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

How to be a leader when the vibes are off

chaoticgood.management

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 206 posts

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#191

Post by lomase »

tomp wrote: post #150
mfru wrote: post #134

This reads like "How to follow orders and resignate". Only shows that companies are dictatorships where workers don't have a say

Dictatorships are far more efficient. That’s why military is a dictatorship. That’s why “design by committee” has such a bad rep. The only problem with dictatorships is that you can’t change them. Also countries shouldn’t fail, so an orderly “change of power” process is needed. But you can change companies, and companies can fail.

First time I have read in HN that waterfall is good for anything.

Have you ever worked in the military? I have and I don't think I have never seen a less efficient projects.

They do have very good reasons to do it that way. But my life is not in the hands of my coworkers, using the same tactics has no point.

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#192

Post by itsnowandnever »

darth_avocado wrote: post #108
itsnowandnever wrote: post #64

This blog was essentially my exact strategy over the last few turbulent years. I know it helped my people and I don't regret it. but, man, did it take a lot out of me. I've seen a quip out there before about the perfect recipe for burnout being the combination of high expectations with minimal empowerment to achieve those expectations. and this current market is burning leaders in this industry out like I haven't see…

I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting the blog, but this feels like it suggest you just fall in line with the upper management while providing lip service to the plebs. As an IC I’ve always despised managers who’d be a very sympathetic ear in 1:1s but always be “part of the system” when it mattered the most. Yes it’s always good to not get into public arguments with the upper management, but this gives off a lot of “pl…

what's missing from the blog is the fact that these decisions that are announced publicly are made a long time before they're announced publicly. so I would have already voiced my opposition (and presumably failed to sway leadership) and talked about it with my people long before the "be part of the system" moment.

if something ever came along where I was surprised and not informed ahead of time, I'd not loudly disagree publicly until I had more info and I'd tell my people as much. but that would be an exceptional circumstance and I'd probably feel I'm on the chopping block anyway since I was out of the loop.

so I don't play both sides but if you choose to stay employed at a place you're choosing to buy into the vision of leadership. if I wasn't bought in, I'd leave. if someone under me wasn't bought in, I'd support them and keep it between us but recommend they leave. because life is short and you'll regret working for people you detest. I get there's practical considerations because a job is a life decision but that's always why I'm careful about where I commit to work at and don't just aim for best salary or TC.

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#193

Post by scott_w »

darth_avocado wrote: post #185
scott_w wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is your expert advice? A manager runs their mouth off publicly, gets fired/made redundant, and gets replaced with a manager who does buy into the company line? What concrete differences in behaviour would you expect to see?

> Yes it’s always good to not get into public arguments with the upper management I already mentioned that running your mouth isn’t an option. Upward management is part of the job and “shut up and fall in line” isn’t upward management. Plenty of leaders manage to shield their teams from incompetent management and it is usually what is in the best interests of the company. And there’s nothing wrong with looking out fo…

You’ve not answered the question

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#194

Post by scott_w »

oytis wrote: post #190
scott_w wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of us aren't working for IBM building counting machines for the Nazis. We're talking about a situation where you think the company is making bad decisions, not one where you have an ideological disagreement. If a manager isn't able to function in this environment then, frankly, I'm not sure that person is cut out to be a leader or manager...

It's not about functioning it's about integrity. As a manager you represent the company, and you represent the decisions. If you are not able to do it sincerely, you either do what the author describes or you go somewhere that aligns with you better. Good ones often have lower tolerance to bullshit and actually have choice, so they go. Sometimes you don't have a choice indeed.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can only operate in an environment that you align with 100% of the time?

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#195

Post by oytis »

scott_w wrote: post #194
oytis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about functioning it's about integrity. As a manager you represent the company, and you represent the decisions. If you are not able to do it sincerely, you either do what the author describes or you go somewhere that aligns with you better. Good ones often have lower tolerance to bullshit and actually have choice, so they go. Sometimes you don't have a choice indeed.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can only operate in an environment that you align with 100% of the time?

I think that you should work with companies you align well with. It is good for your well-being, your self-respect and eventually your career, but also it's good for the company too. Not sure what you find so controversial here

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#196

Post by scott_w »

oytis wrote: post #195
scott_w wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can only operate in an environment that you align with 100% of the time?

I think that you should work with companies you align well with. It is good for your well-being, your self-respect and eventually your career, but also it's good for the company too. Not sure what you find so controversial here

> If you are not able to do it sincerely, you either do what the author describes or you go somewhere that aligns with you better.

This part. You seem under the impression that it’s impossible to do a good job unless you’re in total agreement with your management chain. That simply can’t happen 100% of the time, even in a job where you generally enjoy the work.

> It is good for your well-being, your self-respect

You seem to think one loses their self respect when they pick their battles and focus their energy on what they can control. I say that it’s better for your well being to not scream your life away into the void.

Look, there comes a time in every job where you need to move on because it’s not giving you what you want or need any more. I don’t judge that.

But part of management is knowing when you gotta suck it up, put on your big boy pants, and tell the team something you don’t agree with and that you need to make it work somehow. If you can’t handle that part of the job, then you’re really not cut out for management or leadership.

