[HN Gopher] Everybody is the main character
___________________________________________________________________
Everybody is the main character
Author : tim_sw
Score : 64 points
Date : 2023-04-10 15:36 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.sbensu.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.sbensu.com)
| harrisreynolds wrote:
| I also love the basic ideas of this article but think the
| discussion on "micro-management" should be revised.
|
| What about the idea of "Coaching Done Right" with some discussion
| of how to mold and encourage direct reports toward the path that
| leads to optimal growth for them?
|
| The term micro-management is an inherently negative term. It
| connotes the idea of hovering over a person and trying to correct
| every detail of what they are doing "wrong". It takes away their
| agency and ability to learn from their mistakes.
|
| Love the core idea of the article though! Thanks for sharing.
| notShabu wrote:
| To feel like a main character you have to feel "observed" by a
| reader.
|
| This becomes interpersonal conflict when attention is zero-sum.
| When all employees depend on the corporation-as-observer the team
| dynamic can become toxic
|
| However most people have other "observers" like parents, friends,
| twitter-community, God, etc...
|
| Though they can generate feelings of love, acceptance, fame,
| oneness, etc... it is fairly difficult to transmute this effort
| into money to make a living so these stories are subservient to
| the money-attached one.
|
| Newer generations don't have decentralized observers. Everyone is
| online so social just converges into performing for the
| "algorithm". Religion and other traditions feel out-of-touch with
| where the world is headed. etc...
|
| Work ends up becoming the sole pillar that is supposed to hold up
| all these requirements. Partners & colleagues are expected to be
| Virtuous by serving the one true lord of light
|
| Managers have to act as priests...
| titzer wrote:
| > By definition, they are the main character of their own story.
| But large companies often don't make them feel that way. This is
| universally demotivating. If you don't feel like the main
| character of your story, you don't do much, you lose agency.
|
| This just shows how much the culture and psychological context of
| daily living has changed these days. It's like that line from
| "The Incredibles"--if everyone is super, then no one is.
|
| I read the article. It flirts with the line between coddling and
| training. I don't know if I agree with everything it says, but I
| do regret the underlying dynamic that is at play; you can't
| criticize anything or anyone because they can't take it. And the
| recommendations it gives for communications aren't _bad_ ; it
| just sucks that have to be so exquisitely _crafted_ these days.
|
| Really, the article doesn't say it, but the better parts of it
| are really just working on employee expectations. You need to
| manage (i.e. recalibrate) your employees' expectations. While
| their entire schooling might have taught them they are the main
| character in the story, they are a special snowflake with above
| average talents, you will succeed at everything without trying
| hard, it just isn't so. What's really going on is deprogramming
| the decades of school coddling and setting up a clear relation
| between cause and effect.
| watwut wrote:
| The "autonomy" being important for human motivation is part of
| old school management textbooks. The motivation was supposed to
| result of "autonomy, mastery and accountability" combination.
| For last 20 years, with move to agile, we have been loosing
| both "autonomy" and "accountability" parts. Frequently also
| mastery. We did gained predictability and there is less
| pressure then it used to be.
|
| We lost agency over years.
|
| > It's like that line from "The Incredibles"--if everyone is
| super, then no one is.
|
| This sounds like sci-fi, only because there is no autonomy
| anymore in software development. But it used to be that you had
| some small part where you could make autonomous decisions, did
| some estimates and could feel in control of your own situation
| if lucky. The process had issues ... but you had more agency
| and did felt like "main character in your own situation".
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Managers can make their subordinates life difficult with
| basically no recourse except quitting or maybe changing teams.
| Speaking up is not a good strategy.
|
| Because of this tenuous relationship managers may have no idea
| they are stepping on the toes of their subordinates. They can
| break trust without any feedback.
|
| Being encouraging really costs nothing and assures people that
| their contributions are valued.
| jgilias wrote:
| Everybody already _is_ the main character of their story by
| default. For most people work is just one plot line, likely not
| even the most important one.
|
| A good manager realizes this and accepts that the only choice
| they have here is to choose their role in everyone else's
| stories. Being the main protagonist of other people's stories is
| just not possible and trying to be one makes one a horrible
| manager.
| asplake wrote:
| A better manager understands that everyone's experience is
| different, and the role you play in others' stories isn't
| entirely your choice. Just getting to the bottom of that takes
| effort in itself.
| kodah wrote:
| The first half of the article is a great perspective for managers
| and senior engineers. Then I got to this:
|
| > If you think about it, we should all love micromanagers: they
| are helping us do our job! By making decisions for us, checking
| our work, and giving us constant feedback, micromanagers are
| making our jobs easier, not harder. But despite this, nobody
| likes micromanagers. Why?
|
| Absolutely no. There is no form of micromanagement that is
| acceptable and it always represents an ethical failure. Full
| stop. Micromanagement is all about undermining the technical
| authority and agency of an IC whose job it is to have those
| things. It's really a form of paranoia and secondarily a desire
| for control to appease that paranoia at the end of the day.
