TBM 295: Going Deep 🤮

Sorry. It is time for a rant. I don’t do this often—but here goes.

I hate the trend of leaders gaslighting managers by bombarding them with calls to "get into the details" or “going deep” (sometimes in public, on podcasts).

The statement blames managers for not getting into the details instead of taking into account (and taking responsibility for) the environmental factors that made it difficult to do so.

It plays on cheap stereotypes—managers as ceremonial figureheads, out of touch, eager to coast—to deflect blame. It plays on the heartstrings of Individual contributors and executives alike who 1) want managers who remain involved and 2) want reports to keep them in the loop. Who doesn't like people who are willing to get into the details? Who likes people who are out of touch? In that sense, it is an apple pie statement. Win-win-win: except for managers.

Founders, especially, love to spin a narrative that they nobly entrusted managers to join their amazing companies, but that said managers couldn't cut it and "couldn't scale with the company." Back when there were fifty people in a crappy office space, they (the founders) managed to stay hands-on and in the details, so what is so hard right now? Never mind that the company was an order (or a couple of orders) of magnitude less complex at the time and that a single person could keep everything in their head.

It's a classic ploy to deflect attention from systemic issues and their challenges in delegating effectively—all tied up in a neat, narrative bow that dovetails with "back to basics" tropes.

I (half) joked recently:

An engineering manager who spends half a week trying to resolve dependencies, half a week doing administrative tasks and paperwork, half a week managing up, and half a week attending meetings to react to burning issues works 80 hours a week. You can forget about them having the time to "go deep" and "get into the details' '.

Sadly, for many people, that is not a joke. I've seen a single manager be reasonably up to speed on 10-15 direct reports and their respective teams. Leaders applauded their chops. But few people discussed:

1. The lack of dependencies.

2. An architecture that supports independent team action.

3. Those teams focused on one thing each.

Meanwhile, a single manager navigating a chaotic org can spend most of their time playing defense and serving as a shit umbrella. 

In theory, a manager in this situation can raise the issue. But have you noticed that describing systemic problems doesn't qualify as "going deep"? You're supposed to go deep and know everything but never raise issues unless you have a simple solution ready for easy consumption.

Deep when I need details. Shallow when I need you to fix something.

I'm not discounting skill here. Yes, there are some things a manager can do to tame the mess a bit, and try to stabilize the situation. Yes, there are better ways to manage up. Yes, you have some leeway in terms of how you use your time, interact with other people, and structure comms and team rituals. 

But all of this pales in comparison to the complete thoughtlessness and lack of empathy people display when using cliches in corporate environments.

Maybe the insensitivity is the point—it is how people wield power?

Maybe it doesn't matter what the "wrong" team members think, provided it sounds right.

There is a thoughtful way to connect with your team, mentor, and coach and give useful feedback. It takes time and energy. By all means, be good managers.

But don't let people gaslight you with that crap. 

/rant