4 ms·

> I remember several instances when it took a few deep breaths to keep me from kicking him out. But today he leads a team and triages the troublemakers he once

> I remember several instances when it took a few deep breaths to keep me from kicking him out. But today he leads a team and triages the troublemakers he once was. Sometimes when you save a troublemaker, you’re saving a team they’re not yet on. What a saint. Seriously, it always felt funny to me when a team member was let go at the behest of one or a few individuals. Anyway, the way she says this leads me to believe she thinks she is more important than other people.

eumoria 10y ago
> Anyway, the way she says this leads me to believe she thinks she is more important than other people. She's a manager of course she thinks that.
- studentrob 10y ago
  Well that's silly. All managers do not feel that way, and the salary sure isn't higher in many cases unless you're nearing the top of the organization. Being a manager is simply a different job function.
  - gravity13 10y ago
    This is where I feel like the title "project manager" ought to be reconsidered, perhaps to "project secretary." That way, it's a bit more clear there's less of a hierarchy and more of a duty.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      People go on power trips regardless of title. It's a mentality. You just need to hire people who are both smart and able to do the job, and can also see that all people are equals.
- morgante 10y ago
  Good managers don't think they're more important than other people. In fact, the best managers realize that the happiness and success of the people they manage trumps their own desires.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > In fact, the best managers realize that the happiness and success of the people they manage trumps their own desires. I'd say everyone's happiness is equally important. I agree that managers are often in a more secure position and can afford sacrificing some of their desires. Generally speaking, they should not need to become unhappy in order to make their own employees happy. Excepting, of course, a CEO who's earned his due and is now taking a $1 salary, and the cash-strapped entrepeneur who's trying to hold his fledgling business afloat and expects future returns.
eropple 10y ago
On the other hand, the way she said it leads me to believe she thinks her team is more important than an individual contributor and that, while it's possible to benefit in the short term from extreme talents who are also socially or culturally problematic, reforming them to remove that problem is a win-win for everybody. It's not a bad thing to assume nuance when you read intent.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > she thinks her team is more important than an individual Both scenarios are possible. A manager could say that all other team members are equally important while also implying that she or he is more important. She saved the troublemaker by taking a few deep breaths, not the team. She blames the troublemaker for his bad behavior, and takes credit for his good behavior: > But today he leads a team and triages the troublemakers he once was. Sometimes when you save a troublemaker, you're saving a team they're not yet on. I understand the need for consultants and managers to brand themselves. She goes a little overboard. She does not acknowledge efforts made by other team members, and barely acknowledges the individual himself for the adjustments he made. You write, "reforming them to remove that problem is a win-win for everybody". It sounds like you also feel it's possible for one individual to wholly change another. If that is your meaning, I respectfully disagree. We each make our own choices and face the consequences, good or bad. There is room for guides to help people understand consequences. Mentors and managers do not make choices for individuals. Ultimately, each choice is our own. There's a big difference IMO between what she wrote and a more realistic rewrite: "Sometimes when you are patient with a troublemaker, you're helping to save a team they're not yet on."

eumoria 10y ago

> Anyway, the way she says this leads me to believe she thinks she is more important than other people. She's a manager of course she thinks that.

studentrob 10y ago
Well that's silly. All managers do not feel that way, and the salary sure isn't higher in many cases unless you're nearing the top of the organization. Being a manager is simply a different job function.
- gravity13 10y ago
  This is where I feel like the title "project manager" ought to be reconsidered, perhaps to "project secretary." That way, it's a bit more clear there's less of a hierarchy and more of a duty.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    People go on power trips regardless of title. It's a mentality. You just need to hire people who are both smart and able to do the job, and can also see that all people are equals.
morgante 10y ago
Good managers don't think they're more important than other people. In fact, the best managers realize that the happiness and success of the people they manage trumps their own desires.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > In fact, the best managers realize that the happiness and success of the people they manage trumps their own desires. I'd say everyone's happiness is equally important. I agree that managers are often in a more secure position and can afford sacrificing some of their desires. Generally speaking, they should not need to become unhappy in order to make their own employees happy. Excepting, of course, a CEO who's earned his due and is now taking a $1 salary, and the cash-strapped entrepeneur who's trying to hold his fledgling business afloat and expects future returns.

eropple 10y ago

On the other hand, the way she said it leads me to believe she thinks her team is more important than an individual contributor and that, while it's possible to benefit in the short term from extreme talents who are also socially or culturally problematic, reforming them to remove that problem is a win-win for everybody. It's not a bad thing to assume nuance when you read intent.

studentrob 10y ago
> she thinks her team is more important than an individual Both scenarios are possible. A manager could say that all other team members are equally important while also implying that she or he is more important. She saved the troublemaker by taking a few deep breaths, not the team. She blames the troublemaker for his bad behavior, and takes credit for his good behavior: > But today he leads a team and triages the troublemakers he once was. Sometimes when you save a troublemaker, you're saving a team they're not yet on. I understand the need for consultants and managers to brand themselves. She goes a little overboard. She does not acknowledge efforts made by other team members, and barely acknowledges the individual himself for the adjustments he made. You write, "reforming them to remove that problem is a win-win for everybody". It sounds like you also feel it's possible for one individual to wholly change another. If that is your meaning, I respectfully disagree. We each make our own choices and face the consequences, good or bad. There is room for guides to help people understand consequences. Mentors and managers do not make choices for individuals. Ultimately, each choice is our own. There's a big difference IMO between what she wrote and a more realistic rewrite: "Sometimes when you are patient with a troublemaker, you're helping to save a team they're not yet on."