I recently found out about https://blog.sbensu.com/posts/lieutenants/ & was curious what are your favorite articles on management or generally managing people?
15 years ago, RandsInRepose.com wrote a lot of interesting blog posts on management, and then turned them into books: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/
i wish one day i have such a Manager.. before i'm dead anyway (~40y making sw.. still some more to go). i am under "CTO"-label now but that does not make any difference..
Not an article, but I do frequently recommend the following:
Multipliers - an excellent book on how to avoid becoming a stereotypical bad boss. Chapters are easy to read independently and have great summaries at the end.
Crucial Conversations - good for both professional and personal conversations. Learn how to have a difficult conversation without burning down the relationship.
Finally, look up SOON (acronym) for when someone you manage comes to you seeking guidance.
SOON is new to me. I think it stands for “Success, Obstacles, Options, and Next steps”. Which is a decent list of things to zoom in on when people are working on things for you.
Just a meta-comment - if you're new to all this, it's good to know that management != leadership. If you're starting out, you'll want to learn both, and you'll need both.
^ THIS. Where I’ve worked, there has been a severe degradation over time of actual leaders, and an increase in managers who have no clue how to lead or inspire.
One thing I have oriented myself to doing is being a servant leader. As I told one team I led, “I’m your bitch. Tell me where your rocks are and I’ll move them out of the way so you can get your work done.” And then I do exactly that. I’ve had to work miracles sometimes but I can usually clear the path.
I detest micro management in every conceivable way, but I do believe in accountability and ensuring the work is done on time by the team with no surprises. This has worked well for me.
> Will your next workplace value all the effort you spent that way?
I'd hope so - as it's reasonable to assume that a next role for someone already managing/leading would involve more management/leadership. So yes, skills/achievements/examples in that area should be valued.
> Are the servant tasks even what you want to spend your time with?
It's probably not for everyone; but if someone doesn't want to perform the tasks that (many would say) are necessary to be a good manager/leader, maybe they shouldn't be in a manager/leader position in the first place?
This is a strange comment. Everyone in a corporate structure is a servant. How you advance is by demonstrating that you are helping solve the problems deemed important by your chain of command. Theoretically this should be aligned from top to bottom; in practice competing priorities, communication overhead, and incompetence in the wrong places can greatly distort things. This reality leads a lot of folks into learned helplessness, and social climbers gaming the chaos to gain power they are not equipped to handle.
The mentality "what's in it for me" is toxic and shows one is not ready for higher level management in a large org where cooperation is necessary to do anything interesting. Better questions are "is my team working on the right thing?", "does my team have the right skills to deliver on that thing?", "what relationships do we need to succeed?", and last but definitely not least "is my manager competent enough to provide the support I need for my team to be successful?". The last question is the key one: you won't grow if you are reporting to a muppet.
Thanks for your measured response. You're right that it's not inherently toxic to think of yourself. The reason I reacted that way is because that mentality (whether explicit or not) is what leads to operating in a very transactional way or empire-building fashion that works against good outcomes in the long-term.
I honestly don't think being too selfless is an adequate explanation for career stagnation though. Selfless behavior will generally help you get ahead in life and in your career, because good relationships matter a lot. However you won't get promoted just because you help everyone. What if you are just servicing the squeaky wheels rather than solving the biggest problem on your plate? A good manager will only look to promote you because you have demonstrated you are capable of solving larger problems. There are other things too: like the business actually has the need for a higher level role. If that's the case, then your behavior is irrelevant—you just need to leave to someplace that does have the growth opportunity.
Overall the reason I said your comment was strange is because it clearly comes from some personal experience you had, but it lacks enough context to be actionable to anyone who reads it. I can think of a dozen different ways I've seen a "servant leader" mentality succeed or fail, but it all depends very much on context. Ultimately if you want to succeed you need to understand what game is being played and not fallback to abstract platitudes.
Yeah maybe management path was not for me, but after a while I couldn't shake the feeling of having "santas little helper" on my business card. When the people I managed were the people that were valued in the organization, and having all the job opportunities. (I am out of that now after cleaning my CV with a few years of IC and managing a smaller team)
But of course YMMV and all that. I am not saying don't, I am saying do - think about it first.
At the risk of sounding glib, in "startup world" (the sector of the tech industry characterized mostly by companies between 100-1000 people large) there are two career tracks:
(1) The track you get on by demonstrating viability in roles of escalating seniority, such as by leaving a Sr. Manager job for a Director job.
(2) The track you get on by having an easily observable or articulable track record of getting important (or at least interesting) things done.
Ruthlessly working "track 1" may rule out "serving" a team (and at the same time rationalizing that by avoiding that "trap" you're "serving" the broader company mission), but that mindset practically rules out progression on "track 2".
>As I told one team I led, “I’m your bitch. Tell me where your rocks are and I’ll move them out of the way so you can get your work done.”
Great mindset and thoughts, but I hope this isn't what you actually said. I'd also like to point out serving someone or some thing doesn't make you a bitch.
If this is your whole mindset, in what sense are you a leader? The person who moves rocks out of the way of the path for the army to march on generally isn't the leader; the leader is the guy (it's always a guy) telling people which rocks to move.
I'm not dunking on you; maybe you aren't a servant-leader, but rather just a servant. That's a great way to be: a servant of "the mission" (replace with whatever term keeps the contents of your stomach down).
In corporate rhetoric, all management is becoming leadership. Turning from the concrete X, Y, and Z of managing to the abstract ball of feels that is “leadership”.
Not everyone can be effective at both. I learned that I can be a great leader, but I do not have the patience required to manage people. I have had managers that were terrible leaders. Definitely different skills, and you need both to climb the ladder into the C-suite.
You definitively don’t need either to make it to C-suite. To get there you need political skills. To be effective there you absolutely need both though.
Leadership is a seductive concept, but in the main, leadership = management - work. In a healthy engineering culture, a management goal should be enabling the maximum number of people to exercise their own leadership. Even the newfangled concept of "servant leadership" is premised on a separation of agency between those who "serve/lead" and those who "are served/led".
Effective management --- do not groan before I finish this sentence --- tends to look a lot more like adminship on Wikipedia than it does, like, war leadership. It's about picking up a mop and a bucket and making the way clear for people to do their best work. And, in our field, doing one's best work often means making and communicating big decisions, which is what leadership is.
There's also a distinction between the kind of leadership the whole company needs --- hard decisions about where to allocate resources and what bets to make --- and the day-to-day "leadership" involved in getting things done as a team. I term I hear a lot is "vibes based management", which is a recognition that somebody (probably not engineering management!) is making these kinds of decisions and communicating them just well enough for line engineers to make good choices.
If you're looking for management advice because you're running a whole company, that kind of leadership is in scope! But if you're looking to learn how to be a good engineering manager, I'm not sure how much "leadership" has to do with doing a good job.
> But if you're looking to learn how to be a good engineering manager, I'm not sure how much "leadership" has to do with doing a good job.
Your whole comment is spot on, but I think there's a trap here. Yes, an EM should be empowering as many IC leaders as possible, but that can't be done if the EM does not recognize true leadership. While it's theoretically possible to succeed as a manager leveraging others without having your own true tech lead chops, the majority of managers like this end up either putting too much trust in the wrong ICs or (worse) devolve into cover-your-ass "agile" process bullshit.
Leading in this context is a euphemism for management. That faux-egalitarian “could you X” (bonus points for upspeak).[1]
For some reason it grinds my gears when people in formal positions of authority insist on talking about being a leader instead of a boss.
[1] I’m all for pleasantries and being nice even though there really is no choice (ask/order). Don’t get me wrong. But not to the point where either party starts getting delusional about what’s going on.
Out of curiosity, why are you looking for "articles" as opposed to more generally "resources"?
The reason I say this is that articles are usually 800-3,000 words, with a median around 1,200 words. I'd ask if you can really gain much depth or promote deep change in yourself based on a bunch of short pieces?
Meanwhile there are numerous private courses, conferences, research papers, and books that dive into these topics in much more greater depth which is likely to have a more lasting impact on your life.
I'd venture a guess that you want articles because they are easier and faster to read. They don't require much time or effort to go through and you can get a few quick hits of dopamine that make you artificially feel like you impacted your career. Leadership isn't something you're going to be able to learn with a couple listacles and blog posts. It's going to take a lot more time and dedication to get good at.
As others have mentioned. Management is easy. Leadership is hard.
I really like the work of Gervaise Bushe and his book “clear leadership”.
He makes the argument that by putting a lot of effort in understanding your own and other peoples viewpoint you are able to build good relationship.
But what I believe sets his work apart from others is his psychological view on why it’s sometimes hard for people to listen to each other. He dissects which anxieties drives our behavior to listen or not to listen etc. without coming of as a know it all.
Probably not for everyone because of the psych framing. But if that speaks to you, give it a try.
Peopleware doesn’t get the love it deserves these days. I mentioned tom demarco to my vp of eng at former gig and they clearly didn’t know wtf i was talking about…
When i was picking up some team lead responsibilities for the first time, it was the first book suggested by my then mentor who was an experienced manager.
Simply to add to this, I found Peopleware useful even in an IC position. It helped me navigate the intrigue that arises in an office, and understand the pressures experienced by my managers.
IDK, I read some reviews about this book and it seemed to be written for a time before remote work. It looked overly worried about office organization and dynamics. Is it true? Because those ideas made ti fall in my priority list form management reading.
> It looked overly worried about office organization and dynamics. Is it true?
No.
[Ed: it is concerned with organizational dynamics - like senior management dreaming up release dates after talking amongst themselves - but they can (and do) do that in closed teams meetings or management/leadership zoom strategy chats...]
I had a lot of trouble with this in my early 20s. Everything I read was bullshit.
There are two important distinctions: how you manage mediocre workers you didn't hire, and how you manage good workers. The former will require 98% of the effort of the latter, and will give you a fraction of the same results. If you are running a tech company, the former will probably prevent you from ever running things well or smoothly. The former can include people who don't show up for work, but it can also include high IQ people who are constantly screwing around and coming up with elaborate excuses. The best way to manage those people is to fire them as fast as possible.
For managing the former, let them get their work done and don't do stupid shit that impairs it. If you can't figure that out yourself, you shouldn't be a manager.
Fire these people first since they have a tendency to be manipulate the truth: "high IQ people who are constantly screwing around and coming up with elaborate excuses".
Step 0: come to grips with the existence of workers outside those two groups, and the possibility of workers who fit in different groups in different contexts or at different times in their life.
> [..] The former can include people who don't show up for work, but it can also include high IQ people who are constantly screwing around and coming up with elaborate excuses. The best way to manage those people is to fire them as fast as possible.
> For managing the former, let them get their work done and don't do stupid shit that impairs it. If you can't figure that out yourself, you shouldn't be a manager.
I have a manager who also can't write two sentences without mixing up "former" and "later", "production" and "dev" and "staging" and "testing", "monday" and "thursday" and "wednesday". Doesn't help he's also an insufferable know-it-all taking everyone for an idiot (even though that's true more often than not but you get the point).
As always, Spolsky makes blunt but good points. At the end he mentions additional approaches: "You will certainly find other methods of management in the wild (there’s the exotic “Devil Wears Prada” Method, the Jihad Method, the Charismatic Cult Method, and the Lurch From One Method To Another Method)." Others are relatively obvious but I'm curious about the "Jihad Method."
I'm a big fan of Turn the Ship Around! By L. David Marquet as fun read that shows what some good leadership can do by pushing responsibility to the lowest appropriate level in an organisation.
The most useful lesson from this book for me—because I found myself using this several times this week—is to communicate by saying "I intend to" to quickly explain the "why" behind what you are trying to do, or the rationale for a set of instructions you are giving to another person.
This helps people respond with flexibility, as it gives them a better understanding of when to deviate from the exact set of instructions you give them (such as if assumptions turn out to be wrong, or conditions change), and what parts of a request are necessary to follow exactly.
Though I remembered using this wording often, I actually forgot that I learned about the principle from this book until I read this comment. But the idea itself has stuck with me.
One problem I have with it, and with many similar books, is that it tells managers to move to a less directive way of steering people. This is very good for quite a lot of existing managers. But it's not very good advice for non-established leaders.
If, for example, you're not very assertive anyway, you might find that everybody has already taken the authority to do whatever they want. In that case you need to be a bit more assertive and directive.
This might be a less common failure mode for a ship's commander, who is already a very senior leader and has a strong formal authority. But if one day a manager tells a seniorish programmer "maybe lead the juniors a bit more", you're in a whole different position, and you need a very different strategy.
The "I intend to" advice is pretty good for non-managers too. In some companies you may find that no one is willing to stick their neck out too much. In that case communicating what you intend to do, and doing it unless stopped, gives you perfect cover. If it's actually a problem, people will say. If people are just scared to put their name on something, they won't stop you and you can improve things. You will also look like an A-player and a leader.
I've also found through experience that it's helpful to tailor your management style depending on the person you are managing.
I worked with a person (in the same work position as me at the time, so I judged he was giving an honest opinion) who said that he strongly prefers managers who give specific and detailed instructions for tasks, instead of leaving most of the specifics up to him. If I remember correctly, this is the opposite reaction to that of a sailor mentioned in a book's anecdote. The author mentioned giving a command to a sailor for something that the sailor was likely going to do, but realized after the fact that the instruction reduced the sailor's autonomy, and thus eroded his job satisfaction. However, my past colleague would have reacted differently and wouldn't have minded—he likely would have even appreciated the clear direction.
So, some of the ideas of the book do not apply universally to all people. A person in a leadership role should instead adapt one's communication style—while still acting with respect and fairness to each person—depending on a team member's preferences and personality. Having a direct conversation with a person about their preferences, in most contexts where you are viewed as trustworthy, can be useful if there is uncertainty.
Five disfunction of the team was the dumbest shit filled crockery ever to be put into print. Please save your self the loss of braincells and skip this book.
Honestly? High Output Management. Written by Intel's CEO during its climb, it seems to have the focuses in the right areas even today for the more technical among us
I cannot recommend "Crucial Conversations" enough (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Third-Talking-S...), excellent source for everyone but esp. for managers. It will teach you how to broach difficult topics with reports and how to deal with difficult personalities, which inevitably you will encounter.
High output management (Andy Grove) is a classic that I've found a lot of value from over the years — written in the 80s and shows its age here and there, but otherwise good for the fundamentals: https://www.amazon.com/High-Output-Management-Andrew-Grove/d...
+1 best book I have ever read on the topic. A short concise book with a number of good ideas that anyone working in a large/medium or perhaps even a small company would benefit from. So good, that I re-read parts of it twice already. My full review and notes are here: https://ryan-h.com/2019/10/21/andrew-grove-high-output-manag...
I second this article, having applied the ideas (and shared the article) with people I've worked with in the past. The ideas are still relevant today, despite the original publication in 1998.
--
The comic partway through the article gives a good overview, and the following are a few highlights:
"Before the set-up-to-fail syndrome begins, the boss and the subordinate are typically engaged in a positive, or at least neutral, relationship. The triggering event in the set-up-to-fail syndrome is often minor or surreptitious. The subordinate may miss a deadline, lose a client, or submit a subpar report. [...]
"Reacting to the triggering event, the boss increases his supervision of the subordinate, gives more specific instructions, and wrangles longer over courses of action.
The subordinate responds by beginning to suspect a lack of confidence and senses he's not part of the boss's in-group anymore. He starts to withdraw emotionally from the boss and from work. He may also fight to change the boss's image of him, reaching too high or running too fast to be effective.
"The boss interprets this problem-hoarding, overreaching, or tentativeness as signs that the subordinate has poor judgment and weak capabilities. If the subordinate does perform well, the boss does not acknowledge it or considers it a lucky "one off." [...] The subordinate feels boxed in and underappreciated. He increasingly withdraws from his boss and from work. He may even resort to ignoring instructions, openly disputing the boss, and occasionally lashing out because of feelings of rejection.
"In general, he performs his job mechanically and devotes more energy to self-protection. [...] The boss feels increasingly frustrated and is now convinced that the subordinate cannot perform without intense oversight. He makes this known by his words and deeds, further undermining the subordinate's confidence and prompting inaction."
---
My own summary follows. The idea is that a good relationship between a manager and a junior can unnecessarily fall off the rails, beginning with the manager perceiving that the junior has made a small or moderate mistake.
Instead of letting it go, the manager begins a corrective action with more micro-management (such as requests for more check-ins or progress reports). This can result in the junior becoming disengaged with the work, or alternatively trying to take on too many responsibilities to regain the manager's trust. In any case, the manager tries to correct this by increasing micro-management (which is the opposite of what the junior wants), which worsens the relationship.
To solve this, the article recommends an open discussion between the manager and junior, with specific, concrete goals for restoring trust in the relationship (as well as attempting to prevent this in the first place). The article also notes that an attempted solution entirely on the junior's side—where the junior over-achieves for a while to attempt to rebuild trust—is often ineffective, as a manager may not even notice these efforts due to a bias to already label the person as unreliable.
This is quite applicable to many situations I‘ve witnessed. I‘ve also witnessed the exact opposite. I.e. managers blame themselves to avoid making hard decisions with employees. It would be great to have this article and another article which addresses „hard decisions“ in order to help managers navigate ambiguous situations.
I thought that was a good article, but it dances around the core of the issue by not declaring what motivation is and how managers should think about it at the start.
Intrinsic motivation is a function of autonomy, mastery, and purpose. A managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation.
When you identify a weak performer without understanding which pillar of motivation is weak, it generally results in a direct and total assault on intrinsic motivation.
Interventional supervision is decreased autonomy.
Interventional supervision is a powerful indirect invalidation of mastery. Being overruled is a powerful invalidation of mastery. Being told what to do or how to do something rather than being told a goal to achieve is an invalidation of mastery. Being ignored when you bring up an issue or not having your issue be treated with seriousness is incredibly invalidating. Being told, directly or indirectly, that you are wrong without having it explained to you is a complete invalidation of mastery.
Lastly, assigning lower risk work, work that doesn't matter as much, is a direct assault on purpose.
When intrinsic motivation is assaulted, it is no surprise that the employee becomes less motivated, and therefore less capable, independent, and thoughtful, and therefore a much less appealing person to give work that matters creating a viscous cycle of being managed out at the cost of everyone's mental health.
