Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Ask HN: My manager is bad. Should I care?
55 points by Throw_Away_1049 on June 17, 2024 | hide | past | favorite | 71 comments
I am a lead in a department where the manager is considered incompetent but nice. I am recognized as high performing and a good team builder (clear communication, involving people as needed, etc.). The manager, however, fails to include me or the team, and this is reflected in declining team satisfaction ratings. The director is supportive but typically sides with the manager and communicates only through them, despite many sharing concerns with him. Should I be upset about this situation, or am I overthinking it and should just go with the flow?

On one hand, I’m upset the director can’t appropriately lead and allows the entire department to be corrupted by a single non-performer. On the other hand, maybe I’m too involved and should just worry about myself. I’d get less professional development potentially (verses leaving) but I could kick back more.



> I’d get less professional development potentially (verses leaving) but I could kick back more.

I've left a few "imperfect" jobs that I've regretted, because the next job was worse than the one I left.

IMO: Understand that no company is perfect: Unless you have extensive management experience or a multi-decade career, it's hard to build empathy for what your manager's job requires and their day-to-day challenges. In some cases, criticizing your manager is akin to being a backseat driver; or a "monday morning quarterback" who's never played a day of professional football.

Now that's said, if you really believe that it's best to move on to greener pastures, understand that the software engineering field is in a periodic downturn. Now isn't a good time to find a job. Thus, "if you have a good thing going," stick around for another year or two, and get your resume out there when the industry heats up again. Hopefully, you know how to screen potential employers so you find a job you like better.

Finally: Early in our careers, a lot of us need to "take what we can get." As we advance, we can start to smell unhealthy working environments. I think this is partially why some older engineers take longer to find jobs... We walk away from bad situations that only younger naive engineers will accept.


> As we advance, we can start to smell unhealthy working environments.

As I was going through some old papers, I found my offer letter from a previous job. I'd underlined a whole bunch of things and written questions in the margin to ask the HR guy. Things like, "who will I report to," and "what's the name of the team I'll be on?" Needless to say, in retrospect these were all red flags, and now I know how to spot a company that's not being run by grown-ups.


Better the devil you know!


> The manager, however, fails to include me or the team, and this is reflected in declining team satisfaction ratings.

To me it feels like there needs to be more information before we can come to a judgement (excluding bias aside). I don't feel like "failing to include" people is necessarily an indication that a manager is bad... rather it feels like his communication style clashes with your preference. There are plenty of places where information is shared on the "need-to-know" basis. Is the manager not including your team on things that your team should be knowing?

Was the manager also given a fair chance to receive the feedback and take action on it?


The most egregious examples of this I’ve experienced are in large corporate environments, where managers are often less technical than their leads. Often only managers/directors are invited to calls with thought leaders, portfolio architects, who are also very technical.

This led to situations where a lead is asked in a quick IM or call “are we doing X in our system?” without any context or materials provided to the lead, which often contain crucially important info that the manager feels is just noise (especially if they consider themselves very technical from engineering roles in a previous era).

Just my two cents there; in my case I just learned to roll with it, after some time of striving to work “around” management to find info they never passed down, which resulted in poorer performance evaluations than simply following oft-misguided orders


> This led to situations where a lead is asked in a quick IM or call “are we doing X in our system?”

If you're "representing the team" in a technical call, you should either 1. be prepared to yourself go as deep technically as the other participants, or 2. bring someone deeply technical along to provide that expertise. These "quick side chats" are like trying to pass answer notes back and forth during an exam. Too late bro, you should have studied.


This is one of those situations where it's not a problem until it is a problem. Aside from the general _management_ problems you'll have, a poor manager isn't going to be able to advocate well for promotions, etc. for his team. So there's a good chance your advancement at the company is stalled as long as you work for this person.

Is this something you can do anything about? Well, "fixing your manager" is a high risk, low reward activity and personally I'd advise against it. My advice would be to try and get an internal transfer while things are still "good" and if that's not an option, look elsewhere.


> nice

I'm reminded of a book I read once called "No More Mr Nice Guy" where it explains that "nice guys" are actually kind of jerks because they behave certain ways to try to manipulate people and they expect reciprocation.

