7 ms·

Why Fair Bosses Fall Behind

101 points by jkuria 15y ago

anonymous246 15y ago
Interesting experiment which suffers from the problem that all psychology experiments have: based upon observations of college students. I've been around the block a few times and I definitely don't now perceive respectful people as weak.
- j_baker 15y ago
  Our research, which included lab studies and responses from hundreds of corporate decision makers and employees... That doesn't seem to be the case to me.
  - rosser 15y ago
    FTA: "The same bias was exhibited by students in a laboratory setting." The GP was talking specifically about the experiment design. Surveys are also notoriously unreliable as sources of meaningful data. Not that either point discounts the value of the research, of course.
axiom 15y ago
I've had 3 kinds of bosses: 1. Hardass who pushes everyone to the limit, tends to micro-manage, frequently overrules consensus with his own views. 2. Total pushover who agrees with everything. Constantly seeks consensus and rule by democracy, never pushes anyone and just tries to be everyone's friend. 3. Somewhere in between the two above. Seeks consensus and lets people make mistakes in order to help them learn. Sometimes overrules people in order to make sure things don't get too far off track. Doesn't try to be people's friend, but is sensitive to people's needs and gives a reasonable amount of leeway. The somewhat counter-intuitive thing is that #2 is by far and away the worst kind of boss to have. It's fun for about a month, and then everything falls apart. The teams never seems to get anything done. All the best people eventually leave because there is never any consequence to incompetence and so tons of people just default to being lazy (think: working in government.) Although #1 is tough and often unpleasant, he tends to get things done (albeit with higher turnover and more grumbling) and most often at least ensures that the company succeeds (think guys like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who are notorious for being insanely demanding and insensitive.) Lastly, it's insanely hard to hit the right balance between #1 and #2. Really it's damn near impossible and requires some kind of magic innate talent to be able to inspire and push people to work hard without crushing their spirits.
- j_baker 15y ago
  The thing about #1 is that they probably aren't trying to help the company succeed. It's more likely that they're trying to take the company for a ride to meet their own ends. Any success they have is only going to be in the short term and only in the interests of posturing. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates can get away with this because their companies by and large are theirs. While #2 isn't a very effective leader, their heart is usually at least in the right place. Plus, given the right people, it's amazing what you can get accomplished by simply leaving them alone and letting them do their job. But then again, I'm of the opinion that we focus too much on the leadership and not enough on the people. Maybe I'm just naive. Great leaders are like surfers riding a big wave. It's easy to get distracted by the surfer and forget that the wave is really the important part.
  - axiom 15y ago
    "While #2 isn't a very effective leader, their heart is usually at least in the right place" You know what they say the road to hell is paved with. Lots of people have great motives, but end up achieving nothing but destruction. Yeah, I definitely agree that for the hardass and the in-between leaders there's a lot of ego involved, and they're trying to "ride" the team to achieve personal ends. The thing is, that frequently tends to work well. It's not necessarily a pleasant environment to work in, but it's kind of like climbing a mountain. It's no fun while you're doing it, but once you've achieved it you can be proud of it for the rest of your life. I don't think Steve Jobs was trying to make a fun work environment for people - he was trying to push the creation of great products. Conversely, the Michael Scott type boss who tries to be everyone's friend has no personal motives (beyond being liked) and thus no incentive to push for great results. I guess ultimately building something great is really really hard work, and it can often be really unpleasant.
  - larsberg 15y ago
    > their heart is usually at least in the right place I've normally seen that people in role #2 are just not prepared for the hard conversations that come with being a manager. Sometimes, you have to call people out on poor or below-potential performance. If you do, I've found that most people will either pick up the pace or quit. If you don't, well... things get bad. The unfortunate chaps in role #2 leave poor performers around to poison the team (most coworkers slack off when they see somebody else slacking, particularly if you have the corporate-standard opaque compensation schemes), avoiding dealing with negative actions until either somebody else comes around and fixes it or the team is killed. I was in this situation once, where a string of #2s had been managing a decently-sized development team I was merging with and it took several months for me to sort through the people, clean house, and build a functional team again. You know the worst part? There were a few fantastic people who had utterly languished due to being surrounded by mediocrity. On the other hand, that was also the best part, because the "let's talk about how we're going to get you working on bigger and better things" talk is much more enjoyable than the, "concretely, we expect you to be doing X, Y, and Z at your level, none of which you are" talk. Type #2 managers leave a trail of broken teams and wasted potential in their wake. I respect few things as well as working for an upper-manager who can pick up on that behavior and nip it in the bud. At least, I think I would, if I'd ever seen it :-)
frossie 15y ago
I suspect the etiology is quite simple - if somebody is behaving like an ass and getting away with it, it must be because they are powerful, otherwise somebody else would stop them. And so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- j_baker 15y ago
  Not to mention that if that person is powerful, I need to ally myself with them - no matter how much I dislike them.
- T_S_ 15y ago
  You put it better than the article, which was on the fluffy side.
- mattgreenrocks 15y ago
  This is easily shut down by anyone with a modicum of introspection: "or maybe he's just a self-important ass?" Is this asking too much of people?
nate23342 15y ago
This does not take into account the company they work for. Bosses at a company that pay 40% more than average have more options that bosses that work at companies that pay 10% less than average.
- fedd 15y ago
  to make people work for 10% less than average is a real managerial art. they use irrelevant motivations (like 'are you a man', 'you gave a word'), deceive people, flatter, promote jerks to make tension in the team and so forth. and even make some bullshit (rarely good things, i think) done. at least what i see here in my city/country. it's easy to have power based on money, but sometimes not that efficient, they think.
  - Duff 15y ago
    You're describing a bully. As long as compensation is enough to afford whatever you need to live, bullying is generally the worst motivator. Employees learn quickly that they can produce just enough to not get fired -- then they do so.
brandall10 15y ago
Is the question really whether someone is fair or unfair, or is it simply being the type that can cut thru the crap and be blunt... don't try to sugar coat, don't try to let people down softly, just tell it like it is in as few words as possible? To me that's the fairest supervisor you could possibly have. I had a supervisor like that once... he had a reputation for being a hardass, but everyone loved him.
Meai 15y ago
There is a very simply misunderstanding most people have: Fairness != being nice.
- wccrawford 15y ago
  I have to agree. While I prefer both in a boss, it's totally possible to have either one without the other. And I'd prefer fair over nice if I had to pick.
uast23 15y ago
This almost sounds like a comparison between growth of China and India, where China just gets the things done when it needs to while India lags behind trying to gather people's consensus; and I believe that neither of them are correct. Reasons are pretty simple. If you are a bully, things are bound to fall apart sooner or later while if you are a total pushover, you don't even own what you are doing. I have seen both the approaches working and then failing, at work. As a boss, being a bully can only work when you are sure that you have hired the last pieces of talent who did not have any other option. Well, if that is the case then you better be a bully. Otherwise if you have a got an extremely talented programmer whom you want to run on your terms, then it ain't gonna happen. Pushover - this can only work when the boss has got another talented boss in disguise amongst his own workers who actually works and makes the decisions on behalf of him. It happens; but if everyone is unsure and starts making his own decision then failure is inevitable. In fact, contrary to the article, push over boss has a better chance of sharp success in case he finds a brilliant worker who does not hesitate in taking the lead. Of-course that is not going to work for ever, but might work long enough. Edit: In fact, as I think about it more, a pushover/fair boss does not have a better but a far better chances of succeeding. 1. A pushover boss earns respect because he listens to everyone - Win 2. The probability of finding an extremely talented worker is equal for both kind of bosses - Win 3. The chance of retaining a talent is higher just because he does not interfere much in the work - Win 4. The chance of succeeding the project is higher because he lets other (might be better) people in team make/alter the decision - Win
- yxhuvud 15y ago
  Number 4 has a big caveat in that it requires really good communication skills to make certain everyone understand what the purpose and use case of the product is.
- sateesh 15y ago
  Why put the comparison between two countries in our point about leadership styles. Countries are not people , a leader in a corporate setup has a fairly definitive goals (increase revenue) and can hire/fire people. But countries are to be governed so that every one has a equitable choice.
hagyma 15y ago
