Ask HN: What are the best articles on managing people?
I recently found out about https://blog.sbensu.com/posts/lieutenants/ & was curious what are your favorite articles on management or generally managing people?
158 comments
I’m reading some articles on managing people all the time (mostly from Software Lead Weekly newsletter). And recently, I’ve opened Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice to read a few chapters on a problem I’m facing at work.
And WOW a proper book on the topic is SOOO much better than any random article that I find, be it from SWLW, HN, Reddit, or any other source. Articles and posts are easy to like when I already agree with their premise. But the depth of a proper book, from a real source of authority and not some random person online, looking at the problem from multiple points, that’s so much more insightful and useful.
So instead of hunting for best articles, I would 100% recommend getting Armstrong, or some textbook. Or at least High Output Management as other comment suggested, or some other well known and well regarded book. But Armstrong in particular can give you very deep understanding of most aspects of people management, plus it’s up-to-date.
And WOW a proper book on the topic is SOOO much better than any random article that I find, be it from SWLW, HN, Reddit, or any other source. Articles and posts are easy to like when I already agree with their premise. But the depth of a proper book, from a real source of authority and not some random person online, looking at the problem from multiple points, that’s so much more insightful and useful.
So instead of hunting for best articles, I would 100% recommend getting Armstrong, or some textbook. Or at least High Output Management as other comment suggested, or some other well known and well regarded book. But Armstrong in particular can give you very deep understanding of most aspects of people management, plus it’s up-to-date.
How applicable is Armstrong for folks in the USA? The amazon reviews suggest it's specific to UK laws and regulations.
I'm in the EU and it seems plenty applicable but perhaps UK and EU are more similar than UK and US.
I have read maybe 50% of the book only (there's no point in reading these things cover to cover) and haven't noticed many things specific to any particular laws or regulations. Performance management faces the same challenges in all markets. Knowledge management has the same principles everywhere. And so on.
I have read maybe 50% of the book only (there's no point in reading these things cover to cover) and haven't noticed many things specific to any particular laws or regulations. Performance management faces the same challenges in all markets. Knowledge management has the same principles everywhere. And so on.
I found this blog post by rand pretty enlightening:
https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t...
https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t...
Rands is awesome, and “Managing Humans” is just about the best management book I own.
Bringing up the Boss is a great one I recommend as someone who studied and consults on management in tech.
I think Peopleware deserves a mention:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Proje...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Proje...
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.
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...]
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 parts that are outdated like advocating against dress codes or cmm but overall no
Peopleware is in fact the best I've ever read. The problems of an organization are very rarely technical, and are almost certainly the people.
The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome (https://hbr.org/1998/03/the-set-up-to-fail-syndrome) is a great resource for how to handle situations where you feel an employee is underperforming.
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.
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.
Is there something you would recommend to read about the intrinsic motivation? Sounds like not an obvious subject.
I've previously been recommended "Punished by rewards" by Alfie Kohn
Thanks for the link, it reads like some of those are dynamics are also part of the Karpman Drama Triangle[0] which is another common failure mode.
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
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.
Had never heard of this. This is a great article on how to be a poor manager.
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.
--
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.
Online articles will be insufficient. Instead, find the right people.
First understand that management is administrative: accountability, task completion, retention, hiring. Leadership is direction, purpose, and motivation. The concepts are not related. Leaders own things and take risks. Managers balance spreadsheets. If you are an extreme introvert or find it difficult to be assertive you have a tremendous amount of catching up to do.
Secondly, your best source of knowledge is experience from people with proven delivery. Find them and ask them tough questions. Compare yourself to your managerial peers to determine if you are developing appropriately or if you are sucking. Do not look to your peers or the public for leadership guidance as they will set you up to fail, especially in software. If you really want to become a solid manager look for harsh criticism from the leaders you work for AND a path forward.
Finally, pay close attention to the measures and metrics of your staff. Such measures will include staff retention, speed of delivery, product performance, and so forth.
To help jump start your journey here is leadership according to the US Army: ADP 6-22, https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?P...
First understand that management is administrative: accountability, task completion, retention, hiring. Leadership is direction, purpose, and motivation. The concepts are not related. Leaders own things and take risks. Managers balance spreadsheets. If you are an extreme introvert or find it difficult to be assertive you have a tremendous amount of catching up to do.
Secondly, your best source of knowledge is experience from people with proven delivery. Find them and ask them tough questions. Compare yourself to your managerial peers to determine if you are developing appropriately or if you are sucking. Do not look to your peers or the public for leadership guidance as they will set you up to fail, especially in software. If you really want to become a solid manager look for harsh criticism from the leaders you work for AND a path forward.
Finally, pay close attention to the measures and metrics of your staff. Such measures will include staff retention, speed of delivery, product performance, and so forth.
To help jump start your journey here is leadership according to the US Army: ADP 6-22, https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?P...
> If you are an extreme introvert or find it difficult to be assertive you have a tremendous amount of catching up to do
This can be a good thing. "Natural born leaders" by personality type tend to be overconfident and ignore their blindspots because they've never had a reason to challenge their ability.
Introverts, for example, are acutely aware that leading and managing doesn't come naturally and is a skill that is continually learned and built upon. In the long-run, introverts can be excellent leaders because they're aware of what it takes to be a good leader and they put an emphasis on professional development to get where they need to be.
Not to say extroverts are worse leaders. Both introverts and extroverts can be terrible leaders/managers. The best leaders/managers are the ones who have the self-awareness to reflect on themselves, identify their week points, and constantly improve.
This can be a good thing. "Natural born leaders" by personality type tend to be overconfident and ignore their blindspots because they've never had a reason to challenge their ability.
Introverts, for example, are acutely aware that leading and managing doesn't come naturally and is a skill that is continually learned and built upon. In the long-run, introverts can be excellent leaders because they're aware of what it takes to be a good leader and they put an emphasis on professional development to get where they need to be.
Not to say extroverts are worse leaders. Both introverts and extroverts can be terrible leaders/managers. The best leaders/managers are the ones who have the self-awareness to reflect on themselves, identify their week points, and constantly improve.
Agree with this. Maybe "extreme introverts" will have a tough time as leaders, but moderate ones probably have a lot of advantages. On top of the ones you listed, they tend to be better listeners, reading both people and situations better, having higher empathy (https://thrivedowntown.com/what-is-an-introvert-personality/...)
> Online articles will be insufficient. Instead, find the right people.
Well, yeah. But if it were *that* easy then everyone would do it. "It's just..." find the right people. Anyone one with experience knows "it's just" is a red flag for "I lack the depth and understanding of the domain so I'll dismiss it as if it's child's play."
This leads to one of my never-fails heuristics: Making it look easy is very very hard.
Well, yeah. But if it were *that* easy then everyone would do it. "It's just..." find the right people. Anyone one with experience knows "it's just" is a red flag for "I lack the depth and understanding of the domain so I'll dismiss it as if it's child's play."
This leads to one of my never-fails heuristics: Making it look easy is very very hard.
Bizarrely, I found the book Corps Business, by Freedman, to be useful. It's about how the US Marine Corps thinks about leadership. No, he doesn't tell you to shout at people. But he does show how they lead in more difficult circumstances than most of us will ever encounter, and how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.
Speaking of learning from people with completely different perspectives, if you want to learn about public speaking, read Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best public speakers, and that we can learn their techniques. Much of what they do well has nothing to do with being funny.
Speaking of learning from people with completely different perspectives, if you want to learn about public speaking, read Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best public speakers, and that we can learn their techniques. Much of what they do well has nothing to do with being funny.
> how the US Marine Corps thinks about leadership.
Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes.
> how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.
Specifics please?
> Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best public speakers, and that we can learn their techniques.
Nihill is a bad standup comedian who sort-of pivoted/reinvented himself as some corporate speaker. So, he would say something like that; doesn't make it authoritative. (I almost dragged my friends to one of his gigs once until I checked out his videos.) And it depends on what type of "public speaker" he means; John F Kennedy would probably have been terrible at corporate comedy gigs.
Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes.
> how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.
Specifics please?
> Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best public speakers, and that we can learn their techniques.
Nihill is a bad standup comedian who sort-of pivoted/reinvented himself as some corporate speaker. So, he would say something like that; doesn't make it authoritative. (I almost dragged my friends to one of his gigs once until I checked out his videos.) And it depends on what type of "public speaker" he means; John F Kennedy would probably have been terrible at corporate comedy gigs.
> Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes.
The Marines think about leadership very differently than that. Sure, parts are authoritarian, but most people are surprised to learn that training to be an independent thinker starts in boot camp. They don't even tell you how to "swab the deck," you are provided the tools and given the direction that the floor has to be spotless. Regular inspections provide continual feedback, and out of that recruits routinely develop their own procedures and novel techniques for mission success. (Did you know newspaper is extremely effective at finish polishing windows?)
Leadership is pushed hard at every level. If two Marines are on a job/mission/taking out the trash, even if they are the same rank, the one with more time is expected to take responsibility for the other. It's not bossing around authoritarian style, it's as real as that other Marine's life is your number one priority. Leaders are expected to support mission success, not drive it. You lay out the parameters of what success means, and the Marines your charge should have the tools and support necessary to accomplish that task.
In the programming world, it means that I set out a goal post, where I want the team to get to. But then I make sure they have the time to do it (I often take distracting support issues or annoying bugs so the team is not hampered), and the tools needed to get there. If the team does not, I have failed.
Marine leadership doesn't do IC work, which is the major thing I could improve. But then, Marines have a whole lot more people than I do. :)
The Marines think about leadership very differently than that. Sure, parts are authoritarian, but most people are surprised to learn that training to be an independent thinker starts in boot camp. They don't even tell you how to "swab the deck," you are provided the tools and given the direction that the floor has to be spotless. Regular inspections provide continual feedback, and out of that recruits routinely develop their own procedures and novel techniques for mission success. (Did you know newspaper is extremely effective at finish polishing windows?)
