5 ms·

"The only people who I saw running “successful” companies (a word which, I now realize, is very open to interpretation) were stern, if not iron-fisted, managers

"The only people who I saw running “successful” companies (a word which, I now realize, is very open to interpretation) were stern, if not iron-fisted, managers. They made the rules and set the goals with confidence. They weren’t afraid to yell to get their point across, " The above is not an example of a good leader. People only obey this type of leader because they are paid to obey. A true leader is someone people obey because they believe in him. The previous sentences describe leadership in an idealistic way. In reality most leaders are sort of hybrids. Yes you work for you boss because of the pay, but if that's the only reason why you work for your boss, than your boss is an not a good leader.

sz4kerto 5y ago
> A true leader is someone people obey because they believe in him. No true scotsman? There are multiple ways to reach your goals, I don't think that one of them is 'truer'than the other.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  No but, let me put it this way. If you're yelling at me, than I hate you. I have no loyalty to you.. and the next time I see an opening, I'm fucking you over first thing. Everyone who follows you, is pretending to do so. No one is on your team. They may even secretly be fucking you over while pretending to bend over backwards for you. You've reached your goal yes. But you've made enemies. and your overarching goals are at risk.
- atoav 5y ago
  I think they refer to the meaning of the word "leading" as opposed to meanings like "commanding" or "bossing around". While agreeably there might be no "true" leader to be found on this world, the words mentioned above still differ in meaning and definition. Someone who leads does something else than someone who commands or bosses around. This discussion here is about that difference. Of course you can also reach goals by just yelling and punishing people, but that would hardly qualify as leadership.
atoav 5y ago
I have seen both. Management that yells and bosses around attracts a workforce which is okay with that for a given compensation in that phase of their lives. Actual leaders attract people who want to grow both professionally and as persons, and who would do things because they want to support the company, their collegues or their superiors. In reality it is usually some mix of both, sure, but it is known for quite a while that positive consequences are a better motivator than punishment.
- helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  I think it depends heavily on the CEO, company, product, rest of the team, and rest the management. An accidentally popular product with its own momentum can survive for awhile with even atrocious leadership and often other levels of management can make up for or mask the abilities of a CEO
  - atoav 5y ago
    Sure, but that is not a statement about the quality of leadership. Let's face the truth: a lot of things in the real world are just a matter of luck and/or factors which are beyond the control of individual actors. If my project fails I like it rather to fail with me being a good leader than ot failing with me being a bad leader. My experience tells me that projects with good leaders fail less often than those with bad leaders or bosses — all while being 1000% more pleasant to spend your time with. Being a good leader is not something you do purely for the money, ot is something you do, because it fulfils you and allows you to look back and not feel like you wasted time and energy on a pile of burning garbage.that was a bad idea to begin with.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  >In reality it is usually some mix of both I mean I'm not going to work for zero pay right? No leader can gain followers without some kind of bribe (aka salary) as well. The bribe gives the leader flexibility to overrule the employee. But if certain lines are crossed it becomes a problem.
skocznymroczny 5y ago
Could it be that your idea of a boss is how you'd think the world should work, but necessarily not how it does. Kind of like when women say they want men with a sensitive side, in touch with emotions, but in reality most women want a strong man who doesn't show any emotions.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  >Kind of like when women say they want men with a sensitive side, in touch with emotions, but in reality most women want a strong man who doesn't show any emotions. First off I want to emphasize I agree with this statement. I don't look at the world in an idealistic way. So let's make sure we're on the same page about this. Women are less empathetic and understanding about men than men are about women and this is a generality that is very very true. This entire narrative of the man as a bumbling buffoon trying to understand this mysterious creature called a woman is a false narrative. Women are by far significantly MORE ignorant about how men think, but women in general just don't care as much; hence why you see men coming up with deep behavioral theories about women like "friendzoning" and the like while women dismiss men as muscular simpletons with penises as brains all the while forgetting the fact that men are responsible for the majority of civilization and technology. Either way, I don't have any ire against the behavioral dichotomy between sexes, it's just nature. >Could it be that your idea of a boss is how you'd think the world should work, but necessarily not how it does. I don't think I'm biased. I've worked with leaders who I like and want to succeed. So from experience I've seen it happen. That already literally proves that the world can work this way. Logically as well, employees do their best work when they love their work, if I hate my work and I hate my boss... well I'm only going to do the minimal work to keep him happy. Any other shit that happens I'm sweeping under the rug. Typical example: If I code review an ass holes code and I notice a fatal bug, I'm going to approve it to fuck that ass hole over. Then I'll claim it's my fault for not noticing it during review and the ass hole will get blamed for sloppy code either way. I'm not sure what makes you think the world works that way. From my experience... it doesn't at all. Bosses who do this in my experience literally have to be paying their employees pure gold. In the majority of the software world, however, developers can easily leave and find a job with a better boss. I'm thinking either you're a manager who's paying people 600k salaries or you're an employee receiving that salary. If the salary isn't that high and if you're a manager, you'll note the attrition rate for your team is astronomical. Probably 3x other teams.... unless the entire company has this shitty culture then the attrition rate for the company is huge. If you're an employee and not getting 500k, well... leave now is my advice. I've also seen bosses who are assholes while managing to pay their employees low salaries. This only happens when most of the employees are junior, in the sense that this is their first or second job and don't know any better. Guys who've been around much longer know the difference.
willcipriano 5y ago
That is a manager, not a leader. Leaders by definition don't need to be iron fisted, they lead and others follow.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Semantics. If this is the definition you like than replace the words "good manager" with leader.
treyfitty 5y ago
When I worked at amex, I cringed at the fact that anyone who managed people were by default called “leaders.” People management does not equal leader by default and whenever I quipped about this, people looked at me as if I was talking out of my ass and playing semantics. Corporate culture can engrain whatever vocabulary in the companies interest, and I find that pretty depressing.