As a boss you consider many aspects of your action. You can be friendly or aggressive, but every decision in my opinion is based on the individual or the team you are in conversation with. You don't treat everyone equally even if it sounds unfair. Some guys are reliable and do their best, some just act like junkies and have to be "regulated". If you are democratic and friendly you can find yourself in situations where your guys feel they can just overrule your decisions... that is when you turn into a hardass monster. :) As a boss you are the only one with the pressure to deliver something as a complete product. The team just feels portions of it. This will and should make you act as required in any situation. Still, no matter what your style is... you have to be consistent and reliable. This is crucial for earning trust.
omouse 15y ago
Our society is built upon capitalist competition. Being fair doesn't count unless you can see its impact on the bottom-line and unfortunately it's difficult to quantify something that's qualitative. Also, fair leaders are rarely shown in tv, propaganda, etc. which makes it harder for people to see them as having power.
stayjin 15y ago
Last year I've been working on an unconventional idea of mine: After a project at which I was the project manager, I get into a project managed by someone else, as a team member. This has several advantages: -It gives me perspective: manager is a function, not a position or a personality obsession. -I get to see things from the other side regularly: sometimes I find that in the previous project I was managing I have been unreasonable. -I lead by example: people become very motivated when they see me coding or testing ( as a bonus, I get to keep my coding skills sharp :-) Of course, this is Japan and one can still get the credit for doing work behind the scene but I think it is an interesting idea to hack the "soft boss-hard boss" paradigm
frankwiles 15y ago
These types of studies are flawed in that they assume the same technique works with different people in different situations. The best managers, bosses, founders, etc realize you have to treat different people and situations differently, it's constant adaptation to the situation at hand. Doing that is hard and more art than science.
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
The first time I managed a team, I learned a critical lesson: a managem must manage upwards and sideways as well as down. I had a great team and I busted my butt for them. They had better hardware than other teams, were better educated (conferences and working with others in the company besides engineering), and had more fun doing their job. Mostly, this was able to happen because I asked my boss. but due to my sibling managers not being willing to ask, a lot of hostility grew between other teams and me. Instead of addressing that, i said "F it" and kept focusing on my team. By the time I figured out I shouldn't have done that, it really was too late. Seven years busting my butt to make a project successful under very bad conditions with reasonable success, and I leave with few people who know what I accomplished, how i did it or anything, but instead, they have overall negative feelings towards me. In short, if you are a manager, you're job is much more than just the people on your team. Don't forget it.
- dkarl 15y ago
  Your peers might have been asking for better equipment and a bigger training budget and getting turned down. They wouldn't have admitted it, because it would have made them look weak, and it would explain their resentment toward you and their lack of appreciation for the results you got.
- skarayan 15y ago
  I've had a similar experience. While I had a good relationship with my team, other managers (that worked for my manager), and the business, I had a very poor relationship with the infrastructure team. If you have worked in an Enterprise, you realize that nearly all deployments have to go through the infrastructure team including DBAs, Unix/Windows teams, and Network. Instead of trying to work with them, I tried to bypass them at every opportunity. I wanted to get things done faster, but in the long term everything became an uphill battle. Now I realize that part of being a good manager is also being a good team player with everyone involved. Instead of trying to bypass them, I should have communicated better to come up with mutually benficial solution.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
known 15y ago
Leading, managing & administering are 3 different aspects.
Dylan16807 15y ago
I don't follow the logic in the examples at all. First, we have a comparison between the assertive McKinnell and the respectful Katen. But there is no mention of 'fairness' to be found. Then we have a study of students that found that ruder people seemed to be more powerful, but I can't figure out how that relates at all to wanting to give more power to less fair people. I'm not going so far as to say the conclusion is wrong, just that this particular article seems to provide no evidence for it.
- kahawe 15y ago
  I have the same impression - their conclusions must have already been there and they just plugged in a few studies that might sound relevant and they left quite a few gaping holes there.
kahawe 15y ago
The CEO decision at Pfizer is a horrible example, if you ask me. All we know is that one manager was perceived as assertive and occasionally "abrasive" while the other one was "fair" and then when the abrasive guy was picked, they conclude it was because of his "toughness" because some random analyst said so. There could be a million different reasons why he was picked over her. For one, it might simply be discrimination from the owners and/or share holders or one particularly influential share holder. Or he was better connected and/or was playing politics better than she did. Or for many other reasons... And the other study just showed how a first impression will influence how we perceive people. They have absolutely nothing backing up the theory that a "fair" manager will lose to an "unfair, tough" manager in promotions. If you ask me, they are missing quite a few links and connections in their theory and are mixing correlation with causation.
paganel 15y ago
Machiavelli wrote about this 500 years ago (http://oll.libertyfund.org/simple.php?id=775#chapter_76114 http://oll.libertyfund.org/simple.php?id=775#chapter_76114), and interestingly enough he could not find any definitive answer one way or the other, maybe these guys are smarter than him, I cannot tell: > how manlius torquatus by harshness, and valerius corvinus by gentleness, acquired equal glory. > I conclude, then, that the character and conduct of Valerius is advantageous in a prince, but pernicious in a citizen, not only as regards his country, but also in regard to himself; pernicious for the state, because they prepare the way for a tyranny; and for himself, because in rendering him suspect to his fellow-citizens, it constrains them to take precautions against him that will prove detrimental to him. And, on the other hand, I affirm that the severity of Manlius is dangerous to the interests of a prince, but favorable to a citizen, and above all to the country. And it seldom turns to his prejudice, unless the hatred which it excites should be embittered by the suspicions which his great reputation and other virtues may inspire; as we will show when speaking of Camillus in the next chapter.
- iam 15y ago
  Interesting link. I took a read of that chapter, and found this paragraph additionally enlightening: > I say that the conduct of Manlius is more praiseworthy and less perilous for a citizen who lives under the laws of a republic; inasmuch as it operates entirely for the benefit of the state, and can never favor private ambition. For by such conduct a man can never create any partisans for himself; severe towards everybody, and devoted only to the public good, a commander by such means will never gain any particular friends, such as we have called partisans. Thus this course of conduct can only be of the greatest benefit and value in a republic, as it looks only to the public good, and is in no way open to the suspicion of individual usurpation. But with the system of Valerius, quite the contrary is the case; for although it produces the same effects so far as the public service is concerned, yet it is calculated to inspire doubts and mistrust, on account of the special devotion of the soldiers to their chief to which it will give rise, and which might be productive of bad effects against the public liberty, in case of his being continued in command for any length of time. So Machiavelli is basically saying in the context of a republic, it is better for a commander to rule through terror/harshness (what the article calls power) rather than respect. The reason being is that gaining respect will cause the commander to gain friends (the person commanding via terror will have none/few friends) and make that commander a risk to the state by being a potential tyrant. Given this, it's not surprising that Machiavelli advocates Manlius over Valerius, since the behavior of Valerius is in the end disadvantageous to everybody else. However, does this really apply to a company? Most simply aren't run as a republic, but more of a benevolent dictatorship. So even if a if a manager does rise up to be the new CEO (a "tyrant"), it's probably because whoever appoints the CEO (the board?) thought he would make a better CEO than the last guy, so in the end the company is the one that benefits -- not just the individual. In fact the article later points out (on the second page) that the CEO who ruled through harshness/terror was later kicked out for poor performance. Maybe commanding through respect is better for companies after all?
lsc 15y ago
"At Pfizer, a cohort of promising executives associated with Katen resigned after McKinnell took over. He himself was pushed into retirement by the board in 2006 because of the company’s disappointing performance. Shareholder outrage over his rich retirement package followed." sounds like the real problem here is the board valuing the perception of power over actual managerial competence. I think this problem is endemic; the thing is, business is hard. Most people give up on trying to find the best person for the job and go with the best-looking person, or the person who other people think is the best. The thing is, "the wisdom of the crowd" works fairly well if all members of the crowd make up their own mind independently. But that's not how it works; nearly everyone decides largely based on what they think other people think, which breaks the whole system. I think the rise of mutual funds, index funds, and other vehicles to invest without thinking about the companies you are buying are making this problem worse. People are giving their money to people who make money as long as they don't do anything wildly divergent from the herd.

101 points by jkuria 15y ago

Interesting experiment which suffers from the problem that all psychology experiments have: based upon observations of college students. I've been around the block a few times and I definitely don't now perceive respectful people as weak.

j_baker 15y ago
Our research, which included lab studies and responses from hundreds of corporate decision makers and employees... That doesn't seem to be the case to me.
- rosser 15y ago
  FTA: "The same bias was exhibited by students in a laboratory setting." The GP was talking specifically about the experiment design. Surveys are also notoriously unreliable as sources of meaningful data. Not that either point discounts the value of the research, of course.

axiom 15y ago

I've had 3 kinds of bosses: 1. Hardass who pushes everyone to the limit, tends to micro-manage, frequently overrules consensus with his own views. 2. Total pushover who agrees with everything. Constantly seeks consensus and rule by democracy, never pushes anyone and just tries to be everyone's friend. 3. Somewhere in between the two above. Seeks consensus and lets people make mistakes in order to help them learn. Sometimes overrules people in order to make sure things don't get too far off track. Doesn't try to be people's friend, but is sensitive to people's needs and gives a reasonable amount of leeway. The somewhat counter-intuitive thing is that #2 is by far and away the worst kind of boss to have. It's fun for about a month, and then everything falls apart. The teams never seems to get anything done. All the best people eventually leave because there is never any consequence to incompetence and so tons of people just default to being lazy (think: working in government.) Although #1 is tough and often unpleasant, he tends to get things done (albeit with higher turnover and more grumbling) and most often at least ensures that the company succeeds (think guys like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who are notorious for being insanely demanding and insensitive.) Lastly, it's insanely hard to hit the right balance between #1 and #2. Really it's damn near impossible and requires some kind of magic innate talent to be able to inspire and push people to work hard without crushing their spirits.

j_baker 15y ago
The thing about #1 is that they probably aren't trying to help the company succeed. It's more likely that they're trying to take the company for a ride to meet their own ends. Any success they have is only going to be in the short term and only in the interests of posturing. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates can get away with this because their companies by and large are theirs. While #2 isn't a very effective leader, their heart is usually at least in the right place. Plus, given the right people, it's amazing what you can get accomplished by simply leaving them alone and letting them do their job. But then again, I'm of the opinion that we focus too much on the leadership and not enough on the people. Maybe I'm just naive. Great leaders are like surfers riding a big wave. It's easy to get distracted by the surfer and forget that the wave is really the important part.
- axiom 15y ago
  "While #2 isn't a very effective leader, their heart is usually at least in the right place" You know what they say the road to hell is paved with. Lots of people have great motives, but end up achieving nothing but destruction. Yeah, I definitely agree that for the hardass and the in-between leaders there's a lot of ego involved, and they're trying to "ride" the team to achieve personal ends. The thing is, that frequently tends to work well. It's not necessarily a pleasant environment to work in, but it's kind of like climbing a mountain. It's no fun while you're doing it, but once you've achieved it you can be proud of it for the rest of your life. I don't think Steve Jobs was trying to make a fun work environment for people - he was trying to push the creation of great products. Conversely, the Michael Scott type boss who tries to be everyone's friend has no personal motives (beyond being liked) and thus no incentive to push for great results. I guess ultimately building something great is really really hard work, and it can often be really unpleasant.
- larsberg 15y ago
  > their heart is usually at least in the right place I've normally seen that people in role #2 are just not prepared for the hard conversations that come with being a manager. Sometimes, you have to call people out on poor or below-potential performance. If you do, I've found that most people will either pick up the pace or quit. If you don't, well... things get bad. The unfortunate chaps in role #2 leave poor performers around to poison the team (most coworkers slack off when they see somebody else slacking, particularly if you have the corporate-standard opaque compensation schemes), avoiding dealing with negative actions until either somebody else comes around and fixes it or the team is killed. I was in this situation once, where a string of #2s had been managing a decently-sized development team I was merging with and it took several months for me to sort through the people, clean house, and build a functional team again. You know the worst part? There were a few fantastic people who had utterly languished due to being surrounded by mediocrity. On the other hand, that was also the best part, because the "let's talk about how we're going to get you working on bigger and better things" talk is much more enjoyable than the, "concretely, we expect you to be doing X, Y, and Z at your level, none of which you are" talk. Type #2 managers leave a trail of broken teams and wasted potential in their wake. I respect few things as well as working for an upper-manager who can pick up on that behavior and nip it in the bud. At least, I think I would, if I'd ever seen it :-)

