May 2020
Manager development vs exploiting would-be managers
This isn’t the most fruitful time in the tech industry to aspire to be a technical manager, with companies looking to increase the number of direct reports per manager and decrease the layers of management in their company. See for example:
Meta Platforms Inc. is asking many of its managers and directors to transition to individual contributor jobs or leave the company as it tries to become more efficient[…] The process is known internally as a “flattening”
Meta Asks Many Managers to Get Back to Making Things or Leave, Bloomberg, February 2023
However, the managers with newly larger teams, and even their managers, often don’t agree with upper management that their load is reasonable. And there are still pockets of growth within flat or shrinking companies and the management of those pockets still may not be allowed to add managers to accommodate it.
With lower formal demand for managers but continued informal demand for them comes increased opportunities to exploit would-be managers, or former managers, by making them “shadow managers”. Here’s how it looks:
- the team has a line manager, known to the HR system as the manager of the team;
- the team also has shadow managers: team members who are told they are “basically managers” or who step in to fill gaps they see; they might be aspiring to management, or they might be ex-managers who were moved out of formal management roles in a flattening process; and then were asked to continue most of their previous management tasks anyway;
- the shadow managers take on a significant amount of management overhead in their work: they might be doing the bulk of coaching teammates, assessing their teammates’ performance, doing their teammates’ performance assessment paperwork, preparing their teammates’ promotion cases, giving their teammates feedback, and deciding if they have addressed it.
This can seem to everyone involved like a win-win. The line manager is overworked. The team needs help. And the shadow manager wants to be a manager, and this gives them a chance to try before they buy, and to get some skills while they do it.
But when shadow management goes on indefinitely, here’s how it works out badly for the shadow manager’s career:
- Even with locally supportive management, this isn’t the shadow manager’s core job and so can easily end up being many hours on top of their daily workload rather than offsetting any of it.
- Due to changes above or around them — a change in the line manager, or the hierarchy above finding out about and shutting down an undocumented shadow arrangement, or the team shrinking — the shadow management work isn’t needed any more. Due to the switch of focus, the shadow manager’s individual contributor skills are rusty and their recent contributions are low, and so their performance is suddenly at risk.
- The shadow manager applies for a management job outside the company or even in another team, citing their shadow management experience. Since the never had formal direct reports, they are assessed as having zero experience in management and are incredibly unlikely to get the job.
- If they do enter formal management, their management years of experience are counted only from when they began formally managing, their time spent shadow managing isn’t considered when they want to progress to senior management positions.
There’s certainly good reasons to give people interested in management exposure to it before they lock in a career change, but it shouldn’t be viewed as a favour to the potential manager to have them do the job indefinitely without documented responsibility. Quite the reverse.
The more ethical ways to develop future managers are:
Create junior managers rather than shadow managers. Give an inexperienced manager a small number of official direct reports and close supervision and coaching as a stepping stone to managing a full team. This starts the clock on their years of experience as a manager, and if your organisation gates manager tooling and training on having direct reports, this will give them access to those as well.
Shadow management should be linked to a position and time-boxed. If asking someone to manage without the lines of reporting, it should be linked to a written dated plan to change to managing those staff, with success criteria and an exit plan from the shadow management responsibilities if it’s not working out or if no position becomes available. Six months is reasonable; this gives sufficient exposure to the team’s planning and career cycles without knocking years of experience off their management career.
Time spent on leadership tasks should be planned for and rewarded. If an aspiring manager is mentoring, hosting interns, or assisting in reviewing or assessing their colleagues’ work, this should be recognised in their individual performance, and in their role description if it’s a regular task. Their individual contributor expectations should be reduced to allow for this workload. Their work should be documented in a way that at least assists internal job applications, even if it’s not likely to be recognised as management experience on the job market should they want to search for management jobs.
If required to flatten your organisation, actually do so. Don’t flatten it on paper but sneakily leave all your excess managers in place as shadow managers. Instead, transfer their manager-specific leadership tasks to a line manager, and invest in developing their individual contributor career or finding them transfer opportunities as a line manager to a team that needs them.
Japanese maple
May 2020
Prime example of why I can’t declare photo bankruptcy: autumn in my mother’s garden in May of 2020.
