2 ms·

Having been an executive myself (in the past), my theory is the "clear" part of this is the root cause of ageism in tech. On anything more complex than Mineswee

by m0zg 7y ago

Having been an executive myself (in the past), my theory is the "clear" part of this is the root cause of ageism in tech. On anything more complex than Minesweeper, unless you've done it a couple of times in the past you won't be "clear" on anything when you lead people. You can create the _impression_ of clarity, but it'll be clear as mud to you all the same. Younger people don't see through this facade, so they take your bullshit at face value. Older people for whom it's not the first rodeo see right through it and most "leaders" feel really insecure in this situation. When I was younger myself, I sort of assumed competence on the part of everyone. The older I get the more I see that people around me (as well as myself) don't really know much about anything and don't care to know. This includes "leadership" and, as painful as it is to say, myself. Coincidentally, the article doesn't mention "honesty" even once. I've found honesty to be the best policy. I can't _always_ be honest when I lead (everyone would quit and go into depression if I were perfectly honest), but I try to minimize the blind spots and somewhat accurately give people a sense of difficulties and tradeoffs without making the situation look as hopeless as it usually looks to me when running "hard" projects. That way, if they care at all, they'll steer things in the right direction on their own, and focus on the right things. I'm in my mid-40's though, so I sort of assume (knowingly incorrectly) people around me think like I do, and bullshit doesn't work in the long term.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago
This is an underrated comment IMO and hits on a critical point that people complain about but don't really understand. That is, "The people at the top don't know what they are doing." For IC's and other people actually doing most of the work, they interpret this as base incompetence on the part of leadership. It's certainly fair to say that there is a lot of incompetency at the top. However, even for very competent senior leaders it's often completely unclear how to get from "Here" to "There" because the organization may not be positioned to actually get there. It's an extension of the technical debt problem, what made you successful in the past may not be what makes you successful in the future - and as a senior leader, it's your job to help the organization make that transition. The costs/risks to getting "There" might be considered impractical or devastating to the current organization. You can see this with any major company that fails to capture some huge new market. On one hand you want to take care of your people, and a complete pivot with a 20,000 person organization might see huge layoffs or "restructuring." Is doing that, not knowing if it's going to work in the long run the right plan? We praise those who made the right pivots, but forget those who mistimed them, so corporate survivorship is real - and it's not about pure genius competence. Now, try and communicate all of that to everyone on the team, considering all of the market dynamics, funding personnel issues etc... for context, and it's just not something that is feasible to communicate with everyone in a way that doesn't totally spook the whole organization. That said, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Communicating WHY smaller decisions are made and what the assumptions and context behind them are made is something feasible at some levels generally. This is where competence and maturity do play a huge role, and where great leaders distinguish themselves.

by m0zg 7y ago

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

This is an underrated comment IMO and hits on a critical point that people complain about but don't really understand. That is, "The people at the top don't know what they are doing." For IC's and other people actually doing most of the work, they interpret this as base incompetence on the part of leadership. It's certainly fair to say that there is a lot of incompetency at the top. However, even for very competent senior leaders it's often completely unclear how to get from "Here" to "There" because the organization may not be positioned to actually get there. It's an extension of the technical debt problem, what made you successful in the past may not be what makes you successful in the future - and as a senior leader, it's your job to help the organization make that transition. The costs/risks to getting "There" might be considered impractical or devastating to the current organization. You can see this with any major company that fails to capture some huge new market. On one hand you want to take care of your people, and a complete pivot with a 20,000 person organization might see huge layoffs or "restructuring." Is doing that, not knowing if it's going to work in the long run the right plan? We praise those who made the right pivots, but forget those who mistimed them, so corporate survivorship is real - and it's not about pure genius competence. Now, try and communicate all of that to everyone on the team, considering all of the market dynamics, funding personnel issues etc... for context, and it's just not something that is feasible to communicate with everyone in a way that doesn't totally spook the whole organization. That said, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Communicating WHY smaller decisions are made and what the assumptions and context behind them are made is something feasible at some levels generally. This is where competence and maturity do play a huge role, and where great leaders distinguish themselves.