frossie 15y ago

I suspect the etiology is quite simple - if somebody is behaving like an ass and getting away with it, it must be because they are powerful, otherwise somebody else would stop them. And so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

j_baker 15y ago
Not to mention that if that person is powerful, I need to ally myself with them - no matter how much I dislike them.
T_S_ 15y ago
You put it better than the article, which was on the fluffy side.
mattgreenrocks 15y ago
This is easily shut down by anyone with a modicum of introspection: "or maybe he's just a self-important ass?" Is this asking too much of people?

nate23342 15y ago

This does not take into account the company they work for. Bosses at a company that pay 40% more than average have more options that bosses that work at companies that pay 10% less than average.

fedd 15y ago
to make people work for 10% less than average is a real managerial art. they use irrelevant motivations (like 'are you a man', 'you gave a word'), deceive people, flatter, promote jerks to make tension in the team and so forth. and even make some bullshit (rarely good things, i think) done. at least what i see here in my city/country. it's easy to have power based on money, but sometimes not that efficient, they think.
- Duff 15y ago
  You're describing a bully. As long as compensation is enough to afford whatever you need to live, bullying is generally the worst motivator. Employees learn quickly that they can produce just enough to not get fired -- then they do so.

brandall10 15y ago

Is the question really whether someone is fair or unfair, or is it simply being the type that can cut thru the crap and be blunt... don't try to sugar coat, don't try to let people down softly, just tell it like it is in as few words as possible? To me that's the fairest supervisor you could possibly have. I had a supervisor like that once... he had a reputation for being a hardass, but everyone loved him.

Meai 15y ago

There is a very simply misunderstanding most people have: Fairness != being nice.

wccrawford 15y ago
I have to agree. While I prefer both in a boss, it's totally possible to have either one without the other. And I'd prefer fair over nice if I had to pick.

uast23 15y ago

This almost sounds like a comparison between growth of China and India, where China just gets the things done when it needs to while India lags behind trying to gather people's consensus; and I believe that neither of them are correct. Reasons are pretty simple. If you are a bully, things are bound to fall apart sooner or later while if you are a total pushover, you don't even own what you are doing. I have seen both the approaches working and then failing, at work. As a boss, being a bully can only work when you are sure that you have hired the last pieces of talent who did not have any other option. Well, if that is the case then you better be a bully. Otherwise if you have a got an extremely talented programmer whom you want to run on your terms, then it ain't gonna happen. Pushover - this can only work when the boss has got another talented boss in disguise amongst his own workers who actually works and makes the decisions on behalf of him. It happens; but if everyone is unsure and starts making his own decision then failure is inevitable. In fact, contrary to the article, push over boss has a better chance of sharp success in case he finds a brilliant worker who does not hesitate in taking the lead. Of-course that is not going to work for ever, but might work long enough. Edit: In fact, as I think about it more, a pushover/fair boss does not have a better but a far better chances of succeeding. 1. A pushover boss earns respect because he listens to everyone - Win 2. The probability of finding an extremely talented worker is equal for both kind of bosses - Win 3. The chance of retaining a talent is higher just because he does not interfere much in the work - Win 4. The chance of succeeding the project is higher because he lets other (might be better) people in team make/alter the decision - Win

yxhuvud 15y ago
Number 4 has a big caveat in that it requires really good communication skills to make certain everyone understand what the purpose and use case of the product is.
sateesh 15y ago
Why put the comparison between two countries in our point about leadership styles. Countries are not people , a leader in a corporate setup has a fairly definitive goals (increase revenue) and can hire/fire people. But countries are to be governed so that every one has a equitable choice.

