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

Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

entropicthoughts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 258 posts

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#201

Post by joe_the_user »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #109
nlawalker wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a manager I had to take a training based on the book "The Coaching Habit." It left me really sour on the role, and explained some of the behavior of previous managers of mine that I least appreciated, specifically that their approach to management seemed to be to just get me to articulate and explain my problems over and over until I somehow rubber-ducked myself into solving them myself. When that didn't w…

Three buckets of "management": 1. Mentoring: "this is what I did in a similar situation..." - overused and often not as similar or detailed as needed. 2. Coaching: "what do you think?" valuable for longer term development that depends on deeper thought and introspection; Your immediate problems a generally neither of these. 3. Sponsoring: "You mentioned you're looking for X and I heard about a new project where you c…

Why would a manager solve an IC's problems for them? Solving problems is generally the job of the IC. If an IC doesn't have the ability to solve a given problem, the manager should let them talk to a different IC with that skill.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#202

Post by nrawe »

nlawalker wrote: post #38
CodeMage wrote: 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…

When I was a manager I had to take a training based on the book "The Coaching Habit." It left me really sour on the role, and explained some of the behavior of previous managers of mine that I least appreciated, specifically that their approach to management seemed to be to just get me to articulate and explain my problems over and over until I somehow rubber-ducked myself into solving them myself. When that didn't w…

The Coaching Habit is a fantastic book and is the right way to do. Managers don't exist to solve other peoples problems; it's vice versa.

Managers are accountable for a problem, and responsible for building a team that can solve it in the most cost effective way. Their team members are responsible for solving the problem. Managers are also responsible for a lot of other things (tracking, reporting, cost management, roadmaps, change management, hiring/firing, process improvement). IME the managers who don't like the coaching side largely don't really want to be managers or don't understand that distinction in responsibilities. (Not helped, TBF, by lots of pretty awful promotion schemes that don't support people on that path).

What The Coaching Habit does leave out is the need for mentoring. Mentoring is not a synonym for coaching, it's active: "my report does not know how to do this thing, I need to tell/show them how to do it." While coaching: "my report knows how to do this, they need a soundboard for getting to the right answer."

It can distinctly suck some time, for both parties. However, in the long run, when managers stop coddling, their team members start growing. One person who hated me bitterly when I started on the coaching road with them now thanks me for it because it helped them to build their confidence and ultimately their skills to become a CTO. I have similar stories from others. YMMV.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#203

Post by plomme »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #81
lostlogin wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you have been burnt, badly. There is surely a business out there that does fit your world view, though the pay and conditions might not. In my view, the need for growth at any cost is toxic and leads to all sorts of horrible behaviours.

There are no good organizations, only ones that aren’t completely corrupt yet. Consider that to start and maintain an organization takes significant capital and energy expenditures upfront, which means you need to fund them from somewhere and ask sources of funding are corrupted. Consider: there are no long lasting egalitarian, distributed power, grassroots organizations that can compete at a level of social influenc…

I would love to hear more about your definition of corruption and why it is inevitable. From what I can tell it is that an organization with “morals”, meaning some sort of code restricting their possible actions, will be out competed by an organization without “morals”, whatever that might be. I think it is compelling at face value, but I’m not sure I see a world of wolves out there. Maybe I’m naive.

I want to argue that the rule of law is one moral system that applies to all organizations. Sure, some overstep and may gain some advantage due to that. But in principle and hopefully on average the result should be net negative. In democratic countries the laws are more or less directly the will of the people, about as egalitarian as we can get, no? Anyways, following the rule of laws should lead to “morally sound” corporations as defined by the people. Corporations can go further than what is legally required, too. That is often used in marketing.

Finally i think the same principles apply wherever humans (or other species) compete. Humans on the whole are not entirely cruel barbarians, we try to care for individuals who are not able to care for themselves etc. Whether “true” altruism exists is another discussion, but it certainly looks like it. So if that’s how people act, why should corporations be more corrupt than the bodies that make them up and govern them?

