I've had bosses where the only thing they ever heard from me were optimistic status updates on work in flight.
I considered them completely untrustworthy -- one for lack of competency and one for being a clumsy power seeker.
But in general I would only talk to my boss about issues that (1) I'm OK with my boss telling other team members that I said what I said about it, (2) I'm OK with my boss having input on what course of action to take on the topic, and (3) I trust that the conversation is unlikely to be interpreted in some negative way for me.
- That supporting a competitive environment between employees is a sure way to kill motivation and creativity.
- That the people going the extra mile to ensure a stable production environment gets acknowledged for their effort.
- That throwing people under the bus makes you look really incompetent as a manager.
- That having an island of free speech within a bad corporate culture will keep the good engineers around.
- That one of the prime objectives of a boss is to shield employees from insane and impossible demands from other departments.
If you have a manager who needs to hear these sort of things they usually need to hear it in a very indirect way, such that they won’t lay the blame on you for being the messenger.
Edit: why downvote? This has been my experience. If we dont talk about it, then it will never be fixed.
"Personally I’m working for a large corporation and I don’t see a lot of double-talk or broken policies or broken promises."
That's good, but I know there are people at my company that would say the same thing. A lot of it depends on the individual's experience. Is it possible that you are getting good reviews or your manager likes you, while someone else is getting poor reviews based on a made up reason?
As for some personal examples, I have seen multiple company policies violated. I have also seen the company try to sell us an idea that's junk while telling us it's the best thing since sliced bread.
The company says that an average rating should be based against defined standards and not be competitive. I know of departments that will require managers to 'pick' someone on their team for a below average rating if they picked someone for an above average rating to "balance it out". They will also fo point counting in some departments eventhough HR says they aren't allowed to (the rating process is secretive wo you'd have to throw a manager friend under the bus to prove anything). There are also some additional part-time roles (security champion) that are supposed to be evaluated as part of your core job responsibilities, yet most departments view them as extracurricular.
The company says the standard working hours are 7.5 hours per day unless the position specifically says otherwise. Now, I know that stuff like elevations, pre support, or critical deadlines can mean occasional extra hours - that's fine. I was told that all I needed to do to get to a senior level was stay until 5pm. Ok, so I work 8-4 and you want me to work 9-5? Nope, they want me to work 8.5 hours every day. So why should I take a rate cut for a position with more responsibilities? I work for a financial company that's always saying they want IT to have more financial acumen. Yet they can't explain to me why I should increase my working hours by about 13% for a 7% raise, meaning I will be paid less per hour. This is an even better deal for the company since a large expense for them are the benefits not related to pay, like health insurance.
They changed the promotion structure so there are more levels. They tried to sell this as a good thing. But to get to the same level of compensation, you require more promotions. The typical path was 3 10% promotions. Now it's 4 7% promotions to get similar base pay, but you would need a 5th promotion to reach a similar overall compensation due to the profit sharing structure. Now this might sound similar enough, but it doesnt account for time. That 5th promotion is pretty rare, and the 4th takes a long time to get to. The earlier you are saving money, the more it compounds. So when you hit each level under the old structure you could hit it at the same time as you could under the new structure but the raise is almost 50% higher. Now you also have to wait longer to hit the highest level, further delaying that "extra" income and it's compounding effect. The reason they made this change was because they were losing too many people to earlier retirements. Yet they sell this negative change as a positive.
The bug plug in the interview was that they don't outsource and they never layoff. They do both now. I lost my specialty to outsourcing.
I had a manger tell me he was going to give me the highest rating but I "slacked off" in the last month. I was on PTO for 2.5 weeks for my wedding and honeymoon and put in extra hours for the prior 2 weeks to get things done or turned over. So much for that policy that PTO won't be held against you...
PS: I think voting needs to be disambiguated orthogonal to agreeing/disagreeing (because it vital to community health rather than quietly-silenced) but split into dimensions of insight, on-/off-topic, and seriousness-hilarity-or-pointless for sorting based on personal preferences (hide humor, hide off-topic).
You can expand upon your original comment without that part, and let the votes fall where they do.
Regardless of whether you're an "engineer" or not, you need to have an understanding of what your management chain views both the goals of the company, the goals for your team, and how whatever it is you do fits into that
Those conversations should be organic and natural, but far too many folks (especially those of the "engineering" bent) either never ask, or ask only obliquely during annual reviews
Not having an understanding of how what you do affects the organizations units you are in is one of the greatest contributing factors to employee restlessness and complaining
If you know why you're there, you're more likely to stay - or to find a team where you'd be a better fit
2: Voice your opinion directly to your supervisor in a respectful manner, and ask for follow-up.
3: Wait for follow up and track any changes made to processes or whatever.
4: Give a reasonable amount of time.
5: Then leave.
If you skip to 5, you're not really trying to fix the problem. You're just jumping ship - that's not a solution, really. Being an adult professional in the workplace requires you to confront problems directly.
That only makes sense if you don't like your job and your new job is better. People who leave are quickly forgotten.