Leadership is pushed hard at every level. If two Marines are on a job/mission/taking out the trash, even if they are the same rank, the one with more time is expected to take responsibility for the other. It's not bossing around authoritarian style, it's as real as that other Marine's life is your number one priority. Leaders are expected to support mission success, not drive it. You lay out the parameters of what success means, and the Marines your charge should have the tools and support necessary to accomplish that task.
In the programming world, it means that I set out a goal post, where I want the team to get to. But then I make sure they have the time to do it (I often take distracting support issues or annoying bugs so the team is not hampered), and the tools needed to get there. If the team does not, I have failed.
Marine leadership doesn't do IC work, which is the major thing I could improve. But then, Marines have a whole lot more people than I do. :)
Management by objective
Interesting, but I don't think it's really a fit:
> Management by objectives (MBO) is a process in which a manager and an employee agree on specific performance goals and then develop a plan to reach them.
I can say that never happened in my time, but I'm sure it does at the uppermost layers.
> Critics of MBO argue that it leads to employees trying to achieve the set goals by any means necessary, often at the cost of the company.
The Marines love creative thinking, but not if it violates mission objectives (the company being one). I don't think this fits, either.
> As MBO is entirely focused on goals and targets, it often ignores other parts of a company, such as the corporate culture, worker conduct, a healthy work ethos, environmental issues, and areas for involvement and contribution to the community and social good.
Oh okay, that can happen for sure. Besides the occasional "mandatory fun day," morale isn't often considered, and morale is often not great. Good leaders recognize it will impact their objectives but those can be greatly outnumbered by the careerists that want to score a win and move on.
I've always thought it had more overlap with "servant leadership," though I really dislike the term.
> Management by objectives (MBO) is a process in which a manager and an employee agree on specific performance goals and then develop a plan to reach them.
I can say that never happened in my time, but I'm sure it does at the uppermost layers.
> Critics of MBO argue that it leads to employees trying to achieve the set goals by any means necessary, often at the cost of the company.
The Marines love creative thinking, but not if it violates mission objectives (the company being one). I don't think this fits, either.
> As MBO is entirely focused on goals and targets, it often ignores other parts of a company, such as the corporate culture, worker conduct, a healthy work ethos, environmental issues, and areas for involvement and contribution to the community and social good.
Oh okay, that can happen for sure. Besides the occasional "mandatory fun day," morale isn't often considered, and morale is often not great. Good leaders recognize it will impact their objectives but those can be greatly outnumbered by the careerists that want to score a win and move on.
I've always thought it had more overlap with "servant leadership," though I really dislike the term.
> Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes.
I can't remember the specifics any more, but I do remember being impressed. No, the ideas were much broader than "authoritarian-type management cultures." That's certainly not what I wanted to create as a manager.
I read it almost twenty-five years ago while trying to expose myself to opinions of people with a completely different perspective. I was just about to become a manager for the first time, and I wanted to be prepared. In particular, I wanted to make sure that I was serving the people I worked for well. I had had good managers and bad above me, and I had ideas about what had made the difference for me as a subordinate, but it didn't seem like just winging it would produce a good outcome. I had read some books on management in office jobs, but they weren't particularly helpful. I do remember being impressed by how much careful thought went into how the Marines taught people not only to follow, but also to lead, starting from their first day.
>> how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.
Specifics please?
Read the book.
> Nihill is a bad standup comedian who sort-of pivoted/reinvented himself as some corporate speaker. So, he would say something like that; doesn't make it authoritative.
I urge you to read the book rather than just speculate. I found it full of excellent ideas for structuring talks, connecting with the audience, adapting to circumstances, etc., which is why I recommended it. It wasn't about humor at all. Your ad hominem comment about him isn't relevant to whether the material in the book is good.
I can't remember the specifics any more, but I do remember being impressed. No, the ideas were much broader than "authoritarian-type management cultures." That's certainly not what I wanted to create as a manager.
I read it almost twenty-five years ago while trying to expose myself to opinions of people with a completely different perspective. I was just about to become a manager for the first time, and I wanted to be prepared. In particular, I wanted to make sure that I was serving the people I worked for well. I had had good managers and bad above me, and I had ideas about what had made the difference for me as a subordinate, but it didn't seem like just winging it would produce a good outcome. I had read some books on management in office jobs, but they weren't particularly helpful. I do remember being impressed by how much careful thought went into how the Marines taught people not only to follow, but also to lead, starting from their first day.
>> how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.
Specifics please?
Read the book.
> Nihill is a bad standup comedian who sort-of pivoted/reinvented himself as some corporate speaker. So, he would say something like that; doesn't make it authoritative.
I urge you to read the book rather than just speculate. I found it full of excellent ideas for structuring talks, connecting with the audience, adapting to circumstances, etc., which is why I recommended it. It wasn't about humor at all. Your ad hominem comment about him isn't relevant to whether the material in the book is good.
