Anyone else out there have a violent problem with managers who undermine staff, micro manage and think they know what's best for the company??

I dunno, maybe I've completely lost it (easily possible with the experiences I've had, but I like to think I still have some kind of sanity left), anyway, anyone else had a REALLY bad manager in the IT field?

What the f*** happened to doing what's right for the staff? Crawling up someone's ass every chance they get isn't going to make anyone happy. Is it? SO WHY DO IT. Why god, why.

I have this thing, which helps me get through the day.. I'm doing any company I work for, a favour, I'm doing my girlfriend I date, a favour, etc.. It's just the way I am because I'm a high performer in most areas and won't stand for s*** anymore. And when I sense I'm not appreciated, I just kinda lose it *tauren laugh* muwahaha, anyway, I play too much WoW.

I do have a point, and that is, why do *some* managers think it's okay to undermine and hurt their staff to look good to their managers, knowing, full well, that if we chose to, we could do very bad things to them, and the company?

This is hypothetical of course. And posted purely for our own educational advancement in the world of corporate arseholeness?

p.s. - pay me my salary bitch, I won't ever bend over for you unless you rub me the right way.

our manager couldnt have been better
top bloke
looked out for us within our company
always legend to deal with
drives a skyline

he doesnt control how much pay rise he can give us
so i wont hold my s*** pay against him

drives a skyline

He sounds like an idiot.

My manager rocks. She acknowledges me when I work hard, she acknowledges when I work over time and lets me have most of those hours of during the following weeks, and she lets me have my tanties once in a while :)

this crappy manager you speak of, it doesn't just relate to the IT field, i've dealt with a few of the 's*** manager breed' over time

micro manage and undermine staff are key attributes of said s***ty manager

one of my very first managers back in 97 was an absolute champ, oldskool style manager, have fun, go a beer friday at lunch, talk sport - generally make the office a good place to work. Review time (the formalised filling in a form type review) he'd just go, "I don't need a form to tell me you've done a good job, I know you have - I'd rather tell you daily or weekly or let you know you've f***ed up, lets go for a beer" haha top bloke, I still see him every now and again for a beer

also 'buzz words' piss me off and f***en idiot managers that seem to think reading a book automatically makes them a good manager, managing people requires PEOPLE SKILLS i.e if you don't have skills to speak to people or people don't respect you, you will suck as a manager

/rant

:)

If it wasn't for me, our workplace wouldn't exist. I don't like to brag but that's how good I am.

8-)

Werd up HeardY,

I had a manager like that, I still catch up for a beer with him now and then. Always had my back, and I always had his. That's respect. That's the s*** I love.

The common thread with bad managers seems to be managers being promoted too early (lack of experience) and a lack of respect because basically, no one likes them. And uhh, why don't they like them again? hahaha it's a joke and insult.

My boss is awesome. Even bought me a coffee today!

That's good. I'm happy for everyone that has a good boss. Because that's the way it should be. :)

I mean why waste "company money" on an employee plotting to bring down their boss. hahahaha

p.s. - I'm just joking, I'd never do that cause I'm a nice guy and love my new boss.

undermine staff

They do this for pure office power. If they can discredit you enough nobody will ever believe a word you are saying. Bonus points for them when they realise what you have been saying for months is actualy right, and they put in a good word for you up top. Not only do they look like a 'good bloke' for putting in a good word for you, but they get all the long lasting credit.

micro manage

It is scary how easy it is to look like you are busy if you micro manage.

and think they know what's best for the company??

Basicly people don't remember who did all the work to make dumb ideas work, they just remember who made all the noise about starting it. Extra points for the guys who can suggest dumb s*** and when it fails make that s*** stick to someone else (ie you).

Extra bonus points if they can blame you for the first problem, claim your solution as their own, reap all of the rewards and still look modest about it.

anyone else had a REALLY bad manager in the IT field?

Most people enterting IT for the first time often will :)

There is 1 constant in the universe of IT which is working in our favour. And that is that managers come and they will always go.

