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

161–170 of 258 posts

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#161

Post by xkcd-sucks »

SoftTalker wrote: post #79
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…

For me the worst of this is organizations where employees have to write their own performance reviews. Eff that. You're the boss, you tell me how I'm doing. If there's one thing a manager should be accountable for it is the development and evaluation of the people the manager is responsible for.

No - Performance reviews are important legally, it's the only company IP you're entitled to take with you when you leave etc, so this is where you can have evidence of specific projects etc.

Also - If you write the PR you want to get and give to your manager, the burden of effort falls on the manager to correct it where they disagree. If your manager writes it, the burden of effort falls on the manager to comprehensively justify your value as a matter of record. It is better the former be halfassed than the latter

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#162

Post by iisan7 »

I appreciated the parallels in this idea to the concept of wu wei (無為), or achieving by doing nothing. The idea appears in writing attributed to Confucius and Lao Zi, that regarding political leadership, the best leaders can order their group or society even simply by the strong example that they set and correct judgments that they execute. This isn't meant to be carried to its extreme of course, a leader doesn't do nothing all day, and may indeed pitch in to work, but they should be making time to think and reflect. I read it as an ideal (you know when things are good when you can do nothing), not as an instruction (do nothing).

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#163

Post by stavros »

zawaideh wrote: post #68
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…

The metaphor I prefer is to be a transparent shit umbrella.

An opaque umbrella doesn't hide the rain, it just keeps it from falling on you.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#164

Post by citizenpaul »

hyperhello wrote: post #152
pyrolistical wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell the manager you are assuming their authority. You will force the answer out of them either way

This is really how it’s done. Don’t go over their head; go under their boss’s.

I'm not sure you understand just how dedicated they were to this whole turn it back on the employee method they were apparently using. I just skimmed the summary on the book after reading this comment. Its a toxic method of avoiding accountability masquerading as "mgmt"

You can't do whatever you describe if it needs sign off by a manager that simply ghosts on everything you try to send their way. You can assume responsibility but I'm not committing fraud for a company that does not care.

Also what you said means that you are now officially responsible for the mistakes which I'm pretty sure is what this whole "method" is about.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#165

Post by denkmoon »

jvanderbot wrote: post #136
skeeter2020 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

In my experience people mostly become managers because that's the next step to more money and there is no other next step to more money. Nothing more nothing less. They certainly don't have a sophisticated philosophy on management and being the best manager they can be.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#166

Post by danfunk »

All these comments are from the standpoint of being managed, with a derogatory view of someone who would stoop so low as to take a management role. I liked the article. Managing people is ass hard. Doing so is a way to make peoples working lives better, anf to tackle problems larger than a single person can accomplish. Thinking about how to do it better is good thing. It takes courage.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#167

Post by zeroq »

dugmartin wrote: post #20
zeroq wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Servant leadership" is not a buzzword but it's been misused and abused by Big Corporations to the point that it basically lost its meaning [1]. For me - personally - the idea is about being less of a boss and more of a nightwatchman or janitor. I believe in agency and ownership and - in sane environment - people can be left alone with clear objectives. It's more about removing obstacles. I'll give you a simple examp…

I forgot where I read it (Steve McConnell?) but the best analogy I've heard for a boss/project leader is to think of your job is moving a house and the bosses job is to be a few streets ahead taking down telephone pole wires so you aren't slowed down.

This.

Or, to give a counter example:

    The fantastic element that explains the appeal of games to many developers is neither the fire-breathing monsters nor the milky-skinned, semi-clad sirens; it is the experience of carrying out a task from start to finish without any change in the user requirements.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#168

Post by CodeMage »

moogleii wrote: post #123
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…

It isn't the best written piece, but your snippet feels taken grossly out of context. The rest of it: "A common response is to invent new work, ask for status reports, and add bureaucracy. A better response is to go back to working on technical problems. This keeps the manager’s skills fresh and gets them more respect from their reports. The manager should turn into a high-powered spare worker, rather than a paperssh…

First, let me make one thing clear: my comment was in no way meant to be a substitute for reading the post. I was not writing some kind of a review for people to decide whether they should read the post, or presenting a summary. I was commenting on what I disliked about it and everyone should read the post to form their own opinions.

That said, I disagree with you about the context. Yes, what you quoted is the immediate context, but I think the bigger context -- the one I described in the rest of my comment -- is the more important one.

Managers are welcome to try to integrate IC activities into their job. In fact, I wish more of them did it, so I didn't have to deal with managers who equate coding to "typing" and can't wait for the AI to replace those of us who have spent years honing that particular skill.

But the IC work should not come at the cost of doing what the manager is supposed to do in the first place: provide a higher level of integration and problem solving for their ICs. By "higher", I mean in the hierarchical sense. A manager is higher on the ladder than I am, and that means they should be able to see a wider perspective and help me integrate it into my work. And their manager should do that for them, so that they can pass it on to me, etc.

The author doesn't want to be a "paper-shuffler"? Guess what, that's one of the most important aspects of their job and, incidentally, one of the reasons why I didn't pick management as my career.

I can relate to the feeling of frustration one occasionally gets when a core aspect of one's job becomes unpleasant, but that's no excuse for straw man arguments.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#169

Post by zenoprax »

harrall wrote: post #107
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…

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 would be much higher

2. that it's a numbers game: sometimes you lose despite making the right decision

I don't really understand your examples in the context of decision making - they feel more like execution lapses than strategic choices.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#170

Post by ErrantX »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #158
jvanderbot wrote: post #136

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.

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 who also lack the ability to be a manager.

Post reply on HN