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#197

Post by phendrenad2 »

> Return to Office feels like trust has been broken. Teams that continued to work well (or in some cases, better) after everyone in the industry went remote are now being told to come back to desks in offices. I’ve even heard tales of this happening despite there not being enough office space for everyone, which seems very silly

I sometimes wonder what it feels like to work at a place like this. On the one hand, you're still employed, and that's saying a lot in the tech industry right now. But on the other hand, you must, deep down, know that your management are either (a) incompetent or (b) beholden to majority investors that are using the company as a pawn to prop up commercial real estate valuations. If you don't believe that the higher-ups have the company's best interest in mind, why bother working hard? In the words of Office Space, "you know Bob, that'll just make someone work just hard enough to not get fired".

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#198

Post by neilv »

jdefr89 wrote: post #53
neilv wrote: post #51

> The right thing to do in this situation is to acknowledge that you see the situation the same way they do, but do it privately, within your immediate team only or in 1-1s. "Yeah, this new policy sucks, [...] If you're a manager in a company that does sucky things, does (inevitably) being quoted saying a policy 'sucks' risk you losing your manager job there? I'm an OG techie, who ends up doing some manager-y things,…

Your employees won’t rat you out… Just don’t say “sucky” to those above you. If I have a cool ass manager who looks out for me and is real (I’m lucky enough to be at a MIT lab where everyone is cool as hell), I will always have their back…

Oh, MIT LL (from your HN bio) seems to be all about top serious engineering and science R&D.

Would you say it's probably a pretty different cultural environment than the established company and tech startup environments that most of HN works in?

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#199

Post by atoav »

scott_w wrote: post #181
atoav wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good manager gets in a fight with their superior(s) if their superior happens to be wrong. A bad manager will avoid conflict with their superior, nod too unrealistic demands and then badmouth the superior with their team. A catastrophic manager will actively push unrealistic plans towards their superior. For me the main difference between a good and a bad manager is that the good manager is interested in delivering…

> A good manager gets in a fight with their superior(s) if their superior happens to be wrong. A bad manager will avoid conflict with their superior, nod too unrealistic demands and then badmouth the superior with their team. A catastrophic manager will actively push unrealistic plans towards their superior. You've put forward a false dichotomy between punching my manager in the face and nodding along silently to eve…

> You've put forward a false dichotomy between punching my manager in the face and nodding along silently to everything I'm told. Frankly, both will get me fired pretty quickly.

No I did not. I characterized a certain type of person by how they would act at the extremes. Naturally most day to day decisions are not taking part at those extremes. Also these being a false dichotomy would mean you can somehow both nod along and tell them they are wrong at the same time. Nodding along implies you are not telling them they are wrong, which means they are mutally exclusive types of behavior, or: a dichtomy.

If I read you favourably you probably thought I meant people literally just have those two extreme options, while obviously there are many shades inbetween. But I did not claim there were no such shades.

Why did you turn what I said into "punch them in the face"? Because my original statement wasn't that easy to attack?

> It's his job to override me and say "I hear your concerns. Do it anyway."

Contrary to your perception everything I said is in perfect alignment with this statement. I didn't even talk about outcomes, only about behaviors and only behaviours by the manager.

If a superior asks a manager if a thing can be done in two days although the manager knows their team can at best do it in six, assuming your superior wants to know the truth and telling them: "the fastest we ever did this was six days and that was already problematic" isn't what you called punching them in the face it is simply a statement of fact. If the manager is good they then add a: "We can try to do it in 5, if Greg and Linda from Design are 100% on the project and my team is lifted from all other day to day responsibilities for that duration. Afterwards they probably need a day off."

The superior obviously has many options to go forward, but this is offering a realistic step towards their direction, states what is needed to make it possible and gives a realistic feeling about how possible it is. But what if the manager had not said the truth but (trying to please the superior) promised impossible things? That way the superiors choice suddenly involves more risk than they might be aware of. And bad managers consistently choose the latter as they are more concerned with their appearance than with the result of the work.

Re: How to be a leader when the vibes are off

#200

Post by atoav »

hluska wrote: post #171
atoav wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good manager gets in a fight with their superior(s) if their superior happens to be wrong. A bad manager will avoid conflict with their superior, nod too unrealistic demands and then badmouth the superior with their team. A catastrophic manager will actively push unrealistic plans towards their superior. For me the main difference between a good and a bad manager is that the good manager is interested in delivering…

People get fired doing this. If you’re in a position where you can be fired maybe that’s okay. But you have no way of knowing what your team is getting next. They can all be next out the door if you play this hand wrong. The writer did a very poor job of explaining how to do this. I question how much experience they have writing. But actual diplomacy is necessary in systems like this.

Of course diplomacy is key. But even if you're talking to a CEO there is value in being diplomatically truthful.

Even a CEO can't bend physics for example. If they want you to make you transmit information between two sites faster then the limit is still light speed no matter who asks or how great your team is. Other situations are often a bit more flexible, e.g. how long a team will take to do a thing, but also not infinitely flexible. If you know at the best time it took your team 5 days to do a thing, but usually it takes 8, then promising your CEO to do it 2 is both ridiculous and a lie. Telling them that the best you ever did when all the stars aligned was 5 days, and then telling them how the company could help to make the stars align even better is probably the better route.

Post reply on HN