By May, there was very little COVID in most of Australia, which had closed its borders to non-residents in late March and would not re-open them for tourists until February 2022. The weekend of 16/17 May was the first significantly unrestricted weekend, and so we went to visit my family post-haste.
I can’t declare photo bankruptcy
It’s sometimes tempting; I’ve only completely worked through my photos through to early May 2020. After that is patchy: cheer competitions and cricket finals. Somewhere deep in there are well over a thousand photos I took just in two weeks in Europe in 2022.
But I can’t stop when my babies are in there. I don’t yet have any photos to hand of the entire year my son was thirteen.
A few things that have helped:
- Local disk, not virtual machine over the network.
- Giving up on doing a lot of post-processing. This is why people buy Fuji bodies, after all, for the straight off the camera experience. With adjusted contrast, at least sometimes.
- A digital photo frame, so that I can appreciate all the (big) baby photos once I’ve uploaded them.
Central Park in spring
Governors Island in spring
Spring on the High Line
When your mindset isn’t the problem: getting adaptive training when you need technical training
When you hit a certain stage of your corporate career — like being a woman of a certain age, but better paid — you may end up in a lot of development training for various reasons, or pointed at coaching, or both. I learned, in one of these, a very useful distinction, what people development curriculum designers call adaptive challenges vs technical challenges.
Technical challenges are skills gaps, basically. You don’t know Australian tax law. You don’t know C++. You’re not a very polished public speaker. You aren’t well networked enough with senior leaders.
Adaptive challenges are when you’re getting in your own way. You learned C++ but you can’t bring yourself to apply for the job. You’ve practiced your public speaking but you turn down opportunities to do it. You know lots of people and they think highly of you, but you never ask them for help.
It’s possible to have both challenges at the same time, and for difficulties in one to inhibit the other; say, your dislike of attention (adaptive) is getting in the way of you investing in your public speaking skills (technical). But there’s also a huge tendency in corporate people development to spend a lot of time on adaptive challenges, particularly for underrepresented groups and in equity programs, relative to the investment in technical challenges.
My belief about why this is is that addressing adaptive challenges simply scales better. Whether someone is in finance or activism or programming or real estate or medicine, the techniques you teach them to get them OK with asking other people for help more, or asserting their opinions more, or for assessing their own work fairly, are similar. You don’t need to find someone with an overlapping professional background or from the same field to address adaptive challenges, and you can draw on an entire community of teaching and coaching practice. And on the provider side, you can position yourself as a coach who teaches assertiveness in a wide variety of fields, rather than someone who trains assertiveness for non-profit accountants!
It may also be a comforting story to tell yourself about your equity practices: probably the reason that underrepresented people aren’t succeeding in our organisation is that they’ve internalised messages from somewhere else, probably some large and uncontrollable force outside, that they aren’t worthy! Fortunately, they are now on a level playing field in your organisation and all you need to do is help them out of the mindset that other forces taught them.
Whatever the cause though, the result is a similar pattern to vague feedback holding women back. If what is stopping someone progressing in their career is that they don’t know enough about Australian tax law, at some point they just need to learn more about Australian tax law, and assertiveness training doesn’t have a lot to add. And they or their employer are going to have to do something not as scalable as assertiveness training to address it.
For employers: don’t leap to adaptive challenges as the answer for your equity problems. If there’s technical challenges, you are going to have to drill in to individual or small group teaching, or invest in external programs that require considerable time and money investment. (Their adaptive coach might encourage them to take an hour every week to reflect on their goals, but their taxation law professor is going to flat-out require that they pass exams.)
Managers: track investment in someone’s development over time: if an employee did Overcoming Impostor Syndome and Unlocking the Big You last year, you should question whether The Light Within is the course for this year, relative to the entrance requirements for a masters degree or a rotation into a team that writes more C++. Work with people to ensure that there’s investment in the actual skills they need to progress as well as into their mindset. In the worst case, you are really selling someone very short if you help them be big and bold and proud and self-actuating, and then you don’t listen to them now that they know enough about themselves to know that they really need to learn more C++.
Letchworth State Park, New York
Bondi to Bronte
October 2024
There were whales, plural, but I didn’t bring a telephoto lens.
All photos. (2018, 2015.)