Readit News logoReadit News
berg117 commented on The state of burnout in tech, 2022 edition [pdf]   f.hubspotusercontent30.ne... · Posted by u/mooreds
candiddevmike · 4 years ago
From what I've seen, across the industry, the folks who are burnt out are almost entirely individual contributors. You rarely see burnout in management, and it's typically in the form of folks who want to go back to being ICs/tried management and hated it.

I think companies really need to work on reducing or eliminating the amount of bullshit ICs have to deal with vs management (time tracking, status updates, on call, etc) or have management do the same amount of bullshit. Your boss may say they understand what you're going through, but they most likely do not have the same level of bullshit being asked of them on a daily basis. They can sit in meetings all day, miss deadlines, and no one knocks them on it like an IC where being a day late gets put on a PIP.

berg117 · 4 years ago
I've been a manager. Managers burn out all the time. They're just not allowed to show it. They get some degree of exemption from the petty humiliations (time tracking, on-call duty) and they do have human shields to throw in front of a bus or few... but as a middle manager, you're even closer to the truly horrible people up top, and your daily life is consumed by the issues faced by your unluckiest subordinate (sometimes he deserves it, sometimes he doesn't). You don't spend time with your underlings when the work is going well; you're constantly being pulled to deal with the crises and the sad cases.

Every company has an invisible line, like the officer/enlisted distinction in militaries, but always undocumented for obvious reasons. Above it are the real humans whom the company cares about; below it are the "resources". ICs are always below the line, except in R&D jobs that aren't available without a top-10 PhD... but most managers are also below the line.

Above the line, you basically write your own performance review because the bosses are your buddies. Below the line, it's miserable, and as you said you're one delay or mistake away from being sent to the Performance Improvement Camps. Almost all first-level managers in a company of significant size (25+ people) are below the line and spend just as much time on humiliating work justification (e.g., status reports) as the guys at the bottom.

berg117 commented on The state of burnout in tech, 2022 edition [pdf]   f.hubspotusercontent30.ne... · Posted by u/mooreds
pmoriarty · 4 years ago
"Nothing burns you out quite like realizing that you don't even want your boss's job."

As much as I hated my last job, I thought my boss' job was even worse because of all the corporate BS he had to constantly put up with. He seemed to love his job despite that, though.

Also, some of my colleagues (who'd been working for decades, just like me) seem to still love it and thrive on the stuff that made me want to quit and demotivated me. I'm fascinated with how some people like them are able to persevere and thrive in the same situations that make people like me quit and burn out.

I still don't know their secret.

berg117 · 4 years ago
Your boss probably had to seem to love his job. Indeed, that's part of the job, as a middle manager.

What's amazing about corporate is that, when you get together years later and the truth comes out because everyone has moved on, you realize how much everyone really hated their jobs. There are some true-believing useful idiots out there, but I'd guess that 80% of people see corporate for what it is--they're just not allowed to make it known that they do. It's reminiscent of that time people applauded Stalin for 11 minutes because no one wanted to risk being the first one to stop clapping.

As a worker, you're at least allowed to grumble a little bit. As a middle manager, you're a full-time actor. You have to implement the will of some truly awful people and pretend to have no moral objections whatsoever.

Some middle managers truly are pricks and petty tyrants, but my observation is that most of them are just forced to pretend to be that way, becoming the face of horrible decisions so the execs can be loved by the masses. Your boss doesn't want to be a micromanaging cunt--he has to pretend to be one, because he's a rubber glove for executives.

berg117 commented on The state of burnout in tech, 2022 edition [pdf]   f.hubspotusercontent30.ne... · Posted by u/mooreds
BaseballPhysics · 4 years ago
> After burning out on tech I really should have switched to another career... or even tried management

Just a tip from someone who made that jump: If those five things you listed contributed to your burnout, trust me, moving into management won't help.

1. Management is the same damn slog day after day. You deal with people acting like children, senior management who lack any coherent vision and don't know what they're doing, colleagues who were Peter Principle'd into their roles, and on and on. It's unrelenting.