They live by a sort of unspoken code that they believe exists but which other people may or may not be aware of.

When a "nice guy" doesn't get his way, he can become bitter and resentful.

(I am using the term "guy" to fit the name, but it could be a woman too)

I'm not sure if you intended to describe your manager as "nice" in this way, but niceness has become a huge red flag to me ever since reading that book. I much prefer someone who is good (in competence and/or in behavior) than someone who is nice.


> I'm reminded of a book I read once called "No More Mr Nice Guy" where it explains that "nice guys" are actually kind of jerks because they behave certain ways to try to manipulate people and they expect reciprocation.

That's just red pill BS right there. Somebody is nice, I'm jealous, so he must be incompetent+manipulative, how else can I justify to myself that I want to see him as bad and myself as good? So let's just equate nice with bad, then jerk must be good, so I can just be a jerk and feel good about it!

No, just don't. Incompetent or not, nice is always better than jerk/toxic/.. No matter what red pill folks tell you.


Typical nice guy response.

I never said any of those things, that it was better to be a jerk or toxic, but you assume that I did.


The irony of this response is that I didn't actually claim that you said any of those things. I commented on the book's content and the summary you gave.

Thia reaction of yours is telling though. As well as how you finished your original message:

> niceness has become a huge red flag to me ever since reading that book. I much prefer someone who is good (in competence and/or in behavior) than someone who is nice.

"Niceness" as a red flag? How does that not confirm what I wrote and put you in the camp of those agreeing with the book's message?


> Say nice guys suck

> Somebody disagrees!

> "Typical nice guy response".

Don't do this. This pattern is easy to spot and you instantly lose all credibility.


> Don't do this. This pattern is easy to spot and you instantly lose all credibility.

The difference is, I don't go around telling you what to do. Be a nice guy if you want.

I simply stated my way of thinking, but it angers the "nice guys" and I get attacked for it.

Oh, and you're not the gatekeeper of credibility, nor do I care how "credible" my opinion is to you (what does that even mean?). Credibility of opinions is just more "nice guy speak".


> just more "nice guy speak".

Not credible and tedious to boot. I know you just learned of this "nice guy" conceit, and you're all excited about it, but I hope you grow out of it soon. Just because you have a new hammer doesn't mean everything is a nail.


While the book is more about relationships, it does make applicable points. A "nice" manager that refuses to get down to brass tacks is eventually going to be a problem for everyone when the schedule slips: your complaining about what the actual problem is will be viewed as disloyalty and you'll be the one thrown under the bus.

The opposite view can be taken here though, also discussed in the book. If you are not the manager, you should avoid trying to fill that role. The manager and director certainly don't want you to "help fix their problems".


Ah yes, someone else who has read it.

You're right, it is more in the context of romantic relationships, but I have since noticed nice guys can be a problem everywhere.

I certainly had some "nice guy" tendencies in the past, and maybe still do sometimes, bit I try to be aware and strive to be more direct in my words and behavior.

It's been a few years since I read it... I may read it again actually.


There’s a strange hostility in your comment that doesn’t seem to make sense.

Nice guys can become resentful when their kindness isn’t reciprocated in environments where reciprocity is a reasonable expectation, but that I don’t see how that makes them jerks nor does it make being nice a red flag.

Just know that if someone is nice to you that they are likely to expect to be treated how they treat you and either meet that expectation or turn down their assistance in the first instance.


I first heard the term Nice Guy from the dating world to describe guys who expect women to have sex with them, date them, etc. if they treat the women nicely. Like others have said, quid pro quo obligation. I haven't noticed this in the workplace, but maybe I wasn't paying attention.


i dont think grandparent is talking about actual niceness. just sort of a quid-pro-quo where we do and say awful things, and expect that we'll all just pretend that everything is pleasant.


>There’s a strange hostility in your comment that doesn’t seem to make sense.

It doesn't. Sure, there's such things as being "phony nice". But unsociable people tend to over-analyze others and do a ton of projection. The idea that "nice guys" are sociopaths trying to game you is, well, way too cynical for me and my life experience. Some people are just nice.