|
| If you want more awareness in your team and you want to be kept
| more up to date then you need to foster an environment where
| everyone knows exactly what their role is and isn't. Next, you
| need foster an environment where people can admit mistakes, laugh
| about them, and learn with a sense of urgency to rectify them
| when appropriate. People need to be confident of their agency,
| and it needs to be put on display at times. Managers should not
| be "visible" or working leaders, that's what engineers do, and
| certainly not part of a managers skillset. If you're going to
| directly engage with your reports based on progress, or want to
| challenge technical merits you need to have the technical
| relativity to do so. If you don't, then you need to stick to
| talking about goals and outcomes and how they align to higher
| goals and outcomes. Lastly, you need to be building trust
| constantly. You need to be willing to spend political capital on
| your team, and not just when it's advantageous to you.
|
| This post then goes on to mix the roles of EM and Senior
| engineer. As a senior engineer, I'd probably lose my mind working
| for anyone that did this.
| theonething wrote:
| Micro-manager or not, I like anyone who can give me good
| details specs in Jira.
| mediaman wrote:
| This is laudable, and you sound like someone who is both
| competent and works with competent people. In those cases they
| should not be micromanaged because it will stunt their growth
| and result in worse outcomes because of the greater knowledge
| the IC will have for the task at hand than the person not doing
| the task.
|
| But those preconditions of competence are not always in
| plentiful supply.
|
| Some team members must be empowered, be given a target to go
| after, be given a domain of responsibility, and then let loose,
| with little interference except to assist in politicking or
| obtaining organizational resources.
|
| There are others, however, where this will be disastrous.
| Frequent errors, stopping progress without raising a flag,
| inability to adjust course and learn, inability to be
| resourceful, lack of agency, inability to map objectives to
| tasks required. Experienced managers have all had this kind of
| team member, and recognize after many attempts that "be a
| better leader" often doesn't fix it.
|
| The easy answer is to say, "well, simply don't hire this latter
| group of people, or PIP them if you do." But they exist, and
| they will wind up working somewhere, even if perhaps they are
| not working at a large, extremely well-paying tech company that
| typically will have plenty of applicants for their RSU-laden
| opportunities.
|
| So, yes, those classic leadership qualities are great when the
| team member will thrive with them. In those cases the leader
| must provide the target, the support, and 'get out of the way.'
| But it is the rather ugly reality that this is not always the
| case. And in those, the leader must adapt their approach.
| parpfish wrote:
| i don't think they're actually advocating for micromanaging,
| they've just redefined training/mentorship as "good
| micromanaging":
|
| > We should micromanage as much as possible without making
| somebody feel like we are reducing their agency. In my
| experience, the best way to avoid this is to treat them like an
| apprentice: > > 1. Demarcate the areas where they have agency.
| > 2. Give feedback without killing their agency. > 3. Graduate
| them out of apprenticeship when they are ready.
| kodah wrote:
| If you go on to read "micromanaging done right" it's pretty
| clear that the author is a micromanagement apologist.
| webdood90 wrote:
| interesting life you must live if everything is so clearly
| black and white
| kodah wrote:
| Micromanagement has been around for a long time and
| workers have long fought to undo the entrenched
| philosophy of it. It isn't just an expression, it's an
| entire ideology that's well-defined and has been for some
| time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement
| ilyt wrote:
| By the very nature if something gets called
| "micromanagement" it is bad.
|
| People call "good micromanagement" just "management"
| karmakaze wrote:
| The problem here is that managers are less qualified than the
| individuals they manage in actually doing work, since the
| reports are the 'doers'. It would be more appropriate for a
| higher-level 'doer' to provide the mentoring than the
| manager. mentorship != managering
| dasil003 wrote:
| Qualifications are not the same as roles. A manager may or
| may not be qualified to provide IC mentorship. A more
| senior IC should be, but good mentorship does not
| automatically flow from being a good engineer, and there
| can be a fine line between micro-managing a junior engineer
| and mentoring them towards meeting their full potential. At
| the end of the day, it's on the manager to understand the
| dynamics at play and figure out the right way to maximize
| the team (whether that be development oriented or results
| oriented).
| karmakaze wrote:
| My general assessment of mentoring and micromanagement is
| that they originate from different objectives. The first
| is about developing the IC for their long-term
| effectiveness. The latter is about meeting deadlines and
| promises made by the manager, satisfying their
| manager/vp, and/or general insecurity because they don't
| fully understand the development process/cadence,
| technology, etc. A good manager can certainly also be a
| good mentor. One typically described as a micromanager,
| not so much.
| watwut wrote:
| Micromanagement is bad and contraproductive even if done by
| senior doer. The same negative impact of micromanaged
| person will still be there.