I can't speak to how the ideas are implemented in practice within the US Marine Corps, but a few specifics are given in "Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications 1—Warfighting," which is likely a similar document that I've found to be helpful [1].
The following excerpt encourages respectful debate, instead of blindly going along with a leader's plans:
"Relations among all leaders—from corporal to general— should be based on honesty and frankness regardless of disparity between grades. Until a commander has reached and stated a decision, subordinates should consider it their duty to provide honest, professional opinions even though these may be in disagreement with the senior’s opinions.
"However, once the decision has been reached, juniors then must support it as if it were their own. Seniors must encourage candor among subordinates and must not hide behind their grade insignia. Ready compliance for the purpose of personal advancement—the behavior of “yes-men”—will not be tolerated.""
---
The idea of erring toward respectful disagreement when warranted with leaders, instead of being a yes-man, has helped me greatly with building trust in teams I've worked with in the past.
However, I don't believe that it's always the best approach that "juniors then must support [decisions they disagree with] as if it were their own." I get that you can seem less confident by saying "{My manager} wants us to take this approach," instead of saying "We're taking this approach."
But for decisions that you personally disagree with, the best approach would include an acknowledgement of the downsides. Phrasing might be: "We're doing this because of XYZ reasons from the leadership, while acknowledging the downsides ABC."
I believe that this phrase is balanced: it avoids directly saying that you disagree with the decision (which can lead to people implementing the decision poorly, possibly making it doomed even if it turns out to be the correct one), while also acknowledging potential downsides (because the juniors are likely to see them too). An expression as if the decision were truly your own might mean an enthusiastic delivery without acknowledging the downsides, which reduces your own credibility with your direct team.
---
In any case, I believe that reading about the approach—even if one doesn't agree with every idea—is a worthwhile exercise, as I've found that much of the principles remain relevant across vastly different organizational environments.
[1] (1997) https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa...
The following excerpt encourages respectful debate, instead of blindly going along with a leader's plans:
"Relations among all leaders—from corporal to general— should be based on honesty and frankness regardless of disparity between grades. Until a commander has reached and stated a decision, subordinates should consider it their duty to provide honest, professional opinions even though these may be in disagreement with the senior’s opinions.
"However, once the decision has been reached, juniors then must support it as if it were their own. Seniors must encourage candor among subordinates and must not hide behind their grade insignia. Ready compliance for the purpose of personal advancement—the behavior of “yes-men”—will not be tolerated.""
---
The idea of erring toward respectful disagreement when warranted with leaders, instead of being a yes-man, has helped me greatly with building trust in teams I've worked with in the past.
However, I don't believe that it's always the best approach that "juniors then must support [decisions they disagree with] as if it were their own." I get that you can seem less confident by saying "{My manager} wants us to take this approach," instead of saying "We're taking this approach."
But for decisions that you personally disagree with, the best approach would include an acknowledgement of the downsides. Phrasing might be: "We're doing this because of XYZ reasons from the leadership, while acknowledging the downsides ABC."
I believe that this phrase is balanced: it avoids directly saying that you disagree with the decision (which can lead to people implementing the decision poorly, possibly making it doomed even if it turns out to be the correct one), while also acknowledging potential downsides (because the juniors are likely to see them too). An expression as if the decision were truly your own might mean an enthusiastic delivery without acknowledging the downsides, which reduces your own credibility with your direct team.
---
In any case, I believe that reading about the approach—even if one doesn't agree with every idea—is a worthwhile exercise, as I've found that much of the principles remain relevant across vastly different organizational environments.
[1] (1997) https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa...
Sounds like good training for the average Marine, but it doesn't apply to the higher-level scandals:
* the 20 years of coverup and inaction about prosecuting 1Lt Duncan D. Hunter for 2004 Iraq friendly-fire deaths of other Marines and Iraqis? He eventually got prosecuted much faster for congressional finance abuse.
"Marine friendly-fire deaths involving Duncan Hunter were kept hidden. His congressman dad denies interfering." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter#Military_serv...
* the pattern of fatal accidents involving the Boeing V-22 Osprey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Accide...
You made interesting comments about how to frame the narrative when people disagree-and-commit.
* the 20 years of coverup and inaction about prosecuting 1Lt Duncan D. Hunter for 2004 Iraq friendly-fire deaths of other Marines and Iraqis? He eventually got prosecuted much faster for congressional finance abuse.
"Marine friendly-fire deaths involving Duncan Hunter were kept hidden. His congressman dad denies interfering." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter#Military_serv...
* the pattern of fatal accidents involving the Boeing V-22 Osprey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Accide...
You made interesting comments about how to frame the narrative when people disagree-and-commit.
I read—but can't personally confirm—that the 1997 document is required reading for all officer candidates, so the key people involved in these incidents were likely aware of the principles prescribed in the document at some point.
But reality is always different in important ways from prescribed ideals. Real-life behaviour by bad actors gets in the way, which is a limitation of the 1997 document: it appears that it assumes all team members are acting earnestly without personal agendas and in good faith.
