4 ms·
For what it’s worth, I recall one factoid from some planet money episode a long, long time ago, that the quality of a supervisor determines roughly 75% of your
by dereg 4y ago
For what it’s worth, I recall one factoid from some planet money episode a long, long time ago, that the quality of a supervisor determines roughly 75% of your overall performance. Unfortunately, I cannot cite the episode nor can I cite the source within that episode. If I had to take a guess, it was someone from Harvard business school. The reason why I remember that number rather is because it fits right in line with my experience.
I was much younger in my career then, after after learning that, I immediately had zero tolerance for bad management. It was clear that the only way out was to either jump ship or get your existing manager out of your hair. That’s when it’s crucial to manage upwards. With even bad managers, if you can figure out their motivations, then you can figure out a way for them to leave you alone.
- a9h74j 4y agoDecades ago, HBR described a study suggesting that CEOs do not have portable talent, if not followed by their team.
- Isognoviastoma 4y agoReading this I think I understood what's behind "some tangential thing is majority of success" claims: it is multiplier, not percentage of absolute level. "One can be 4x more performant when led by empowering rather than bureaucratic boss" is plausible. "Unskilled, slacking person will achieve nearly as much as skilled one in same team" is questionable.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]