> someone who is good (in competence and/or in behavior) than someone who is nice

What if you're both? This makes me feel self-conscious about being "nice" and toning it down.


"Nice" is a very subjective concept and can be used to describe people in both complimentary and derogatory ways. In my experience niceness and competence are in no way correlated – I have known nice people who were good at their jobs and assholes who were good at their jobs, as well as some of both who were terrible at their jobs. It is perfectly possible to be both competent and nice.

Given the choice between two persons of equal competence, where one is nice and one is not, I would be surprised if anybody chose the less nice one, all other things being equal.

I suggest continuing to be genuine, rather than focusing on "niceness", and not allowing a single comment on the internet to make you feel self-conscious about your character.


Perhaps you are kind, which is a great way to be. Niceness is artificial, while kindness is a genuine, caring trait. There was a thread on the distinction yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40696801


You should probably just ignore the above comment. It's referencing a fairly niche use of the term "nice" that's only dubiously relevant here.


> They live by a sort of unspoken code that they believe exists but which other people may or may not be aware of.

I try to be a nice guy but also believe (hope) I'm competent!

On the above that's something I've recognized though, I do feel like I bring some sort of unwritten moral code to my work (as do we all I'm sure) but realizing that nobody else is actually aware of it or follows it is quite important.

I think this goes some way to being able to be "nice" without getting resentful or bitter when things don't go your way.

From the kind-hearted colleague who's freindly at the water cooler but actually very difficult to work with - through to the people who are just rude, dismissive or belligerent - acknowledging that they operate by a different set of principals to you and accepting that somewhat release's you from their effects.


How does that make sense? Should the incompetent boss rather be 'neutral' (DnD sense) or even mean?

Anyhow. OP, it is not your firm and not your problem. Try to run a community playground or something instead of wasting energy on some random company you should not care about.


How do you know whether someone is just genuinely nice, or nice-but-jerk as you explained it?


Not OP, but IMO you look at their actions compared to their words over time.


First time I hear about that book. Interesting. I've reflected already about such "Mr Nice guys". This guy in particular, who I have in mind now, I could never determine whether he was being manipulative or was simply extremely incompetent. Either way, I regarded him as very dangerous: his actions (or lack thereof) constantly disrupted something and the slightest attempt to call him out resulted in multiple people jumping to his defense.


"Nice" is ambiguous, orthogonal to both dimensions of kindness and assertiveness.

It is possible to be nice, considerate, and assertive with discretion and truthfulness.

Overvaluing "nice" above all else can lead to failure, an appearance of dishonesty, and a lack of respect.


IIRC no more nice guy is also a solid classic rock tune by Alice cooper


Obligatory comment from a day ago :-)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40697330


You mention choosing between "growth" and "kicking back" - that seems to me to be the key question you need to answer. Do you want to be stretched, or take some less stressful "passive work"? Neither answer is bad, and only you can choose.

Once you know the answer to that, my "3 classes of managers" might help you pick a next step.

Good: These managers actively support you. They know how to play whatever games your company has evolved, will support you through tough times, and create growth opportunities that advance your goals (and theirs).

Useless but harmless: These managers are not actively "good", but they won't stop you serving yourself. You'll need to take matters into your own hands, but when you do, they'll support you. They normally know how to play the company games, and are sometimes "good" managers that have burned out or stretched themselves further than they have capacity for. Finding good mentors can help you leverage "Useless but harmless".

Useless and harmful: These managers aren't helping you, but then actively hinder your attempts to help yourself. They'll block your attempts to achieve things - even if they're good for the team. When you go to them for support that only they can provide (e.g. performance reviews), they won't really listen to your feedback.

Sounds like you're somewhere between "Harmless" and "Harmful", and you need to work out which one your situation is closer to. If you've got a "Useless but harmless", then you're fine. Work with them to generate the outcomes you want, trusting that - in general - they'll support you in "self-management". If they're not helping you and preventing you from helping yourself, then - despite being "nice" - they're probably harmful to your own goals (project and personal), and you _might_ want to consider other options.


