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

191–200 of 258 posts

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#191

Post by jjk166 »

ErrantX wrote: post #171
jjk166 wrote: 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…

If a manager is handling (almost) all disputes of all sorts, then they will fundamentally lack authority to enforce an outcome on a real dispute. They simply are too involved because resolution requires you to take some sort of side. If my children won't speak to each other I will refuse to be the go between because I become a proxy for one to the other. If one then punches the other they won't respect my perspective…

> If a manager is handling (almost) all disputes of all sorts, then they will fundamentally lack authority to enforce an outcome on a real dispute. They simply are too involved because resolution requires you to take some sort of side.

Bullshit. Being a routine mediator makes you a better mediator when big things come up, not a worse one. It means you are in tune with the particular needs and idiosyncrasies of the people involved, and assuming you are any good at it, it means you have the trust of all parties to mediate fairly.

> If my children won't speak to each other I will refuse to be the go between because I become a proxy for one to the other.

First of all, managing adults and parenting children are two radically different things. Second, being a go between is not handling a dispute, if anything it facilitates the dispute. Kids can't agree on whose turn it is to play with a toy? Toy gets taken away with the understanding they'll get it back when they agree to a system - that's conflict resolution.

> If one then punches the other they won't respect my perspective that this was wrong because I've set myself up as the proxy for the others feelings.

What?

> If you need a manger to resolve the above example, the org is broken and the engineers are poor engineers.

The fact there is this conflict to resolve is evidence that the org is broken and the engineers are poor engineers, but given that there is a conflict, the manager should be the one resolving it, because, again, that is their job.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#192

Post by reverius42 »

harrall wrote: post #185
zenoprax wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Choosing to park my car correctly because I used get tickets is a reactive action.

How do you explain someone who chooses to park correctly and has never received a parking ticket?

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#193

Post by jjk166 »

geoffbp wrote: post #140
jjk166 wrote: post #130

Comparing leadership to parenting right out the gate tells me all I need to know about this person's management ability. Your direct reports are not children. You are not raising them out of an altruistic drive to guide the next generation. You are a part of a team of grown adults. You are not above the team, you have a roll on the team. It is an important roll: as a leader you provide high level direction so people…

Role* Sorry

Thanks

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#194

Post by lewo »

In the same kind of spirit, when i was the tech team manager in a company without any transparent salary policy, i've been practicing what i've been called the "symmetrical salary management": when I knew the salary of a managed team colleague, i told him/her my salary. I also asked to keep my salary private, as I kept their salaries private.

I think this is a pretty important requirement to build trust in a team.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#195

Post by mattm »

esafak wrote: post #35
didip wrote: post #22

Can’t wait for AI Slack plugins to replace all low tier middle managers. You can achieve so much transparency since the data is already out there anyway. There has to be a better way to organize how ICs communicate. More productivity to unlock.

That's not going to fix the social problems. What happens when your team needs something from another team?

Your AI agent asks their AI agent

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#196

Post by harrall »

reverius42 wrote: post #192
harrall wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Choosing to park my car correctly because I used get tickets is a reactive action. How do you explain someone who chooses to park correctly and has never received a parking ticket?

Why do I need to? I didn’t propose some framework to analyze people who are perfect.

This thread chain is about people who do something and it doesn’t work out.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#197

Post by [deleted] »

Royce-CMR wrote: post #189
bruce511 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disappo…

[deleted]

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#198

Post by harrall »

gretch wrote: post #138
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've put into excellent words what I have done my whole life. Intent matters but it isn't sufficient. If you "meant to be on time" but weren't, you failed. Simple as. You don't need to lash yourself about it but too many folk are ready to give themselves a pat on the back for good intentions, or trying but failing, etc. If you say you're gonna be somewhere, show the fuck up. Anything short is a miss. Failing to acc…

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 going to draw next.

However I am very outcome-oriented about engineering. I enjoy it but nowhere as much as drawing. If something I built has problems, I keep that in mind for the next system. I pick up new things for the sole purpose of being up to date.

But in either way, I won’t repeat something again that never seems to work. That’s the same whether I’m being process-oriented or outcome-oriented.

Re: Transparent leadership beats servant leadership

#199

Post by z3t4 »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #111
BobaFloutist wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also makes for a poor metaphor, because coaches in sports are supposed to be absolute experts in absolutely everything about the sport without the physical ability to implement it. Imagine if a football player told their coach "I'm not sure how to deal with this specific opponent's strategy" and the coach was like "Well have you tried thinking about it more?"

there are lots of sports coaches that were not good players, but they are absolute experts in their sport. For some reason we've let agile/life coaches convince us that "management" is the event and someone with customer service management experience has a lot to say about software development management. Ted Lasso is a great show, but it's not gonna happen IRL. Though the Diamond Dogs would be a great peer group for…

They might suck at the sport, but then they think about it and learn why they suck, then they can be a good coach, compared to someone who is very good and thinks the reason is because they're smarter, rather then being on the right place on the right time, with the best genes.
Post reply on HN