[gabereiser]

You guys have it so wrong. Their job is to get you to do things. With slide decks. Presentations. Speeches. Roadmaps. Stories. Visions. Carrots. That’s their job. As well as to aggregate the litany of statuses into an über status at the end of the week/month/quarter so that their higher ups see work being done. What they do is different from what you do so you only see them not doing what you’re doing, not what they are doing. However, if we are going to generalize, yes - you are correct on the fact that they spend their time thinking about better/faster without making it better nor faster (mostly the opposite).

They have context into why you are doing something, even if you don’t.

[wpietri]

You're describing the theory of managerialism. Or maybe it's better to call it the dogma. But it's definitely not always the reality.

Large companies have huge inertia. And these days we also have low average CEO tenure and frequent executive position changes. The upshot being that what a given executive does can be almost entirely disconnected from productive improvement without notable short-term harm to the company. In that kind of an environment, an ambitious executive can put the bulk of their energies to seeming effective without much worry as to actual effectiveness. Or just to indulging their personal predilections, like feeling important or in control.

[gabereiser]

That’s why it’s a theory and not a law. You can attempt the same management game and get wildly different results depending on the team, the ask, the tenure, you, the company, you name it. Often what works one place, doesn’t work elsewhere. Not because they lack the understanding but because of Conway’s law.

[wpietri]

I think it's a theory because that's what's useful for the people with power to believe and have others believe. It's the same deal with any elite; their first task is to secure a tacit belief in their superiority. CEO salaries have rocketed up in recent decades. Is that because they're wildly better? I don't think so.

[steveBK123]

What's funny to me having watched some executive hires flame out is the runway they are given.

It's generally assumed/understood that the higher you go the more control you have, but conversely the slower any change you try to effect is. So it's sort of like the old 3 envelopes school of management joke. They get 6-12 months to settle in. Then they do a reorg to bring in their team over the next compensation cycle. Next compensation cycle their team brings in their teams, and so on. About 3 years in and then people may start taking a long hard look at the progress or lack thereof. Finally because C-suite doesn't commit fratricide, they are given a tap on the shoulder and managed out with a nice severance, a process that may take another year.

So I've been at shops where the guy at the CTO was clearly not succeeding, didn't have stakeholders buy-in, and lacked the grunts respect. Nonetheless they got 3-5 years of very fat paychecks during which they hobbled the entire org.

At the IC level I've seen people bounced within their 90 day probation.

[gabereiser]

>At the IC level I've seen people bounced within their 90 day probation.

Or worse. Yet what you just described is something I recently witnessed at a Fortune 5000. So I can corroborate your point of view entirely.

Also, I once was let go the day after coming back from Christmas vacation (planned, whole office was out) as well as let go once a couple weeks before Christmas. The more time you spend in the industry, the more BS like this you’ll come across. These incidents were 13 years apart, but it goes to show that it’s the same, no matter when.

[steveBK123]

In a working org you are right.

In many orgs measurement of work takes precedence over actually achieving work.

[gabereiser]

All hail the oracle KPIs and OKRs to save the organization and steer us towards redemption…