First, I think it's always good to detach yourself to some extent. It sounds like there's nothing you can do, so that limits how much you should care. No sense giving yourself heartburn over something you can't affect, after all.

Since this is a problem you can't really fix, the thing I would ask yourself is if it makes your day to day so miserable that you would rather quit your job. That's hard for me to give advice on because it's a personal call. I have had some bad bosses over the years and I just gritted my teeth and put up with it because the job had other redeeming qualities I liked. Maybe that's the case for you, maybe not, but it's worth thinking about.


Incompetent, autocratic managers (as you describe) will sooner or later cause huge problems. You're already seeing the problems start in the declining team satisfaction ratings. Sooner or later, major problems can happen. Unfortunately, the decline can take years. My advice is to care. Since you (and apparently others) have gone around the manager to the director without any resolution, it's time to start looking for a new job. Assuming you're in the US, your employer owes you next to no loyalty, and uses your emotional attachment to the job or the product to bind you to the situation. Rewrite your resume and quietly start looking.


Have you tried talking to your manager about this?

As an engineering manager, I have had people in my team that would much prefer me to shield them from other department heads and any higher levels of management as they want to minimise meetings and just deliver on work without the hassle of communicating with multiple stakeholders.

I have also had people that want to be included, enjoy documenting their work and communicating across the company and are naturally suited to lead the team – as a manager these people save me a ton of time as I know I can rely on them to run the team in my absence.

I might be naive as I don't understand the specifics of your team dynamics, but it might be worth to voice out your concerns to your manager and try to find a solution before you simply quit – it might be they are not aware of any of this or are inexperienced at leading senior people


The biggest problem you have is too many layers - and the layers above your manager don't bother to build a mission and a rapport with anyone besides their own direct reports.

When skip levels and skip skip levels and skip skip skip levels exist, it creates more and more distance between what the business wants and what the middle managers end up asking engineers to do. This is dysfunctional but still exists. The only way out of this is for the upper management to build direct rapport with engineers - which means they need to be directly invested in the success of certain projects, and let other projects fall into place on their own. Middle management overhead is a big problem for the top and the bottom.


How much job experience do you have? To me, this sounds very idealistic, but unrealistic. It sounds like a new employee aspiring to be a manager. Everywhere has a team or dept like this


I was at a company once where I had a direct line to the CEO, we would meet 1-1 a few times a year, and he consistently encouraged me to "push from the bottom" for change.

Between the CEO and I were an incompetent manager, a very incompetent director, and a very sharp President who preferred the status quo.

In hindsight, that the CEO was encouraging me to basically undermine my manager showed a chaotic and unspoken power dynamic that I wasn't mature enough at the time to understand. What followed was a frustrating 2 years of trying to show a manager who was being managed by his team that our tiny 80 person company wasn't Google scale, didn't need to be Google scale, and that we were wasting 75% of our development efforts gold plating everything for no reason.

What I should have done, almost immediately, was either shut up and collected a paycheck or moved on to brighter and better things (which is what I eventually did).

The org chart is the org chart. You can communicate information upwards, but you can't communicate action upwards.


> The manager [...] fails to include me or the team

> The director [...] communicates only through [the manager]

It sounds like this is the intended culture of your management structure, or at least in this local hierarchy you exist within. Only you can really tell how negatively this impacts your happiness this is but fwiw, this isn't generally that uncommon of a setup.


The Peter principle is the default state.

You might have to up your political game if you want positive change that would benefit you and the company.

Also, how many other layers of paycheck-collecting managers are there between you and the CEO? If there are too many, they might not care about competency and favor rapport, relationships, and leverage.


I’ve been there. If the goal is to ensure your career isn’t derailed vs like ensuring good corporate optimization bc you care about that (you shouldn’t, IMO, likely a losing battle impacted by levers you’ll never see), it will matter probably in the following areas:

- wherever your manager exerts soft responsibility, you can likely take over safely. Might need a lot of peer leadership and related capital with peers

- wherever your manager has those firm only-manager responsibilities, you are at their whim unfortunately. This can include layoff decisions, how much you manager will be involved in layoff decisions about their own teams, kill/green light projects, etc. basically all those invisible levers your manager might have access to but you don’t. Not much to do here but risk manage your personal career management accordingly.


I'm suspicious of this: "the manager is considered incompetent but nice".

I'm suspicious because I immediately wonder who considers them incompetent. Is it their boss, is it everyone else in the organization, or is it just you? My point is that you have a particular lens on their performance, but you probably don't have a synoptic view of everything they do.

Of course, I don't know the details of your situation, but the hypothesis I'd test first is that they may be good at everything in their job description except the one specific thing you mentioned, which is that they're not communicating enough. If you talked to them about their communication, directly and unambiguously telling them how it is affecting your team, and what you expect instead, what happens?


One of the responsibilities you probably have as a "lead" (this means so many things at different companies) is to have this discussion with your mananger and give that feedback. By you avoiding this, are you not repeating the same mistake as your manager?


I've been in a situation where I had a manager who was a nice guy. Everyone took advantage of him and none of the people under him really grew unless they changed teams. My career stagnated for a long time there and it significantly sapped my confidence and professionalism. I jumped out prematurely and made some bad career moves after that.

My general advice is to follow your gut. If you feel like your manager is actually hurting your long term career prospects, then you should switch teams or company. If not, and it's just a passing feeling, you can stay. A decent check for the former is to see how much growth you've had under this manager and then take a call.


If it was one layer of poor management, you could get away with not caring because eventually the higher levels of management would notice and act. But once you have 2+ levels of management allowing each other to get away with being poor leaders, you are in a deeply flawed organization and it is absolutely time to care about it.

Caring about it can result in a few different paths:

1) You can care and accept the reality of it (easy, but stagnant)

2) You can care and act to fix things (difficult but rewarding if you succeed)

3) You can care and choose to leave the organization.

It is up to you what actions to take, but I have to recommend caring enough to deliberately choose one of those overall paths. Personally, I have almost universally regretted staying in an org if multiple levels of management are problematic. But everyone's situation is different.


Something isn't adding up. You claim to be a team lead and yet have not seem managers come and go constantly? You have a personality conflict with the manager, but it will only be a couple years. Just live with it.


Based on what you’ve said, you should be looking for an internal transfer yesterday.

I’ve seen this before and virtually always one or more ICs get to be fall guy before a bad manager faces consequences.

More generally, building relationships with other hiring managers at your company is generally a very good practice. This is best done by being a visible contributor to their team’s success. Usually that’s because your team is somewhere in their dependencies and you stand out as someone who delivers.


I don't have a ton of experience, but I think you saying this reflects back on you as well.

Maybe your boss and their boss really are terrible, or maybe you are angling for more power, and want them (even subconsciously) to look bad so you can be a hero in comparison.

There's a lot of space between "I don't like my boss" and "they are ruining this company and need to go and I should replace them"


If you are upset and worrying with the only option to just worry about yourself it is maybe time for the serenity prayer.


Two levels of poor management probably means that it goes all the way up the chain and your company is poorly led in general. This is going to go sour eventually and you aren't in a position to fix it or protect the team. If you don't want to stick around to see them get laid off, maybe it's time to get out.


>I am recognized as high performing and a good team builder

Is this not something that a good team builder would be able to fix, at least in theory? Team building is easy when everyone agrees and gets along; solving this issue would solidify your reputation (within and without).


Can you help your manager get better?


Org charts are annoyingly real. And the actions at the top fully dictate the potential for the bottom. I'm comfortably in the middle with no real power, but I have an excellent relationship with my boss who triages between my team and the powers at be. We still perform tasks that I feel are flat out bad decisions that will come back to haunt us — ask me how having a lone devops resource deploy OpenStack instead of doing AWS went.

Going with the flow has its advantages if you feel your position is relatively stable, as I do. Make sure you find purpose outside of your job to help with your mental health


Is the manager chaotic bad or evil bad? I mean do you see indication they're bad on purpose?


