87
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Or why is it that managers need managers to manage their management? 🤔

all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 24 points 8 months ago
[-] Bruncvik@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

Middle manager in an IT company here. My job description is saying "no" to requests outside the official pipeline, in order to shield my team from outside interference and burnout. I need a manager to fight for me whenever I pick a fight with one of the VPs who think we need to drop everything and refocus on their pet project.

[-] tym@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

manager here. I'm just a jerry. I kept crawling, and it kept working. I don't like it any more than you.

[-] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I made it to jnr management by being too stubborn to resign under any of the previous ones.

[-] dragnucs@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago

It is not easy to manage oneself, but easier to manage others. Like a mother can get her children to brush their teeth and reminde them to do so, but she may not brush her own teeth. Very good manager are however very organized and efficient. They do manage themselves.

[-] Nighed@sffa.community 7 points 8 months ago

For a real answer:

A manager can control what is done under them, but if one of their teams/members needs something done by another team they have no control.

Their manager might control the manager of the other team though, so the decision goes up the line until it hits someone who has both sides of a problem under them and can make the decisions on priorities/cost etc of the requested action.

In small companies, this may just be one or two layers, but in bigger companies it becomes a disfunctional disaster.

[-] Ormego@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Kelly- I manage my department, and I been doing it for several years now...

Jim- Your department is just you right?

Kelly- Yes Jim, but I'm not easy to manage...

[-] gerryflap@feddit.nl 7 points 8 months ago

When you have too many people working somewhere, it becomes impossible for one person to oversee everything. So you get multiple managers managing more specific groups, and then managers who manage the entire segment without knowing all the details or people. When a company gets even larger you'll need even more layers. There's only so much time and mental capacity that humans have, so at some point you need some multi-threading by involving multiple people.

To me it kinda makes sense, and I don't really know how I'd do it differently if given the chance, but the higher level management does always seem to feel like some people making decisions high up in their ivory tower without knowing what is actually going on.

[-] ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz 6 points 8 months ago

It seems that managers managing the managers cannot manage to manage the management of managers and therefore we need managers to manage the management of managers managing the management of managers.

[-] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

It's a hierarchy. You have a department, or other such division, with a manager to coordinate it. Then you have a manager who manages all the departments, or a subsection thereof, to coordinate them; this is "managing managers" and typically more complex due to the interdisciplinary nature. Then you have managers to manage the manager-managers, who oversee entire regions or similar sectors.

Sometimes manager-manager managers are necessary, but if you need managers to micromanage manager-managers, your organization has problems

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago

It sounds like you have an example to share.

[-] ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Luckily I've been self-managing with a rather free-form management style for the last few years! But I have now updated the original post to clarify my point.

[-] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 6 points 8 months ago

I love me a good manager. Luckily I was able to work with a few in my lifetime. The good ones have no problems managing your and their own work.

[-] Terrapinjoe@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Myself and some other managers I know became managers for being competent at our science-based jobs when the company wanted to expand. Our education and career up until this point mostly had not involved learning skills like delegation, teaching, scheduling, and team-budgeting, not to mention the interactive social skills needed to successfully manage individuals.

Some bad managers are just good workers that weren't able to suddenly learn these skills when their employer insisted they manage a team so it could pursue its endless quest for infinite growth by setting up hierarchies of workers. Good managers are either trained in management or extraordinarily talented.

[-] Shady_Shiroe@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Ah, same as a real mathematician can mathematically mathematise mathematics in a mathematical mathematiculation, so if a mathematician can mathematise mathematics in a mathematical mathematiculation, why can't you mathematically mathematise mathematics in a mathematical mathematiculation like the mathematician who mathematically mathematises mathematics in a mathematical mathematiculation..

[-] Alienmonkey@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

I like this answer best.

[-] intelisense@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Shit floats, as they say.

[-] NoTittyPicsPlz@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

When I was in warehousing, it seemed like it was the people to kissed the most ass that ended up in management, not the people that were capable. The quietly competent workers stayed in entry level positions, some of them for decades. And over time, more and more of these positions are created till you have guys that do nothing except drive to different warehouses for 'inspections'. We'd have 3 or 4 different managers come through multiple times a year, rent a convertible to drive across the country, stay in hotels, have all meals paid, to walk into a warehouse for 15 minutes and then leave. Sometimes one would come just weeks after another. We always had to work extra hard to make sure the warehouse is spotless, and they often wouldn't even walk around.

Meanwhile, we might get a pizza once or twice a year, and wages were capped. Ask for a raise? Can't afford it sadly

[-] johnlobo@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

if you need the manager to come to make sure the warehouse is spotless, do you even do your work when the manager not around 🤷🏻‍♂️

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

You've never worked somewhere when "higher ups" are coming? Supervisors start freaking out and obsessing over the smallest details, and most of the time the people coming either never set foot in the building or they have no clue what they're looking at in the first place.

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 2 points 8 months ago

This is because managing is the easy part of the job. You have to have someone to push and threaten you to do MORE and MORE for the same or less pay, then dangle that carrot in front of you and keep moving goalposts.

source: was a top manager in the country of a certain tire chain.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago
[-] cholesterol@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Checkmate, managers

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

I once had a job where I had seven layers of management above me. Other than my immediate boss, I had no idea what the rest of them did all day.

[-] BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Organizational structure can be seen as just style points. Gabe Newell of Valve famously does not do organizational structure. He didn't when he worked at Microsoft and he doesn't now. It's also been said per capita/employee no other tech company makes as much money as Valve.

I hope he writes a book about it or something. As an executive at a large organization I'd love to know more and try to run my division like he does. But I don't want to just make it up as I go along....

[-] Liz@midwest.social 3 points 8 months ago

What the heck does "does not do organizational structure" even mean? Valve must have some kind of structure.

[-] BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

I'm not sure they do have anything that looks like typical corporate America, but I don't know a lot more. I know at Microsoft everybody reported to him and from what I've been able to piece either that's not changed we Valve. But he obviously doesn't "manage" everybody, so how he does it I'm not sure.

Most organizations are just a dictatorship by another name if we use the definition in The Dictators Handbook which states keep your essentials and influentials small in quantity so you can pay them for results. A democratic environment those groups are many so you can only win them over with policy and influence. I feel like he runs his organization like the second but I want to know more. A lot more.

[-] trolololol@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yep I'm keen to understand more, the information is super scarce, all I could find is a short YouTube that didn't explain much.

You know, 50 years from now everyone may be doing the Gabe method the same way they say they do agile. it would be hilarious to see it happening.

[-] BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

And painful if it's like that. Meeting twice a week is not agile, Janet! Lol

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net -1 points 8 months ago

Managers cant even manage deez nuts.

this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
87 points (82.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

29525 readers
170 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS