Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cfqycwz 2549 days ago
I have to agree. The premise in the headline is so obviously agreeable, but the application described sounds like it would make for a terrible place to work. This isn't an article about building a supportive work environment that sets realistic expectations and fosters a mutually-supportive team environment. It's about the one-on-one meeting as the most effective tool to extract as much work as possible out of each individual worker—which obviously is quite hard in a group meeting.

Of course, a manager who does that effectively is also doing their job as a manager well. One reason I will always refuse to become a supervisor is that being a good manager (i.e. nice and reasonable to work for) and being a good manager (i.e. extracting the maximum surplus value out of each worker) are often directly in conflict, as this article shows.

ETA: In fact, I can think of a manager just like this at an employer I recently left. Individual meetings were a tool to push each of us to the limit, try to pit us against each other, &c. Employees hate this boss, but management loves them!

3 comments

> One reason I will always refuse to become a supervisor is that being a good manager (i.e. nice and reasonable to work for) and being a good manager (i.e. extracting the maximum surplus value out of each worker) are often directly in conflict, as this article shows.

You seem to think that getting the most out of the employee is harmful to the employee, but I don't think that makes sense. If you're not asking them to work extra hours, it just means you're figuring out the best way to make them efficient. That's good for THEM (promotions, new skill-sets, new opportunities). It's also good for the business.

Also, as long as they're using ethical means, why would the business trying to get the most bang for their buck be an implicitly bad thing? As an employee (I'm not a manager), I'm happier if I feel like my time is being used productively, and I'm less happy if I feel like I'm collecting a pay check but my services are not being put to good use. I want to work reasonable hours, but I'm an adult and I'm not there to slack, I feel better about myself and my situation if I'm earning my paycheck.

I wonder why perspectives like this are considered more or less acceptable, if Machiavellian, but an article on eg how to read your manager for signs of political weakness and use it for your own benefit would probably be considered extraordinarily immoral.
I ignored the article admittedly, and was focused on peer meetings - scanning it now the article seems to be evoking a prison warden / informant model which is just terrible.