4 ms·

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 pu

by 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 :-)
Duff 15y ago
Your example #1 is a destructive narcissist. #2 is a Laissez-faire type in an inappropriate situation. Corporate cultures tend to produce explicit or cultural incentives that encourage particular leadership styles. Government is a great example -- senior leadership in the bureaucracy tends to attract various types of narcissists (ie political appointees). Mid-level managers tend to be incented to avoid risk at any cost. (ie. don't rock the boat)
zwieback 15y ago
I think there are so many number #1s because if they succeed both the boss and team get rewarded and if they fail the boss gets most of the blame. #2s are not really needed because the consensus decision really doesn't need to be managed at all. #3s tend to get pushed in one direction or the other and end up as #1 or #2.
wslh 15y ago
(1) works when you have a constant pool of input and puts "natural selection" to work. If you're Google or Apple you have more DNA to test. If you're not the top company and you don't pay good salaries people will drop. The most reasonable option is obviously the balance in (3).
GFischer 15y ago
It gets worse. I had the following variations of #1 and #2: an authoritarian boss that overruled everything - as I came to learn, because he was underqualified and didn't understand what we were proposing, so he tried to stick to the status quo and rule through obscurity of some key components; and a pushover that agreed with everything - once again, because she didn't know anything. It meant we effectively had no boss (and no direction, and no focus or getting "in the zone"). Both were in the same company (awful HR I guess).

by axiom 15y ago

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 :-)

Duff 15y ago

Your example #1 is a destructive narcissist. #2 is a Laissez-faire type in an inappropriate situation. Corporate cultures tend to produce explicit or cultural incentives that encourage particular leadership styles. Government is a great example -- senior leadership in the bureaucracy tends to attract various types of narcissists (ie political appointees). Mid-level managers tend to be incented to avoid risk at any cost. (ie. don't rock the boat)

zwieback 15y ago

I think there are so many number #1s because if they succeed both the boss and team get rewarded and if they fail the boss gets most of the blame. #2s are not really needed because the consensus decision really doesn't need to be managed at all. #3s tend to get pushed in one direction or the other and end up as #1 or #2.

wslh 15y ago

(1) works when you have a constant pool of input and puts "natural selection" to work. If you're Google or Apple you have more DNA to test. If you're not the top company and you don't pay good salaries people will drop. The most reasonable option is obviously the balance in (3).

GFischer 15y ago

It gets worse. I had the following variations of #1 and #2: an authoritarian boss that overruled everything - as I came to learn, because he was underqualified and didn't understand what we were proposing, so he tried to stick to the status quo and rule through obscurity of some key components; and a pushover that agreed with everything - once again, because she didn't know anything. It meant we effectively had no boss (and no direction, and no focus or getting "in the zone"). Both were in the same company (awful HR I guess).