Comment by p1necone

Comment by p1necone 15 days ago

73 replies

> In the last years you often have some manager where you basically have to justify every thing you do and always a huge pile of work that never gets smaller. So you just hurry through your tasks.

This has been my exact experience. Absolutely everything is tracked as a work item with estimates. Anything you think should be done needs to be justified and tracked the same way. If anything ever takes longer than the estimate that was invariably just pulled out of someones ass (because it's impossible to accurately estimate development unless you're already ~75% of the way through doing it, and even then it's a crapshoot) you need to justify that in a morning standup too.

The end result of all of this is every project getting bogged down by being stuck on the first version of whatever architecture was thought up right at the beginning and there being piles of tech debt that never gets fixed because nobody who actually understands what needs to be done has the political capital to get past the aforementioned justification filter.

stouset 15 days ago

Also this push to measure everything means that anything that can’t be measured isn’t valued.

One of your teammates consistently helps unblock everyone on the team when they get stuck? They aren’t closing as many tickets as others so they get overlooked on promotions or canned.

One of your teammates takes a bit longer to complete work, but it’s always rock solid and produces fewer outages? Totally invisible. Plus they don’t get to look like a hero when they save the company from the consequences of their own shoddy work.

  • majormajor 15 days ago

    The biggest mistake those employees make on their way to getting overlooked is assuming their boss knows.

    Everyone needs to advocate for themselves.

    A good boss will be getting feedback from everyone and staying on top of things. A mediocre boss will merely see "obvious" things like "who closed the most tickets." A bad boss may just play favorites and game the system on their own.

    If you've got a bad boss who doesn't like you, you're likely screwed regardless. But most bosses are mediocre, not actively bad.

    And in that case, the person who consistently helps unblock everyone needs to be advertising that to their manager. The person who's work doesn't need revisiting, who doesn't cause incidents needs to be hammering that home to their manager. You can do that without throwing your teammates under the bus, but you can't assume omnipotence or omniscience. And you can't wait until the performance review cycle to do it, you have to demonstrate it as an ongoing thing.

    • stouset 14 days ago

      Your boss can know about it, but if their boss wants data on performance you’re back in the same boat.

      Funny you mention engineers needing to market themselves though. That leads to its own consequences. I’ve been at a place where everyone needed to market their own work in order to get promoted, to get raises, and to stay off the chopping block.

      The end result? The engineers at the company who get promoted are… good at self-promotion, not necessarily good at engineering. Many of the best engineers at the company—who were hired to do engineering—languish in obscurity while people who can game the system thrive. People get promoted who are only good at cranking out poorly-made deliverables that burden their team with excessive long-term maintenance issues. They fuck off to higher levels of the company, leaving their team to deal with the consequences of their previous work.

      Run that script for five or ten years and it doesn’t seem to be working out well for the company.

      • geodel 14 days ago

        You made excellent points. As someone looking to solve problems, finish tasks and go home. I just don't feel energized marketing myself if it is not during changing jobs.

        And measurement has really taken over now. There is little value in getting task done well as compared to finishing more jira stories.

      • nradov 14 days ago

        And that's fine. It's why the lifecycle of most technology companies is fairly short. They grow for a while and eventually stagnate, to be replaced by the next crop of startups when a disruptive innovation comes along. And then the cycle repeats.

    • WorldMaker 14 days ago

      When it comes time for layoffs, it generally isn't what your boss knows, it's what your boss's grandboss thinks to throw onto a spreadsheet at the eleventh hour before Quarterly Reports are due.

      A good direct boss might keep you on track for a bonus or other "local advancement", maybe even a promotion, but many companies you are only as valued as the ant numbers you look like from the C Suite's mile high club. (Which doesn't protect your good boss, either.)

    • suzzer99 15 days ago

      > The biggest mistake those employees make on their way to getting overlooked is assuming their boss knows.

      100%. You ask me to do the near impossible, I'll pull it off. But you will be very well-versed in how hard it is first.

    • pdimitar 14 days ago

      I agree it's a mistake but one thing that's never taken into account in this discussion is that many people find it enough that they are doing their jobs. They don't want to do marketing. A lot of tech people are like that which is a real tragedy.

  • animuchan 15 days ago

    What you're describing was precisely our culture at the last startup.

    One group plans ahead and overall do a solid job, so they're rarely swamped, never pull all-nighters. People are never promoted, they're thought of as slacking and un-startup-like. Top performers leave regularly because of that.

    The other group is behind on even the "blocker"-level issues, people are stressed and overworked, weekends are barely a thing. But — they get praised for hard work. The heroes. (And then leave after burning out completely.)

    (The company was eventually acquired, but employees got pennies. So it worked out well for the founders, while summarily ratfucking everyone else involved. I'm afraid this is very common.)

    • grg0 14 days ago

      The classic one too is that as somebody who puts out the fires, you get all the praise; whereas if you just do the damn job right from the beginning, nobody notices. Corollary: create as many fires as you can, just don't completely burn the whole thing to the ground.

  • the_snooze 15 days ago
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 15 days ago

      It's got a name and we know that it's happening yet the overpaid overeducated c-suite demands it? What gives?