sz4kerto 5y ago

> A true leader is someone people obey because they believe in him. No true scotsman? There are multiple ways to reach your goals, I don't think that one of them is 'truer'than the other.

deltaonefour 5y ago
No but, let me put it this way. If you're yelling at me, than I hate you. I have no loyalty to you.. and the next time I see an opening, I'm fucking you over first thing. Everyone who follows you, is pretending to do so. No one is on your team. They may even secretly be fucking you over while pretending to bend over backwards for you. You've reached your goal yes. But you've made enemies. and your overarching goals are at risk.
atoav 5y ago
I think they refer to the meaning of the word "leading" as opposed to meanings like "commanding" or "bossing around". While agreeably there might be no "true" leader to be found on this world, the words mentioned above still differ in meaning and definition. Someone who leads does something else than someone who commands or bosses around. This discussion here is about that difference. Of course you can also reach goals by just yelling and punishing people, but that would hardly qualify as leadership.

atoav 5y ago

I have seen both. Management that yells and bosses around attracts a workforce which is okay with that for a given compensation in that phase of their lives. Actual leaders attract people who want to grow both professionally and as persons, and who would do things because they want to support the company, their collegues or their superiors. In reality it is usually some mix of both, sure, but it is known for quite a while that positive consequences are a better motivator than punishment.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago
I think it depends heavily on the CEO, company, product, rest of the team, and rest the management. An accidentally popular product with its own momentum can survive for awhile with even atrocious leadership and often other levels of management can make up for or mask the abilities of a CEO
- atoav 5y ago
  Sure, but that is not a statement about the quality of leadership. Let's face the truth: a lot of things in the real world are just a matter of luck and/or factors which are beyond the control of individual actors. If my project fails I like it rather to fail with me being a good leader than ot failing with me being a bad leader. My experience tells me that projects with good leaders fail less often than those with bad leaders or bosses — all while being 1000% more pleasant to spend your time with. Being a good leader is not something you do purely for the money, ot is something you do, because it fulfils you and allows you to look back and not feel like you wasted time and energy on a pile of burning garbage.that was a bad idea to begin with.
deltaonefour 5y ago
>In reality it is usually some mix of both I mean I'm not going to work for zero pay right? No leader can gain followers without some kind of bribe (aka salary) as well. The bribe gives the leader flexibility to overrule the employee. But if certain lines are crossed it becomes a problem.

skocznymroczny 5y ago

Could it be that your idea of a boss is how you'd think the world should work, but necessarily not how it does. Kind of like when women say they want men with a sensitive side, in touch with emotions, but in reality most women want a strong man who doesn't show any emotions.

deltaonefour 5y ago
>Kind of like when women say they want men with a sensitive side, in touch with emotions, but in reality most women want a strong man who doesn't show any emotions. First off I want to emphasize I agree with this statement. I don't look at the world in an idealistic way. So let's make sure we're on the same page about this. Women are less empathetic and understanding about men than men are about women and this is a generality that is very very true. This entire narrative of the man as a bumbling buffoon trying to understand this mysterious creature called a woman is a false narrative. Women are by far significantly MORE ignorant about how men think, but women in general just don't care as much; hence why you see men coming up with deep behavioral theories about women like "friendzoning" and the like while women dismiss men as muscular simpletons with penises as brains all the while forgetting the fact that men are responsible for the majority of civilization and technology. Either way, I don't have any ire against the behavioral dichotomy between sexes, it's just nature. >Could it be that your idea of a boss is how you'd think the world should work, but necessarily not how it does. I don't think I'm biased. I've worked with leaders who I like and want to succeed. So from experience I've seen it happen. That already literally proves that the world can work this way. Logically as well, employees do their best work when they love their work, if I hate my work and I hate my boss... well I'm only going to do the minimal work to keep him happy. Any other shit that happens I'm sweeping under the rug. Typical example: If I code review an ass holes code and I notice a fatal bug, I'm going to approve it to fuck that ass hole over. Then I'll claim it's my fault for not noticing it during review and the ass hole will get blamed for sloppy code either way. I'm not sure what makes you think the world works that way. From my experience... it doesn't at all. Bosses who do this in my experience literally have to be paying their employees pure gold. In the majority of the software world, however, developers can easily leave and find a job with a better boss. I'm thinking either you're a manager who's paying people 600k salaries or you're an employee receiving that salary. If the salary isn't that high and if you're a manager, you'll note the attrition rate for your team is astronomical. Probably 3x other teams.... unless the entire company has this shitty culture then the attrition rate for the company is huge. If you're an employee and not getting 500k, well... leave now is my advice. I've also seen bosses who are assholes while managing to pay their employees low salaries. This only happens when most of the employees are junior, in the sense that this is their first or second job and don't know any better. Guys who've been around much longer know the difference.

willcipriano 5y ago

That is a manager, not a leader. Leaders by definition don't need to be iron fisted, they lead and others follow.

deltaonefour 5y ago
Semantics. If this is the definition you like than replace the words "good manager" with leader.

treyfitty 5y ago

When I worked at amex, I cringed at the fact that anyone who managed people were by default called “leaders.” People management does not equal leader by default and whenever I quipped about this, people looked at me as if I was talking out of my ass and playing semantics. Corporate culture can engrain whatever vocabulary in the companies interest, and I find that pretty depressing.