7 ms·

None of this is how companies or teams work. Rules are not created through negotiations, at some point a leader makes a decision.

zucker42 5y ago
A "leader" makes a decision and the people under him decide whether to listen to that decision, to push back against that decision, or leave. So in reality, the company's direction is influenced by people both at the top and at the bottom of the totem pole. True leaders realize the importance of cultivating those underneath them, and adapting their direction to pushback or input.
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  And when there's a dramatic split on how to move forward, they apparently generously buy out the minority.
klelatti 5y ago
Do you always do exactly what your boss first tells you to do? You never negotiate a delivery date? Leaders make decisions but good leaders take account of the views of their teams.
- acmdas 5y ago
  Somehow negotiating a delivery date feels different from feeling free to use company resources to discuss outside politics...but I'm old fashioned, I know.
  - stretchwithme 5y ago
    Agreed, especially if things are slipping BECAUSE of all the time lost to political battles.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    It wasn't "outside" politics though. It was discussion of things going on at the company, that the owners decided were "politics" that would be banned in the future.
  - klelatti 5y ago
    I'm old fashioned enough to know that when you impose changes overnight that lead 1/3 of your staff to leave on the spot then maybe a little bit of consultation might have been a good idea.
tomc1985 5y ago
The funny thing about leadership is that those under you hold more power than you, because it is up to them to accept your decision.
- stretchwithme 5y ago
  In any marketplace, there are always people who decide not to deal with any given participant. That doesn't mean they have more or less power. There are still others to deal with. Sure, ending a relationship is disruptive. But moving on is perfectly feasible.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    I'm referring more to people -- leaders in a position of power and influence over those below them, like a CEO or manager. And the thought here is not novel -- it was taught to me as part of an Organizational Psychology class in b-school One's ability to lead is only as good as their ability to get followers to follow their lead. Hence why so many people use fear to keep others in line -- it's the easiest and simple way to ensure compliance
    - bradleyjg 5y ago
      In Political Science, Neustadt’s seminal Presidential Power (1960) makes the point that the President’s power is mostly exercised through persuasion.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      Yes, because B-school is exactly where people learn to become good leaders... please, tell me more ;-)
      - tomc1985 5y ago
        Knowledge-wise my BS in global business isn't worth the paper its printed on, but it keeps the "you have to have a degree" assholes at bay Considering that most b-school students go on to become MBAs, I would hope they teach some leadership skills
djrobstep 5y ago
America - land of freedom and democracy, where all are created equal... you must do exactly as your boss says without question though. The workplace is a magic alternate dimension where totalitarianism is suddenly good, for some reason.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > you must do exactly as your boss says without question though. You left off "if you want your boss to give you gobs of money every two weeks".
  - barsonme 5y ago
    It’s a two-way street, though. If you’re a half-decent software engineer there are tons of bosses willing to give you gobs of money. And smart bosses recognize that.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      Absolutely. But the idea that this is a "totalitarian" deficiency in the country's provision of negative rights is ludicrous.
      - djrobstep 5y ago
        Let me guess: Your conception of "negative" rights includes the right to violate the negative liberty of others by positively attacking them in the name of property law enforcement?
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    "Do what I say or I'll cut off your income, depriving you of food and shelter" is exactly the kind of authoritarianism I'm talking about.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Basecamp isn't the only way on earth that these people can make an income
inopinatus 5y ago
Managers of high-performance teams recognise that they're not the talent; the job is to enable the talent. You are Brian Epstein, not John Lennon. Hire good people, give them goals, and the resources they need, then get the fuck out of their way. Let them make their own processes, rules, norms, even mistakes. Most organisations have a prevailing culture, so they'll operate in context anyway; create boundaries by application of Conway's law. Intervene by guidance and with pertinent and impertinent questions, not with directives and fiat. Authoritarianism is the death-knell of ingenuity.
- digitaltrees 5y ago
  It’s one thing to solicit feedback and be open to the input of your team. It’s another, often ineffective, thing to let your team lead you. How would a leader make a decision when there are conflicting views or recommendations. Brian Epstein made lots of decisions without the bands opinion and many more when they disagreed.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - inopinatus 5y ago
    Well, here's the rub: I generally try to avoid saying "my team", because I don't regard them as possessions. I'll make N-way decisions between conflicting ideals when I'm invited to adjudicate, but refrain otherwise. My guidance would be to workshop apparently dissimilar preferences extensively, because 99% of the time there is a synthesis to be found, and creating a focus for conflict tends to encourage loud voices to get louder, drowning out alternatives. I'll treat any administrative decision-making as being on behalf of the team, i.e. as having been delegated the authority to do so from the members. I learned years ago that governing by consent of the governed is the only form of respectful leadership, and this extends to organisations and corporations, and it's never more apparent than when a manager switches jobs and people follow to the new gig because they liked working with you. The most important function, in this management style, is hiring, and in some organisations, talent acquisition has been half my workload. Regarding which I was once told, "hire people smarter than you"; the only issue with this maxim being the corollary, viz. that the CEO is, by induction, the company dunce.
gls2ro 5y ago
What I think it is missing here is a concept I discovered very late in my career, after a burnout which took me over 1 year to pass over: psychological contract. Which is defined as "Psychological contracts are defined by the relationship between an employer and an employee where there are unwritten mutual expectations for each side. A psychological contract is rather defined as a philosophy, not a formula or devised plan." So I don't know what happened at Basecamp but here is how breaking a psychological contract feel to the employee from my experience: A leader representing the company does something, an action, takes a decision. You, the employee, feel that a wrong was done to you, even if the rules, law and contract says the one who took the action has the right to do it. And in the beginning no amount of explanation about the action will alleaviate this feeling. Logically you will agree that they can do what they did, but emotionally (psychologically) at the end of every meeting or discussion you will still feel that somehow a wrong was done to you, a balance is unbalanced ... Shortly you lost the trust in the company that what they will do has your best interests at heart. It takes a big amount of effort and trying to put yourself in the shoes of your leader to try to understand how they got to that decision/action and if indeed was done in good faith you might overcome this. If not, then the best is to leave.
angry_octet 5y ago
This is obviously wrong: decisions are negotiations. Rules are merely the next step in a continuous process. Rules change, participants change, environments change.
Joeri 5y ago
Ok, so why do we accept that companies are run like autocracies, but we expect that societies are run like democracies? If we say that employees should be smart enough to autonomously do their jobs well, wouldn't their collective intelligence be better at running the business in its entirety? Why isn't it smarter and more financially sound to run a business like a democracy?
predaking 5y ago
You should give "The Alliance" by Reid Hoffman a read. Excellent book - the first half, anyway - and I think it might give you a different perspective (or at least some food for thought).

