"Poor people management" isn't specific enough, and it doesn't explain why top contributors are more likely to leave than mediocre contributors. It's a very specific form of poor management: treating technical people as interchangeable, and therefore assuming that all technical people are mediocre, and therefore assuming that maturity and judgment only exist in management. When people really, really swallow the Kool-Aid of management as the ultimate masters of the universe, as they must in certain large corporations, they start to think of management as the final step in human development: infant, child, adolescent, worker, manager. Some people linger on one step of maturation or another (literally "retarded") and that's fine, as long as they accept the natural order of things, right?
Apparently that approach works for some corporations. Getting rid of top contributors at least makes management's belief structure valid and gives their world a kind of simplicity and intellectual coherence that's hard to achieve on a large scale. (If you can't help believing something that isn't true, you had better make sure it is true in the part of the world you care about.)
Good managers know the people they manage and know their diverse capabilities. That's hard work, though, so it isn't for everyone.
>>treating technical people as interchangeable, and therefore assuming that all technical people are mediocre, and therefore assuming that maturity and judgment only exist in management....the ultimate masters of the universe, as they must in certain large corporations, they start to think of management as the final step in human development: infant, child, adolescent, worker, manager.
Back here in India, this mentality is so common and prevalent that it assumed if you don't become a manager within 5 years of you joining the industry you are fit for nothing. Also managerial posts are supposed to be mean't for the best as you mention masters of the universe.
Many people even express shock, when someone above 27-28 codes or is involved in some tech work. Its considered as a sign of incompetence and under performance, like as though the person isn't really ready for the 'actual' stuff yet.
This has already let to huge problems in getting work done in large Indian IT firms. There just aren't good people anymore.
"Many people even express shock, when someone above 27-28 codes or is involved in some tech work. Its considered as a sign of incompetence and under performance, like as though the person isn't really ready for the 'actual' stuff yet."
Such odd thinking. So... you do coding for a few years - doing stupid/wrong/mistake-filled code - to work your way up to "manager", then oversee people who are also doing stuff wrong. And if you actually learn during those first few years, and, say, get to 30 and are good at developing and actually can develop well, you're an outcast/outsider?
What other industries does India have this same mindset in?
"[...] and it doesn't explain why top contributors are more likely to leave than mediocre contributors."
Why, this one is easy to explain: because they can and because being a top contributor correlates strongly with caring about more than the paycheck. If you care about the quality and meaning of your work then working in a crappy organization hurts you more than the guy who just does not care.
>>correlates strongly with caring about more than the paycheck.
Why shouldn't the top contributor worry about his pay check or money?
Top contributor != A person who does great work for free.
Unfortunately this is how it is perceived in the industry. I've seen managers consider top contributors who look for money as evil wealth grabbers. Whereas a guy who does nothing sitting in the next cubicle is still acceptable.
That's not what GP comment said though. It said they care about "more than" the paycheck. The pay is not the only motivator, what's implicit is that an interesting and challenging problem are also important to a top contributor, as well as the quality of the work that they output. That's a big part of what makes them a top contributor.
This article might have been wrong for HN -- filed in the Leadership section of Forbes, the author specifically calls out "very senior executive[s]" as a narrower focus on the original article.
I think this post is PERFECT for HN. Because the people here are already the top 10% of developers, but I'd be willing to bet they have the most need for development in their management skills. Where can we get a HN for business people (who are rational, which is why I'd rather read this site any day)? I'd call it "Hustler News" btw
Aren't enterpreneurs supposed to have some business skills too :) .
I guess HN should cater to both technical and non-technical founders - maybe a sub-area of HN? (I know that's probably not in pg's intentions, and sounds a lot like the Reddit approach).
Seems like its better to just cause a cultural shift by jumbling it all together. Nerds are learning about business, business people are getting more into code. Long term win-win, short term usability problems.
> "Poor people management" isn't specific enough
The point of the article was to boil the 10 answers to one, so by it's very nature it's not going to be specific, but just trying to capture the common gist.
> it doesn't explain why top contributors are more likely to leave than mediocre contributors
I think one can presume that top talent have more options so its easier for them to leave, also the probably became top-talent because they cared more than the average developer and thus more likely to be bothered by mismanagement. I think this could be presumed to be common knowledge and thus not need to be explicitly stated in the article.