I'm a little unsure about what makes this manager bad, which might help to inform the response. You say they "fail to include" you or the team. Does that mean that they fail to inform you about discussions where you would have useful input?


Good luck getting people to have integrity. Incompetence and apathy are the status quo. People are more interested in the appearance of smooth operation than in putting in the work to actually operate smoothly.

You're not going to change the organization; they'll find a reason to fire you. Find a company or work where you can have some agency and be principled without dealing with structural nonsense. Quit doing good things for this company. The director and whoever hired them deserve to fail. Don't fix it for them.

When people tell you who they are, believe them. They've told you, clearly, in actions and words that they don't care about actually doing the right thing, it's all about appearances.

If you find yourself covering for the incompetence of your management, your peers, or otherwise where it's not the work you're paid to do, knock that shit off. It's not nice or good or kind or anything other than you being exploited by unscrupulous people who either know and don't care, or are incompetent and don't know. Leave and let them learn from the pain.


It's always good to have options. You don't need to jump ship but it gives you peace of mind and there might be a good opportunity at some point.


Find the advantages. I had a manager that was completely negligent, it allowed me full autonomy to do what I wanted, how I wanted.


I think the broader problem is a lack of societal realization that the purpose of jobs should ideally be to gain training to ultimately become an entrepreneur rather than to stay just a worker. It may help to look at things from this pov. It's okay if you still remain only a worker as long as you keep this in mind. It may nevertheless help you reframe your situation to gain clarity.


In my experience, all managers have strengths and weaknesses, and it's very easy as a report to look above you and say "my manager is bad" largely cause you don't understand the balancing act they are constantly doing and the political battles they are constantly fighting.

If you like your work, and you feel like your career is headed in the right direction, and you trust this manager then I'd stay. All your complaints don't sound unusual and just part of working in a large organization, where your satisfaction is not the primary goal of said organization.


I would probably tolerate it until I couldn't anymore and then leave ungracefully. Ymmv


Similarly to how a good engineer can be a force multiplier for a team and a bad one can tank the entire team, a good manager can also be a force multiplier for the company, team, and for you individually. And a bad manager, at best, will let you tread water.

If you have ambition and want to grow and learn, you should seek out another manager. (Note what I did not say: you do not have to seek out another _job_.)

A good manager will identify your career goals and give you a framework and guardrails in which you can launch yourself to the next level. A good manager will care about you personally ("nice") while being tough about the realities of the business ("serious"). When I hear about a manager that's nice but incompetent, I think of the term "ruinous empathy," which basically means they're so nice that they can't be effective.

Sometimes tough love is what people need, and even if it's not "nice," it's kind and it's the right thing to do.

You have, in my mind, a few options:

1. Be compassionately candid with your boss. "Look, I know your job is tough and that you're a really nice guy and care about us a lot, but if you let the little things slide, nobody will take you seriously, and I want to be taken seriously." If that doesn't work, escalate to the boss. Read up on ruinous empathy and be prepared to give examples. "They are too nice" isn't a good critique, but "Their reluctance to enforce discipline is causing problems A, B, and C" is hard to ignore.

2. Find a mentor either externally or within your company. This means finding someone that you respect that can give you candid advice on how to improve in whatever areas you are interested in. This does not have to be your boss. It cold be another manager at your company, another engineering leader, or even an HR person. Alternately, you can find a new job -- although that's not always guaranteed to be better, as other posters have pointed out!

3. You can abdicate responsibility, say "It's not my problem," and put your energy into non-work things. This is a totally valid approach. It's not what _I_ would do, but it's something that is totally fair. Maybe you want to level up your guitar or piano skills, or you want to get really fit. Take that extra energy you have and throw it into your chosen hobby. Spend more time with your family. Sleep better at night. Work isn't everything. It's just a job and a paycheck.

But my big piece of advice: don't settle. Don't settle for mediocrity. Keep pushing to be a better person, a better colleague, a better team player. Practice giving compassionate and candid feedback. Keep an eye out to avoid becoming obnoxiously aggressive or ruinously empathetic (two sides of the compassionately candid spectrum). Identify your goals, whether that's leveling up at work or leveling up in your private life, and go after them with gusto and abandon.

