Live data from Hacker News

Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

entropicthoughts.com

181–190 of 258 posts

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#181

I don’t really relate to many comments here stating “my approach is X”, or “I went from servant-leader to process-master-whatever leader”. I’ve found that trying to be anything but flexible to the environment is unrealistic and even egotistical. E.g, There are some environments where the CEO is so “command and control” that the “I want us all to bring our authentic selves to the peace circle of work, and from each ac…

‘one trick pony’

Yeah, shallow dismissal of people's effort to try to make a change must be because they are a ‘one trick pony’. Is that all you brought to the conversation?

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can't" is not why people become managers. At least be thoughtful and say "Won't" (because they prefer management)

I intentionally used the word can't, because I don't think it's an option that they're choosing, rather a lack of ability.

I've never worked for someone I felt was less able than I was. Maybe I had a specialty beyond theirs or more recent experience but you don't become a successful technical manager without knowing your shit. Maybe I've been lucky

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#183
post #7

From the post: "The middle manager that doesn't perform any useful work is a fun stereotype, but I also think it's a good target to aim for." This is the kind of argument that makes people come up with middle manager stereotypes in the first place. In fact, the whole post is a great example of why middle manager stereotypes exist: it starts with a straw man argument and comes up with a "better alternative" that makes…

There is a bit too much emphasis on the relationship between the manager and individual subordinates as the only thing a manager does. It's certainly the relationship that programmers have with their manager, but it ignores the reason why managers exist at all. In the end, managers are part of the translation layer between the company's top-level goal of acquiring customers and improving profitability and code that gets written and deployed.

The day-to-day responsibilities of a manager vary by company, but in essence can be boiled down to: Take priorities that are handed down from above -> apply those priorities as efficiently as possible to the team -> assist in execution.

The manager might be part of the discussion of priorities and clarify them before relaying them to their team, they may actually have quite a bit of freedom of interpreting the priorities, or they may literally just be a task-assigner-and-enforcer. The manager might also have technical leadership authority, architecture responsibility, or anything else, but these are still all in service of coordinating a team to produce the best output possible.

How a manager relates to their subordinates is important, of course, and the best managers treat their subordinates as individuals that have different needs. There's a responsibility to give them room to grow, keep them happy, and keep them productive as part of the job, but that alone isn't the job.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#184
post #12

"Servant Leadership" is a term was coined by Robert Greenleaf in his 1977 book "Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness", which is very specifically about being a church leader. Many of the more generic ideas are applicable in any leadership scenario but if you read the book it's very clear that it was not designed with business leadership in mind. You shouldn't really expect i…

I don't think they interpreted it correctly anyway.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest complaint about some people is that they measure success by the act of doing and rarely by the result. If I help someone, I am checking if you no longer need help. If I say I’m going to be there at a certain time, I remember every time I’m late. If I do laundry a certain way so I won’t lose a sock, I make sure I haven’t lost a sock. When I do something, my brain replays me “Oh the last time you did this, y…

This works if you can connect your actions directly with the outcomes. How would would you assess the efficacy of preventative actions whose consequences are delayed and uncertain? "I think we should X because it will probably contribute to Y." What if Z happens? You could say "Doing X was pointless - Z happened anyway!" but then you are discounting at least two things: 1. the possibility that the magnitude of Z woul…

We’re not talking about preventative actions.

Choosing to park my car correctly because I used get tickets is a reactive action. Helping someone because they asked for help is a reactive action. Being late and then doing things to stop being late is also reactive.

I’m not talking about preventing hypothetical consequences for events that could happen but have not even happened.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I intentionally used the word can't, because I don't think it's an option that they're choosing, rather a lack of ability.

You may not mean it but I do think sometimes framing it this way implies leading and managing is something that requires less ability (it's a skill in its own right). What I think is true is people cap out their technical competency, and look to shift their skillset and, globally, we are bad at a) training them to be good managers (because there is a wrong assumption it's an innate skill) and b) weeding out the many…

Agree, it’s a skill, it can be learned and improved, and of course some people have some natural ability.

But for every skill there’s a floor and a ceiling. The floor for managers is imo far lower than it is for tech ICs. Incompetent managers have many options to hide their misdeeds. That doesn’t say anything about the average or the ceiling.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#187
'Management' is not one size fits all. Every company is different. Its needs are different. What a manager is supposed to do is different too. If someone behaves the same way as a manager no matter the company or the people they work with, I think that's terrible.

Being a manager is about listening. It is about tuning into the environment. It is about being there for the team in whatever way they need support. Sometimes that means being a coach. Other times it means fighting for them. And sometimes, when an unpopular decision is made above your pay grade, it means breaking it down for the team in a way that they 'get it'. You want them to understand without completely losing morale or slipping into rebellion.

Brutal honesty sounds great on paper. But not everyone can handle it or is ready for it.

It is a balancing act. Even if everyone "knows", bitch*ng about the company to your reports can only lead to bad outcomes. So you acknowledge the company's shortcomings. At the same time, you try to help the team find purpose and fulfillment in other ways.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#188
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The opposite extreme is you have someone on your team who is only able to resolve conflicts by having their boss intervene. What's wrong with that? Resolving conflicts is the boss' job. So long as the team mate is doing their actual job appropriately, that's all that matters. > E.g. you leave some critical feedback in a PR review. The author of the PR doesn't like your comments, so they tell your mutual boss, then…

Handling negative feedback on a PR is a necessary skill for a developer. A manager should only get involved if it becomes hostile. Negative is very far from hostile.

Handling negative feedback doesn't involve going to anybody - neither the manager, nor the person who gave the PR. Someone giving negative feedback is not supposed to be a conflict in need of resolution. We are talking about a situation where there is a conflict that needs to be resolved, ie that it has already become hostile.

If they are going to their manager, and then the manager, rather than convincing them that they are over-reacting, is instead going to you and telling you that there's something wrong with the feedback you gave, you should handle that negative feedback.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#189
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re interested in the subject and want to read more, the concept is commonly called “outcome oriented” vs “process oriented”. A LOT of workplace conflict arises out of outcome oriented ppl having to work with process oriented people.

I did ceramics for a whole and noticed a common trend. The creator judges the product compared to their imagining of what they wanted to make. Yhe piece invariably falls short (because our imagination is better than our skillset.) Everyone else simply looked at the piece objectively. It was either beautiful or not. I started to look at programs the same way. The criteria for judging my program differs to the criteria…

From Ira Glass:

“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste.

But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you.

A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions.

And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I intentionally used the word can't, because I don't think it's an option that they're choosing, rather a lack of ability.

You may not mean it but I do think sometimes framing it this way implies leading and managing is something that requires less ability (it's a skill in its own right). What I think is true is people cap out their technical competency, and look to shift their skillset and, globally, we are bad at a) training them to be good managers (because there is a wrong assumption it's an innate skill) and b) weeding out the many…

I've generally switched to management when I realised I was doing both great, complex technical work and management work my managers were failing at.

I fully subscribe to the Conway's law, so I love creating system architecture through organizational setup.

Post reply on HN