101–110 of 159 posts
My favourite piece of reading here is The Eleven Laws of Showrunning by Javier Grillo-Marxuach: http://okbjgm.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/5/0/31506003/11_laws_of...
It's about how to be the showrunner on a TV show, but is full of advice that works really well for managing people in software engineering environments as well (if you squint at it the right way).
I.e. it's now your job to lead. Do it, and take responsibility for doing it.
Also:
The Manager's Path by Camille Fournier Released March 2017 Publisher(s): O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN: 9781491973899
I find it's really more a practical guide, less so a "recipe of success" that other self-help tend to be.
https://www.amazon.com/Managers-Path-Leaders-Navigating-Grow...
There are some fantastic other suggestions in comments though, and it looks like all my suggestions already accounted for.
Bizarrely, I found the book Corps Business, by Freedman, to be useful. It's about how the US Marine Corps thinks about leadership. No, he doesn't tell you to shout at people. But he does show how they lead in more difficult circumstances than most of us will ever encounter, and how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together. Speaking of learning from people with completely different perspectives…
> how the US Marine Corps thinks about leadership. Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes. > how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together. Specifics please? > Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best pu…
The Marines think about leadership very differently than that. Sure, parts are authoritarian, but most people are surprised to learn that training to be an independent thinker starts in boot camp. They don't even tell you how to "swab the deck," you are provided the tools and given the direction that the floor has to be spotless. Regular inspections provide continual feedback, and out of that recruits routinely develop their own procedures and novel techniques for mission success. (Did you know newspaper is extremely effective at finish polishing windows?)
Leadership is pushed hard at every level. If two Marines are on a job/mission/taking out the trash, even if they are the same rank, the one with more time is expected to take responsibility for the other. It's not bossing around authoritarian style, it's as real as that other Marine's life is your number one priority. Leaders are expected to support mission success, not drive it. You lay out the parameters of what success means, and the Marines your charge should have the tools and support necessary to accomplish that task.
In the programming world, it means that I set out a goal post, where I want the team to get to. But then I make sure they have the time to do it (I often take distracting support issues or annoying bugs so the team is not hampered), and the tools needed to get there. If the team does not, I have failed.
Marine leadership doesn't do IC work, which is the major thing I could improve. But then, Marines have a whole lot more people than I do. :)
I used to tell all of my new lead or new manager reports to start with Rands. I even offered to buy them a set of my favorite books - a couple rands, High Output management, manager's path, etc. There are some fantastic other suggestions in comments though, and it looks like all my suggestions already accounted for.
Bizarrely, I found the book Corps Business, by Freedman, to be useful. It's about how the US Marine Corps thinks about leadership. No, he doesn't tell you to shout at people. But he does show how they lead in more difficult circumstances than most of us will ever encounter, and how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together. Speaking of learning from people with completely different perspectives…
> how the US Marine Corps thinks about leadership. Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes. > how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together. Specifics please? > Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best pu…
The following excerpt encourages respectful debate, instead of blindly going along with a leader's plans:
"Relations among all leaders—from corporal to general— should be based on honesty and frankness regardless of disparity between grades. Until a commander has reached and stated a decision, subordinates should consider it their duty to provide honest, professional opinions even though these may be in disagreement with the senior’s opinions.
"However, once the decision has been reached, juniors then must support it as if it were their own. Seniors must encourage candor among subordinates and must not hide behind their grade insignia. Ready compliance for the purpose of personal advancement—the behavior of “yes-men”—will not be tolerated.""
---
The idea of erring toward respectful disagreement when warranted with leaders, instead of being a yes-man, has helped me greatly with building trust in teams I've worked with in the past.
However, I don't believe that it's always the best approach that "juniors then must support [decisions they disagree with] as if it were their own." I get that you can seem less confident by saying "{My manager} wants us to take this approach," instead of saying "We're taking this approach."
But for decisions that you personally disagree with, the best approach would include an acknowledgement of the downsides. Phrasing might be: "We're doing this because of XYZ reasons from the leadership, while acknowledging the downsides ABC."
I believe that this phrase is balanced: it avoids directly saying that you disagree with the decision (which can lead to people implementing the decision poorly, possibly making it doomed even if it turns out to be the correct one), while also acknowledging potential downsides (because the juniors are likely to see them too). An expression as if the decision were truly your own might mean an enthusiastic delivery without acknowledging the downsides, which reduces your own credibility with your direct team.
---
In any case, I believe that reading about the approach—even if one doesn't agree with every idea—is a worthwhile exercise, as I've found that much of the principles remain relevant across vastly different organizational environments.
[1] (1997) https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa...
The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome ( https://hbr.org/1998/03/the-set-up-to-fail-syndrome ) is a great resource for how to handle situations where you feel an employee is underperforming.