Management is the Disease
I’ve been management at various companies, and I’ve certainly been subjected to management at the same companies. I’ve been a victim of this disease and I’m not proud to say that I’ve also been a vector for it. That said, management is the disease in almost every fucked up company.
It comes down to management’s reason for existing. Management exists to make sure the people under them do a good job. This assumes that a) you’ve hired people who without management won’t do a good job, and b) that the people in management have any ability to identify what “doing a good job” looks like. But here’s the worst part. Let’s say that you have hired people who do a good job, and management actually knows what it looks like. It’s still against management’s best interest to let good people do their jobs well without intervention. Because if everyone’s doing well on their own, then management has nothing to do. And because management gets paid more than others, they have even more incentive to look busy and useful even at the expense of good people who just need to be left alone to do their jobs.
As a cherry on this shit sundae, if it’s understood that management’s role is to make sure that the people under them don’t make mistakes, then every decision has to be evaluated with a scrutiny that it often doesn’t require. After a screwup, why would any manager explain to their uber manager that the mistake was worth it because it was the most efficient way to learn the right path forward. The uber manager’s only logical response would be: “then why do I need you here if I can just let people find the right path through conscientious and thoughtful trial and error”?
And that after all is the exact right question to ask about almost every single manager in your organization. Why do we need them?
I say put ’em to work.
Join the discussion 15 Comments
Chris Wilson
February 11, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Actually, I think management’s reason for existing should be ensuring that the people on the team are focused on the right mission, and that you have people spread across all the tasks that need to be done. If you don’t trust that you hired people who will do a good job, you’ve already failed.
Hillel
February 11, 2011 at 2:16 pm
I agree. So once the mission is clearly articulated, and the work is assigned, what the hell do the managers do the other 98% of the time?
felix
February 11, 2011 at 2:24 pm
true words well spoken.
Jeff Yamada
February 11, 2011 at 2:44 pm
I’ve always respected managers who are capable of actually contributing outside of managing. Sadly, I’m sure other managers view my inclination to sit at my desk and code instead of sit in meetings as a sign that I’m not engaged or a lesser manager – but maybe that’s a good thing.
Ian Ellison-Taylor
February 11, 2011 at 2:47 pm
I think managements job is in large part to do what can’t otherwise be done by the team. Lots of tedious budget stuff, representing the team to others around the company, helping unblock decisions etc.
If you only find that taking up 2% of your time then your team is too small and you should have a flatter structure OR you take on more line-level duties. What makes the most sense I think depends on the particular company or group.
For most great managers I know, success is indeed putting yourself out of a job and great organizations will recognize and reward that. If yours doesn’t then you should find somewhere new to work :)
Elizabeth Grigg
February 11, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Agree with the symptoms but not the cause. Management is just where the dysfunction shows up. If I’m always tripping on the stairs, maybe I have a balance problem, it’s not that stairs are badly made these days. Take away the culture of fear and defensiveness and (in a better world) management can protect individual contributors so they can concentrate. That’s a big deal.
What event prompted this post?
Kevin
February 11, 2011 at 2:50 pm
> Why do we need them? I say put ‘em to work.
You’ve never read the _Dilbert Principle_, have you? ;-)
Pingback:
February 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Tweets that mention Management is the Disease | Jackson Fish Market -- Topsy.com
Bill Lumbergh
February 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm
TPS REPORTS! TPS REPORTS! Who is going to make sure they’re done according to procedures?
Management! Yay Managment!
devmgr
February 11, 2011 at 7:57 pm
some interesting points raised in the post, but perhaps one should first distinguish between the different types of management:
1. project management
2. people management
3. executive management
i think your argument is mostly towards project and people managers. project managers own the mechanical tasks of scheduling, resource allocation, aligning priorities, assessing status, assessing risk, updating stakeholders, etc. these are important things that perhaps would be wasteful if assigned to a developer. but let’s say for the sake of argument that the developers are quite capable of taking on these activities along with development, design, and architecture tasks, which i’ve experienced, there are a larger set of tasks that typically need to be dealt with that may have nothing to do with the current project whatsoever such as hiring, developing talent, retention, attrition, motivating, refining and building good processes, balancing budget, developing company culture, setting, aligning, and influencing direction, etc. attrition is particularly an example that should most definitely be put into the hands of a manager, i.e. you wouldn’t want a fellow employee to decide that you’re fired, this is not the easiest conversation, i assure you. and when it comes to raises, how would a team of engineers decide who gets what piece of the pie?
to your point or some commenter’s point about managers costing more than developers, i’ve managed lots of people that have made way more than me. and i’ve been very fortunate to see both sides of the spectrum in terms of great managers versus dead wood, you can learn a lot from both types. but management, at the core, is dealing with people, and personalities are never easy to deal with, developers/engineers being no exception.
ultimately i’d love to see a flat hierarchy where everyone could self manage and the science of management could be absorbed into everyone.
Robby Ingebretsen
February 12, 2011 at 12:09 am
This resonates with me. What most organizations need are mentors and leaders. If you have a good manager, I bet it’s because he or she is actually not managing but leading or mentoring.
Ralf
February 12, 2011 at 1:40 am
“the science of management” (Response on 11 Feb 2011 at 7:57 pm by devmgr)
When it comes to science, there is no “management” stuff – it is then referring to psychology, maths, operations research…
Management is an “art” – nothing more or less.
Andrew
February 12, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Hillel, you correctly identified that setting medium/long term strategy is 2% of a manager’s job. The other 98% is communication, coordination and prioritization.
In any team things are constantly changing, either as a result of external factors like customers and competitors or from internal forces like more senior managers and the team itself. This change isn’t bad, it’s ultimately a reflection of capitalistic markets as opposed to a centrally planned economy.
Humans can’t read minds so we have to explicitly communicate with each other. Without a central point to go through there are basically O(n^2) communication paths on each team. Feeding everything through that network is wildly inefficient. With the manager acting as a central communications point in a hierarchical star network there are only O(n) communication paths. By giving that manager decision making authority the overall latency increase caused by the change from a full mesh to a hierarchical star is minimized.
The worst teams I’ve worked have been run by managers that neglect the importance of coordination and communication. Over time team members get more and frustrated as ambiguity keeps increasing. The best, and highest performing teams I’ve worked on have had managers that ensure everybody has the information necessary to do their job efficiently.
Fred
March 1, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Reads like a sour-opinion seeking for validation.
Management’s purpose is actually to assist their team in doing the best work possible, in the best environment possible.
Just because what the author experienced happens, doesn’t make it “management’s purpose”.
BTW, it’s “ueber”, uber
Dougwiser
June 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm
I swear I gave it my best effort to try to see my manager’s point of view, but I just cannot get my head far enough up my ass.