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#204

Post by ventricity »

onion2k wrote: post #150
codingdave wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many terms and frameworks evolve beyond their original intent, so I'm not too worried that this has evolved, too. I've always found it is easier to understand servant leadership as the opposite end of the spectrum from autocratic leadership: Is the leader primarily concerned about growing their own power/success, or growing the power/success of those who work for them? There is a lot of middle ground between those tw…

The problem with servant leadership is twofold: Firstly, in 'proper' servant leadership as taught by Greenleaf the leader is supposed to put the church before their own needs and wants. It is not about serving the people who report to you; it's about serving the organisation first. In a business context that's horribly toxic and a great way to spend years being exploited by a company that will grind you to burnout fo…

no, it has to be organisation first. it's no good to put people first if there's no job to go to. if you put the organisation first, you get a good working environment since it requires a leadership style that gets the best out of people. any leader or any employee should ideally be replaceable.

it's not "horribly toxic" as you say, because if that is the case your company is terrible in the first place.

Servant leadership is about the big lines, not only the company but being a positive force in society as well. If you truly understand it, it's probably the hardest kind of leadership to aspire to.

In fact, servant leadership is about turning the organizational chart upside down, where the leaders serve the other employees, making sure they have what they need so they get the best out if them

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#205

Post by auggierose »

harrall wrote: post #198
gretch wrote: 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 personally feel this distinction does not apply at the granularity of people and this difference is unrelated to the issue of people who aren't observant. I am very process-oriented about drawing. The simple act of drawing is fun and I never have a specific goal. I try different mediums and subjects for fun with no actual purpose, but I still gradually improve because of it. But I never have any idea of what I’m go…

Well, you must have tried it a few times before making the judgement that it never works, right?

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#206

Post by psychoslave »

codingdave wrote: post #16
onion2k wrote: 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…

Many terms and frameworks evolve beyond their original intent, so I'm not too worried that this has evolved, too. I've always found it is easier to understand servant leadership as the opposite end of the spectrum from autocratic leadership: Is the leader primarily concerned about growing their own power/success, or growing the power/success of those who work for them? There is a lot of middle ground between those tw…

>I've always found it is easier to understand servant leadership as the opposite end of the spectrum from autocratic leadership: Is the leader primarily concerned about growing their own power/success, or growing the power/success of those who work for them?

Wouldn’t the opposite be rather cooperation of self-organising autonomous people, gathered around common goals?

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#207

Post by max002 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #182
skeeter2020 wrote: post #158

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.

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

Happened to me couple of times. If u have strict technical skills but lack ppl skills and u have a big team. The latter (soft skills) starts to matter more. If ur in this situation then hopefully your leader/manager understand that and gets technical advice/consultation from you.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#208

Post by kuresov »

nrawe wrote: post #202
nlawalker wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a manager I had to take a training based on the book "The Coaching Habit." It left me really sour on the role, and explained some of the behavior of previous managers of mine that I least appreciated, specifically that their approach to management seemed to be to just get me to articulate and explain my problems over and over until I somehow rubber-ducked myself into solving them myself. When that didn't w…

The Coaching Habit is a fantastic book and is the right way to do. Managers don't exist to solve other peoples problems; it's vice versa. Managers are accountable for a problem, and responsible for building a team that can solve it in the most cost effective way. Their team members are responsible for solving the problem. Managers are also responsible for a lot of other things (tracking, reporting, cost management, r…

Understanding the distinction between mentorship and coaching from this perspective was very helpful. Thank you!

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#210

Post by nrhrjrjrjtntbt »

nrawe wrote: post #202
nlawalker wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a manager I had to take a training based on the book "The Coaching Habit." It left me really sour on the role, and explained some of the behavior of previous managers of mine that I least appreciated, specifically that their approach to management seemed to be to just get me to articulate and explain my problems over and over until I somehow rubber-ducked myself into solving them myself. When that didn't w…

The Coaching Habit is a fantastic book and is the right way to do. Managers don't exist to solve other peoples problems; it's vice versa. Managers are accountable for a problem, and responsible for building a team that can solve it in the most cost effective way. Their team members are responsible for solving the problem. Managers are also responsible for a lot of other things (tracking, reporting, cost management, r…

Isn't the definitions the other way around regarding coaching and mentoring?

Coaching is about skills.

Mentoring is about advice/soundboard.

Post reply on HN