So a managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation, but the standard actions taken are a direct assault on it. The manager adopts an "organization vs employee" approach rather than an "us vs the problem" approach and the consequences are always exactly as you would expect.
The proposed solution in this article (practice active listening, which means listen with the expectation of and desire to change your mind), is a core weakness I've seen from managers promoted from engineering, and especially managers from more hierarchical cultures.
I agree with the final assessment of the article. A mastery problem cannot be solved by a manager, so if the employee is truly not technically capable, they need to be let go. The entire purpose of a technical interview is to ensure there is a bar that is cleared for mastery. Autonomy and purpose problems are generally a problem with a manager failing to manage upwards, set expectations, or a managers inappropriate application of dominance (often manifested by a lack of active listening), rather than a failure to "manage" an employee.
From the summary of "Old Number One", these are maybe 3 of the top 6 things that I think I learned by osmosis from managers early in my career. The other big ones were humility/thoughtfulness, honesty, and grace under pressure. (Perhaps the original lecture addresses those, as well.)
I don't know the research on this (and would be hesitant to believe anything out of the business press about management). I only have anecdata, intuition, and speculation.
I'm not perfect at any of these, but they seem to be a really good guide.
Note that not everyone has picked up the same influences in the past, so they might not have seen all of these, and they might've learned a lot of other ideas.
For examples of other influences (not just managers, but execs including startups): Many seem to prioritize projecting confidence, over everything else. Others seem wired to persuade, to doing what they want or to having a positive impression of them, at all costs. Others seem to think they must assert authority, first and foremost.
The difference in past experiences, and the reality of industry conventions in practice, means you sometimes have to explain something that seems obvious to you.
One time I failed to communicate well, I was characterizing to a startup CEO how I'd run a forthcoming engineering team, and I added something at the end, "and they'll be my people". I intended it as shorthand for a style of conscientiously looking after their needs, and fostering a culture of loyalty to the team/project/company. Of course that was ambiguous, especially in a business context, where aggressive self-interest is the most likely explanation for any behavior. Later, I realized that he was looking to be the leader of more of a lifestyle company, with the entire company his people in a somewhat different sense (which was an influence he'd seen in his own career). So I'd maybe sounded like I was saying I'd silo off a fiefdom of loyalists to me rather than to him or the company, shape part of the company in my image, or otherwise get between him and the people.
158 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] threadi wish one day i have such a Manager.. before i'm dead anyway (~40y making sw.. still some more to go). i am under "CTO"-label now but that does not make any difference..
Multipliers - an excellent book on how to avoid becoming a stereotypical bad boss. Chapters are easy to read independently and have great summaries at the end.
Crucial Conversations - good for both professional and personal conversations. Learn how to have a difficult conversation without burning down the relationship.
Finally, look up SOON (acronym) for when someone you manage comes to you seeking guidance.
https://trainingindustry.com/articles/performance-management...
Ask them to define success, what the obstacles are to it, what their options are to overcome it, and immediate next steps to take.
Basically a modern version of "teach a man to fish".
More practically, here's a fun blog where you can ask specific questions: https://www.askamanager.org/
One thing I have oriented myself to doing is being a servant leader. As I told one team I led, “I’m your bitch. Tell me where your rocks are and I’ll move them out of the way so you can get your work done.” And then I do exactly that. I’ve had to work miracles sometimes but I can usually clear the path.
I detest micro management in every conceivable way, but I do believe in accountability and ensuring the work is done on time by the team with no surprises. This has worked well for me.
Been some time since I read about this stuff but Five Dysfunctions of a Team I recall being descent. Summary article here: https://www.runn.io/blog/5-dysfunctions-of-a-team-summary
There is a big risk that your career stops at that - being a servant.
Wouldn't it be a small red flag about an organisation if this wasn't the case?
Are the servant tasks even what you want to spend your time with?
I am not suggesting that the answer to those questions has to be "no". But good to think about it.
> Will your next workplace value all the effort you spent that way?
I'd hope so - as it's reasonable to assume that a next role for someone already managing/leading would involve more management/leadership. So yes, skills/achievements/examples in that area should be valued.
> Are the servant tasks even what you want to spend your time with?
It's probably not for everyone; but if someone doesn't want to perform the tasks that (many would say) are necessary to be a good manager/leader, maybe they shouldn't be in a manager/leader position in the first place?
The mentality "what's in it for me" is toxic and shows one is not ready for higher level management in a large org where cooperation is necessary to do anything interesting. Better questions are "is my team working on the right thing?", "does my team have the right skills to deliver on that thing?", "what relationships do we need to succeed?", and last but definitely not least "is my manager competent enough to provide the support I need for my team to be successful?". The last question is the key one: you won't grow if you are reporting to a muppet.
Is it not possible to see yourself as having thought too much about maximizing your companys success without thinking about your own needs?
I wouldnt qualify this as toxic. And they can go alongside if you make it clear for yourself and your manager.
I honestly don't think being too selfless is an adequate explanation for career stagnation though. Selfless behavior will generally help you get ahead in life and in your career, because good relationships matter a lot. However you won't get promoted just because you help everyone. What if you are just servicing the squeaky wheels rather than solving the biggest problem on your plate? A good manager will only look to promote you because you have demonstrated you are capable of solving larger problems. There are other things too: like the business actually has the need for a higher level role. If that's the case, then your behavior is irrelevant—you just need to leave to someplace that does have the growth opportunity.
Overall the reason I said your comment was strange is because it clearly comes from some personal experience you had, but it lacks enough context to be actionable to anyone who reads it. I can think of a dozen different ways I've seen a "servant leader" mentality succeed or fail, but it all depends very much on context. Ultimately if you want to succeed you need to understand what game is being played and not fallback to abstract platitudes.
But of course YMMV and all that. I am not saying don't, I am saying do - think about it first.
(1) The track you get on by demonstrating viability in roles of escalating seniority, such as by leaving a Sr. Manager job for a Director job.
(2) The track you get on by having an easily observable or articulable track record of getting important (or at least interesting) things done.
Ruthlessly working "track 1" may rule out "serving" a team (and at the same time rationalizing that by avoiding that "trap" you're "serving" the broader company mission), but that mindset practically rules out progression on "track 2".
Great mindset and thoughts, but I hope this isn't what you actually said. I'd also like to point out serving someone or some thing doesn't make you a bitch.
I'm not dunking on you; maybe you aren't a servant-leader, but rather just a servant. That's a great way to be: a servant of "the mission" (replace with whatever term keeps the contents of your stomach down).
Effective management --- do not groan before I finish this sentence --- tends to look a lot more like adminship on Wikipedia than it does, like, war leadership. It's about picking up a mop and a bucket and making the way clear for people to do their best work. And, in our field, doing one's best work often means making and communicating big decisions, which is what leadership is.
There's also a distinction between the kind of leadership the whole company needs --- hard decisions about where to allocate resources and what bets to make --- and the day-to-day "leadership" involved in getting things done as a team. I term I hear a lot is "vibes based management", which is a recognition that somebody (probably not engineering management!) is making these kinds of decisions and communicating them just well enough for line engineers to make good choices.
If you're looking for management advice because you're running a whole company, that kind of leadership is in scope! But if you're looking to learn how to be a good engineering manager, I'm not sure how much "leadership" has to do with doing a good job.
Your whole comment is spot on, but I think there's a trap here. Yes, an EM should be empowering as many IC leaders as possible, but that can't be done if the EM does not recognize true leadership. While it's theoretically possible to succeed as a manager leveraging others without having your own true tech lead chops, the majority of managers like this end up either putting too much trust in the wrong ICs or (worse) devolve into cover-your-ass "agile" process bullshit.
For some reason it grinds my gears when people in formal positions of authority insist on talking about being a leader instead of a boss.
[1] I’m all for pleasantries and being nice even though there really is no choice (ask/order). Don’t get me wrong. But not to the point where either party starts getting delusional about what’s going on.
The reason I say this is that articles are usually 800-3,000 words, with a median around 1,200 words. I'd ask if you can really gain much depth or promote deep change in yourself based on a bunch of short pieces?
Meanwhile there are numerous private courses, conferences, research papers, and books that dive into these topics in much more greater depth which is likely to have a more lasting impact on your life.
I'd venture a guess that you want articles because they are easier and faster to read. They don't require much time or effort to go through and you can get a few quick hits of dopamine that make you artificially feel like you impacted your career. Leadership isn't something you're going to be able to learn with a couple listacles and blog posts. It's going to take a lot more time and dedication to get good at.
As others have mentioned. Management is easy. Leadership is hard.
Not explicitly related to management but good advice. I’ve seen too many people put in a position of power and become assholes. It destroys morale.
Edit: a non paywalled link https://www.qualitymanagementinstitute.com/images/hrsolution...
He makes the argument that by putting a lot of effort in understanding your own and other peoples viewpoint you are able to build good relationship.
But what I believe sets his work apart from others is his psychological view on why it’s sometimes hard for people to listen to each other. He dissects which anxieties drives our behavior to listen or not to listen etc. without coming of as a know it all.
Probably not for everyone because of the psych framing. But if that speaks to you, give it a try.
Overall: five out of five toasters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Proje...
When i was picking up some team lead responsibilities for the first time, it was the first book suggested by my then mentor who was an experienced manager.
