I would recommend Turn the Ship Around! by David Marquet, former submarine captain who effected a significant turnaround on their nuclear submarine. He empowered his chiefs to take more ownership and responsibility and the rest of the crew. I think it reflects more realistically how things go and I really appreciate his side comments at getting pissed off at subordinates and the allure of being the "captain in charge giving orders". He also mentions the need for technical competence and also clear direction from leadership for this to work.
Servant leadership
51–60 of 105 posts
Re: Servant leadership
#52I’ll keep banging the gong—Jocko Willink is a treasure trove of knowledge when it comes to leadership. Servant leadership is really just “good” leadership.
Re: Servant leadership
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Possession is control, is it not? Ownership is responsibility + benefit (or loss) for an outcome IMO, protected by some kind of agreement. Societal or contractual. Title. Employment agreement/laws. If there is positive benefit received on a good outcome + a responsibility for maintenance and the like, that is a form of ownership IMO. If a negative benefit comes from damage/destruction/bad things happening to that thi…
> Possession is control, is it not?
Is possession == control then control == possession.
We can have a world like that, if someone worked in some role for a period of time we could have a legal process for them claim their proceeds of the enterprise. That sounds really complicated and it isn't the world we live in today.
I think the reason the word responsibility isn't used is generally you are expected to pay for people who take responsibilities off your hands. A plumber takes responsibility for your toilet problem, if you also have a unrelated faucet problem he can take responsibility for that as well, but not for free. On the other hand, owners aren't expected to be paid like that as they profit off the overall health of the enterprise, without providing that sort of mechanism, I don't see how you have any real ownership.
Re: Servant leadership
#54Maybe it's just me, but when people higher up in the hierarchy than me insist on describing themselves with "low status" labels, it really rubs me the wrong way. This is something I think the military does a good job of avoiding via clarity of rank. And speaking of the military, Jocko Willink's Extreme Ownership idea is a similar concept to "servant leadership" without the cognitive dissonance. The basic concept bein…
I think the idea here is that as a leader your primary directive is “serving” those you lead.
As Jocko puts it, when the team wins, the people win too, so your job as a leader is to help them understand the why.
Re: Servant leadership
#55Maybe it's just me, but when people higher up in the hierarchy than me insist on describing themselves with "low status" labels, it really rubs me the wrong way. This is something I think the military does a good job of avoiding via clarity of rank. And speaking of the military, Jocko Willink's Extreme Ownership idea is a similar concept to "servant leadership" without the cognitive dissonance. The basic concept bein…
“Maybe it's just me, but when people higher up in the hierarchy than me insist on describing themselves with "low status" labels, it really rubs me the wrong way.”
Totally agree. Reminds me of a lot of articles some years ago where some millionaires called themselves “minimalist” because they had given up their kitchens and other things and eating at restaurants all the time.
Re: Servant leadership
#56Maybe it's just me, but when people higher up in the hierarchy than me insist on describing themselves with "low status" labels, it really rubs me the wrong way. This is something I think the military does a good job of avoiding via clarity of rank. And speaking of the military, Jocko Willink's Extreme Ownership idea is a similar concept to "servant leadership" without the cognitive dissonance. The basic concept bein…
I think the idea here is that as a leader your primary directive is “serving” those you lead. As Jocko puts it, when the team wins, the people win too, so your job as a leader is to help them understand the why.
I get the idea, my problem is that in actuality, the leader is not serving the team. He is leading it and when a hard decision has to be made, the leader is taking it whether the team likes it or not. This isn’t the position of a servant. It’s a fake masking of the real power dynamics at play.
I get the same vibe from “flat” management structures. People can claim that there is no superiority in the org chart and that everyone is equal, but in reality it never works this way.
Re: Servant leadership
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one is suggesting killing yourself for someone else’s dream. Nobody makes it that explicit. Managers just ask you (your team) to deliver more story points, go the extra effort to meet a deadline, etc. And the risk of setting boundaries (saying 'no') to the implicit ask is not being viewed as a "team player", not being promoted or given a raise, or, at worst, being fired. I am willing to take those risks. Not eve…
Most people can’t or won’t take ownership of something, as they don’t want to take the risks - as you note. It’s much easier (mentally) to be told what to do and hope it eventually works out. And if it doesn’t, blame everyone else.
> And if it doesn’t, blame everyone else.
I never blame anyone. I just move to a competitor who is more adapt at running a business.
> don’t want to take the risks
That legally speaking if they pay off you are entitled to no additional compensation.
Re: Servant leadership
#58The challenge with "Servant Leadership," like many popular things, is that once it becomes a buzzword objective for "good", it becomes a mask for people who wish for leadership. As a name for a set of particular mindset driven behaviors of leaders, it is great. Performative mimicry of those behaviors without the associated change in mindset is similar to a cargo cult[2], unmoored from the producing virtue it becomes a source of cognitive dissonance.
Mindset: "We define mindsets as core beliefs or assumptions that we have about a domain or category of things, that orient us to a particular set of expectations, explanations and goals." --Dr. Alia Crum [0]
0. https://hubermanlab.com/dr-alia-crum-science-of-mindsets-for...
Virtue: "Stable dispositions to perform socially desirable actions in a manner that is sincerely motivated by shared values." --Edward Slingerland from "Trying Not To Try" [1]
1. https://www.amazon.com/Trying-Not-Try-Science-Spontaneity/dp...
Re: Servant leadership
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea here is that as a leader your primary directive is “serving” those you lead. As Jocko puts it, when the team wins, the people win too, so your job as a leader is to help them understand the why.
I get the idea, my problem is that in actuality, the leader is not serving the team. He is leading it and when a hard decision has to be made, the leader is taking it whether the team likes it or not. This isn’t the position of a servant. It’s a fake masking of the real power dynamics at play. I get the same vibe from “flat” management structures. People can claim that there is no superiority in the org chart and tha…
No one is suggesting that servant leadership is implying their leader is actually a _servant_. Rather, it implies that serving your team humbly should be a priority over stroking your own ego. I'm not sure how useful it is to generalize the concept as "fake masking". Do some people use it as an ego trip? Sure. Are some people good leaders with their people's interest in mind? Absolutely.
Many times in life, someone has to make a call and it's usually the person in charge. Not sure why that has to have malicious intent behind it. You don't have to like the decisions your leaders make, but that doesn't inherently make them bad leaders just because the team isn't 100% on board. (I will concede that good leaders will take the time to get the team on board. It's usually laziness to explain the "why" that results in teams not being on board. That or ego prevents them from letting go of their ideas.)
Re: Servant leadership
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the idea, my problem is that in actuality, the leader is not serving the team. He is leading it and when a hard decision has to be made, the leader is taking it whether the team likes it or not. This isn’t the position of a servant. It’s a fake masking of the real power dynamics at play. I get the same vibe from “flat” management structures. People can claim that there is no superiority in the org chart and tha…
No one is suggesting that servant leadership is implying their leader is actually a _servant_. Rather, it implies that serving your team humbly should be a priority over stroking your own ego. I'm not sure how useful it is to generalize the concept as "fake masking". Do some people use it as an ego trip? Sure. Are some people good leaders with their people's interest in mind? Absolutely. Many times in life, someone h…
You don't have to like the decisions your leaders make, but that doesn't inherently make them bad leaders just because the team isn't 100% on board.
No no, I'm not saying this at all. I'm completely fine with the leader making the decision, I just have an issue with the narrative that they're a "servant" serving the team. And if no one is suggesting this, why call it "servant leadership"?
That is what I mean by "fake masking." All of the best leaders I've encountered are cognizant of the fact that they are in charge and thus have more responsibility and decision-making power – and don't try to pretend that somehow they are "servants."