111–120 of 159 posts
Thats the most succinct advice I have on being a better manager. Not a self-indulgent medium article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I can't speak to how the ideas are implemented in practice within the US Marine Corps, but a few specifics are given in "Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications 1—Warfighting," which is likely a similar document that I've found to be helpful [1]. 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…
* the 20 years of coverup and inaction about prosecuting 1Lt Duncan D. Hunter for 2004 Iraq friendly-fire deaths of other Marines and Iraqis? He eventually got prosecuted much faster for congressional finance abuse.
"Marine friendly-fire deaths involving Duncan Hunter were kept hidden. His congressman dad denies interfering." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter#Military_serv...
* the pattern of fatal accidents involving the Boeing V-22 Osprey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Accide...
You made interesting comments about how to frame the narrative when people disagree-and-commit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak to how the ideas are implemented in practice within the US Marine Corps, but a few specifics are given in "Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications 1—Warfighting," which is likely a similar document that I've found to be helpful [1]. 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…
Sounds like good training for the average Marine, but it doesn't apply to the higher-level scandals: * the 20 years of coverup and inaction about prosecuting 1Lt Duncan D. Hunter for 2004 Iraq friendly-fire deaths of other Marines and Iraqis? He eventually got prosecuted much faster for congressional finance abuse. "Marine friendly-fire deaths involving Duncan Hunter were kept hidden. His congressman dad denies inter…
But reality is always different in important ways from prescribed ideals. Real-life behaviour by bad actors gets in the way, which is a limitation of the 1997 document: it appears that it assumes all team members are acting earnestly without personal agendas and in good faith.
In practice, I believe that the involvement of external checks and controls are key to ensure good-faith behaviour, even if people within the system prefer to deal with it in-house. Interventions by independent government investigators and press coverage are important ways to add external pressure, when there is a lack of internal accountability.
I’m reading some articles on managing people all the time (mostly from Software Lead Weekly newsletter). And recently, I’ve opened Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice to read a few chapters on a problem I’m facing at work. And WOW a proper book on the topic is SOOO much better than any random article that I find, be it from SWLW, HN, Reddit, or any other source. Articles and posts are easy to l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha, wow, I remember reading this when it was written. I do think it's probably a bit too cynical though, probably colored by the author's own world-view and personal experience. I do think that some companies are just filled with BS; don't get me wrong. But I think that there are also a subset of companies who are filled with people trying their best, but who are making mistakes and/or being incompetent in a way th…
Overly cynical indeed and incomplete. It's profound for someone 5 years out of college. I know the intent, but I found this typo funny > Once the steaks are high There are much better "this is how things ACTUALLY work" takes like Ribbonfarm's "Gervais Principal" [0] to feast on. [0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
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.
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.
Intrinsic motivation is a function of autonomy, mastery, and purpose. A managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation.
When you identify a weak performer without understanding which pillar of motivation is weak, it generally results in a direct and total assault on intrinsic motivation.
Interventional supervision is decreased autonomy.
Interventional supervision is a powerful indirect invalidation of mastery. Being overruled is a powerful invalidation of mastery. Being told what to do or how to do something rather than being told a goal to achieve is an invalidation of mastery. Being ignored when you bring up an issue or not having your issue be treated with seriousness is incredibly invalidating. Being told, directly or indirectly, that you are wrong without having it explained to you is a complete invalidation of mastery.
Lastly, assigning lower risk work, work that doesn't matter as much, is a direct assault on purpose.
When intrinsic motivation is assaulted, it is no surprise that the employee becomes less motivated, and therefore less capable, independent, and thoughtful, and therefore a much less appealing person to give work that matters creating a viscous cycle of being managed out at the cost of everyone's mental health.
So a managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation, but the standard actions taken are a direct assault on it. The manager adopts an "organization vs employee" approach rather than an "us vs the problem" approach and the consequences are always exactly as you would expect.
The proposed solution in this article (practice active listening, which means listen with the expectation of and desire to change your mind), is a core weakness I've seen from managers promoted from engineering, and especially managers from more hierarchical cultures.
I agree with the final assessment of the article. A mastery problem cannot be solved by a manager, so if the employee is truly not technically capable, they need to be let go. The entire purpose of a technical interview is to ensure there is a bar that is cleared for mastery. Autonomy and purpose problems are generally a problem with a manager failing to manage upwards, set expectations, or a managers inappropriate application of dominance (often manifested by a lack of active listening), rather than a failure to "manage" an employee.
I think these blog series is illuminating for most companies https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
No joke hese articles were the reason I started going to therapy. I think before reading them I didn’t consider workplace issues to be a part of my “real life”. In some sense I was aware of work life balance but I didn’t fully appreciate that they are balanced on a single fulcrum (i.e., “me”!)
For example, his book Smart and Gets Things Done[1] is great.
Although not management, per se, Steve McConnell's stuff[2] has been of invaluable assistance, in my career. He talks about Quality Process, and that's the kind of stuff that managers should (IMO) know and enforce. Again, I don't think folks, hereabouts, have much love for him.
His book, Rapid Development[3], was a watershed, in my development.
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/06/05/smart-and-gets-thi...
[2] https://stevemcconnell.com
[3] https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/rapid-development-...