No.
[Ed: it is concerned with organizational dynamics - like senior management dreaming up release dates after talking amongst themselves - but they can (and do) do that in closed teams meetings or management/leadership zoom strategy chats...]
There are two important distinctions: how you manage mediocre workers you didn't hire, and how you manage good workers. The former will require 98% of the effort of the latter, and will give you a fraction of the same results. If you are running a tech company, the former will probably prevent you from ever running things well or smoothly. The former can include people who don't show up for work, but it can also include high IQ people who are constantly screwing around and coming up with elaborate excuses. The best way to manage those people is to fire them as fast as possible.
For managing the former, let them get their work done and don't do stupid shit that impairs it. If you can't figure that out yourself, you shouldn't be a manager.
There, I just saved you 10,000 hours of reading.
Depending on the country you're in, this can be really difficult legally.
Fire these people first since they have a tendency to be manipulate the truth: "high IQ people who are constantly screwing around and coming up with elaborate excuses".
did you mean "latter" here ?
> For managing the former, let them get their work done and don't do stupid shit that impairs it. If you can't figure that out yourself, you shouldn't be a manager.
I have a manager who also can't write two sentences without mixing up "former" and "later", "production" and "dev" and "staging" and "testing", "monday" and "thursday" and "wednesday". Doesn't help he's also an insufferable know-it-all taking everyone for an idiot (even though that's true more often than not but you get the point).
https://davidmarquet.com/turn-the-ship-around-book/
The anecdotes are good fun. I've not used it specifically as a model but I like the general principles it represents.
This helps people respond with flexibility, as it gives them a better understanding of when to deviate from the exact set of instructions you give them (such as if assumptions turn out to be wrong, or conditions change), and what parts of a request are necessary to follow exactly.
Though I remembered using this wording often, I actually forgot that I learned about the principle from this book until I read this comment. But the idea itself has stuck with me.
There is also a 45-minute "Talks at Google" video by the author, which looks like a good overview for his main ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzJL8zX3EVk
One problem I have with it, and with many similar books, is that it tells managers to move to a less directive way of steering people. This is very good for quite a lot of existing managers. But it's not very good advice for non-established leaders.
If, for example, you're not very assertive anyway, you might find that everybody has already taken the authority to do whatever they want. In that case you need to be a bit more assertive and directive.
This might be a less common failure mode for a ship's commander, who is already a very senior leader and has a strong formal authority. But if one day a manager tells a seniorish programmer "maybe lead the juniors a bit more", you're in a whole different position, and you need a very different strategy.
The "I intend to" advice is pretty good for non-managers too. In some companies you may find that no one is willing to stick their neck out too much. In that case communicating what you intend to do, and doing it unless stopped, gives you perfect cover. If it's actually a problem, people will say. If people are just scared to put their name on something, they won't stop you and you can improve things. You will also look like an A-player and a leader.
I worked with a person (in the same work position as me at the time, so I judged he was giving an honest opinion) who said that he strongly prefers managers who give specific and detailed instructions for tasks, instead of leaving most of the specifics up to him. If I remember correctly, this is the opposite reaction to that of a sailor mentioned in a book's anecdote. The author mentioned giving a command to a sailor for something that the sailor was likely going to do, but realized after the fact that the instruction reduced the sailor's autonomy, and thus eroded his job satisfaction. However, my past colleague would have reacted differently and wouldn't have minded—he likely would have even appreciated the clear direction.
So, some of the ideas of the book do not apply universally to all people. A person in a leadership role should instead adapt one's communication style—while still acting with respect and fairness to each person—depending on a team member's preferences and personality. Having a direct conversation with a person about their preferences, in most contexts where you are viewed as trustworthy, can be useful if there is uncertainty.
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23848190-extreme-ownersh... - Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willink, Leif Babin - showcase of leadership techniques (with references from US Navy)
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18077903-creativity-inc - Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull, Amy Wallace - explains how to create a working environment that drives creativity and
--
The comic partway through the article gives a good overview, and the following are a few highlights:
"Before the set-up-to-fail syndrome begins, the boss and the subordinate are typically engaged in a positive, or at least neutral, relationship. The triggering event in the set-up-to-fail syndrome is often minor or surreptitious. The subordinate may miss a deadline, lose a client, or submit a subpar report. [...]
"Reacting to the triggering event, the boss increases his supervision of the subordinate, gives more specific instructions, and wrangles longer over courses of action. The subordinate responds by beginning to suspect a lack of confidence and senses he's not part of the boss's in-group anymore. He starts to withdraw emotionally from the boss and from work. He may also fight to change the boss's image of him, reaching too high or running too fast to be effective.
