very
difficult to demote/fire good people who have simply hit a wall. Especially as
other managers (both lower and higher up) have a strong interest in making the
demote/fire process as difficult as possible.

One way would be for teams to vote (or better yet form a consensus) on their
next manager for each new project (or project step). So anyone voted up as
manager always knows the job is temporary, unlikely to be 100% of the time
even if they are a good manager. It would push managers to be leaders (i.e.
coordinating others to get the best from everyone), as apposed to directors
(telling everyone what to do). It would also push everyone to continually
think about management of their project from a manager's perspective.

That's my idea, but it would take a lot of experience to know whether it would
work, or how to make it scale or sync with other types of management for
higher levels of management. Maybe after someone has had a string of
management successes at a project level they could be voted up for multi-team
management, etc. And new management hires, would have to be vulnerable to
being not voted in as managers the next time around, which would put a lot of
pressure on them.

TLDR: Management should be a flexible role based on each project's needs like
any other team role.

------
bdunbar
I've had good managers, and bad.

A good manager knows his people, their skill sets, and how they work. He knows
what work he can give them, and how much and what kind of supervision they
need.

Like this; Ann needs only to be given a goal, and guidance. Bill works best
with a daily walk-by. Charles needs constant and close supervision.

He will be able to tap dance with _his_ manager, explain what his people are
doing, and why, and run interference as needed between 'management' and
'politics'.

Most of all he knows _people_. He may not know exactly what Bill is going on
about when he talks about 'fsck' but he can tell when he's being bullsh*tted.

A bad manager can't do any of that.

------
codeonfire
Tech Managers are:

1\. Out for themselves

2\. Trying to manipulate credit and blame

3\. Trying to manipulate hiring

4\. Trying to manipulate compensation and promotion

5\. Trying to get between makers and customers to leech money from both

6\. Creating artificial problems to 'manage'

7\. Roadblocking and gatekeeping

If someone said that in order to be allowed to produce products for a customer
you have to pay ten levels of management millions of dollars to oversee things
that don't need to be overseen, you would call that racketeering.

------
dave_sid
I think Zappos still have managers, but they gave them a different name so
they could release an article and get some nice PR in the current anti-manager
climate.

I think managers are being scapegoated as you say. I'd dare any company to get
rid of their management and see what really happens, not just pretend to like
Zappos.

Hopefully this is a fashion that will blow over like all the rest so people
can get back to trying to work together to create something useful, rather
than trying to blame others.

------
scotty79
Managers sometimes withold crucial information till after it's too late to
meet the deadline.

~~~
aspir
I'd replace "managers" with "bad managers" in that statement. Much in the same
way that you could say "bad devs sometimes ship broken builds" or "bad
salespeople sometimes sell products that don't exist."

~~~
jaredsohn
Are you saying that if a manager withholds crucial information once, that they
must be a bad manager? Or if a developer ships a broken build build once that
they are therefore "bad"? Or that if a salesperson sells a product that
doesn't exist they are bad?

I can easily see a good manager withholding crucial information because they
didn't realize it was crucial (or think that the development team would have
time to take it into account), a developer accidentally shipping a broken
build late at night one time, or a salesperson selling something that doesn't
exist (but getting a better understanding of what customers would pay for as a
result).

One mistake does not mean that you are overall bad at your job.

------
Mz
If "managers are bad," one possible explanation is that they do not directly
produce anything and must justify their existence/salary, thus the position
may be inherently prone to encouraging people to create (unnecessary) work to
keep their paycheck.