In practice, I believe that the involvement of external checks and controls are key to ensure good-faith behaviour, even if people within the system prefer to deal with it in-house. Interventions by independent government investigators and press coverage are important ways to add external pressure, when there is a lack of internal accountability.
But reality is always different in important ways from prescribed ideals. Real-life behaviour by bad actors gets in the way, which is a limitation of the 1997 document: it appears that it assumes all team members are acting earnestly without personal agendas and in good faith.
In practice, I believe that the involvement of external checks and controls are key to ensure good-faith behaviour, even if people within the system prefer to deal with it in-house. Interventions by independent government investigators and press coverage are important ways to add external pressure, when there is a lack of internal accountability.
Go to your nearest retirement home. Sit down and strike up a conversation with someone there. Genuinely listen to them and show interest in what they have to say. When you leave reflect on the vast loneliness of society and how one person can impact another with even the smallest of gestures.
Thats the most succinct advice I have on being a better manager. Not a self-indulgent medium article.
Thats the most succinct advice I have on being a better manager. Not a self-indulgent medium article.
This 1000%.
At some point you have to decide, “do I work for my team and the people I’m supposed to lead, or do I work for the business?”
Great managers choose their people over the business. Ironically, this best serves both in the long-run.
At some point you have to decide, “do I work for my team and the people I’m supposed to lead, or do I work for the business?”
Great managers choose their people over the business. Ironically, this best serves both in the long-run.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
I liked that book too.
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.
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.
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.
Great animated 10 minute video of him summarizing his ideas: https://youtu.be/OqmdLcyES_Q?si=fljPKtgaU9XoHczZ
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.
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.
Difficult to find anything meaningful for "SOON" in G. Can you elaborate?
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.
https://trainingindustry.com/articles/performance-management...
https://trainingindustry.com/articles/performance-management...
It's a process you follow to stop yourself from answering the question for them.
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".
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".
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...
15 years ago, RandsInRepose.com wrote a lot of interesting blog posts on management, and then turned them into books: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/
The article about types of one on ones has stuck with me: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t...
oh dear..
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..
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..
Really recommend The Manager's Path by Camille Fournier
I find it's really more a practical guide, less so a "recipe of success" that other self-help tend to be.
https://www.amazon.com/Managers-Path-Leaders-Navigating-Grow...
I find it's really more a practical guide, less so a "recipe of success" that other self-help tend to be.
https://www.amazon.com/Managers-Path-Leaders-Navigating-Grow...
Best book I've read on it, really respect the Author after reading it. She is wise and a good follow on Twitter.
Not an article but this oft-linked HN comment from Slava Akhmechet is very accurate about how subordinates' motives can sabotage your intended goals and objectives :
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18003253
Haha, wow, I remember reading this when it was written. I do think it's probably a bit too cynical though, probably colored by the author's own world-view and personal experience. I do think that some companies are just filled with BS; don't get me wrong. But I think that there are also a subset of companies who are filled with people trying their best, but who are making mistakes and/or being incompetent in a way that looks like the active sabotage that OP is describing. I think when there's a power imbalance it's easy to ascribe every non-perfect action by people above you to be some act of self-interest, when in reality it isn't always true that everyone has a secret ulterior motive.
> From the founders's perspective the org is basically an overactive genie. It will do what you say, but not what you mean. Want to increase sales in two quarters? No problem, sales increased. Oh, and we also subtly destroyed our customers's trust. Once the stakes are high, founders basically have to treat their org as an adversarial agent. You might think -- but a good founder will notice! Doesn't matter how good you are -- you've selected world class politicians that are good at getting past your exact psychological makeup.
This is a particularly good quote!
> From the founders's perspective the org is basically an overactive genie. It will do what you say, but not what you mean. Want to increase sales in two quarters? No problem, sales increased. Oh, and we also subtly destroyed our customers's trust. Once the stakes are high, founders basically have to treat their org as an adversarial agent. You might think -- but a good founder will notice! Doesn't matter how good you are -- you've selected world class politicians that are good at getting past your exact psychological makeup.
This is a particularly good quote!
Ha, this is actually a really good case in favor of not hiring the best people. Any metric you have for estimating "best" will be gameable.
Now I'm reminded of https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2019/04/15/mediocratopia-4.
Now I'm reminded of https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2019/04/15/mediocratopia-4.
> I do think it's probably a bit too cynical though, probably colored by the author's own world-view and personal experience.
That’s the sad part. Once you personally encounter this, as i also have, though not as a founder, you cant help but notice it everywhere and question everything. Like the irl The Thing
That’s the sad part. Once you personally encounter this, as i also have, though not as a founder, you cant help but notice it everywhere and question everything. Like the irl The Thing
Overly cynical indeed and incomplete. It's profound for someone 5 years out of college.
I know the intent, but I found this typo funny
> Once the steaks are high
There are much better "this is how things ACTUALLY work" takes like Ribbonfarm's "Gervais Principal" [0] to feast on.