2. Being a manager is just doing work to make rich people richer, but with extra steps.

3. Imagine being a manager! You keep hearing you're understaffed, that there's enormous time pressure, that you lack resources, that your staff are frustrated, unmotivated, burned out. If you're a good manager you care and desperately want to help. But you can't do a god damned thing about it because the executives don't give a damn.

4. You're literally in the middle of this. As a middle manager you have the choice to parrot the upper management crap, or tell it like it is. Neither is great. And that's ignoring the politics, and the pointless policies, the endless process...

5. That's invariant.

The real issue is that a lot of companies are simply toxic places to work. The job doesn't change that. Whether you're an individual contributor on the ground or a manager trying to improve the lives of your staff, if the company sucks, it sucks for everyone.

The truth is: not all companies suck that badly. Or, at least, they all suck in different ways. As you yourself have realized, the trick is finding that place that fits for you.

berg117 · 4 years ago
This times 100. Being a middle manager sucks even more, because you have no real ability to protect people. When the people under you are happy and doing well, you spend no real time with them... because you're constantly being pulled to deal with crises, often of executive cause... whatever problem the unluckiest or worst person on your team faces is your problem, every day.

It also confirmed my negative views of upper management and capitalism. Growing up, I had always felt that the left-wing view of corporate executives as worthless, evil parasites whom society would be better without was an exaggeration, or a negative depiction derived from a mix of envy and the "bad apple" effect. Nope. I've sat in enough meetings and heard how upper-level executives talk about their workers to realize that the "haters" were dead right all along. Half of these people in upper management deserve to be guillotined; the other half are not so severely awful, but are spineless or ineffective at doing anything to oppose the horrible culture.

As a middle manager you have the choice to parrot the upper management crap, or tell it like it is. Neither is great.

Yeah, this conflict of interest is the worst. Do what's right, and you're risking your livelihood, while not really helping the people beneath you. Lie for executives' benefit (i.e., be the face of their bad decisions, so the execs can be loved) and it corrodes your soul, but at least you stay employed.

The funny thing is that corporate capitalism is now indistinguishable from the Soviet system at its worst. We are in Kazakhstan 1987 right now. The only difference is that we pay two orders of magnitude more for these shithead bureaucrats than the most corrupt SSRs ever did.

berg117 commented on The state of burnout in tech, 2022 edition [pdf]   f.hubspotusercontent30.ne... · Posted by u/mooreds
berg117 · 4 years ago
To the people who run tech companies, and the corporate system as a whole, burnout is a feature, not a bug. The people in charge are not very smart and they can't recognize talent, so their only way to pick the next generation of leaders (other than through nepotism, which is how 85% of the good slots get allocated) is to subject people to increasing pointless unpleasantness and wait for attrition to create a ranking. It can't be fixed. It will be that way until the whole system is scrapped.

This is not limited to capitalist bureaucracies, of course--the most dysfunctional corners of the Soviet system were eerily similar--but it is arguably most pronounced in the corporate world, because there is no purpose for these hierarchies existing, or indeed no purpose for most of these companies at all except to make money for a small number of people whom there is no good reason to care about.

The WHO is right. Burnout isn't a medical problem or classical mental illness. It is a rational response to living under a socioeconomic system that has no right to exist.

berg117 commented on Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4   reuters.com/technology/go... · Posted by u/pseudolus
dvirsky · 4 years ago
Xoogler here, from what I've seen, SWEs converting to PMs did it because it was what they were interested in it, unrelated to their skill, and it's not trivial at all. IIRC (never done it myself but seen a couple of people who did) there is a trial period and if you don't perform well enough as a PM you either go back to being a SWE or need to resign.
berg117 · 4 years ago
PM is a negative contribution role, so what does "performance" even mean? Getting programmers to accept Jirafication?
berg117 commented on Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4   reuters.com/technology/go... · Posted by u/pseudolus
UncleMeat · 4 years ago
In my experience, SWE -> PM ladder transfers are very unusual.
berg117 · 4 years ago
I'm sure they are. Most SWEs hired at Google are pretty good at programming and don't need to be tucked away in PM.
berg117 commented on Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4   reuters.com/technology/go... · Posted by u/pseudolus
_j5l3 · 4 years ago
> You can just fire people.

