7 ms·

I'm sad not to see an emphasis on giving a shit about the lives of those people you're leading. Personal development, career development, family, fun, etc. Thes

by imh 10y ago

I'm sad not to see an emphasis on giving a shit about the lives of those people you're leading. Personal development, career development, family, fun, etc. These are all hugely important to people outside of whatever widgets they are contributing to. A good leader should care about helping the people they lead achieve their goals, and not just in the sense of finding people who are willing to pretend their goals align with the widgets.

gbrits 10y ago
It is a top 3. And a good one imo
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tyingq 10y ago
I think some of this might be on purpose. There used to be a fair amount of talk about loyalty both directions...employer to employee, and vice versa. Companies that would, for example, suffer what might be temporary bad times without laying anyone off. Or employees that might accept a pay cut to bridge a similar temporary situation. That seems to be largely gone now. There's no loyalty either direction. Companies layoff without remorse, and employees leave whenever they want as well. So, with that environment, company level discussion about family and fun just tend to ring hollow. The employer/employee relationship is transactional...we pay you to do what you do. I do think those things matter at a "direct supervisor" level...the person you work for should give a shit about you, know about your family, and so on. It just doesn't seems to scale up beyond that one direct relationship without seeming fake.
- imh 10y ago
  I think that's an accurate take on how things currently are, but disagree that it doesn't scale up. The company I'm at now does a great job, and there are 5 tiers between me and the CEO. I think certain priorities scale pretty well.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I see what you mean. But, in the end, I don't expect a company to show me much loyalty when the rubber meets the road financially. So, it's just not a "family" in that way..and platitudes that make that comparison sound corny to me. I do expect leaders to be nice people, just not to the point where it sets some expectation that caring goes beyond that.
- alphast0rm 10y ago
  > So, with that environment, company level discussion about family and fun just tend to ring hollow. The employer/employee relationship is transactional...we pay you to do what you do. The most accurate way I've heard the employer/employee relationship described is by Reid Hoffman, who likens it to a tour of duty [1][2]. I think that lets both sides of the table set much more realistic expectations than the "we're a big family" ethos you mention. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141023153633-1213-tours-of-duty-how-to-organize-modern-employment https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141023153633-1213-tours-of-... [2] https://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-employee-compact https://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-emplo...
harryh 10y ago
Would you rate this attribute higher than the 4 listed (clarity, judgement, integrity & trust)? I, personally, would not. And honestly, when I think back to the best leaders I have worked with they didn't necessarily have an enormous focus on the sort of individual development that you talk about. They were focused on the mission. To the extent that individual development furthered the mission it was vital, but the mission was always #1. Having the clarity of thought to recognize this was clearly helpful to them.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  I once had an excellent manager. He told me that he would never think about my career development unless I asked him to. He would never promote me unless I asked for a promotion. If I never said anything, then he would assume I'm happy. But if I came to him and wanted to change something, he would do everything in his power to help me. One day I came into his office and said, "I really just want to code for a while. I'm finding these meetings to be getting in my way". True to his word, he replied, "What if I went to those meetings for you and sent you a summary? Would that help?" Although he did actually promote me without me asking -- apologising all the way ;-).
- imh 10y ago
  I would put it at number 1, to be completely honest. My life goal isn't to optimize widgets, it's to be happy. That's number 1. Widgets happen to further that goal. If I'm responsible for other people's livelihoods, that's a really important responsibility. That doesn't mean to override business decisions, because better business should help us all, but you shouldn't lose sight of the original goal or how significant the responsibility is.
  - pc86 10y ago
    I'd rather have a trustworthy, honest (integrity), and fair (judgment) boss that doesn't give a shit about my happiness than one who wants me to be happy but will lie or play office politics.
    - 10y ago
bsbechtel 10y ago
I'd say a leader's responsibility involves finding people who's life goals align with the goals of the organization. If this happens, then it is easier to show good judgement, easier to build trust, and communication is clearer because everyone is on the same page.
perseusprime11 10y ago
If you want to align people around a mission, you will have to hold this equation true: Mission > Team > Individual

by imh 10y ago

gbrits 10y ago

It is a top 3. And a good one imo

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tyingq 10y ago

I think some of this might be on purpose. There used to be a fair amount of talk about loyalty both directions...employer to employee, and vice versa. Companies that would, for example, suffer what might be temporary bad times without laying anyone off. Or employees that might accept a pay cut to bridge a similar temporary situation. That seems to be largely gone now. There's no loyalty either direction. Companies layoff without remorse, and employees leave whenever they want as well. So, with that environment, company level discussion about family and fun just tend to ring hollow. The employer/employee relationship is transactional...we pay you to do what you do. I do think those things matter at a "direct supervisor" level...the person you work for should give a shit about you, know about your family, and so on. It just doesn't seems to scale up beyond that one direct relationship without seeming fake.

imh 10y ago
I think that's an accurate take on how things currently are, but disagree that it doesn't scale up. The company I'm at now does a great job, and there are 5 tiers between me and the CEO. I think certain priorities scale pretty well.
- tyingq 10y ago
  I see what you mean. But, in the end, I don't expect a company to show me much loyalty when the rubber meets the road financially. So, it's just not a "family" in that way..and platitudes that make that comparison sound corny to me. I do expect leaders to be nice people, just not to the point where it sets some expectation that caring goes beyond that.
alphast0rm 10y ago
> So, with that environment, company level discussion about family and fun just tend to ring hollow. The employer/employee relationship is transactional...we pay you to do what you do. The most accurate way I've heard the employer/employee relationship described is by Reid Hoffman, who likens it to a tour of duty [1][2]. I think that lets both sides of the table set much more realistic expectations than the "we're a big family" ethos you mention. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141023153633-1213-tours-of-duty-how-to-organize-modern-employment https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141023153633-1213-tours-of-... [2] https://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-employee-compact https://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-emplo...

harryh 10y ago

Would you rate this attribute higher than the 4 listed (clarity, judgement, integrity & trust)? I, personally, would not. And honestly, when I think back to the best leaders I have worked with they didn't necessarily have an enormous focus on the sort of individual development that you talk about. They were focused on the mission. To the extent that individual development furthered the mission it was vital, but the mission was always #1. Having the clarity of thought to recognize this was clearly helpful to them.

mikekchar 10y ago
I once had an excellent manager. He told me that he would never think about my career development unless I asked him to. He would never promote me unless I asked for a promotion. If I never said anything, then he would assume I'm happy. But if I came to him and wanted to change something, he would do everything in his power to help me. One day I came into his office and said, "I really just want to code for a while. I'm finding these meetings to be getting in my way". True to his word, he replied, "What if I went to those meetings for you and sent you a summary? Would that help?" Although he did actually promote me without me asking -- apologising all the way ;-).
imh 10y ago
I would put it at number 1, to be completely honest. My life goal isn't to optimize widgets, it's to be happy. That's number 1. Widgets happen to further that goal. If I'm responsible for other people's livelihoods, that's a really important responsibility. That doesn't mean to override business decisions, because better business should help us all, but you shouldn't lose sight of the original goal or how significant the responsibility is.
- pc86 10y ago
  I'd rather have a trustworthy, honest (integrity), and fair (judgment) boss that doesn't give a shit about my happiness than one who wants me to be happy but will lie or play office politics.
  - 10y ago

bsbechtel 10y ago

I'd say a leader's responsibility involves finding people who's life goals align with the goals of the organization. If this happens, then it is easier to show good judgement, easier to build trust, and communication is clearer because everyone is on the same page.

perseusprime11 10y ago

If you want to align people around a mission, you will have to hold this equation true: Mission > Team > Individual