Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Servant leadership

effyai.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: Servant leadership

#11

Post by dfee »

mkreis wrote: post #8
avgcorrection wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a one-weird-trick that management tries to use on underlings: they talk about motivating a sense of ownership to things. But this doesn't jive with the fact that employees are hirelings and thus have no ownership to anything in the company. But it would be convenient for management to push more of the responsibilities of ownership on the underlings, even though they will get none of the benefits. This of cour…

100%. It's a cheap motivational "hack" to call it ownership, but it's just responsibility without little power to make necessary changes. A recipe for frustration. In the example with the trash above, can the boy now choose to get a bigger trash can, so that he does not have to carry it outside so often? ;-)

Even better, externalize: throw your trash in the kitchen trash, so the adults have to take it out. Keep the watch. Profit.

Re: Servant leadership

#12

Post by mkreis »

lazide wrote: post #7
avgcorrection wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a one-weird-trick that management tries to use on underlings: they talk about motivating a sense of ownership to things. But this doesn't jive with the fact that employees are hirelings and thus have no ownership to anything in the company. But it would be convenient for management to push more of the responsibilities of ownership on the underlings, even though they will get none of the benefits. This of cour…

This attitude is the path to hell. If you own nothing (not even your own attitude, or the quality of what you are doing), then you’re a perpetual victim, always at the whims of others, and always unable to change anything that matters for you. If you take ownership of you and what you do, and how it impacts others and can produce value, you can make choices. To say no. To say yes. To push for recognition, and leave i…

I agree with your comment, but I think the post above is trying to make another point: That in companies you often are expected to take ownership (or are assigned ownership), although the environment does not allow you to make choices - which you refer to as a consequence of having true ownership, right?

Re: Servant leadership

#13

Post by tstrimple »

avgcorrection wrote: post #4
nvahalik wrote: post #2

I've been reading _The Servant_ among a number of other books recently as part of a "management focus" in my role and in many ways so many of these books overlap on many of the hot-areas of leadership. One of the big takeaways is that most of this information isn't just professional, you can (and, IMO, should use it personally). How you handle feedback and responsibility with your direct-reports is going (most of the…

This is a one-weird-trick that management tries to use on underlings: they talk about motivating a sense of ownership to things. But this doesn't jive with the fact that employees are hirelings and thus have no ownership to anything in the company. But it would be convenient for management to push more of the responsibilities of ownership on the underlings, even though they will get none of the benefits. This of cour…

I'm confused as to what you think work is. Managers are just hirelings as well. They have different responsibilities, which includes effective delegation. If you think "ownership" of a process is just a trick to get employees to work, what's the alternative here? You're responsible for the outcomes of this process but don't own it and thus can't guide the direction of it? That sounds patently terrible.

The benefit of owning a process is the control you have over it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard engineers bitch about the decisions made over their head that they have to conform to. But now engineers apparently are just going to bitch if given control over the process. There's no winning with some of you.

Re: Servant leadership

#14

Post by lazide »

willcipriano wrote: post #10
lazide wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude is the path to hell. If you own nothing (not even your own attitude, or the quality of what you are doing), then you’re a perpetual victim, always at the whims of others, and always unable to change anything that matters for you. If you take ownership of you and what you do, and how it impacts others and can produce value, you can make choices. To say no. To say yes. To push for recognition, and leave i…

> This attitude is the path to hell. I disagree the other way around is. A lot of people suddenly realize they are 50 and they put decades into someone else's dream. Be realistic, do what you are paid for, but save the heroism for your own efforts.

No one is suggesting killing yourself for someone else’s dream. That is trying to take ownership for something that you have little scope to impact, frankly, and as you note don’t see the benefits for.

I’m saying, having ownership of what you are doing and what you control is essential. Not doing so is a path to hell.

That can be the section of the codebase you’re specializing in, or just the effectiveness and quality of the code you’re producing. Or the product you’re delivering, as delivered.

If you don’t think the pay you’re getting is fair for that, then that is a separate issue - and one solved by not doing it, not by trying to pretend you had no part in the deal.

Re: Servant leadership

#15

Post by willcipriano »

lazide wrote: post #14
willcipriano wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This attitude is the path to hell. I disagree the other way around is. A lot of people suddenly realize they are 50 and they put decades into someone else's dream. Be realistic, do what you are paid for, but save the heroism for your own efforts.