hagyma 15y ago

As a boss you consider many aspects of your action. You can be friendly or aggressive, but every decision in my opinion is based on the individual or the team you are in conversation with. You don't treat everyone equally even if it sounds unfair. Some guys are reliable and do their best, some just act like junkies and have to be "regulated". If you are democratic and friendly you can find yourself in situations where your guys feel they can just overrule your decisions... that is when you turn into a hardass monster. :) As a boss you are the only one with the pressure to deliver something as a complete product. The team just feels portions of it. This will and should make you act as required in any situation. Still, no matter what your style is... you have to be consistent and reliable. This is crucial for earning trust.

omouse 15y ago

Our society is built upon capitalist competition. Being fair doesn't count unless you can see its impact on the bottom-line and unfortunately it's difficult to quantify something that's qualitative. Also, fair leaders are rarely shown in tv, propaganda, etc. which makes it harder for people to see them as having power.

stayjin 15y ago

Last year I've been working on an unconventional idea of mine: After a project at which I was the project manager, I get into a project managed by someone else, as a team member. This has several advantages: -It gives me perspective: manager is a function, not a position or a personality obsession. -I get to see things from the other side regularly: sometimes I find that in the previous project I was managing I have been unreasonable. -I lead by example: people become very motivated when they see me coding or testing ( as a bonus, I get to keep my coding skills sharp :-) Of course, this is Japan and one can still get the credit for doing work behind the scene but I think it is an interesting idea to hack the "soft boss-hard boss" paradigm

frankwiles 15y ago

These types of studies are flawed in that they assume the same technique works with different people in different situations. The best managers, bosses, founders, etc realize you have to treat different people and situations differently, it's constant adaptation to the situation at hand. Doing that is hard and more art than science.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

The first time I managed a team, I learned a critical lesson: a managem must manage upwards and sideways as well as down. I had a great team and I busted my butt for them. They had better hardware than other teams, were better educated (conferences and working with others in the company besides engineering), and had more fun doing their job. Mostly, this was able to happen because I asked my boss. but due to my sibling managers not being willing to ask, a lot of hostility grew between other teams and me. Instead of addressing that, i said "F it" and kept focusing on my team. By the time I figured out I shouldn't have done that, it really was too late. Seven years busting my butt to make a project successful under very bad conditions with reasonable success, and I leave with few people who know what I accomplished, how i did it or anything, but instead, they have overall negative feelings towards me. In short, if you are a manager, you're job is much more than just the people on your team. Don't forget it.

dkarl 15y ago
Your peers might have been asking for better equipment and a bigger training budget and getting turned down. They wouldn't have admitted it, because it would have made them look weak, and it would explain their resentment toward you and their lack of appreciation for the results you got.
skarayan 15y ago
I've had a similar experience. While I had a good relationship with my team, other managers (that worked for my manager), and the business, I had a very poor relationship with the infrastructure team. If you have worked in an Enterprise, you realize that nearly all deployments have to go through the infrastructure team including DBAs, Unix/Windows teams, and Network. Instead of trying to work with them, I tried to bypass them at every opportunity. I wanted to get things done faster, but in the long term everything became an uphill battle. Now I realize that part of being a good manager is also being a good team player with everyone involved. Instead of trying to bypass them, I should have communicated better to come up with mutually benficial solution.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago

known 15y ago

Leading, managing & administering are 3 different aspects.

Dylan16807 15y ago

I don't follow the logic in the examples at all. First, we have a comparison between the assertive McKinnell and the respectful Katen. But there is no mention of 'fairness' to be found. Then we have a study of students that found that ruder people seemed to be more powerful, but I can't figure out how that relates at all to wanting to give more power to less fair people. I'm not going so far as to say the conclusion is wrong, just that this particular article seems to provide no evidence for it.

kahawe 15y ago
I have the same impression - their conclusions must have already been there and they just plugged in a few studies that might sound relevant and they left quite a few gaping holes there.