Comments
"Poor people management" isn't specific enough, and it doesn't explain why top contributors are more likely to leave than mediocre contributors. It's a very specific form of poor management: treating technical people as interchangeable, and therefore assuming that all technical people are mediocre, and therefore assuming that maturity and judgment only exist in management. When people really, really swallow the Kool-Aid of management as the ultimate masters of the universe, as they must in certain large corporations, they start to think of management as the final step in human development: infant, child, adolescent, worker, manager. Some people linger on one step of maturation or another (literally "retarded") and that's fine, as long as they accept the natural order of things, right?
Apparently that approach works for some corporations. Getting rid of top contributors at least makes management's belief structure valid and gives their world a kind of simplicity and intellectual coherence that's hard to achieve on a large scale. (If you can't help believing something that isn't true, you had better make sure it is true in the part of the world you care about.)
Good managers know the people they manage and know their diverse capabilities. That's hard work, though, so it isn't for everyone.
>>treating technical people as interchangeable, and therefore assuming that all technical people are mediocre, and therefore assuming that maturity and judgment only exist in management....the ultimate masters of the universe, as they must in certain large corporations, they start to think of management as the final step in human development: infant, child, adolescent, worker, manager.
Back here in India, this mentality is so common and prevalent that it assumed if you don't become a manager within 5 years of you joining the industry you are fit for nothing. Also managerial posts are supposed to be mean't for the best as you mention masters of the universe.
Many people even express shock, when someone above 27-28 codes or is involved in some tech work. Its considered as a sign of incompetence and under performance, like as though the person isn't really ready for the 'actual' stuff yet.
This has already let to huge problems in getting work done in large Indian IT firms. There just aren't good people anymore.
"Many people even express shock, when someone above 27-28 codes or is involved in some tech work. Its considered as a sign of incompetence and under performance, like as though the person isn't really ready for the 'actual' stuff yet."
Such odd thinking. So... you do coding for a few years - doing stupid/wrong/mistake-filled code - to work your way up to "manager", then oversee people who are also doing stuff wrong. And if you actually learn during those first few years, and, say, get to 30 and are good at developing and actually can develop well, you're an outcast/outsider?
What other industries does India have this same mindset in?
I don't think this is specific to India. Promoting good developers to more managerial roles seems to be a common HR mistake.
Sometimes these developers are good managers as well, but arguably more often they aren't.
"[...] and it doesn't explain why top contributors are more likely to leave than mediocre contributors."
Why, this one is easy to explain: because they can and because being a top contributor correlates strongly with caring about more than the paycheck. If you care about the quality and meaning of your work then working in a crappy organization hurts you more than the guy who just does not care.
>>correlates strongly with caring about more than the paycheck.
Why shouldn't the top contributor worry about his pay check or money?
Top contributor != A person who does great work for free.
Unfortunately this is how it is perceived in the industry. I've seen managers consider top contributors who look for money as evil wealth grabbers. Whereas a guy who does nothing sitting in the next cubicle is still acceptable.
That's not what GP comment said though. It said they care about "more than" the paycheck. The pay is not the only motivator, what's implicit is that an interesting and challenging problem are also important to a top contributor, as well as the quality of the work that they output. That's a big part of what makes them a top contributor.
This article might have been wrong for HN -- filed in the Leadership section of Forbes, the author specifically calls out "very senior executive[s]" as a narrower focus on the original article.
I think this post is PERFECT for HN. Because the people here are already the top 10% of developers, but I'd be willing to bet they have the most need for development in their management skills. Where can we get a HN for business people (who are rational, which is why I'd rather read this site any day)? I'd call it "Hustler News" btw
Aren't enterpreneurs supposed to have some business skills too :) .
I guess HN should cater to both technical and non-technical founders - maybe a sub-area of HN? (I know that's probably not in pg's intentions, and sounds a lot like the Reddit approach).
Seems like its better to just cause a cultural shift by jumbling it all together. Nerds are learning about business, business people are getting more into code. Long term win-win, short term usability problems.
> "Poor people management" isn't specific enough The point of the article was to boil the 10 answers to one, so by it's very nature it's not going to be specific, but just trying to capture the common gist.
> it doesn't explain why top contributors are more likely to leave than mediocre contributors I think one can presume that top talent have more options so its easier for them to leave, also the probably became top-talent because they cared more than the average developer and thus more likely to be bothered by mismanagement. I think this could be presumed to be common knowledge and thus not need to be explicitly stated in the article.