No one is suggesting killing yourself for someone else’s dream. That is trying to take ownership for something that you have little scope to impact, frankly, and as you note don’t see the benefits for. I’m saying, having ownership of what you are doing and what you control is essential. Not doing so is a path to hell. That can be the section of the codebase you’re specializing in, or just the effectiveness and qualit…

Wouldn't the word responsibility be more accurate here for what you are trying to describe?

own·er·ship

the act, state, or right of possessing something.

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty

the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.

Part of me that's pushing back here is my manipulative language detector going off.

Re: Servant leadership

#16

Post by lazide »

mkreis wrote: post #12
lazide wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude is the path to hell. If you own nothing (not even your own attitude, or the quality of what you are doing), then you’re a perpetual victim, always at the whims of others, and always unable to change anything that matters for you. If you take ownership of you and what you do, and how it impacts others and can produce value, you can make choices. To say no. To say yes. To push for recognition, and leave i…

I agree with your comment, but I think the post above is trying to make another point: That in companies you often are expected to take ownership (or are assigned ownership), although the environment does not allow you to make choices - which you refer to as a consequence of having true ownership, right?

If you have no actual ability to make choices at all (including what you do, how you do it, what choices you make, etc.), then yes you have no ownership except for your turning the crank and how well you do it.

Which is still a thing. It’s rarely that tightly constrained however.

If it is, then time to bail. It’s burn out city.

Re: Servant leadership

#17

Post by rexpop »

tstrimple wrote: post #13
avgcorrection wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a one-weird-trick that management tries to use on underlings: they talk about motivating a sense of ownership to things. But this doesn't jive with the fact that employees are hirelings and thus have no ownership to anything in the company. But it would be convenient for management to push more of the responsibilities of ownership on the underlings, even though they will get none of the benefits. This of cour…

I'm confused as to what you think work is. Managers are just hirelings as well. They have different responsibilities, which includes effective delegation. If you think "ownership" of a process is just a trick to get employees to work, what's the alternative here? You're responsible for the outcomes of this process but don't own it and thus can't guide the direction of it? That sounds patently terrible. The benefit of…

The alternative is actual ownership.

Re: Servant leadership

#18

Post by iamwil »

lazide wrote: post #7
avgcorrection wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a one-weird-trick that management tries to use on underlings: they talk about motivating a sense of ownership to things. But this doesn't jive with the fact that employees are hirelings and thus have no ownership to anything in the company. But it would be convenient for management to push more of the responsibilities of ownership on the underlings, even though they will get none of the benefits. This of cour…

This attitude is the path to hell. If you own nothing (not even your own attitude, or the quality of what you are doing), then you’re a perpetual victim, always at the whims of others, and always unable to change anything that matters for you. If you take ownership of you and what you do, and how it impacts others and can produce value, you can make choices. To say no. To say yes. To push for recognition, and leave i…

By ownership, the OP means "accountable in the micro". Even if you don't own the company or the macro, there is a sense of cultivating your own skills and mental well-being when you make yourself accountable in the micro.

Re: Servant leadership

#19

Post by marcinzm »

rexpop wrote: post #17
tstrimple wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused as to what you think work is. Managers are just hirelings as well. They have different responsibilities, which includes effective delegation. If you think "ownership" of a process is just a trick to get employees to work, what's the alternative here? You're responsible for the outcomes of this process but don't own it and thus can't guide the direction of it? That sounds patently terrible. The benefit of…

The alternative is actual ownership.

Are you fine getting $0 salary for the year if your area of ownership doesn't do well that year?

Re: Servant leadership

#20

Post by makeitdouble »

nvahalik wrote: post #2

I've been reading _The Servant_ among a number of other books recently as part of a "management focus" in my role and in many ways so many of these books overlap on many of the hot-areas of leadership. One of the big takeaways is that most of this information isn't just professional, you can (and, IMO, should use it personally). How you handle feedback and responsibility with your direct-reports is going (most of the…

＞ How you handle feedback and responsibility with your direct-reports is going (most of the time) how you do/ought to do things with your own children

Your children don't have the option to show you the finger and move to another family. Nor (hopefuly) are you paying them to be your kids.

I think it fundamentally changes what you should expect from one and not the other, especially regarding responsibilities and ownership. And I'm sure you won't address your son not taking out the trash the same you'd deal with a team member that don't release the features on time.

Post reply on HN