333
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
333 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
60031 readers
2632 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm gonna assume you don't know any better. Not saying there aren't bad or stupid middle managers, but usually the middle manager is the person who got shoved into a "management" position they probably didn't want, and all they really get to do is take all the heat when decisions they didn't make blow up in their face. It also usually comes with false promises of raises but upper management never really intends on giving it.
It's like, top level squeezing the bottom out 101.
I'm pretty fucking sure you still have to apply to become a middle manager. You don't just evolve like a Pokemon.
They voluntarily became the manager's gofers because they're disgusting climbers and they get what they deserve. 🙂
I'm pretty fucking sure it doesn't work like that outside of your black and white interpretation.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying a lot of people find themselves in that (bad) situation either outside their control, or they can be manipulated, coerced, pressured, or hell use your imagination.
To be clear, it's definitely not always "oh so-and-so was so obsessed with climbing the ladder that they became the bosses bitch, Oooo." Thats a kindergarden take and, IMO, helps empower people at the top hoarding all the wealth.
Managers at every level exist to protect the boss's wealth and extract the surplus value we create with our labor. They're slave drivers for the wage slaves.
News flash: managers at every level also think of themselves as victims and they always pass that on down the chain of command. Upper management gets screamed at by senior management, then they scream at middle management, and then the people on the ground get screamed at. Shit rolls down hill. They aren't always looking to get promoted all the way to the top, but every single one of them wants to be promoted higher than the rest of us so they can get a little more of the surplus value we generate.
If their job as middle management is so fucking hard how about they give it up? Accept a demotion and rejoin us on the floor. No one has to be middle management.
A lot of us here work in software. Often times there are two tracks, IC and people management. Often times both of those tracks pay similarly.
The good people managers and directors are usually folk that were identified as being good at mentoring people and good at providing air cover so people could do good work.
I’m sorry you’ve never worked at a place with good middle management. It does exist in many places, and many people selected it because they like working with the people and the strategy more than the product directly. Often times these people could’ve been paid comparably by working as a staff or principal track engineer or experience designer.
The people managers are identified as the ones that can control and discipline the workforce to maximize their exploitation.
Whether they're nice about it or they just really like their job as a slave driver doesn't really change what their job is. Their job is to be the enforcers for upper management and this grants them a different class position.
I say this as someone who has worked for small companies, large companies, NGOs, and non-hierarchical collectives.
When you start working on something that is complex, and has a lot of moving parts, you need conductors. If you’ve got a better real-world example of an organizational model that works, I’m all ears.
Even in Leninist Russia, workplace structures had people managers in place to facilitate planning and to ensure that a team was aligned and set up to successfully accomplish a goal.
I’ve only ever seen one org structure that didn’t need some sort of people facilitation layer. And that was a tiny commune that a buddy of mine lived on. And everyone knew each other for years before they established said commune.
I'm not opposed to hierarchical organizational structures?
Under capitalism, the job of every single manager is to extract as much surplus value from the workers as possible. That's their actual economic function. The problem isn't the organizational model, the problem is the larger economic system they exist within.
If you had some kind of horizontal non-hierarchical collective under capitalism all that could do is turn everyone inside of it into petite-managers and force them to exploit themselves in order to hit productivity quotas. Or, more likely, it would fail because people don't want to do that shit to themselves and need to be used and abused by a manager to make capitalism function.
K.
All I can say is that for many of us in people management here,
a) we could’ve paid our mortgage just as comparably on an IC track, and we do this job because we enjoy working with people and roadmap strategy, and
b) I don’t care whether you’re building a fintech bro trading app, public housing in the USSR, or are conducting an orchestra. You get enough people in one place trying to achieve a shared goal, and you need people to manage the people. Otherwise the work becomes messy and miserable.
You don't work with people, not really. You manage them. Your job is to strategically use them for maximum productivity; workers might be allowed some small amount of input but only as long as it can be fit within your "roadmap strategy". Your job it to discipline the workers and keep them on task. And, of course, make sure they never unionize.
These problems are structural. I don't care what your motivations are, your class position is as an underling enforcer for the boss and you're bourgeoisified by your position within the class structure. A manager, within this specific class structure, has every incentive to be an enemy of the workers. An individual manager can choose to become a class traitor, and people in management can be extremely powerful union organizers! But it rarely happens because it requires they betray their own class interests. It's structural.
I feel like all of your knowledge about “middle management” is derived from The Office.
I work for a living honey. My knowledge is derived from dealing with them.