      • kevinventullo 15 days ago

        This was previously recommended to me on HN, so I’ll pass it along. The book “Seeing Like A State” gives a pretty reasonable explanation for why this happens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State

        The basic idea is that the only viable way to administer a complex and heterogenous system like a massive corporation is to simplify by enforcing “legibility” or homogeneity. Without this, central control becomes far too complex to manage. Thus, the simplification becomes a mandate, even at the cost of great inefficiencies.

        What makes the book particularly interesting is the many different historical examples of this phenomenon, across a wide array of human endeavors.

      • LeifCarrotson 15 days ago

        The problem is that this miserable state of affairs works at scale.

        Yes, on problems that exist at the scale of one or intelligent, educated, experienced, and dedicated human (or maybe up to 3-5), an individual or small team will run circles around a business. You can have a top-notch CEO and COO and HR manager and six program managers (each with zero domain experience other than running a Jira board) and four dozen junior consultants who memorized just enough to pass the interviews and an art department and sales and finance and IT. For some problems, that whole $50M enterprise will be utterly demolished by a couple of determined engineers.

        Likewise, a monarchy with a wise, benevolent, and just king can flourish, whereas a corrupted and bureaucratically entangled democracy is woefully inefficient.

        But if you want your kingdom to last more than two generations before succumbing to a greedy monarch, or want your enterprise to solve bigger problems that don't decompose nicely to small ones, to vertically integrate huge manufacturing systems and scale out to billions of units, the only method that works is the inefficient one. And it does work!

      • WorldMaker 14 days ago

        > overeducated c-suite

        Arguably the modern MBA has gotten so insular, with many graduating with an MBA having only the barest modicum of humanities courses and the barest foot out of the door of a business college, that despite supposedly representing a higher University degree it seems increasingly fair to call it "undereducated". MBA programs got too deep into the business of selling as many MBAs as they could as quickly as they could they forgot to check their own curriculum for things like "perverse incentives" and "regulatory capture" and "tribalism".

      • azemetre 15 days ago

        Try to make a thread about unions on HN and read the comments, then it'll make sense.

      • Avicebron 15 days ago

        There's chance that maybe there exists a revenue stream that increases by further applying that policy across a system that you don't have access to?

    • sidewndr46 15 days ago

      While important, it actually misses a common problem I see: the assumption that every measurement is accurate.

  • api 15 days ago

    The phenomenon being discussed here is a type of overfitting:

    https://sohl-dickstein.github.io/2022/11/06/strong-Goodhart....

    The last 50 years or so of managerial practice has been a recipe for overfitting with a brutal emphasis on measuring, optimizing, and stack ranking everything.

    I think an argument can be made that this is an age of overfitting everywhere.

    • djmips 15 days ago

      Interesting that something similar came up recently where an AI being trained might fake alignment with training goals.

    • zusammen 15 days ago

      Worse yet, these are upward-censored metrics. Failing to make them hurts your career, but making or exceeding your targets doesn’t really help your career—it’s just seen as validating management’s approach.

      As soon as they impose metrics, you need to bring in a union, and (to be frank) chase or bug out anyone who’s not on board with worker solidarity.

  • chinchilla2020 15 days ago

    > Also this push to measure everything means that anything that can’t be measured isn’t valued.

    Never thought I'd see an intelligent point made on hackernews, but there it is. You are absolutely correct. This really hit home for me.

    • Clubber 15 days ago

      You could have made your point better without insulting everyone on the forum.

marginalia_nu 15 days ago

It's fascinating that you end up sort of doing the work twice, you build an excel (or jira) model of the work work along with the actual work to be done.

Often this extends to the entire organization, where you have like this parallel dimension of spreadsheets and planning existing on top of everything.

Eats resources like crazy to uphold.

  • spudlyo 15 days ago

    Jira is already almost like "productivity theater" where engineers chart the work for the benefit of managers, and managers of managers only. Many programmers already really resent having to deal with it. Soon it will be a total farce, as engineers using MCP Jira servers have LLMs chart the "work" and manage the tickets for them, as managers do the same in reverse, instructing LLMs to summarize the work being done in Jira.

    It'll be nothing but LLMs talking to other LLMs under the guise of organizational productivity in which the only one deriving any value from this effort is the companies charging for the input and output tokens. Except, they are likely operating at a loss...

    • alephnerd 15 days ago

      Managers (as in PMs, EMs, and C-Suite) don't like JIRA either - there just isn't an alternative.

      Customers and investors ask for delivery timelines and amount of resources invested on major features or products, and you need to give an accurate-ish answer, and you as a company will be dealing with hundreds if not thousands of features depending on size.

      In that kind of a situation, the only way you can get that visibility is through JIRA (or a JIRA type product), because it acts as a forcing function to get a defensible estimate, and monitor progress.

      Furthermore, due to tax laws, we need to track investments into features and initiatives, and JIRA becomes the easiest way to collect that kind of amoratization data.

      Once some AI Agent to automate this whole program management/JIRA hygiene process exists, it will make life for everyone so much easier.

      • g8oz 15 days ago

        This explanation is not incompatible with calling the whole business a "theater".

