3/3     Do you expect your immediate manager to support you/your department
        even if it's to the detriment of the company? As a manager, should
        you support your department/staff even when it's to the detriment
        of the company? If your manager doesn't stand up for you then who
        will? On the other hand, being a good manager means doing what's
        best for the company. I'm just curious what others think. Imagine,
        for instance, that a department is asked to layoff 50% of its
        employees and outsource that work to India to save the company money.
        As the manager, do you fight for your employees or not? As an
        employee, what do you expect your manager to do?
        \_ IMO: There is no such thing as "the company" for non-trivial sized
           companies.  There is me, my subordinates, my immediate superior in
           my group and that's it.  The sales and marketing team sure as hell
           isn't going to take a hit so you can get a raise or hire more
           engineers so you don't have to work 16 hour days.  Your manager
           should fight like a rabid grizzly to save his team.  If he isn't
           there for his staff he isn't doing anything.  If there were rumored
           layoffs coming and I got the slightest hint my manager was going to
           do anything but fight his ass off for us, I'd immediately post my
           resume to get a jump on things, so should you.  There is no such
           thing as "the company" to which anyone owes any loyalty.  There is
           the CEO who is going to get a multi hundred million dollar kiss off
           for killing the company, the rest of the execs who will get around
           50-100 million, the lower level execs who might get 2-5 million and
           everyone else who is getting the shaft when shit hits the fan.
           \_ So you expect your manager to fight for his subordinates
              even when the "right" thing to do is clearly accept the
              recommendation from upper management? What if it's something
              like relocation and not a layoff? Or what if it concerns
              salaries/benefits? I mean, I think there is some point where
              fighting the good fight works against the manager's career,
              or where the employees can clearly see that a decision is
              a good one even if it hurts them, no? The question is whether a
              manager should protect his employees against better judgement
              and whether employees expect him to.
              \_ I don't expect him to fall on his sword.  I do expect him to
                 put up a good fight or if his group is clearly doomed to have
                 the balls to let them know enough in advance to find another
                 job before the axe drops.  If the group goes, but the manager
                 is staying, that's BS.  Relocations: some people actually
                 would want one.  They aren't necessarily a bad thing if the
                 company is covering the costs and some extra for hassle.
                 Salary/benefits: don't touch my salary/benefits.  I accepted
                 a certain offer.  The number of cases where staff taking a
                 cut at a tech-oriented company has saved the company is so
                 slim that I can't actually recall any but I'll grant there
                 are probably some.  When staff takes a cut, execs never do.
                 You refer a few times to various people's better judgement
                 and what is "right".  As determined by who?  A corporation is
                 nothing but a large pile of negotiated agreements between the
                 managers, staff, execs, vendors, buyers, and a ton of other
                 people to agree to perform a set of distinct tasks which will
                 provide some service or product.  The key phrase here is
                 "distinct tasks".  I was hired to perform some set of tasks
                 in exchange for compensation for my time, skills, etc.  If I
                 don't get that compensation then why would I perform the
                 tasks?  The manager is hired to keep his group as a whole
                 coordinated performing some larger tasks as part of the
                 greater whole.  If he lets his group get destroyed why does
                 he still have a job?  As far as the general theme of 'greater
                 wisdom coming from on-high': no such animal.  They're just
                 people.  Some of them might actually know what they're doing
                 and be able to perform their duties better than you could but
                 most are just there because they went to the right schools,
                 were raised in the right families or kissed the right asses
                 for long enough.
                 \_ You are thinking too hard. Imagine, say, you are the
                    manager of the telegraph portion of Western Union.
                    manager of the telegraph portion of the Soviet Union.
                    Management tells you they are going to stop offering
                    that service (which really happened). You haven't had
                    much business, so you know it's a smart thing to do.
                    However, there are some old-time employees who were
                    hired for that particular task and can't transfer
                    somewhere else. You know they will be screwed. Do you
                    argue in favor of telegrams and their value to society
                    and the company or do you work with management to
                    eliminate the department? What about implementing some
                    sort of automation which will vastly shrink your
                    department by spending a lot of money on hardware instead
                    of employees (think auto manufacturers)? Do you fight
                    for your employees or implement the procedure that
                    saves costs? That's what I mean by "right". Sometimes
                    the right decision is obvious. You hire 12 people
                    anticipating lots of business. You have work enough
                    for 2. The right thing is to let 10 go. Do you tell
                    senior management that or do you hold onto your
                    fiefdom for not really your sake, but for the sake of
                    others? From a management perspective it seems obvious,
                    but I am curious what employees think their managers
                    should do "for them" as a "good manager".
                    \_ If you're my manager in a 12-person group with work
                       for two people, and I'm not one of your top two, let
                       me go. You're not doing me any favors by keeping me
                       on when I might be able to get a more interesting job
                       elsewhere, and you're harming your own interests as
                       well. The best thing you can do is look to transfer
                       your extra employees internally or, failing that,
                       arrange for them to get a good send-off (a comp package
                       would be nice) and offer to be a reference. -gm
        \_ Post "acquisition", I was asked to try to keep my group together.
           My take on the situation was that most of my group would be let
           go after the transition period.  I didn't make a scene, but I
           left the company pretty quickly.  But that's just me.  I fully
           expected the people I worked for to screw everyone in their path.
           \_ Asked by who to keep the group together?
        \_ "It depends".  That can be a really tough call for even a good,
           ethical, loyal and intelligent manager to make under many
           circumstances.  Helpful, huh?  -John