[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
I know the intent, but I found this typo funny
> Once the steaks are high
There are much better "this is how things ACTUALLY work" takes like Ribbonfarm's "Gervais Principal" [0] to feast on.
[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
/This is a reply to a reply (which I thought was thought-provoking) but commenter deleted it. I'm posting regardless to flesh out my thoughts.
>...that still doesn't mean they will do what you want them to do.
I get the generalization/perspective, but I reject the premise that you can't influence or manage subordinates to "do what you want." While you can't avoid your subordinate (a) daytrading their job or (b) empirebuilding for the sake of empirebuilding, you can for sure mitigate with monitoring, prioritization, and termination.
> <anecdote about Larry Page getting frustrated about PMs not doing what he wants in early Google>
I don't know the context of the Larry Page story, but the qualifier of "early Google" makes my point that they were still figuring out their leadership presence as rising managers/leaders. Jobs was also a known micro-manager. The answer, I assume, is that they began to realize how to manage results and I bet they could get a random employee to "do what they wanted," but prefer a different approach.
> learning to be hyper-aware of how your employees' agendas/motives can subvert your goals
I don't disagree, but there are checks and balances you can incorporate as a principal. The Gervais Principle takes it one step further by incorporating how these "subverters" can be useful to take risks that if things work out (and nobody gets caught), you get a pat on the back and the bonus. But, if you get caught (for doing something illegal but highly profitable), well we have to fire you. Either way, the principal is getting subverted, but it's not always against the principal's wishes.
>...that still doesn't mean they will do what you want them to do.
I get the generalization/perspective, but I reject the premise that you can't influence or manage subordinates to "do what you want." While you can't avoid your subordinate (a) daytrading their job or (b) empirebuilding for the sake of empirebuilding, you can for sure mitigate with monitoring, prioritization, and termination.
> <anecdote about Larry Page getting frustrated about PMs not doing what he wants in early Google>
I don't know the context of the Larry Page story, but the qualifier of "early Google" makes my point that they were still figuring out their leadership presence as rising managers/leaders. Jobs was also a known micro-manager. The answer, I assume, is that they began to realize how to manage results and I bet they could get a random employee to "do what they wanted," but prefer a different approach.
> learning to be hyper-aware of how your employees' agendas/motives can subvert your goals
I don't disagree, but there are checks and balances you can incorporate as a principal. The Gervais Principle takes it one step further by incorporating how these "subverters" can be useful to take risks that if things work out (and nobody gets caught), you get a pat on the back and the bonus. But, if you get caught (for doing something illegal but highly profitable), well we have to fire you. Either way, the principal is getting subverted, but it's not always against the principal's wishes.
[deleted]
As others have noted Peopleware is a good book as is Slack by the same author. Slack will likely conflict with the philosophy of PMP focused organizations but it's very relevant. I strongly discourage relying on the many popular management books like "5 dysfunctions of a team". Sorry the all knowing CEO doesn't exist and as a manager, you won't know all the answers either. Personally, books focused on team empowerment, e.g., books on scrum, The Toyota Way, etc. are probably more helpful. Management, as far too few recognize, is about team empowerment and staff development. It's not about you and being the boss.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_... is an interesting one to ponder, if you can avoid being triggered by the nomenclature. It speaks specifically to white supremacy in the workplace, but can be broadly applied to other biases which might affect one's ability to manage a team successfully. Even more broadly, it suggests a framework for analyzing one's response to aspects of a coworker's behavior or presentation that might not be directly applicable to their performance. For example, do you think Hypothetical Ted is dressed in an unacceptably unprofessional manner because he actually is, or are you just unable to consider someone who's overweight anything but slovenly? (Per the word of several large and highly-competent friends, people like that are out there.)
Douglas Southall Freeman, On Leadership, especially the lecture he called “Old Number One”.
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 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...
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.
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.
It isn't directly about managing people 1:1, but probably the one that most helped inform my views on people management and organizational culture was the original Netflix culture deck
https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
Books are going to be better than articles because you can dive deep into topics and you know it isn't written for SEO, clickbait, selling some silver bullet process or ad revenue. I'll recommend two to learn good practices from and then two that will help learn to recognize horrible practices. You're likely to run into horrible management at some point and its good to recognize dog shit before you step in it.
* Peopleware, Demarco & Lister
* Rands - anything/everything he has written. Start with Managing Humans.
* The 5 dysfunctions of a team, Lencioni
* Gervais Principle (broke my rule, its a set of articles about The Office) https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
* Peopleware, Demarco & Lister
* Rands - anything/everything he has written. Start with Managing Humans.
* The 5 dysfunctions of a team, Lencioni
* Gervais Principle (broke my rule, its a set of articles about The Office) https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
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.
More practically, here's a fun blog where you can ask specific questions: https://www.askamanager.org/
More practically, here's a fun blog where you can ask specific questions: https://www.askamanager.org/
^ 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.
