As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today.
It's almost as if everybody wakes up, reads Dilbert every morning thinking "Wow, that PHB guy certainly is a role model to aspire to."
It's not as if these patterns can't be changed:
The required technology has been available for more than a decade now.
There are tried and tested approaches for organizing work in a more productive and healthy manner than 9-5.
Still, it isn't happening at a larger scale. While the reasons might simply be risk-aversion or - on a more sinister note - a somewhat implicit understanding that our society is built around a 40 hr work week and we'd face serious upheaval if that was no longer a given, I find those reasons to be tenuous at best in the long run.
As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today.
Because managers up a level have no other way of knowing if you're being productive or not. So they look and see if people are ferociously typing. This is not a joke.
Yes, a place where I used to work once sent out a memo trying to encourage more regular work hours because management couldn't find people, and the office always looked half empty. The thing is, it was the operations staff for a astronomical observatory. The "missing" people were generally traveling and/or working at night!
I used to work in research physics and recall hearing a similar story, probably embellished with each retelling. The version I heard had the staff complying with the order and working 9-5, then management complains that no observations are being made at night.
Well, in this case, I personally received the memo. Knowing my co-workers, however, I highly doubt anyone actually changed their behaviour due to it. Other, similar, management antics included scheduling meetings first thing in the morning and complaining that the telescope operators never showed up.
The value they add is easily measurable, but it's still quite difficult to tell whether their performance is due to individual merit or external factors.
For example, in any given year some traders are wildly successful (and reap huge bonuses) but year to year their performance is variable enough to be noise - it's not clear that really good traders really exist. Some are just bound to get lucky.
Similarly sales guys may appear great because their product sells itself, or terrible because of a downturn in the business cycle or sector.
It's not insane to want a read on "how hard are you working" or "how skilled are you" that is independent of all the messy confounding variables of the market.
Because those of us who believe otherwise usually get beaten out and decide to not run businesses any more.
My confounder doesn't like hiring, likes to have a huge pile of cash in the bank to no particular end, and sends people shitty emails if they're late in the morning.
He's successfully killed off enthusiasm and passion for getting things done (mine included), and now people are either making time or leaving.
We got crazy amounts done back when I wasn't cto and was still allowed to lead the tech team - because we'd work from 1pm until the early hours, myopically working on stuff because it was fun to create. That got slowly but surely strangled by timekeeping, requiring people to be in for 0900 (even if they were up half the night working support), and requiring that people only work from the office.
It's impossible to push back against without continuous effort, and eventually one throws the towel in.
Conservatism is easy as it requires you to just maintain the status quo, hence it is the norm in business - whereas change requires effort. It then turns into an endurance race, which can only go one way.
Edit: I don't know why I bother commenting here any more.
Wow, I've worked with "that guy" before as well. Like you said, it's a retreat to the status quo, and conservatism is a common response to feeling overwhelmed or like an imposter.
I now recognize it as a very accurate warning sign, this person has moved from trying whatever they can to help the business succeed to trying whatever they can to cover their ass and put on the appearance that they did all they could.
In our case it's more like newtonian mechanics - for every force there is an equal and opposing force. I've always pushed for growth, for hiring, for bigger clients, for new avenues, for risk - and he has always challenged and pushed for the status quo, and to not spend, not invest, not grow, make sure every month is profitable.
When we were small, my view was dominant, as I worked within and with the team, and we didn't have inertia to overcome, and his conservatism was useful as he talked me out of some risks that in hindsight were crazy. It was a good balance.
Now that we've grown rather a bit, his voice is dominant, as we now have a large team who (as a majority, not all) likewise don't want change or risk or growth, and I've been slowly moved diagonally into a vestigial cto role where I have no direct involvement with the tech team, and instead just deal with escalations, internal and external, technical and non-technical. Chief Tortured Officer.
So - the business will stagnate, then die, and I'm helpless to do anything about it.
The sad thing is he thinks this is success. I feel like we've fundamentally failed.