Micro management is a sign that the manager has;

a) No management skills
b) Suffering under stress
c) Is trying to make a good imperssion on his boss
d) Has trust issues with staff
e) Does not know the ins/outs of the skill sets he is supposed to be managing

It is an evil that is unfortuantely particularly present in today's IT world. It's the result of people making themselves seem more important than what they are really worth.

Anyone that's worked for a 'good' boss knows that the way they manage is to let you do your own thing but only make themselves known when it's really necessary. 'Really necessary' can mean that a deadline for a project has passed and it's not completed or a problem has arised that needs a management level person to take the controls of. Managers are not supposed to breath down the neck of each employee to double/triple check what they are doing at every minute of the day.

I do have a point, and that is, why do *some* managers think it's okay to undermine and hurt their staff to look good to their managers, knowing, full well, that if we chose to, we could do very bad things to them, and the company?

Because they are failing to recognise the line that seperates work from life? I've met a tonne of management fools that think the job is life, and that they actually ARE the boss of you, as a person. They get away with it because most people are too gutless to stand up for themselves because the job pays the bills.

IT Industry Survival Guide

1. Always, and I mean always get in writing what it is that management want you to do, follow up every conversation with an email asking is this correct and out line said discussion, always state at the bottom you will commence once written acknowledgement as in reply to this email to confirm this is what you want.

2. Always document your time, all those 10minute help jobs add up, especially when it is someone who can't think or use a computer to save themselves.

3. Walk away, if they are belittling you don't take it, walk away, it will piss them off and you will look to be the better person. There is no point discussing the point with this person, they wouldn't listen to save themselves.

4. Never give your ideas to someone verbally, always email them with CC's to other managment, that way they will know where the idea originated from, and always, and I mean always put forward a business case otherwise you'll be wasting your time. They don't care that its whiz bang fantastic, they do care that the improved performance of the dooby whacker will allow them a 10% incease in effiecency and speed allowing for increased productivity.

5. Never make excuses, just tell them exactly why and what happened, sure your 2 weeks late delivering the project but if you've been documenting your time and all those additional features with the email they will see that you've only been doing as your told, after all you aren't the manager... :)

These managers are insecure, low self esteem, small penis, wankers, if you do what I suggest you will be fine they won't f*** with you because it is all to visible to everybody else that your doing a good job, if they have an onunce of brain matter they will ride on the coat tails of your success.

Don't let middle managers worry you too much, they'll get what they deserve in the end. One thing that I have seen over and over is that to get to the top, you can't just brown nose to the bosses above you and s*** on everyone below you. There is this really bad misconception floating around in the world, prolly from movies and reality tv, that to get somewhere you have to be an arsehole. That is the biggest load of crap in most companies because to be recoqnised as a good manager, your department actually needs to perform well (figures wise). Middlemanagers are the worst for this attitude and that is why when it comes to company layoffs they almost always target middlemanagers because they are worthless.

If your middlemanager is an arsehole, I suggest you document his/her arseholeness :)
Try to talk to him/her and make suggestions for improvement in the department. Document these as well, and include the responses you get from your middlemanager, which will most likely all be negative.

Then, at an oppertune time, take your compiled arsehole document to the manager just above him/her and point out his/her, well arseholeness or rather his/her inability to lead and manage resulting in budget/time overruns - upper management hate it when that happens ;).

Don't however go one level up if:
- You haven't got things documented and yourself very well prepared. You'll make life very hard on yourself.
- Your a whinging little fag cuz your boss is to hard on you, be prepared to get your arse handed to you.
- The two managers are good friends. Arse handed to you...
- You haven't spoken to your middlemanager first. Then you are a coward and won't get any respect. Arse handed...

PS - Woman are the worst middlemanagers! They will hack each others heart's out if they could.

Hehe Gumby summed it up nicely too :)

Micro management is a sign that the manager has;

a) No management skills
b) Suffering under stress
c) Is trying to make a good imperssion on his boss
d) Has trust issues with staff
e) Does not know the ins/outs of the skill sets he is supposed to be managing

Hmmm I don't really agree with that statement. Some employees need to be micromanaged because they need strict instructions. Not all people can work on their own. Depends on their personality. We have a lady at work that will screw up every single time if you don't explicitly tell her what to do.