Not at Google, you can't. Firing someone who's performing abysmally still takes up to 6 months, between all the process and PIPs and paperwork and shit.

berg117 · 4 years ago
Google's preferred method to "fire" a lousy programmer is to make him a PM.
berg117 commented on Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4   reuters.com/technology/go... · Posted by u/pseudolus
UncleMeat · 4 years ago
You can just fire people. If I had a report that was not meeting expectations I sure as hell wouldn't make "deny their remote work application, hope they are dissatisfied with the office, and wait for them to quit" be my plan.
berg117 · 4 years ago
In big tech companies, who gets fired has very low correlation to performance. Instead, it usually comes down to:

(1) people who make their bosses look bad are first to go.

(2) next are people who are perceived to cost their bosses time, regardless of whether it's their fault.

(3) after that, it's usually the infanticide cases: i.e., the people who did nothing wrong but haven't been there long enough to establish themselves.

The infanticide is especially ugly, because (a) it means the company is firing people basically at random, and (b) it rapes the shit out of the resumes of the people affected, because they now have <1 year jobs to explain. The reason it happens is that, empirically, most of the people cut in mass stack-rank purges are new members of underperforming teams... who, by inspection, have had the least to do with the team's underperformance.

Underperformance does get people fired, but rarely. It's at least as likely to get someone promoted, because underperformers usually have a career's worth of experience of being shitty, and therefore have developed such political skills they can easily fail up every time.

berg117 commented on Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4   reuters.com/technology/go... · Posted by u/pseudolus
dekhn · 4 years ago
Reduction in Force. It's a term commonly used when companies are undergoing a large scale employee trimming. I don't think that google would do call it that. Probably just managers encouraged to increase the % of people who go on PIPs.
berg117 · 4 years ago
Probably just managers encouraged to increase the % of people who go on PIPs.

That's how tech companies usually do layoffs. Rather than admit they overexpanded and have to cut people (or that they are cannibalizing their own people to boost executive compensation) they blame it on departing workers by increasing the PIP-rape cutoff.

berg117 commented on Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4   reuters.com/technology/go... · Posted by u/pseudolus
kcb · 4 years ago
> We've proven that the big tech companies can go fully remote and not completely crash and burn, that's about it.

Most big tech companies are public. Record earnings and stock prices throughout the pandemic prove more than just not crashing and burning.

berg117 · 4 years ago
Record earnings aren't entirely fake news (people are spending more time online post-pandemic, and that's not going to roll back even if things go fully "back to normal" [1]) but the stock appreciation has a lot to do with the fake-news-ification of the dollar. The CPI has always undercounted inflation, but now the divergence is worsening. Real inflation's probably 11-12% right now.

Wage earners have a couple percent more dollars every year, but the rich have massively more dollars. This is basically clathrate-gun inflation, insofar as while it's true that the rich don't compete for, say, food staples and therefore the illicitly printed money is often considered "harmless"... it goes into investment, which is a different market, we are told... the rich can and given the right circumstances will compete for other things people need, such as housing (see: Blackrock's invasion of residential real estate).

If you look at the S&P denoted in, say, houses... which I've chosen because housing is most people's biggest expense, it's actually been a mediocre market, the past 20 years.

----

[1] There won't actually be "back to normal". Just as 9/11 World didn't really end but blended into GFC World, which blended into Covid World... this one's going to blend into either European War World (if the current situation gets worse) or Climate Change World. The upper class will always need a crisis to hold over our heads (and, of course, several of these represent real crises that the upper classes did not intentionally create) to keep power.

u/berg117

KarmaCake day51February 28, 2022View Original