4 ms·

Hello This is a great post; it hit home and I expect it'll come to mind many times in the future for me. It highlights an interesting problem very well. Will,

Hello This is a great post; it hit home and I expect it'll come to mind many times in the future for me. It highlights an interesting problem very well. Will, if you’re listening, there are two follow-up posts that I’d love to see – how (and how long) to execute the “be positive and generate excitement” strategy as the main character, and how this problem can affect companies and what leaders should do about it. My experience is that if the EM tried to draft a better product roadmap than the PM had made, it would dramatically worsen the relationship (for example). Being "extra positive" while "leading by example" can come across as being a fake, competitive show-off who doesn't know how to lead by uplifting (especially for someone who is more talented than some of their peers). Not saying the advice is bad necessarily, just that it can be really hard to do well (or that perhaps I don't understand it), and I'd like more advice on the execution. Even still, if one did this really well, it would mean good things for the main character's career at the company - no question. Stay positive, stay in your lane, do the best you can with the people around you, don't rock the boat, be inspirational - there's no question that'll help you thrive within a company (based on my observations, but counter to the intuition of a young programmer). However, sometimes this goes from a few isolated problems to a growing culture of mediocrity that punishes pursuit of excellence, and it can be harmful for talented people to stay in those environments for long, as it saps them of their passion for quality that is both hugely valuable in the right context and drives meaning and purpose in their life’s work. How long should the main character stay in a context where good ideas lose out to bad ideas, and mediocrity rules? Of course, allowing mediocrity to flourish is probably very bad for a company, especially when it pushes the best people down (and ultimately out). This post didn’t touch on how (and why) leaders should handle the avoidant managers in question, and I’d love to see one that does – getting the very best out of one's organization is one of the most important jobs of a leader. Needless to say, I'd love pointers to extant pieces that address these questions!

pas 5y ago
> the EM tried to draft a better product roadmap than the PM had made, it would dramatically worsen the relationship (for example). Absolutely. But "to lead by example" the EM could ask the PM to sit down and improve the existing one until it's acceptable for the team (or for the EM). But let's look at the exact scenario that the blog post mentions: > Both are pushed to “collaborate better” but the team’s impact remains poor How are they measuring team impact? Why is it important? Again, leading by example, if impact is important for the EM, then they should find a job where they have that. Our world is changing fast, most people have a status quo bias, tech sector are even crazier, putting all of that together it's no surprise that almost everybody in tech is not exactly where they would like to be. Dealing with this discrepancy is hard (and even that's quite the understatement), but the only true ways are internal change (acceptance, eg. changing with the environment) or taking action. (See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_and_commitment_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_and_commitment_ther...) > can come across as being a fake It's very important to find the environment where you can be authentic. Including being a beginner, doing something that you're not 100% sure of. (IT/tech is again an extreme outlier in this regard, because it's full of people with self-esteem & confidence issues. Needless to say these issues can manifest in different ways, and both kinds are of course bad: impostor syndrome and the arrogant know-it-all.) > How long should the main character stay in a context where good ideas lose out to bad ideas, and mediocrity rules? It depends. If the main character finds passion outside work (let's say side business, family, whatever) and can just treat work like a means to many ends, then it doesn't really matter. If they cannot, because they want their work to be meaningful, impactful, they want to have professional pride in their work, etc... then they usually need to move :)

pas 5y ago

> the EM tried to draft a better product roadmap than the PM had made, it would dramatically worsen the relationship (for example). Absolutely. But "to lead by example" the EM could ask the PM to sit down and improve the existing one until it's acceptable for the team (or for the EM). But let's look at the exact scenario that the blog post mentions: > Both are pushed to “collaborate better” but the team’s impact remains poor How are they measuring team impact? Why is it important? Again, leading by example, if impact is important for the EM, then they should find a job where they have that. Our world is changing fast, most people have a status quo bias, tech sector are even crazier, putting all of that together it's no surprise that almost everybody in tech is not exactly where they would like to be. Dealing with this discrepancy is hard (and even that's quite the understatement), but the only true ways are internal change (acceptance, eg. changing with the environment) or taking action. (See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_and_commitment_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_and_commitment_ther...) > can come across as being a fake It's very important to find the environment where you can be authentic. Including being a beginner, doing something that you're not 100% sure of. (IT/tech is again an extreme outlier in this regard, because it's full of people with self-esteem & confidence issues. Needless to say these issues can manifest in different ways, and both kinds are of course bad: impostor syndrome and the arrogant know-it-all.) > How long should the main character stay in a context where good ideas lose out to bad ideas, and mediocrity rules? It depends. If the main character finds passion outside work (let's say side business, family, whatever) and can just treat work like a means to many ends, then it doesn't really matter. If they cannot, because they want their work to be meaningful, impactful, they want to have professional pride in their work, etc... then they usually need to move :)