You are a bad manager when you can't differentiate which people need micro management and which don't.

last edited by Dysard at 11:19:24 30/Jun/05

Hmmm I don't really agree with that statement. Some employees need to be micromanaged because they need strict instructions. Depends on their personality. We have a lady at work that will screw up every single time if you don't explicitly tell her what to do.

If someone needs to have constant supervision then they need to be trained up in the appropiate skill sets, a manager job is not to hand hold people so they can function in their job properly.

No mate, you don't understand, people are different. Some people are really great at doing procedural stuff, but need to be told exactly what to do. Train them up forsure, but you still need to micromanage them. If you don't, and you discover a week later that they misinterpreted a sentence in their training manual, then you are going to be sorry... Others are thinkers and self starters who need to be let free.

You can't train a person how to be a self starter and a thinker. It's inherent to your personality, which is very hard to change. It's one of the main reasons why companies do personality profiling before hiring someone.

last edited by Dysard at 12:04:58 30/Jun/05

Well in that case, 'micromanage' probably refers to a different perspective then the one that I perceive.

No I think you are perceiving it correctly (it's basically instructing and checking up on a regurlar basis), you are just not looking at the bigger picture and simplifying the world a bit, since you are probably a thinker/self starter :). Companies need people for all different reasons and it's vital to have a balance of thinkers and procedural types. Too many thinkers and nothing gets done. Too many procedurals and you will have too many managers trying to manage them.

Oh and please note that I'm generalising a lot too. People don't just fall into the 2 or 3 categories that I have touched on either.

last edited by Dysard at 12:15:21 30/Jun/05

Thats an interesting idea Dysard. But I find I can be both depending on the situation. Sometimes a task required procedural problem solving (fix this bug), where as there are other tasks that require a lot more independance (create a new program to do x). After having good and bad managers, the good ones know when to step back and let you have some room, but also give you some direction to meet project goals in time.

At the moment I don't really have a manager because they made mine redundant, so I 'm not exactly the most motivated person at this point in time.

There are a lot of factors it can be depending on absolutely: Personality, age, maturity, experience, situation, etc etc...
And the challenge of a good manager is to identify those and give appropriate levels of direction based on those.

I focused on personality because TicMan was indirectly suggesting in one of his previous post that all humans are basically the same :) We should all be thinkers and self starters damnit :P

I focused on personality because TicMan was indirectly suggesting in one of his previous post that all humans are basically the same :) We should all be thinkers and self starters damnit :P

Er, no I wasn't. I was pointing out that the micromanagement way to manage is retarded and noone should be using it. I've seen it used on me and I've seen it used by other managers upon their staff and in every single case it was ineffective. In the examples I used above (my a-e columns) it is a direct reflection on the micro manager that I (and Gimpy) am currently experiencing.

I agreed that you may have a point depending on the employees abilities to work.

Haha don't I know about the micromanagement stuff. Try working in a place where your orders come from many different sources and often conflict each other. I've found the best way to combat micromanagers is to tell them what they want to hear and secretely do things the way you think they ought to be done. My view is that so long as you achieve the goal professionally and without wasting time or money, why should they care?

Man a few years in IT makes you quite jaded indeed...

email is the key

i get everything i do and tell people everything im going to do, in email

u cant argue with hard evidence!

No mate, you don't understand, people are different. Some people are really great at doing procedural stuff, but need to be told exactly what to do. Train them up forsure, but you still need to micromanage them. If you don't, and you discover a week later that they misinterpreted a sentence in their training manual, then you are going to be sorry... Others are thinkers and self starters who need to be let free.

I can’t visualise a situation where someone needs constant mico-management. Can you give me an example?