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
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
>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.
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).
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).
My experience regarding the servant manager is that it is really important that you also figure out what is in it for you.
There is a big risk that your career stops at that - being a servant.
There is a big risk that your career stops at that - being a servant.
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".
(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".
The best managers/leaders I've had in this vein are sufficiently recognised for their part in the performance of their team.
Wouldn't it be a small red flag about an organisation if this wasn't the case?
Wouldn't it be a small red flag about an organisation if this wasn't the case?
Will your next workplace value all the effort you spent that way?
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.
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.
Interesting questions.
> 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?
> 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.
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.
Your answer is reasonable but I don't agree that it is a "strange comment" as you say.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But of course YMMV and all that. I am not saying don't, I am saying do - think about it first.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
https://review.firstround.com/ is great, too (not 100% leadership/management)
As a new manager I found the Chester Nimitz quote: “When you're in command, command.”
I.e. it's now your job to lead. Do it, and take responsibility for doing it.
Also:
The Manager's Path by Camille Fournier Released March 2017 Publisher(s): O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN: 9781491973899
I.e. it's now your job to lead. Do it, and take responsibility for doing it.
Also:
The Manager's Path by Camille Fournier Released March 2017 Publisher(s): O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN: 9781491973899
"You manage things, you lead people. We went overboard on management and forgot about leadership." [0, 1]
- Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, USN
0: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper 1: https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/hopper-wit.html
0: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper 1: https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/hopper-wit.html
By Adm. Rickover
https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm
https://www.powermag.com/blog/hyman-rickover-on-nuclear-desi...
Books
The Never-Ending Challenge of Engineering: Admiral H.G. Rickover in His Own Words
The Rickover Effect: How One Man Made a Difference
I haven't been super thrilled with a lot of stuff, but I have found that I've enjoyed Joel Spolky's stuff[0], in general. I don't think he's that popular, hereabouts.
For example, his book Smart and Gets Things Done[1] is great.
Although not management, per se, Steve McConnell's stuff[2] has been of invaluable assistance, in my career. He talks about Quality Process, and that's the kind of stuff that managers should (IMO) know and enforce. Again, I don't think folks, hereabouts, have much love for him.
His book, Rapid Development[3], was a watershed, in my development.
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/06/05/smart-and-gets-thi...
[2] https://stevemcconnell.com
[3] https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/rapid-development-...
For example, his book Smart and Gets Things Done[1] is great.
Although not management, per se, Steve McConnell's stuff[2] has been of invaluable assistance, in my career. He talks about Quality Process, and that's the kind of stuff that managers should (IMO) know and enforce. Again, I don't think folks, hereabouts, have much love for him.
His book, Rapid Development[3], was a watershed, in my development.
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/06/05/smart-and-gets-thi...
[2] https://stevemcconnell.com
[3] https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/rapid-development-...
This guy sucks and the Glassdoor score proves it. He also invented FizzBuzz, the plague of tech interviews.
Didn’t Imram Ghory invent that?
Which company has a bad Glassdoor score? StackExchange? Fog Creek? Construx? All of the above?
Which company has a bad Glassdoor score? StackExchange? Fog Creek? Construx? All of the above?
The Mochary Method is a google doc that has been making its rounds for awhile. It's not the most visually stunning set of guidelines to read but the content is excellent.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18FiJbYn53fTtPmphfdCKT2TM...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18FiJbYn53fTtPmphfdCKT2TM...
The Mochary Method I found is much better for folks managing other managers. If you manage individual contributors with a lot of these ideas (e.g. meetings start on time), you'll definitely have a hard time.
His writing vs talking stuff though is truly great, and I changed how I run many meetings through it.
His writing vs talking stuff though is truly great, and I changed how I run many meetings through it.
Awful advice in the legal section. I hope the other areas are better.
There are a lot of great newsletters nowadays about People Management and Engineering Leadership. I'm subscribed to a dozen of them in Substack. I left here mine as it's about Engineering Leadership and Management: https://rafapaez.substack.com/
“Managing in Mayberry: an Examination of Three Distinct Leadership Styles” by Don Gray and Dan Starr.
https://www.donaldegray.com/managing-in-mayberry-an-examinat...
https://www.donaldegray.com/managing-in-mayberry-an-examinat...
I used to tell all of my new lead or new manager reports to start with Rands. I even offered to buy them a set of my favorite books - a couple rands, High Output management, manager's path, etc.
There are some fantastic other suggestions in comments though, and it looks like all my suggestions already accounted for.
There are some fantastic other suggestions in comments though, and it looks like all my suggestions already accounted for.
By "Rands" and "couple rands", do you mean books from here?
https://randsinrepose.com/books/
https://randsinrepose.com/books/
I got a lot of value from this post related to growth for ICs: https://www.honeycomb.io/blog/engineering-levels-at-honeycom...
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.
There, I just saved you 10,000 hours of reading.
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.
> For managing the former, let them get their work done
did you mean "latter" here ?
did you mean "latter" here ?
>The best way to manage those people is to fire them as fast as possible.
Depending on the country you're in, this can be really difficult legally.
Depending on the country you're in, this can be really difficult legally.
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).
> 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).
Solid advice!
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".
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".
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."
The FizzBuzz guy with 3.3 on Glassdoor?
https://pnewman.org/engineering_mgmt_checklist.txt is about the best signal/noise ratio I have seen.
I enjoy the readings from https://managinghumans.com/ but my talents are with code and not management so evaluation of the advice is difficult.
I love management advice from somewhat unconventional sources.
My favourite piece of reading here is The Eleven Laws of Showrunning by Javier Grillo-Marxuach: http://okbjgm.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/5/0/31506003/11_laws_of...
It's about how to be the showrunner on a TV show, but is full of advice that works really well for managing people in software engineering environments as well (if you squint at it the right way).
My favourite piece of reading here is The Eleven Laws of Showrunning by Javier Grillo-Marxuach: http://okbjgm.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/5/0/31506003/11_laws_of...
It's about how to be the showrunner on a TV show, but is full of advice that works really well for managing people in software engineering environments as well (if you squint at it the right way).
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.
Overall: five out of five toasters.
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.
I remember some similar content in Crucial Conversations, although it is a while since I read it.
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.
For me, "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" is still the best management book out there for 2 reasons:
1. It clearly explains the difference between a leader and a manager, and how those are 2 different roles
2. "Stewardship management" is so powerful that another book has been written about the application of that concept: "Turn the ship around"
I always evaluate everything about management to the previous 2 concepts.
1. It clearly explains the difference between a leader and a manager, and how those are 2 different roles
2. "Stewardship management" is so powerful that another book has been written about the application of that concept: "Turn the ship around"
I always evaluate everything about management to the previous 2 concepts.
Ive always been a firm believer in situational leadership. It teaches that there isn't just one leadership style for every person, their skillsets and their motivation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_leadership_theory
https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility
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...
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...
I think these blog series is illuminating for most companies
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
No joke hese articles were the reason I started going to therapy. I think before reading them I didn’t consider workplace issues to be a part of my “real life”. In some sense I was aware of work life balance but I didn’t fully appreciate that they are balanced on a single fulcrum (i.e., “me”!)
oh good for you, I hope it's helped you live a happier life!
This one is a little dramatic, but in the article she provides a devastating description of what it means to be a bad manager (or partner).
https://issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html
https://issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html
You might find my recommendations mentioned in my previous comment here useful, in particular; the HBR 10 Must Read series, - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39086359
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.
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.
Recently, an article by a friend about the manifesto of the top 1% of tech talent: https://appetals.com/the-manifesto-of-the-top-1-tech-talent/
I was initially quite reluctant even to read it, but I opened the link as it came from a quite notable friend.
I liked how these guys have summed up all the things that you can practice to become the top tech talent. (I am not sure top 1%) and what it means to be that.
I was initially quite reluctant even to read it, but I opened the link as it came from a quite notable friend.
I liked how these guys have summed up all the things that you can practice to become the top tech talent. (I am not sure top 1%) and what it means to be that.
Curious - did you write that article? The author of that article and your username seem to match. Or its just a coincidence.
There is a big list of resources related to engineering management which might be relevant: https://github.com/ryanburgess/engineer-manager
https://monoskop.org/images/e/e3/Beer_Stafford_Designing_Fre... Even has diagrams!
Shameless plug: https://leadership.garden/
Its not an article but here are some books:
Strengths finder 2.0 Rework Deep work Rick Rubins book Start with why
Strengths finder 2.0 Rework Deep work Rick Rubins book Start with why
Scaling people by Claire Hughes Johnson is a recent one that is quite good.
A related question, what are the best books or classes on managing people?
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45303387-an-elegant-puzz... - An Elegant Puzzle: Systems of Engineering Management by Will Larson - excellent intro into the job of an Engineering Manager
- 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
- 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
I compiled a list of these articles at: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-engineering-team-manage...
For each one I tried to extract the key point or Tl;Dr in the description.
For each one I tried to extract the key point or Tl;Dr in the description.
Managing Humans by Michael Lopp
And it's a book of his articles.
And it's a book of his articles.
[deleted]
Manage others as you would like to be managed.
Peopleware, Five disfunctions of a team
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.
Why? I almost bought it.
If you have to ask, if you can't do a search, if you don't know anyone . . . then there are none. And you should stop being a manager. Now. Just stop, please.
Also, you're asking asking HN - WTF!!!
Also, you're asking asking HN - WTF!!!
I like the One Minute Manager.
Maxim machine gun manual
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
People in general dislike being managed. Don’t do that. Lead instead.
People in general dislike being lead. Support them with management practices that allow them to lead while offloading ancillary burdens.
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.
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.
Another related question, what are some good resources on leadership?
https://github.com/LappleApple/awesome-leading-and-managing - on leading people and managing (mostly) tech teams
Thanks!