| PheonixPharts wrote:
| > As a manager you are seen as the default main character of your
| team.
|
| In my entire career I have _never_ known anyone who viewed
| managers this way.
|
| The best managers I've known have been viewed as great supporters
| of the team, people that advocate for you, get you the resources
| you need, and help run interference with leadership.
|
| The vast majority, from the "meh" to the horrid have been viewed
| by the team mostly as obstacles in hero's journey to solving
| problems and shipping products.
|
| And that's only from the IC perspective. From the leadership team
| perspective the view of manager ranges from seeing them as useful
| goons that keep lazy workers in line to, in the best cases,
| people who might be able to rise through the ranks to approach,
| but never quite reach, their level.
|
| But I've never, ever encounter people who think of a manager a
| the "main character".
| JohnFen wrote:
| Yes, a manager is more like the coach of a sport team. Not
| really a part of the team proper as such. They can't be and
| still be able to do a huge part of their job -- acting as the
| interface between the team and the other parts of the
| organization.
|
| A manager's job is to coordinate effort on a high level, to
| ensure that the team has everything it needs to function well,
| and to remove as many roadblocks as possible.
|
| A managers's job is to "grease the skids" and run interference.
| ThalesX wrote:
| > Yes, a manager is more like the coach of a sport team.
|
| Do a lot of sports team have coaches that have never played
| that sport in their life?
| mmcdermott wrote:
| Never played at all would be strange (it seems uncommon to
| watch a sport you have never played, let alone make a
| career of it). It's pretty common in the NFL to see coaches
| who were never professional players and possibly only
| played at a small college to boot.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Yeah, that I'm mystified by. A good manager, to use an
| imperfect analogy, is more like something between a coach and
| referee for the team; I don't think fans of baseball typically
| see the coach as the main character, important as they may be.
| At worst, a manager is seen as one of the lower demons in a
| particular level of corporate hell; a henchman or toady for the
| _villain_ , if you will.
| skybrian wrote:
| Yes, "main character" is Twitter jargon not normally used in
| business.
|
| However, it is true that the manager often _represents_ the
| team in meetings. To the other people in those meetings, the
| manager may be the only person they know on the team.
|
| An extreme version of this: outside a company, the CEO may be
| the only person the average person has heard of. Who do you
| know who works for Tesla, besides Musk?
|
| Or consider the inventions attributed to Edison. Could you name
| anyone else who worked in his research labs?
| gravitate wrote:
| > Yes, "main character" is Twitter jargon
|
| Matt Tait talks about Twitter and its main characters
| here[0]. I just block all these 'characters' so I never have
| to see them in my feed. And it's not just a handful, I block
| ~300 accounts which in my eyes are all bad faith actors /
| troublemakers who are subtly trolling Twitter because they
| have a large following.
|
| [0] https://www.pwnallthethings.com/p/twitter-was-special-
| but-it...
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > Yes, "main character" is Twitter jargon not normally used
| in business.
|
| I thought "main character" was a literary term? As in the
| "main character" of a book or story. Does it mean something
| different on twitter?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| On Twitter, I _think_ it means "someone who thinks they're
| the main character of the story"; that is, someone self-
| important or narcissistic. But I'm not a Twitter person (a
| Twit?), so I'm going by what I hear from others.
| [deleted]
| kalensh wrote:
| On Twitter I'd say the "main character" designation is
| less about how a person acts, and more about how everyone
| else is talking about them. They are the main character
| of the moment because suddenly half of your timeline is
| other Twitter users either directly or indirectly
| referring to them. Usually because they are wrong in a
| way that drives a ton of engagement.
| beebmam wrote:
| When people say "main character", what exactly do they mean?
| I've never heard this term outside of literary criticism
| before.
| skybrian wrote:
| See: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/twitters-main-character
|
| I think usage has drifted since then to "the person
| everyone is talking about."
| mediaman wrote:
| It's inspired from literature. It means someone who views
| themselves as the main character of the world's story. In
| some literature, the world tends to revolve around the main
| character. (This is not true of much of literature that
| deals with, for example, character studies, but think of
| books like Ender's Game or Lord of the Rings.)
|
| Although we are each usually the 'main character' of our
| own story, we typically know that we are not "the main
| character" of the world broadly. Some people act in ways
| that suggest they may not understand the difference. People
| refer to them as having "main character syndrome."
| MrOwnPut wrote:
| IMO the people that throw around phrases like narcissist,
| main character syndrome, lack of empathy, etc. usually
| know nothing about the person they are attempting to
| diagnose and simply have differing perspectives that they
| can't see eye to eye on.
| [deleted]
| badrabbit wrote:
| I concur, a great manager gets out if your way as you do your
| job well and understands his job only exists to manage other
| people doing profit generating/risk-reducing work.
|
| This is the type of boss that will take credits for your work
| so he feels like the main character.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-10 23:02 UTC)