Otherwise, if you like your job, it's in your best interests to figure out how to fix it.
This isn't a dictatorship, it's a partnership. What can I do to change/help you?
Most of my team is quiet on this sort of thing. Perhaps it's cultural? (Is this common for individuals who grew up in eastern Europe?)
I kinda feel like I'm watching a glassblower and getting asked "So what do you think?". I could say if I like the piece or not, but I don't know the first thing about glassblowing to give effective criticism.
It really depends on the needs of the individual contributor. For example, if you know what needs to be done, and you're blocked for one reason or another, let me know.
The key here, and the point of my original post, is communication. Any kind. Sure, some managers don't listen, but also some direct reports don't speak their mind.
What I found works best is giving them advanced notice of what type of feedback is expected and when. Schedule a one on one a week in advance. Let them know what you are looking for. Don't combine it with anything else.
The worst thing you can do (and what almost everyone does) is tack it on to the end of a yearly performance review.
I've had managers who either consciously or otherwise had given me the impression that they're find with their management style and aren't really interested in changing it. That's fine and doesn't necessarily make them a bad manager, but going out of my way to provide "feedback" to them would have only harmed my career.
I've had a couple managers who explicitly told me on multiple occasions that they wanted feedback on their performance and if I thought they were doing anything wrong, inefficiently, stupid, etc., they wanted to know about it.
I've also had a couple in the middle, and for those it's much safer to just keep quiet. It's pretty high risk/low reward in that scenario.
It's definitely something to read up on if you end up managing people from abroad; I can't recommend any books but I believe there's a few.
My company makes a big deal about this in 1-on-1s. It seems that none of the talk amounts to much. Like the only impactful stuff is when a manager says stuff like "I know people throughout the company. If you make me happy I can get you promoted to one of those teams". Although I despise this because it's basically backroom deals full of bias instead of focusing on promoting/hiring the best people. Maybe I'm just disillusioned from the idea that meritocracy was supposed to be the major part of that process.
Anyways, what can managers actually do to help us achieve our aspirations?
I have a different experience, thankfully - both when I was an engineer and now as a manager.
A good manager (in a company with the right culture) can help you streamline your efforts. In a proper company a manager doesn't "get you promoted" but helps you demonstrate that you're on the next level.
For whatever reason, engineers think that because they can't get things done it's a reflection on themselves or their skills when that's often not the case.
Successfully climbing the corporate ladder requires a set of skills, observational and behavioral, that people as teenagers or college students didn't think were necessary.
Say, your manager does not want to hear bad news. They panic, they get mean, they betray when faced with bad news. Should you tell them bad news or make the bad news less bad when not fairly ok? Sure, you can change jobs etc., but given that you want to stay at that company/group/position, should you tell them bad news? The answer is of course no, because it is much easier for them to panic one more time than to change their ways.
Basically, the correct (fitness-optimizing!) behavior is mostly situational, the behavior of the shrewd corporate player at the IC, manager, and leadership level depends on the company, people within the company, and situations within people within companies.
Of course, most of us would love to see a different world, but this is what we have as of now.
For me: It was promotion and payrise-- as I was too scared I would be "found out" for not being good enough, which meant I didnt get either for many years; until I quit.
A manager should also have a moment of reflection at least once a year - how are you doing, where are you in terms of personal development, what can we do to boost your career, etc.
It's not in a manager nor a company's best interests to have a stagnant employee.
I don't know if the "should" because this kind of discussion smells like trouble for all parties involved.
They also show how effective your manager is. Your manager should be able to take seriously your concerns about that team member. You and your manager should be able to zero in, rather quickly, on strategies for handling the difficult team member.
Discussion about termination / reassignment of your colleague should be avoided early on, but if it becomes obvious that it's an irreconcilable situation, your manager should be pretty frank about company policies about "performance improvement plans," the optics of firing someone, and strategies to isolate the other team member so they don't impact everyone else.
b) What the next job level entails and how to get there. Whether to take the career path of being an individual contributor, manager, architect, tech-lead manager, etc.
c) Compensation, equity, and how RSUs, ESOPs, etc. work.
d) Alternate, overlapping fields of work - in case of software developers, how can they explore product management or running tech programs.
I've inherited quite a few projects riddled with novice code; and code by developers who just fundamentally didn't understand critical concepts.
Especially as a newcomer, this is a topic that needs to be handled gently. Sometimes this requires correlating known flakiness with problem areas.
One word of caution: If the developers who made the debt are still in the organization, and oblivious to the problems they created, assume that your manager is also oblivious to the problem. It may be best to leave quickly, or feel out upper management to see if they agree with your assessment of problems.
I don’t know how common the following is, but I have more than once created tech debt under duress from management. It seems to happen more frequently with a system already deeply in debt: slapping on another band-aid or bolting on another sidecar are both faster to do right now, and right now is when the fix or feature is ”needed.” We could always circle back and pay down the debt in the mysterious future “when we have time,” which never seemed to materialize.
Not disagreeing that that means something went really wrong somewhere, just wondering how common the situation is.
