Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by marcinzm 859 days ago
That sounds like basically matrix management which has many well documented issues. The biggest one in my experience is that the people managers need to be themselves judged on some rubric. If that rubric is success of projects then it tangentially aligns with business goals. If it's something else or they don't have power over projects then they are encouraged to play constant politics.
1 comments
itronitron 859 days ago
The general rubric should be that their group is performing well. Depending on the organization that could mean a number of different things.

>> If it's something else or they don't have power over projects then they are encouraged to play constant politics.

Why would they need to play constant politics if they don't have power over projects? Not everyone is motivated by the same things.

link
marcinzm 859 days ago
> Why would they need to play constant politics if they don't have power over projects? Not everyone is motivated by the same things.

They do have power over the projects. Being able to PIP someone is power over everything that person does including which projects they work on. Including which projects no one works on. Except it's not their direct power which means to leverage it they need to play politics. Adding layers doesn't remove that power but simply increases the amount of politics they play to make up for it.

link
itronitron 858 days ago
The goal with the matrix management is to distribute the risk. If your people manager puts you on a PIP then at least your project managers will have some ability to push back on that.

But there is no good reason for the People manager to care anything about what projects have people working on them. If they start to care about which projects are successful instead of all projects are successful then they're not a good fit for the job. And yes I have experienced that, as well as it's opposite.

link
pas 858 days ago
and this leads to 4 engineers and 6 managers sitting in a meeting, and nobody actually being responsible for anything.

no, of course, there's a lot of value in providing escalation/descalation/rehoming processes, and dedicated ways for org-wide feedback on people's and projects' impact, but people are not just three orthonormal roles on top of each other in a trenchcoat, if there's not clear hierarchy then - as others pointed out - the informal chaos takes over (because it's the human default)

link