[munificent]

> If your managers don't know what you do all day

If your managers can't tell what you do all day when they merely need to go to reddit.com/r/IamA and see dozens of upvoted posts from celebrities whose top comment says, "Victoria is here helping me...", then I don't think you can really blame her for that.

[slg]

I don't expect my boss to dive into my commit logs to figure out what I am doing. I instead tell him.

[nostrademons]

So I did the same when I was an employee, but I'll point out that this introduces a pretty strong adverse-selection effect. Time spent managing up is time not spent doing your job or building value for users. If managers rely simply on what their reports tell them, they select for people that can navigate internal politics well, not ones who do their job well. Over time the organization is filled with people whose attention is always focused upwards, not outwards, and then the company becomes bait for a startup.

A skilled executive makes sure they have a pulse on what's going on inside their organization beyond what they're told. Relatively few executives are that skilled.

[jaawn]

I'm so glad you posted this. This has practical applications for just about anyone, especially those in enterprise environments (like me). I have been noticing this phenomenon but hadn't quite put it into words yet, and you've perfectly described it.

[danudey]

Really? I don't go bug my boss about everything I do. We have regular one-on-ones so that we can bring up any new issues, but he trusts me to get my job done and let him know if there's anything that needs doing/knowing. If everything was going well in the AMA scene, there seems little reason to waste time discussing it.

That said, they fired Victoria and didn't replace her with anyone. That tells me that they both didn't know what she did in her role, and also didn't care. Anyone assuming the role, even temporarily, even without any of her notes/schedule/documentation, could have just checked the AMA schedule to find out that an AMA was scheduled, and contacted the mods to see what the arrangement was. No one did.

This isn't your boss not knowing what your code does because you didn't tell him. This is your boss firing the IT guy and not telling anyone until someone's laptop needs fixing before a big meeting and there's no one who knows how to do it.

[logfromblammo]

Devil's advocate here. If your boss doesn't check your commit logs, you should tell him what you're doing, and tell him that you're also doing things that you aren't actually doing.

I expect my boss to know that some people engage in dubious ethical practices to advance their own careers.

After all, if it were my job to do my boss's job, couldn't my boss be my boss's boss instead?

[tmd83]

Your boss don't really need to see every commit to know what you are doing. It should be visible/understandable from the product. And most people who are beating the drums talking about what they are doing at micro level are more focused on making themselves look good than doing the work. So its a bad thing to rely upon.

And you should be fired first from your managerial post if you fire someone yet not know what kind of work they do and what they are responsible for. For that matter you should be blacklisted from holding any managerial position moving forward.

[zxcvcxz]

Do you tell your boss about the code you don't commit?

[evan_]

The code you don't commit is guaranteed to be bug-free, something you can't say about the code you do commit.

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

I am so reluctant to code now thank you.

[Merovius]

If I expect this code to be relevant to my job and their evaluation of it: Sure. Why wouldn't I?

[nilkn]

I've read reddit on and off for years and have never even noticed that.