17 ms·

People at or near the top often have very different incentives from the rank and file. They want to stay afloat, or rise, and often that has little to do with t

People at or near the top often have very different incentives from the rank and file. They want to stay afloat, or rise, and often that has little to do with their objective performance. Feedback from below is arguably one of the few things short of grossly obvious incompetence that can shake them from their perch. And then they have to be the ones to support the whole idea of that feedback in the first place!

daveguy 8y ago
But they don't have to be the ones to support the whole idea of that feedback in the first place. I think gp is saying that part of managing and evaluating managers is to get results from the manager, but also get feedback from those they manage. If you're only getting results and not going one level deeper you aren't doing a good job as a manager. Of course the company structure / culture has to encourage that bottom up feedback (to two levels, not just one). A lot of organizations / managers consider that "going above their head" so that kind of communication really needs to be enforced / required from the next level up.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > from those they manage I think the idea of "they have to support that" isn't just about managers applying this to themselves, but not wanting to set the precedent elsewhere. If you've got 4 or more layers at your company, then there are multiple layers with both superiors and reports. If layer 3 says "hey, layer 1, tell us if layer 2 is doing well", then it's pretty obvious 4 should go ask 2 the same question. It can still happen, not everyone is opposed to feedback, but implementing something like this at any layer can get opposition from everyone anywhere in management who worries they'd get a bad review.
  - daveguy 8y ago
    Yeah, I agree it should happen throughout the layers and that it would likely get a lot if pushback if you tried to put it in place rather than having it part of the company culture from the beginning. I guess in the beginning there would never be that much hierarchy. Although a good web of feedback in a more flat structure could evolve into better feedback through the hierarchy.
ianmcgowan 8y ago
And I'll add that at some big traditional companies, there's a surprising (to me at least) level of disdain for the individual "grunts" in the trenches actually doing the work. The attitude of some SVP's and up seems to be "why would I want the opinion of someone making $15/hour?". Forgetting that people who actually interact with your customers and processes frequently have insight that is useful, albeit not always very macro...
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  That's something I notice in my company too. The pure management types are often very dismissive of the people who actually do the work. I think this is part of the inequality trend. The ruling class disconnects more and more from the working class.
- tabtab 8y ago
  One may end up having the choice of staying with an org who treats you poorly but pay you relatively well, or being treated well but being paid relatively poor. Personally, I'd choose the second; but if I were in dire straits (knock on wood), I would probably want the first.

daveguy 8y ago

But they don't have to be the ones to support the whole idea of that feedback in the first place. I think gp is saying that part of managing and evaluating managers is to get results from the manager, but also get feedback from those they manage. If you're only getting results and not going one level deeper you aren't doing a good job as a manager. Of course the company structure / culture has to encourage that bottom up feedback (to two levels, not just one). A lot of organizations / managers consider that "going above their head" so that kind of communication really needs to be enforced / required from the next level up.

Bartweiss 8y ago
> from those they manage I think the idea of "they have to support that" isn't just about managers applying this to themselves, but not wanting to set the precedent elsewhere. If you've got 4 or more layers at your company, then there are multiple layers with both superiors and reports. If layer 3 says "hey, layer 1, tell us if layer 2 is doing well", then it's pretty obvious 4 should go ask 2 the same question. It can still happen, not everyone is opposed to feedback, but implementing something like this at any layer can get opposition from everyone anywhere in management who worries they'd get a bad review.
- daveguy 8y ago
  Yeah, I agree it should happen throughout the layers and that it would likely get a lot if pushback if you tried to put it in place rather than having it part of the company culture from the beginning. I guess in the beginning there would never be that much hierarchy. Although a good web of feedback in a more flat structure could evolve into better feedback through the hierarchy.

ianmcgowan 8y ago

And I'll add that at some big traditional companies, there's a surprising (to me at least) level of disdain for the individual "grunts" in the trenches actually doing the work. The attitude of some SVP's and up seems to be "why would I want the opinion of someone making $15/hour?". Forgetting that people who actually interact with your customers and processes frequently have insight that is useful, albeit not always very macro...

maxxxxx 8y ago
That's something I notice in my company too. The pure management types are often very dismissive of the people who actually do the work. I think this is part of the inequality trend. The ruling class disconnects more and more from the working class.
tabtab 8y ago
One may end up having the choice of staying with an org who treats you poorly but pay you relatively well, or being treated well but being paid relatively poor. Personally, I'd choose the second; but if I were in dire straits (knock on wood), I would probably want the first.