  • squiggleblaz 15 days ago

    Yes but metrics! How can the CEO look like they know what's happening without understanding anything if they don't have everyone producing numbers?

  • pjot 15 days ago

    This compounds with each _team_ modeling the work in jira/excel too!

zusammen 15 days ago

Absolutely everything is tracked as a work item with estimates. Anything you think should be done needs to be justified and tracked the same way.

My grandpa once said something that seemed ridiculous but makes a lot of sense: that every workplace should have a “heavy” who steals a new worker’s lunch on the first day, just to see if he asserts himself. Why? Not to haze or bully but to filter out the non-fighters so that when management wants to impose quotas or tracking, they remember that they’d be enforcing this on a whole team of fighters… and suddenly they realize that squeezing the workers isn’t worth it.

The reason 1950s workplaces were more humane is that any boss who tried to impose this shit on workers would have first been laughed at, and then if he tried to actually enforce it by firing people, it would’ve been a 6:00 in the parking lot kinda thing.

  • namaria 15 days ago

    > steals a new worker’s lunch on the first day, just to see if he asserts himself

    > to filter out the non-fighters

    This is bullying and hazing.

  • nradov 14 days ago

    Many of the workers in the 1950s were combat veterans who had lived through some shit and weren't as easy to push around. Contrast that to today when a lot of people tend to panic over minor hazards like a respiratory virus with a >99% survival rate. That cowardice puzzled me until I realized that a lot of younger people have led such sheltered lives that they have never experienced any real hardship or serious physical danger so they lack the mental resilience to cope with it. They just want to be coddled and aren't willing to fight for anything.

  • Spooky23 15 days ago

    That generation had it more together as citizens, and they held on to power for a long time. Postwar all of the institutions in the US grew quickly, and the WW2 generation moved up quickly as a result. The boomer types sat in the shadows and learned how to be toxic turds, and inflicted that on everyone.

    • bumby 15 days ago

      Why do you think that is? I’m wondering if the shared sacrifice of WW2 has something to do with it.

      • bitwize 15 days ago

        That's half of it. The other half is, WWII turned the United States from a relative backwater to a military and industrial superpower. So the war also taught lessons on a societal level about organization and cooperation, and the postwar economic boom provided the means to get great things done.

      • majormajor 15 days ago

        Labor also has more power when a ton of young newcomers to the working force were just killed before they could ever make it there.

    • southernplaces7 15 days ago

      >The boomer types sat in the shadows and learned how to be toxic turds, and inflicted that on everyone.

      The boomer types are now in their 70s and even 80s and mostly retired (or dead). It's the generations after them that run many of the anal-retentive, bureaucratically obsessive compulsive managerial postings today, and among those are a good number of gen z turds who are at least as toxic, while being smugly self-righteous about their habits. We'll be blaming boomers for decades after they're dead, for things long since out of their hands.

      • djmips 14 days ago

        Boomers is anyone 60 or older right now - not just 70+

        That being said, Boomer has evolved to mean anyone older, established and conservative.

        Like the counterculture saying from the past, don't trust anyone over 30.

    • TheOtherHobbes 15 days ago

      One of the consequences of WWII was that everyone's plans, ideas, and work cultures were turned into direct results very quickly, in the real world. Sometimes fatally.

      The people who lived through that had their feet on the ground.

      Aside from its many other flaws, post-70s neoliberalism added a bizarre abstraction layer of economic delusion over everything. This suppressed the core truths of physical reality, common sense, and the basic social requirement of sane reciprocal relationships, and did its best to make consequences as indirect and deniable as possible.

      Things that really, really matter - like ecological, political, and social stability - were devalued in everyday experience and replaced with economic abstractions that are more mystical than practical.

      It's very culty, and the disconnect between how things should be and how they really are is getting more and more obvious to everyone.

      • rightbyte 14 days ago

        "Aside from its many other flaws, post-70s neoliberalism added a bizarre abstraction layer of economic delusion over everything. This suppressed the core truths of physical reality, common sense, and the basic social requirement of sane reciprocal relationships, and did its best to make consequences as indirect and deniable as possible."

        I think I need to print that out and put on the wall. However, did you live through it youself? I think it it hard to evaluate stuff like this with 2nd hand experience only.

  • djmips 14 days ago

    What if the workers decide the work is imposing on them? Maybe that's a good thing but it could go too far.

  • t-3 15 days ago

    > The reason 1950s workplaces were more humane is that any boss who tried to impose this shit on workers would have first been laughed at, and then if he tried to actually enforce it by firing people, it would’ve been a 6:00 in the parking lot kinda thing.

    That era also had militant labor organization and real socialist and communist parties in the US. Anticommunism killed all that and brought us to the current state of affairs where employers that respect their employees even a little bit are unicorns.

    • gotoeleven 15 days ago

      Why do you need unions for this as opposed to just a tight labor market?

      • t-3 15 days ago

        High demand for labor can lead to better conditions, but demand for labor isn't static and without real organization and solidarity it's nearly impossible for workers to punish companies that move jobs to low-cost locales. Economic policy is also controlled by the employer class, which means policies that encourage unemployment and inflation are common.