Getting layered

Getting layered (having a manager be inserted between you and your, now former, boss) stirs up feelings. Let’s talk about it¹ .

You might feel frustrated. Angry. Indignant or insulted. Dismissed and discarded. What’s the point of this new person, who you now have to explain everything to and is now an extra step in the way of getting things done. And what does this mean for your career prospects?

Or, you might feel relief. Hopeful. Reinvigorated and rejuvenated. The crappy, micromanaging but somehow clueless and useless boss is now someone else’s problem. Someone else can be your shit umbrella, to protect you from their random bad ideas and whims.

If you’re feeling upset, take a breath and notice how you are feeling. Put a label to it. I’ve found that when I’m able to accurately name the feeling I’m having, the feeling releases some of its grip on me² .

Now that we’re grounded, take stock. How can we benefit from this? What can we learn from this?

I see layering as an opportunity to identify what gaps your (now former) boss saw as the reason to introduce a layer. Did they need someone better at strategy? Stakeholder management? Communication? Are they looking to grow the team and need a leader with hiring and management experience?

It might be that your new boss isn’t as technical or as much of a subject matter expert. And there’s no denying the tax that comes with onboarding a new manager and having an extra layer. But there’s probably something they are better at, and we can seek out what that is and absorb what we can, while still validating the feelings that come with it.

The Workshop

This is a newsletter-only section where I share a half-baked idea in hopes that y’all who are smarter than me can work it out with me.

Several of you have written in (via email, or left a comment on this page) — thank you Dan, Frank, and Kate! I love the feedback and your smart takes. Keep it coming, the dialogue is where the good stuff is.

Re: last newsletter’s Workshop on manager quality ratings and ratings distribution, Kate wondered if businesses’ goal of getting results means that execs don’t necessarily value being a good manager as part of the criteria for getting good results.

What do y’all think? On the one hand, I would define the value of a middle manager as being able to get more value out of their team than the value each team member creates individually. The sum is greater than the parts.

On the other, I definitely know some organizations (esp. larger ones) promote managers based on political skills, stakeholder optics, ability to influence executives, etc that really have no downstream benefit to their direct reports. Or worse, they take for themselves the credit their team deserves.

In other news, I’ve got a big interview coming up in 45 minutes, so wish me luck! I’ve prepared like crazy for this one (literally dozens of hours). Yes, it’s unpaid work that is directly relevant to their business, and I’ve got a whole spiel about that, but at the end of the day, in a job market like this, my desire for the job outweighs any moral indignation I have. Thanks, capitalism.

1  Group therapy for product managers really should be a thing. I did Venwise for a bit (when my company was paying for it) and I thought it was really valuable, but peer mentorship isn’t quite the same. Having a licensed therapist who came from product (or tech, generally) to facilitate the group just feels like a huge value.

2  This comes from the practice of meditation and mindfulness, which is something I’m a novice at but has found it helpful. Some people, after successfully naming the feelings, also like to go for a walk, or stand in grass with bare feet, to get grounded again and help process how the feelings show up in their bodies.