[BaseballPhysics]

> Something like software development transcends Theory X & Y because nobody quite knows what the job is and therefore motivation is not the main factor in whether something happens.

Wait, what?

I have the polar opposite conclusion: that in software the outcomes are so difficult to measure that motivation is the primary reason why something happens, as lack of visibility of outcomes makes it very difficult for management to impose a traditional rewards based system to manage behaviors.

[gtramont]

And yet, there they are… clueless… pushing down traditional management practices that incentivize the exact opposite of what they "say" they want: collaboration. Unfortunately. * sigh *

[btilly]

For a lot of management, "collaboration" means, "You do what I want and you get paid for it." And not, "We'll work together to figure out how to make this work for both of us."

https://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/... is a great book on how effective managers actually take their employee's strengths and weaknesses into account, and lean on their employee's strengths. (Trying to fix them is probably a lost cause.)

[BaseballPhysics]

Modern coaching and performance management have moved heavily to strength-focused approaches for exactly that reason. Hell, over 20 years ago I was introduced to StrengthsFinder, which is built on exactly that model.

The real problem is most of the managers I've worked along side either don't want to/like to/care to coach, or were never taught how to do it well, having come out of an IC background where they, too, probably never experienced effect performance management. And, ironically, they often get moved into management not based on their natural strength as a coach/manager/mentor, but rather based on their strength as an IC (because, again, their own management likely doesn't understand how to take a strengths based approach to identifying and elevating potential leadership candidates).

[btilly]

Exactly right.

The book I recommended made the recommendation that a move to management always come with a pay cut, and most managers should have someone reporting to them who makes more than they do. I consider both recommendations to be excellent ideas. People should go into management because they think that they are suited to it, and not because it somehow seems like the next step in their natural career progression.

Funny story. Ian Siegal, founder and CEO of ZipRecruiter, first went into management because the programming team told the CEO at CitySearch, "Hey, this junior HTML guy is good with people, we'd rather report to him than the dufuses that you keep hiring as CTO."

Turns out that he was good with people, and was a good manager.

[marcosdumay]

Personally, every time I see somebody say "collaboration" on the context of management, it means "you individual contributors go and work with each other". I have never seen it used in terms of collaboration with managers.

[btilly]

Then you're lucky. I've definitely seen the phrase weaponized. A lot.