For added laughs, I feel trapped, as if I leave, I abandon my staff who I love to his mercurial whims, and my agreement is structured such that I would have to sell my equity (not options) (fmv in millions) for £60.
So I'll be saluting from the bridge as we go down, like an idiot.
Time to sell and leave. And if that is really the equity structure, make sure you re-negotiate that with the board before talking about leaving, as part of being a C officer.
Can't sell except for the aforementioned £60. Not £60k, £60 - the nominal value of the shares. The only way I can leave and keep my equity is if I die. If I attempt to have that conversation in a board meeting they'll know what's up and will probably fire me - in which case no severance, not even the £60. There's a third party hnw investor who came in a few years ago who's gone from arms length to "where the fuck are you?!", and he sees me as a troublemaker as I do all the talking in board meetings (cofounder is taciturn), and set goals for hiring and growth that never happen as they're strangled in the crib. By staying silent he's kept himself pristine.
So, tough decisions ahead. Do I write off a decade of my life and enter a tough job market with no savings to tide me over (nothing like having your entire value in equity, and a paltry salary (£30k - pay ourselves less than staff, don't do dividends, keep value in company - see above pointless pile of cash)), or do I continue, which will probably see me lose what little sanity I have left.
Of course, there is an option as mentioned which keeps my family financially secure, but despite everything I don't particularly want to kill myself. It feels like a cop-out.
oh, don't worry. you won't have to make any tough decisions. if you don't have vested equity that you keep when you leave, they're just going to fire you as soon as some real money shows up.
Point remains that terms of yor departure are largely controlled by the firm, not you. Including making conditions so untenable your only rational option is to leave.
Again, a solicitor should be able to give you more specific advice.
Thought about this some more. Reading between the lines a bit, so certainly, correct me if I get this wrong.
But it looks like this: your investors are a bigger problem than your partner. First they write this deal where you don't really own your equity, then they don't let you pay yourselves like owners. Seems to me you're really getting screwed. Seriously: what are you getting out of this job besides experience?
I'm afraid you're in the position of a wolf caught in a trap: you're going to have to chew your own leg off to get out. It'll hurt like all hell, but if you don't do it, you'll die.
In fact, the more I think about this, the more fucked-up it seems. The investors have given you the illusion of owning part of this company, but it's a mirage. You have no way to benefit from that equity. You have no authority, you control no budget, you're paid a pittance, and the only way you can monetize your ostensible share of the company is by dying!
You've been taken, and it doesn't sound like there's anything you can do about it (IANAL; maybe you should consult one, but I'm not optimistic they can do anything for you).
As I said: time to chew your leg off and get free.
> he sees me as a troublemaker as I do all the talking in board meetings (cofounder is taciturn)
Okay, you need to figure out who are your allies on your board. Which of the board members espouse the more aggressive profile that you wish to have? You need to approach them privately to discuss how to move the needle. Board meetings are where decisions are rubber-stamped; the real talking happens before the meeting, in one on one conversations.
I mean at this point, you've got nothing to lose, right?
Just the three of us. Those decisions are rubber stamped in boards - I put forth plans for growth, the investor director negotiates and approves, and then I fail to deliver - I see this as my own failing, despite the reason being things like cofounder dismissing a newly hired hiring manager while I'm on holiday because "we don't need to hire".
That said if I sit in a board and point the finger, I'm the ass, not him - and it is after all me that has failed to deliver on my self-imposed initiatives, regardless of what I think the reason is. It can be argued that one can always try harder, but my will has been attrited by this over the years.
In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage?
And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it?
It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between departments, could become their full time job, which would be better for everyone too (less overhead with employee reviews and bullshit like that).
How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that.
Forgetting the other most important role, coaching people on the team. And yet another one, shelter from outside unrest. Oh, and blame-absorber. And coordinating efforts, when yet again three engineers in three different places work on the same issue.
You know, this is starting to resemble the "what have the romans ever done for us" skit :)
I'm not disagreeing that many managers don't do this. Or that they do it badly. But managers, when they work properly, do a lot more than liaising.