"The boss interprets this problem-hoarding, overreaching, or tentativeness as signs that the subordinate has poor judgment and weak capabilities. If the subordinate does perform well, the boss does not acknowledge it or considers it a lucky "one off." [...] The subordinate feels boxed in and underappreciated. He increasingly withdraws from his boss and from work. He may even resort to ignoring instructions, openly disputing the boss, and occasionally lashing out because of feelings of rejection.
"In general, he performs his job mechanically and devotes more energy to self-protection. [...] The boss feels increasingly frustrated and is now convinced that the subordinate cannot perform without intense oversight. He makes this known by his words and deeds, further undermining the subordinate's confidence and prompting inaction."
---
My own summary follows. The idea is that a good relationship between a manager and a junior can unnecessarily fall off the rails, beginning with the manager perceiving that the junior has made a small or moderate mistake.
Instead of letting it go, the manager begins a corrective action with more micro-management (such as requests for more check-ins or progress reports). This can result in the junior becoming disengaged with the work, or alternatively trying to take on too many responsibilities to regain the manager's trust. In any case, the manager tries to correct this by increasing micro-management (which is the opposite of what the junior wants), which worsens the relationship.
To solve this, the article recommends an open discussion between the manager and junior, with specific, concrete goals for restoring trust in the relationship (as well as attempting to prevent this in the first place). The article also notes that an attempted solution entirely on the junior's side—where the junior over-achieves for a while to attempt to rebuild trust—is often ineffective, as a manager may not even notice these efforts due to a bias to already label the person as unreliable.
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
Intrinsic motivation is a function of autonomy, mastery, and purpose. A managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation.
When you identify a weak performer without understanding which pillar of motivation is weak, it generally results in a direct and total assault on intrinsic motivation.
Interventional supervision is decreased autonomy.
Interventional supervision is a powerful indirect invalidation of mastery. Being overruled is a powerful invalidation of mastery. Being told what to do or how to do something rather than being told a goal to achieve is an invalidation of mastery. Being ignored when you bring up an issue or not having your issue be treated with seriousness is incredibly invalidating. Being told, directly or indirectly, that you are wrong without having it explained to you is a complete invalidation of mastery.
Lastly, assigning lower risk work, work that doesn't matter as much, is a direct assault on purpose.
When intrinsic motivation is assaulted, it is no surprise that the employee becomes less motivated, and therefore less capable, independent, and thoughtful, and therefore a much less appealing person to give work that matters creating a viscous cycle of being managed out at the cost of everyone's mental health.
So a managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation, but the standard actions taken are a direct assault on it. The manager adopts an "organization vs employee" approach rather than an "us vs the problem" approach and the consequences are always exactly as you would expect.
The proposed solution in this article (practice active listening, which means listen with the expectation of and desire to change your mind), is a core weakness I've seen from managers promoted from engineering, and especially managers from more hierarchical cultures.
I agree with the final assessment of the article. A mastery problem cannot be solved by a manager, so if the employee is truly not technically capable, they need to be let go. The entire purpose of a technical interview is to ensure there is a bar that is cleared for mastery. Autonomy and purpose problems are generally a problem with a manager failing to manage upwards, set expectations, or a managers inappropriate application of dominance (often manifested by a lack of active listening), rather than a failure to "manage" an employee.
I can’t find it online now, though the whole book is on archive.org. Here’s a good summary:
https://uncomn.com/leadership-part-1-lessons-from-douglas-so...
I don't know the research on this (and would be hesitant to believe anything out of the business press about management). I only have anecdata, intuition, and speculation.
I'm not perfect at any of these, but they seem to be a really good guide.
Note that not everyone has picked up the same influences in the past, so they might not have seen all of these, and they might've learned a lot of other ideas.
For examples of other influences (not just managers, but execs including startups): Many seem to prioritize projecting confidence, over everything else. Others seem wired to persuade, to doing what they want or to having a positive impression of them, at all costs. Others seem to think they must assert authority, first and foremost.
The difference in past experiences, and the reality of industry conventions in practice, means you sometimes have to explain something that seems obvious to you.
One time I failed to communicate well, I was characterizing to a startup CEO how I'd run a forthcoming engineering team, and I added something at the end, "and they'll be my people". I intended it as shorthand for a style of conscientiously looking after their needs, and fostering a culture of loyalty to the team/project/company. Of course that was ambiguous, especially in a business context, where aggressive self-interest is the most likely explanation for any behavior. Later, I realized that he was looking to be the leader of more of a lifestyle company, with the entire company his people in a somewhat different sense (which was an influence he'd seen in his own career). So I'd maybe sounded like I was saying I'd silo off a fiefdom of loyalists to me rather than to him or the company, shape part of the company in my image, or otherwise get between him and the people.