zucker42 5y ago

A "leader" makes a decision and the people under him decide whether to listen to that decision, to push back against that decision, or leave. So in reality, the company's direction is influenced by people both at the top and at the bottom of the totem pole. True leaders realize the importance of cultivating those underneath them, and adapting their direction to pushback or input.

GavinMcG 5y ago
And when there's a dramatic split on how to move forward, they apparently generously buy out the minority.

klelatti 5y ago

Do you always do exactly what your boss first tells you to do? You never negotiate a delivery date? Leaders make decisions but good leaders take account of the views of their teams.

acmdas 5y ago
Somehow negotiating a delivery date feels different from feeling free to use company resources to discuss outside politics...but I'm old fashioned, I know.
- stretchwithme 5y ago
  Agreed, especially if things are slipping BECAUSE of all the time lost to political battles.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  It wasn't "outside" politics though. It was discussion of things going on at the company, that the owners decided were "politics" that would be banned in the future.
- klelatti 5y ago
  I'm old fashioned enough to know that when you impose changes overnight that lead 1/3 of your staff to leave on the spot then maybe a little bit of consultation might have been a good idea.

tomc1985 5y ago

The funny thing about leadership is that those under you hold more power than you, because it is up to them to accept your decision.

stretchwithme 5y ago
In any marketplace, there are always people who decide not to deal with any given participant. That doesn't mean they have more or less power. There are still others to deal with. Sure, ending a relationship is disruptive. But moving on is perfectly feasible.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  I'm referring more to people -- leaders in a position of power and influence over those below them, like a CEO or manager. And the thought here is not novel -- it was taught to me as part of an Organizational Psychology class in b-school One's ability to lead is only as good as their ability to get followers to follow their lead. Hence why so many people use fear to keep others in line -- it's the easiest and simple way to ensure compliance
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    In Political Science, Neustadt’s seminal Presidential Power (1960) makes the point that the President’s power is mostly exercised through persuasion.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    Yes, because B-school is exactly where people learn to become good leaders... please, tell me more ;-)
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      Knowledge-wise my BS in global business isn't worth the paper its printed on, but it keeps the "you have to have a degree" assholes at bay Considering that most b-school students go on to become MBAs, I would hope they teach some leadership skills

djrobstep 5y ago

America - land of freedom and democracy, where all are created equal... you must do exactly as your boss says without question though. The workplace is a magic alternate dimension where totalitarianism is suddenly good, for some reason.

