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

Managing People

klinger.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Managing People

#91

Post by starky »

makach wrote: post #24

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…

I disagree with the idea that you should avoid hire/fire. Yeah they aren't happy words, but I'm far more annoyed by people who mince words and don't convey their point succinctly and clearly. At one point in the article the author uses the word "discontinue" as a synonym for firing someone, it took me far too long to confirm that firing is what he meant. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be tactful, but it is far more insulting to take someone into a room and tell them they are being "off-boarded".

Re: Managing People

#92

Post by cdaven »

TameAntelope wrote: post #31

Maybe it’s just the mood I’m in, but I found this list/notes style basically impossible to parse. Why are any of these things true? Credentials alone are not going to get me to blindly accept any of this; maybe some reasoning would help, a few anecdotes, conversations with other experts (or at least quotes) so I can relate this content to other content and start to fit this info in with everything else I already know…

> Why are any of these things true?

Since you challenge the post here instead of flat-out ignoring it, I believe you think at least some of it may be true, and you want to know more.

To me, the bullet points read as titles in a Zettelkasten or personal wiki, or maybe chapter headlines in a book.

I'm conviced that there's depth to these points, and the author could write a lot more about everything. (Please do!)

Even though the article seems very superficial, I took away at least four points in my personal notes, for further reflection and whatnot:

* Trust through transparency

* Processes are expectations made explicit

* Make true what is real

* people x context = output

YMMV.

Re: Managing People

#93

Post by jillesvangurp »

exceptione wrote: post #83
jillesvangurp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've fired some people in an EU setting; and have also been let go myself (layoff round, I never took it personally). It's true that countries outside the US have more legal checks and balances around this topic. But it's not true that it's impossible to fire people. Basically, those checks and balances are mostly for good reasons. And I've noticed that better employers in the US tend to use them as well even if they…

> This usually happens after you've created plenty of opportunities for the person to improve. Often that just doesn't happen Doesn´t that mean you the employer failed too? It could be that someone is really not well fit for the role, but it could also be that the employer has no clue how to lead someone to success. As you say > I'm often pleasantly surprised to see that people moved on and improved themselves This i…

That's a very one sided view. It assumes the employee always means well and is super motivated to adapt and change. Or even capable of changing. When all that stops being true, it's usually quite obvious. The mistake is allowing such a situation to continue to exist and not intervening. Every dysfunctional team you've ever been on, that's what happened.

As a manager/supervisor/mentor, I've coached more than a few people to success to know that I'm actually objectively good at this. Quite a few people I've worked with have gone on to be extremely successful in what they do. And I like to think I helped them on that path a little. But there are exceptions to this where indeed I failed to get people off their ass and improve themselves. A handful of those situations escalated to the point where letting them go was the next logical step. Some people are just fundamentally hard to coach or even open to being coached.

Re: Managing People

#95

Post by exceptione »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #93
exceptione wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This usually happens after you've created plenty of opportunities for the person to improve. Often that just doesn't happen Doesn´t that mean you the employer failed too? It could be that someone is really not well fit for the role, but it could also be that the employer has no clue how to lead someone to success. As you say > I'm often pleasantly surprised to see that people moved on and improved themselves This i…

That's a very one sided view. It assumes the employee always means well and is super motivated to adapt and change. Or even capable of changing. When all that stops being true, it's usually quite obvious. The mistake is allowing such a situation to continue to exist and not intervening. Every dysfunctional team you've ever been on, that's what happened. As a manager/supervisor/mentor, I've coached more than a few peo…

> It assumes the employee always means well and is super motivated to adapt and change. Or even capable of changing. When all that stops being true, it's usually quite obvious. The mistake is allowing such a situation to continue to exist and not intervening. > As a manager/supervisor/mentor, I've coached more than a few people to success to know that I'm actually objectively good at this.

Ok fair enough, that is a vital addition you made.

What I have observed is the pattern of "she doesn't function" => "she needs to improve" => "she needs to let go". If you do provide coaching to a motivated person, I believe success is the most likely outcome.

Re: Managing People

#96

Post by itsdrewmiller »

kqr wrote: post #23

> And you got more information than they do, always 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 thi…

If they have information that would help make a good decision, you can ask them. It's not so easy for them to ask your bosses for the same. If they have information that would have been helpful and didn't share it, who screwed up in hiring and/or training them?

Re: Managing People

#97

Post by cutemonster »

nuggien wrote: post #78
afdsasdfe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because no decent human being would say: "I want to treat my staff like crap". Go not by what they say but what they do, and I've known plenty who have treated their staff like utter crap, from screaming abuse at them to ignoring them to undervaluing them to psychological bullying and more. I guess all your workplaces must be like heaven compared to what I've seen. I don't understand where you're coming from. To me…

It's not useful because it provides empty universally accepted statements (i.e. you don't have to actually have any managerial experience to come up with this list) with no examples of what each means in the context of a relationship with a direct report.

> It's not useful

It was useful to me. And the statements are not empty, not to me at least.

(I'm yet another person, I mean, not GP.)

Re: Managing People

#98

Post by wppick »

starky wrote: post #89
wppick wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of the "managing processes" part could be delegated to software tools? How many of these processes could be automated, or "managed" by some sort of workflow software. Would it be possible with the right software product to essentially distribute the role of manager across the team/company?

The problem is that a lot of processes still leave a lot to interpretation, or many scenarios have grey areas on how to apply a process. The author mentions it a few sections later, you don't want the processes to have a ton of overhead, rather make it clear the expectations on how to interpret the situation or know they should come to the manager to provide direction.

Yes, but some processes ARE well defined, and you want to ensure the steps of it are all met correctly each time. This could be similar to the checklists airplane pilots use, or surgeons as extreme examples.
Post reply on HN