That's the thing, though. Almost no one does their job "properly". They do it well enough to not get fired - thus management is usually inept and useless. So is it the managers fault when they are just fulfilling the norm or is it the job all together? I would suggest management as a position is at fault rather than the people who occupy that space and do the minimum to get by.
Coaching happens naturally within a well-functioning team.
Sheltering a lot of times means that the team is not aware of key information they should be aware of.
Coordination can be accomplished via proper use of communication tools.
Managers have the power to insert themselves at the critical junctions of natural process flows in order to artificially increase their own importance.
The funny thing is, if you do all those things, but you don't "liaise", then it's very likely that your job-title isn't "manager", but rather "administrative assistant." Sadly, I've never heard of a team of engineers having a dedicated admin assistant.
A lot of corporate malaise could be solved, I think, by
1. giving each team the budget to hire their own admin assistant to coordinate and coach for them (but to leave the liase-ing to the team lead), and then
2. firing all the middle-management layers that now serve literally no purpose.
In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage?
Deal with weird interpersonal issues of members on the team. Seriously, if you've never been a manager before, it will shock you some of the childish things people complain to you about.
I do agree with you that the ideal is to have the team be self-managing, but there is usually some maturing that needs to happen among the team to reach that goal.
> How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that.
I still don't see how that works. Your comment seems like it boils down to saying the company should pay the employee more than they're worth (i.e. worth to the business compared to others who could add the same value), but the company has all sorts of obligations to investors, other employees, etc. and spending money just because they can afford to do so today seems like an irresponsible way to run a business.
Sure, but it's just as irresponsible (economically irrational) as an individual to go the other way.
Really, the "optimal" salary negotiation is for both the employer and the potential hire to first agree on a dollar-value of how much money the employee is expected to make the company—literally, what the hire is worth—and then, having come to agreement over that, to then negotiate what profit margin the company wants to keep of that created value.
You might recognize this as the process a hiring agency goes through to negotiate with an employer. In this case, the employee is their own hiring agency, and the one who will end up with the majority "cut."
Keep commenting. Ignore the bullshit downvotes. I understand weariness when arguing with someone who is hardheaded. They can even be nice, but so stubborn that you are drained by the end of the debate.
Can you name a few companies where this is practiced? Maybe if we all start going to those places (I would happily take less pay for a healthier/happier work life) then maybe our managers would start following them
> I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today.
Most jobs aren't 'creative at any time of the day by oneself' jobs. Support staff can't just clock in at 1pm, because that's when they feel most supportive. Government clerks can't just start and stop when they like, because the counter has to be staffed during office hours. Most office jobs need to have considerable overlap with the times of other people in the office.
Even for programmers, remote work and your own hours is not a clear win. Some people adore it and work well with it, but other people don't do so well in managing their own time. I've worked with people who work remote, make a pretense of busywork, and get little of substance done - but when they were in the office, they got more work done.
Penny-pinching time ("be here at 0900 exactly!"^) is silly, but at the same time, this meme that bosses are automatically bad if they want in-office work and general office hours... it is way too simplistic.
^ funny how those penny-pinchers never demand that you leave on time as well...
The managers are also looking for the easiest way through the day. Hence, butts in seat managing. Actually reviewing long term contribution and giving constructive (or even bad) news is hard work.
Looking for butts in seats leaves more time for fantasy sports, or whatever.
It's almost as if everybody wakes up, reads Dilbert every morning thinking "Wow, that PHB guy certainly is a role model to aspire to."
It's not as if these patterns can't be changed:
The required technology has been available for more than a decade now.
There are tried and tested approaches for organizing work in a more productive and healthy manner than 9-5.
Still, it isn't happening at a larger scale. While the reasons might simply be risk-aversion or - on a more sinister note - a somewhat implicit understanding that our society is built around a 40 hr work week and we'd face serious upheaval if that was no longer a given, I find those reasons to be tenuous at best in the long run.