21–30 of 98 posts
So many managers get this wrong that just fixing this one thing probably gets most startups 60% of the way there.
The author mentions firing people in almost every point. Is firing people in the US so easy that it is a go-to solution to solve these problems?
This sounds like a dangerous thing to think. If the rest of my team does not have more information than me, I have failed to convey the important things I know.
My team, on the other hand, has lots of information from the trenches that I might lack.
> In every discussion/project/problem/situation, it needs to be clear who makes decisions
While I understand where this is going, I disagree with the literal translation. Ideally, in a well-run democracy, people will come to reasonable agreement on the next step forward without one single person having to make a decision.
Only when the democratic process of discussion and negotiation fails does a person have to step in and make a decision. ...or at least force the discussion onto the relevant subjects.
allocate/re-allocate
assign/reassign
delegate/replace
on-boarded/off-boarded
hired/let go
*edit, I'm European and rules are a little different here, firing someone is very hard to do. When you get fired it is usually because of something very serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's also a favourite ploy of sociopathic but useless individual contributors, find someone to do your work for you, then repackage it as your own! It seems like that could only work once or so per individual, unless there's some other kind of power dynamic in play. I know I wouldn't be put in that situation where someone takes credit for work I did more than once.
Nobody would let it happen if they knew what was going on. And generally the types of people who get up to it don't go broadcasting it around. Two particular examples stick in my mind. One was a serial desk dropper who would get snippets of information from everyone individually, then package it up as their own to report to a boss. The second was an IT consultant, working for a major consulting firm, who would lean o…
This article should be obligatory reading material for everyone. Considering how it focuses on empathy and leadership I find it a little odd that they use the terminology "hire/fire" which in my opinion is hostile/negative loaded words. Imo it would be better to use something like allocate/re-allocate assign/reassign delegate/replace on-boarded/off-boarded hired/let go words have meaning and should be used carefully…
He makes it sound as if you can just fire people at will.
Presumably he is US-based, in which case you can. I did find the verbiage of "discontinuing" people rather unsettling, but otherwise it's a thoughtful piece that resonated with my experience.
This is a low quality solution for ownership and only works for some types, leads to burnout in others. It also contradicts one of the good points in the article: "Burnout comes from a felt loss of control and/or impact". You cannot expect from yourself to be able to correct processes for everything.
In my experience, better solution is (when it is possible) to have shared ownership. This is possibly an even bigger topic than burnout though and deserves its own discussion.
This article should be obligatory reading material for everyone. Considering how it focuses on empathy and leadership I find it a little odd that they use the terminology "hire/fire" which in my opinion is hostile/negative loaded words. Imo it would be better to use something like allocate/re-allocate assign/reassign delegate/replace on-boarded/off-boarded hired/let go words have meaning and should be used carefully…
Words have meaning so people feel better about being offboarded instead of fired.
If you get offboarded, or let-go, then it is different. You haven't done anything bad that could potentially block your future; there is a better narrative for you to use when looking for new employment.
I identify with much in this blog post. One novelty argument: Managing is hard because it embodies the dialectic between capital and workers. Therefore a deep understanding of the Marxist critique (and exposé) of capital will help provide an analytical framing around what an effective manager needs to do. You can approach it from other lenses but they all break down due to the two polar forces most strongly at play.…
How do you feel about labor unions in tech or corporate environments? The labor move seems to have its roots in Marxism.