3 ms·
The example at the top of the article isn't very good. It is not clear to me that the manager didn't do the right thing. So the issue took 3-4 weeks to get solv
by verve_rat 4y ago
The example at the top of the article isn't very good. It is not clear to me that the manager didn't do the right thing. So the issue took 3-4 weeks to get solved.
"Everyone, including that manager, operated as though they were collaboratively discussing the issue."
That doesn't sound so bad. How do we know that the manager didn't "oversee a timely resolution"? Not everything needs to be solved yesterday. Maybe allowing everyone to collaborate on the issue and let it stew for a bit lead to the best outcome.
Speed != productivity != quality.
- n4r9 4y agoI feel like a very narrow definition of "leader" is being used, which is basically equivalent to "manager". But to lead means simply to guide and influence. You can do that by setting a good example, asking the right questions, and participating in a discussion in order to guide it towards a robust resolution. You can be a leader without having any reports.
- iovrthoughtthis 4y agoyeah, imo leadership and management are adjacent but separate things
- awillen 4y agoIt reads to me like the manager got the right people involved, got them collaboratively analyzing the problem to the point that they were able to identify the core issue, got them to find a solution to that issue and then got them to implement it. So a multi-team effort addressed something that was probably not an immediate priority for any team involved, since it's not like it was on anybody's roadmap, and got what sounds like a significant issue resolved in 3-4 weeks. Based on the way this is discussed plus a look at the about section of the website, it seems like it happened at a large organization, so that's not exactly slow. The manager in question sounds like they're crushing it to me.