Transparent leadership beats servant leadership • Hacker News Board

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#101

Post by exogenousdata » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:36 PM UTC

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #37

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…

If you ever want to quickly destroy an organization, just separate the ability to control with the responsibility to control. Burnout, infighting, and chaos will ensue.

This is a wonderful, succinct way of capturing this danger to businesses as they grow & jump the gap!

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#102

Post by lunarcave » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:44 PM UTC

I can't remember where I heard this, but the moment it flipped for me is when someone phrased this as - "be a heat shield".

A heat shield has some leakage of heat that the people inside know that there's heat, but enough cover that the team is shielded somewhat.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#103

Post by parliament32 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

jf22 wrote: post #66

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…

One of my worst job experiences was when I depended on a colleague who wouldn't deliver. Any feedback or conversations with that colleague mostly resulted in tantrums and empty promises. The lack of delivery severely harmed the services I provided to the company and to external users, ruined team morale, and was a huge source of stress. My boss always turned the problem back on me, despite him also being my colleague…

There's a good chance he was an executive's nephew or some other protected class.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#104

Post by pyrolistical » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:48 PM UTC

citizenpaul wrote: post #65

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." Oh wow. This comment just completely explained the worst "manager" I ever had. They must have been using this terrible method. >no matter how direct the request was or how much it really needed management authority behind it. They nearly drove me insane with this circular cycle. It was the only job I ever walked out on. I emailed on a Sunday night that I would not be returning to the office af…

Tell the manager you are assuming their authority.

You will force the answer out of them either way

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#105

Post by skeeter2020 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:50 PM UTC

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…

>> but sometimes I need you to solve a specific problem for me, so I can keep solving all the other problems I already have on my plate.

Managers definitely need to contribute and this is a great way to do so, and also build credibility with your team. You don't get the fun or deep technical problems; that's not your job, but you can fulfill whatever transparent leadership is (I think?) by protecting your team from the noise (i.e. the shit umbrella) and contributing in a supporting role (the servant part). The hard / tiring thing is doing this consistently and repeatedly.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#106

Post by lesdeuxmagots » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:51 PM UTC

Gormo wrote: post #69

simonw wrote: post #50

My first few years as an engineering manager were heavily influenced by my idea that I needed to be a "shit umbrella" - I needed to protect my team from all of the shit raining down around the organization so they could focus on getting stuff done. I eventually realized that this is a terrible management philosophy! Your team would much rather understand what's going on, why things are happening and why certain proje…

There's a big difference between protecting a team from all the shit and hiding it from them completely. It's good to be a transparent shit umbrella. The team should absolutely have visibility into what's going on, and understand why certain decisions are being made, but a good manager does need to step in to avoid the shit hitting them directly.

Love the idea of the transparent shit umbrella.

Some people advocate keeping the team inside and telling them it's raining. But how far does that go? Are you keeping them in an underground bunker? Or is it a room with a window? A skyscraper with floor to ceiling windows surrounding them?

I'm of the mind that if it's possible, the team needs to be outside in the shit rain while protected by the shit umbrella. But they need to FEEL the weather, not just see it or vaguely know of it, but still protected enough to be able to get to where they need to go.

Of course, what if the shit storm is overwhelming and coming in sideways, or if it's flooding shit, so that even with protection, everyone is stuck in a quagmire? Well, obviously, don't actually let them go outside, but 1) the company has much bigger, likely existential problems it needs to deal with, and 2) the team REALLY needs to know.

Needless to say, this all applies more to decently high functioning organizations, but not to completely dysfunctional ones. When it's a nuclear winter outside, everyone is bought into the idea of staying in the bunker and just keeping calm and carrying on regardless of how bad it is outside. There's nowhere to go, you're there just to survive.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#107

Post by harrall » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:53 PM UTC

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…

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, you made this mistake. Do you want to try it a different way?”

People read how you are “supposed to do things” and feel good when they do it. If you switch to measuring your work by your result, you learn way faster and also get really good at things.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#108

Post by ryoshu » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:55 PM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #105

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…

>> but sometimes I need you to solve a specific problem for me, so I can keep solving all the other problems I already have on my plate. Managers definitely need to contribute and this is a great way to do so, and also build credibility with your team. You don't get the fun or deep technical problems; that's not your job, but you can fulfill whatever transparent leadership is (I think?) by protecting your team from t…

The reward is helping people hone their craft and grow in their careers. Being a shit shield sucks, but the trade-off is worth it.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#109

Post by skeeter2020 » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 6:58 PM UTC

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…

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 could learn... want me to connect you?" under-used by managers, super valuable but harder to scale & can be hit/miss.

What your ICs actually need a lot of the time: "solve this problem for me." Most managers can't do this, which is why they became managers. The good ones combine their own skills with 1-3 above to unblock and DON'T push it back on the requestor.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#110

Post by cj » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 7:00 PM UTC

jf22 wrote: post #66

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…

One of my worst job experiences was when I depended on a colleague who wouldn't deliver. Any feedback or conversations with that colleague mostly resulted in tantrums and empty promises. The lack of delivery severely harmed the services I provided to the company and to external users, ruined team morale, and was a huge source of stress. My boss always turned the problem back on me, despite him also being my colleague…

You're describing one end of an extreme.

The opposite extreme is you have someone on your team who is only able to resolve conflicts by having their boss intervene.

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 your boss comes to you to ask why you left the comments in the PR, instead of the author coming to you directly.

Obviously there are cases where it's appropriate for you and a coworker to address a problem directly with each other. And there are cases where it makes more sense for your boss to intervene.

The problem is the culture at some jobs gravitate towards either end of the extreme. The ideal is somewhere in the middle. A good manager will find that balance.