OK I'll give you one. I work for a medium sized software development company and the company exists out of a development section and support section, typically. We have one particular person in support who is typically someone who needs to be micromanaged on a regular basis. This person is good at doing procedural things and given a software manual can follow that manual very well, but when this person has to do something that needs them to think outside of the manual they will stuff up like clockwork. This person has worked for the company for 4 years and still stuffs up when not given exact instructions. This person just can't think for themselves, just can't work stuff out...

Thats why I said, you can't train someone to be a thinker, just like you can't change a person's personality. This person has worked for this company for 4 years and still can't! But he/she is good at what they do, very thorough because they follow the book very well. So with regular micromanagement this person is actually a good asset.

This person probably gets micromanaged every second day. Are you guys getting confused about the meaning of micromanagement? Note - constant checking up/standing behind your shoulder every minute of the day isn't micromanagent, thats harassment. This isn't rocket science friends. I'm starting to feel dumb for having to explain this.

last edited by Dysard at 08:52:24 01/Jul/05

I'm the opposite, if someone starts micromanaging me, I start f***ing up (on purpose). Nothing serious enough to get in trouble for though. I've read the HR policies, I know what I can get away with.

I also then basically halve my productivity because I just don't give a f***. But I still get paid the same, so suck me sideways mr corporate hardman. I can beat your ass down in the office, and outside the office. Best way to avoid micromanagement is to get apathetic. They want you to care, but you don't, or at least act like you don't long enough, for them to think you don't.

I heard this story from a mate about this guy who had a totally micromanaging/harrassment type boss who basically rode him all day, everyday, and used to even give him s***. Anyway, they go out for drinks after work one night and his boss is STILL paying him out. Eventually, he snapped and broke his bosses nose. Anyway, his boss didn't dare file a complaint because he knew he'd been out of line. Apparently he never rode him at work again.

OK I'll give you one. I work for a medium sized software development company and the company exists out of a development section and support section, typically. We have one particular person in support who is typically someone who needs to be micromanaged on a regular basis. This person is good at doing procedural things and given a software manual can follow that manual very well, but when this person has to do something that needs them to think outside of the manual they will stuff up like clockwork. This person has worked for the company for 4 years and still stuffs up when not given exact instructions. This person just can't think for themselves, just can't work stuff out...

I don’t know if that is a good example of the kind of role that requires micromanagement. I could be wrong here, but it sounds like he isn’t the right person for the job or he is being asked to do something that he wasn’t employed to do.

This person probably gets micromanaged every second day. Are you guys getting confused about the meaning of micromanagement? Note - constant checking up/standing behind your shoulder every minute of the day isn't micromanagent, thats harassment.

No, I wasn’t confusing it at all, but thanks for suggesting I am (we are) dumb. I am relating micromanagement to the practice of monitoring and assessing every step of a underlings job, instead of giving general instructions to which the employee does what they are paid to do (i.e. their job). In my experience, micromanagement causes morale problems and long-term resentment.

I have worked in a few industries (blue and white collar) and I honestly can’t think of a position where employees should be micromanaged. Obviously people who are new to the job need supervision and instructions, but even that is probably no more intense than just working with someone else who has a lot more experience on the job.

I can’t remember who said it, but there is a quote in management schools that goes something like “Effective Executives are the ones who hired good people, and has the sense to stand back and watch them work.”. If your employees can’t work without their hand being held, then something is wrong.

This isn't rocket science friends. I'm starting to feel dumb for having to explain this.

Poor form. Are you the guy who micromanages this dude at work?

While undermining arguments based of the intellectual abilities or sexual orientation of other forum posters is an official QGL standard, you always have to assume that you are going to be regarded as a troll from that point on.

In fact, I found it ironic that you attempted to undermine the argument when others failed to agree with your micromanagement practices. Two fine examples of poor management in one thread, good job!

Typo micro manages his replies

“Effective Executives are the ones who hired good people, and has the sense to stand back and watch them work.”. If your employees can’t work without their hand being held, then something is wrong.

Now only if they apply this principle to the public sectors we won't have to hire so many people.

yeah my boss is pretty cool, i get paid on time and no problems what so ever

Johnny Howard rules