kahawe 15y ago

The CEO decision at Pfizer is a horrible example, if you ask me. All we know is that one manager was perceived as assertive and occasionally "abrasive" while the other one was "fair" and then when the abrasive guy was picked, they conclude it was because of his "toughness" because some random analyst said so. There could be a million different reasons why he was picked over her. For one, it might simply be discrimination from the owners and/or share holders or one particularly influential share holder. Or he was better connected and/or was playing politics better than she did. Or for many other reasons... And the other study just showed how a first impression will influence how we perceive people. They have absolutely nothing backing up the theory that a "fair" manager will lose to an "unfair, tough" manager in promotions. If you ask me, they are missing quite a few links and connections in their theory and are mixing correlation with causation.

paganel 15y ago

Machiavelli wrote about this 500 years ago (http://oll.libertyfund.org/simple.php?id=775#chapter_76114 http://oll.libertyfund.org/simple.php?id=775#chapter_76114), and interestingly enough he could not find any definitive answer one way or the other, maybe these guys are smarter than him, I cannot tell: > how manlius torquatus by harshness, and valerius corvinus by gentleness, acquired equal glory. > I conclude, then, that the character and conduct of Valerius is advantageous in a prince, but pernicious in a citizen, not only as regards his country, but also in regard to himself; pernicious for the state, because they prepare the way for a tyranny; and for himself, because in rendering him suspect to his fellow-citizens, it constrains them to take precautions against him that will prove detrimental to him. And, on the other hand, I affirm that the severity of Manlius is dangerous to the interests of a prince, but favorable to a citizen, and above all to the country. And it seldom turns to his prejudice, unless the hatred which it excites should be embittered by the suspicions which his great reputation and other virtues may inspire; as we will show when speaking of Camillus in the next chapter.

iam 15y ago
Interesting link. I took a read of that chapter, and found this paragraph additionally enlightening: > I say that the conduct of Manlius is more praiseworthy and less perilous for a citizen who lives under the laws of a republic; inasmuch as it operates entirely for the benefit of the state, and can never favor private ambition. For by such conduct a man can never create any partisans for himself; severe towards everybody, and devoted only to the public good, a commander by such means will never gain any particular friends, such as we have called partisans. Thus this course of conduct can only be of the greatest benefit and value in a republic, as it looks only to the public good, and is in no way open to the suspicion of individual usurpation. But with the system of Valerius, quite the contrary is the case; for although it produces the same effects so far as the public service is concerned, yet it is calculated to inspire doubts and mistrust, on account of the special devotion of the soldiers to their chief to which it will give rise, and which might be productive of bad effects against the public liberty, in case of his being continued in command for any length of time. So Machiavelli is basically saying in the context of a republic, it is better for a commander to rule through terror/harshness (what the article calls power) rather than respect. The reason being is that gaining respect will cause the commander to gain friends (the person commanding via terror will have none/few friends) and make that commander a risk to the state by being a potential tyrant. Given this, it's not surprising that Machiavelli advocates Manlius over Valerius, since the behavior of Valerius is in the end disadvantageous to everybody else. However, does this really apply to a company? Most simply aren't run as a republic, but more of a benevolent dictatorship. So even if a if a manager does rise up to be the new CEO (a "tyrant"), it's probably because whoever appoints the CEO (the board?) thought he would make a better CEO than the last guy, so in the end the company is the one that benefits -- not just the individual. In fact the article later points out (on the second page) that the CEO who ruled through harshness/terror was later kicked out for poor performance. Maybe commanding through respect is better for companies after all?

lsc 15y ago

"At Pfizer, a cohort of promising executives associated with Katen resigned after McKinnell took over. He himself was pushed into retirement by the board in 2006 because of the company’s disappointing performance. Shareholder outrage over his rich retirement package followed." sounds like the real problem here is the board valuing the perception of power over actual managerial competence. I think this problem is endemic; the thing is, business is hard. Most people give up on trying to find the best person for the job and go with the best-looking person, or the person who other people think is the best. The thing is, "the wisdom of the crowd" works fairly well if all members of the crowd make up their own mind independently. But that's not how it works; nearly everyone decides largely based on what they think other people think, which breaks the whole system. I think the rise of mutual funds, index funds, and other vehicles to invest without thinking about the companies you are buying are making this problem worse. People are giving their money to people who make money as long as they don't do anything wildly divergent from the herd.