wutbrodo 5y ago
> you must do exactly as your boss says without question though. You left off "if you want your boss to give you gobs of money every two weeks".
- barsonme 5y ago
  It’s a two-way street, though. If you’re a half-decent software engineer there are tons of bosses willing to give you gobs of money. And smart bosses recognize that.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    Absolutely. But the idea that this is a "totalitarian" deficiency in the country's provision of negative rights is ludicrous.
    - djrobstep 5y ago
      Let me guess: Your conception of "negative" rights includes the right to violate the negative liberty of others by positively attacking them in the name of property law enforcement?
- djrobstep 5y ago
  "Do what I say or I'll cut off your income, depriving you of food and shelter" is exactly the kind of authoritarianism I'm talking about.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Basecamp isn't the only way on earth that these people can make an income

inopinatus 5y ago

Managers of high-performance teams recognise that they're not the talent; the job is to enable the talent. You are Brian Epstein, not John Lennon. Hire good people, give them goals, and the resources they need, then get the fuck out of their way. Let them make their own processes, rules, norms, even mistakes. Most organisations have a prevailing culture, so they'll operate in context anyway; create boundaries by application of Conway's law. Intervene by guidance and with pertinent and impertinent questions, not with directives and fiat. Authoritarianism is the death-knell of ingenuity.

digitaltrees 5y ago
It’s one thing to solicit feedback and be open to the input of your team. It’s another, often ineffective, thing to let your team lead you. How would a leader make a decision when there are conflicting views or recommendations. Brian Epstein made lots of decisions without the bands opinion and many more when they disagreed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- inopinatus 5y ago
  Well, here's the rub: I generally try to avoid saying "my team", because I don't regard them as possessions. I'll make N-way decisions between conflicting ideals when I'm invited to adjudicate, but refrain otherwise. My guidance would be to workshop apparently dissimilar preferences extensively, because 99% of the time there is a synthesis to be found, and creating a focus for conflict tends to encourage loud voices to get louder, drowning out alternatives. I'll treat any administrative decision-making as being on behalf of the team, i.e. as having been delegated the authority to do so from the members. I learned years ago that governing by consent of the governed is the only form of respectful leadership, and this extends to organisations and corporations, and it's never more apparent than when a manager switches jobs and people follow to the new gig because they liked working with you. The most important function, in this management style, is hiring, and in some organisations, talent acquisition has been half my workload. Regarding which I was once told, "hire people smarter than you"; the only issue with this maxim being the corollary, viz. that the CEO is, by induction, the company dunce.

gls2ro 5y ago

What I think it is missing here is a concept I discovered very late in my career, after a burnout which took me over 1 year to pass over: psychological contract. Which is defined as "Psychological contracts are defined by the relationship between an employer and an employee where there are unwritten mutual expectations for each side. A psychological contract is rather defined as a philosophy, not a formula or devised plan." So I don't know what happened at Basecamp but here is how breaking a psychological contract feel to the employee from my experience: A leader representing the company does something, an action, takes a decision. You, the employee, feel that a wrong was done to you, even if the rules, law and contract says the one who took the action has the right to do it. And in the beginning no amount of explanation about the action will alleaviate this feeling. Logically you will agree that they can do what they did, but emotionally (psychologically) at the end of every meeting or discussion you will still feel that somehow a wrong was done to you, a balance is unbalanced ... Shortly you lost the trust in the company that what they will do has your best interests at heart. It takes a big amount of effort and trying to put yourself in the shoes of your leader to try to understand how they got to that decision/action and if indeed was done in good faith you might overcome this. If not, then the best is to leave.

angry_octet 5y ago

This is obviously wrong: decisions are negotiations. Rules are merely the next step in a continuous process. Rules change, participants change, environments change.

Joeri 5y ago

Ok, so why do we accept that companies are run like autocracies, but we expect that societies are run like democracies? If we say that employees should be smart enough to autonomously do their jobs well, wouldn't their collective intelligence be better at running the business in its entirety? Why isn't it smarter and more financially sound to run a business like a democracy?

predaking 5y ago

You should give "The Alliance" by Reid Hoffman a read. Excellent book - the first half, anyway - and I think it might give you a different perspective (or at least some food for thought).