i clicked thinking he was mocking this! I hate it so much. no, dude, not everyone can be a leader. no we're not all "leaders"?!?!? come on. this is such a dilution. it screams refusal to take responsibility for anything. diversifying responsibility so that no one is held accountable. Or a massive lack of understanding why and how naturally humans organize using a hierarchical structure. This is a cowardly way of mana…
Read the book. Then if you want go check the sources. See if this nuclear submarine captain is lying or telling the truth.
It's not a framework, and it requires no diagram. It's just trusting and empowering people to do the job, then getting out of their way. People tend to rise to your level of trust. I wrote about this, because after a long career I've come to see that most people have no idea what leadership is, or how it works: https://thinkhuman.com/the-leader-ship/
This approach is great for peacetime and for when the team is already reasonably functional and performing. The really hard leadership problems occur during wartime (the business is in crisis, or shrinking, or responding to a serious competitive threat, or must aggressively cut costs, or must integrate an acquisition, or...) or when the team you have is routinely underperforming at scale. These two situations require…
Wartime is exactly when centralized control breaks down the hardest, because conditions start changing incredibly fast and communication breaks down. There's a reason the phrase is "fog of war" and not "fog of peace"!
This approach is great for peacetime and for when the team is already reasonably functional and performing. The really hard leadership problems occur during wartime (the business is in crisis, or shrinking, or responding to a serious competitive threat, or must aggressively cut costs, or must integrate an acquisition, or...) or when the team you have is routinely underperforming at scale. These two situations require…
Wartime is exactly when centralized control breaks down the hardest , because conditions start changing incredibly fast and communication breaks down. There's a reason the phrase is "fog of war" and not "fog of peace"!
In management, what it means is having to repeatedly make decisions that are in the best interest of the company, but not necessarily in the best interest of the people on your team. This could mean needing to fire people, conduct layoffs, merge teams together and remove redundancies, strip a manager of their direct reports or reduce their scope, replace a leader, drive a major re-org that changes people's jobs in ways they may not like, shut down an entire project or team that isn't succeeding even though it's very popular or well-liked in the organization, own a technical decision that hurts one or two teams but helps the overall organization enough to offset it, etc.
It's not a framework, and it requires no diagram. It's just trusting and empowering people to do the job, then getting out of their way. People tend to rise to your level of trust. I wrote about this, because after a long career I've come to see that most people have no idea what leadership is, or how it works: https://thinkhuman.com/the-leader-ship/
This approach is great for peacetime and for when the team is already reasonably functional and performing. The really hard leadership problems occur during wartime (the business is in crisis, or shrinking, or responding to a serious competitive threat, or must aggressively cut costs, or must integrate an acquisition, or...) or when the team you have is routinely underperforming at scale. These two situations require…
Yeah I get this. And it goes both ways too, I find that I am a much better wartime employee than peacetime.
We're the employees taking advantage of that trust? Seems a strange thing to mandate unless that trust has been severely broken.
Still the wrong response. Discipline the people abusing your trust. Part of being a good manager is knowing when to step in and have a private conversation with people before things get too bad. If the bad behavior continues then you follow the process of formal write up’s and eventually termination. Collective punishment is the sign of a manager who doesn’t know what they are doing and will kill a team.
No argument there, id eject from any company that even started to consider such measures (unless they're adding a few zeroes to my paycheck)
> Leader: "What do you think I'm wondering right now?" (This was D. Marquet's default question)
> Leader: "Exactly. Convince me it's the right move."
> Leader: "Is it the right thing to do?"
I think the general approach is the right one - but I can say, I personally find it extremely annoying if superiors talk like this. For me it comes across as wanting to play mind games or leaving me with an unclear state of responsibility.
By all means, give me more autonomy to choose tasks to work on and also expect a good justification from me. But at the end, I'd like at least clear feedback if my proposal was accepted and we should be moving in that direction (and I should be getting to work) or not.
It's not a framework, and it requires no diagram. It's just trusting and empowering people to do the job, then getting out of their way. People tend to rise to your level of trust. I wrote about this, because after a long career I've come to see that most people have no idea what leadership is, or how it works: https://thinkhuman.com/the-leader-ship/
Sort of true. But then I've worked with people who seem totally unfazed when they mess up through utter carelessness, and for reasons, won't be replaced. Or people who asked to move a button set off redesigning the template engine to be more functional, time after time.
You could say, and I wouldn't disagree, those people shouldn't be on the team. But equally it's often not that easy. Also good people are hard to find and the mediocre one might be the best you have.
It strikes me that the Google statistical results might be getting the wrong end of the stick. The teams where the leader is hands off and empowering are full of people who can be trusted which is basically the same as them doing the job themselves. The teams where the leader feels the urge to descend to micromanagement are the ones where people don't get things done.
It's not a framework, and it requires no diagram. It's just trusting and empowering people to do the job, then getting out of their way. People tend to rise to your level of trust. I wrote about this, because after a long career I've come to see that most people have no idea what leadership is, or how it works: https://thinkhuman.com/the-leader-ship/
> People tend to rise to your level of trust.
Yes, this, precisely.
Most people want to be trusted and given autonomy, and they want to live up to your expectations.
There will always be a few who are looking for ways to cheat the system, but they are the exception, not the rule—and the earlier in life you can get to them with a policy of trust and lifting them up, rather than suspicion and tearing them down, the more likely they will be to turn out well.