I've been where you are. It's tough. But you sound like the kind of person that can and will do better.

Best of luck to you.


Frankly I would leave a role well before I'd send unsolicited, negative feedback over my manager's head. Even if my feedback was well evidenced and actionable, and my director took action on it, I don't think it'd do me any personal favors.

I'm not a manager, but I expect you get there through strong relationships and trust.

Going over somebody's head indicates you don't have a strong relationship with that person, and that you can't be trusted by a direct superior.


I suspect like most folks the poster probably is frustrated by disingenuous civility rather than "nice" behavior...

Asserting ones personal priorities supersede the defined goals is also a classic mistake, as productivity means different things to different people.

One can have high output, but still be a liability for company projects that require cooperation with other disciplines including business operations.

Yes even geniuses get fired for poor team conduct, and it is usually always a surprise to their ego.

I am not saying you aren't necessarily on a boondoggle project, but rather your role is likely poorly defined in the team. A common issue for smaller firms, especially relevant when layoffs are in the pipeline. i.e. better to bail than be declared redundant or a problem.

Have a great day, and lets try to be less presumptuous about other peoples motives Professor X. =3


No offense, but there's a self-centered tone to your post that makes me think you're not able to take other perspectives, or acknowledge that there may be other priorities for different parts of your organization.

"Failing to include you" is a perception. It may not be a failure. It may be intentional, either because you're technically good at your job but lack the soft skills that are also important. "Clear communication" isn't necessarily compassionate communication. It may also be unintentional, because the manager and director have other priorities, or see you as autonomous.

Bottom line, it's your responsibility to ask for what you need. Manage up.


Counter point, I’ve worked at companies that weaponize the concept of soft skills as a way to cut down really great engineers who are high performers (I spent years at AWS learning this lesson). Even if you are strategically aligned with the leadership, customers, and the business, if you don’t play ball with elements of middle management or make them look bad you can get the axe.

My advice when you find you’re working at that kind of company? Leave. Consider becoming a founder or working at a smaller company.

Sometimes your spider sense is telling you the right thing. So many people are so hopelessly dependent on the system they will convince themselves that soft skills are more important than execution. Those folks are wrong.


Yes, you should absolutely care.


Have you tried talking to your amanger about how you would like to be included more?


Welcome to the real world. It’s like this at many places. You have to assume that the director and manager go on family picnics together. At these places you get promoted to manager because the guy above you trusts you and for that reason only. Talent can be hired, trust cannot.

Either learn to adapt or leave and join a firm with top tier culture. Do your homework on that.


You have no control over it.

Part of being a lead or even any kind of role is to be able to deal with people that absolutely suck at their job and in the end, still make people as satisfied as you humanly can with your performance in your role.

Just accept it and treat it as "ambiguity" and don't let this bring you down, otherwise if you keep thinking about it, you'll make the issue much bigger and that will prevent you from doing your main objective, which should be paying your bills and putting that time in, so eventually you move to a different company that you'll have similar issues, but hopefully you'll have a higher salary.

I do struggle with this some as well, but with more experience this has been affecting me less and less, to go up the ladder, you need to get comfortable with people that sucks or things that don't work right.

Just have a look at the top of the ladder, the Elon Musks, Bidens and Trumps... they are terrible at their jobs, being good has never been a pre-requisite, but the connections you have and how lucky you are. You weren't born rich so you'll work in the company of a son of an emerald miner owner, how do you deal with that? That's how you should behave.

Some people here might tell you to read a book or do this or do that, but it won't change the fact that your superior is bad, what you need is to work through those misconceptions like "meritocracy" that wolves teach to sheeps, there's no meritocracy at work, maybe only in the amount of hours you put in and how good you are perceived by your peers, but meritocracy alone won't take you to $200B networth.

Summing up: all companies suck and those hierarchy structures have the natural tendency of creating those issues, you need to remember you do this because you need money and accept that you can't fix everything, and focus on what you can actually make better, otherwise consider going back to IC where you don't need to wrestle with so much ambiguity and people.




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

Search: