3 ms·

> As if they were on purely my own Is this actually the expectation at the places you work?

superjan 4y ago
In general, if you want your reports to accept company decisions, it is in your interest as a manager to align your stated opinions with company policy. Openly disagreeing, or just trying to take a neutral position will only reduce faith in the company and sow unrest for which you will be held accountable.
- joxel 4y ago
  If it’s in your interest to lie you should probably get a job that doesn’t make you a shithead.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Isn’t that the entire purpose of being a manager? If I were just going to repeat the company line and not advocate for my team then I might as well be a rock.
  - superjan 4y ago
    You can and should do both. What I wrote above is a job a manager has to do every now and then, not the fun part, but also hard to evade.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RugnirViking 4y ago
  "I don't like it either. Here's what I'm doing to try to get them to change course. In the meantime, we need to do xyz, and I need you to do abc as part of that" I have absolubtely had managers that did an excellent job of making us feel like we were in it together. In fact I'd say its one of the key skills of being a manager at all?
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
> Is this actually the expectation at the places you work? Can you imagine a manager saying, "I don't agree with these decisions, but you need to do A, B, C." This might be being frank and open with your reports, but at the same time you reduce their motivation. And if top management learns about this, they won't be happy. So yes, there is such unspoken pressure to at least not to distance oneself from the things you ask others to do, whether they come from you or from your boss.
- joxel 4y ago
  Yes, it happens all the time. Each time we get a new form we have to fill out to do something or some extra hoop to jump through. If the manager I worked for didn’t act like a normal person that thought that shit was stupid I would absolutely hate working with/for that liar/crazy person.
- rodgerd 4y ago
  > Can you imagine a manager saying, "I don't agree with these decisions, but you need to do A, B, C." Some of my best managers, on well-regarded teams, have done exactly that. Those managers are doing me a favour by flagging that it's a waste of my time, emotional energy, and political capital to argue with decisions that neither they nor I can affect, and that it will be better if we just get on with it.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  I’ve been a manager for decades and this is the way to handle it sometimes. Life is full of things that suck but you have to do them anyway, like paying taxes or cleaning your bathroom. Why should we try to pretend that work, of all places, is exempt from that? Wrapping it in pink wrapping paper fools no one but kills personal credibility, which is the most important asset a manager has. Top management often does not give a shit if people are happy about the thing (who is happy about layoffs?), just that it gets done satisfactorily. So yeah, sometimes I tell my team “this sucks but just get it done and then we can get back to the interesting work.”
- flashgordon 4y ago
  This is how I operate when I have a close trust with my team and boss. But I have also been in very transactional environments where I was "ratted out" for my frankness!
saberience 4y ago
Imagine this from a military perspective. The general/field marshal etc makes the call that you're going over the top and as a smart Major or whatever you know this means most of your men are going to die. Are you going to say to your men: "Hello gents, we have our new orders, we're going to go over the top tomorrow at 8am and try and take the village one mile down the road, however, I think this is a horrible idea and you're all probably going to die." Even if you really believe this is the case, it's a bad idea to tell your men as it means the plan (which is going to happen anyway) is even LESS likely to succeed. That is, if you can make your men believe the plan is genius and they're going to destroy the enemy easily, it may give them more confidence and leave more of them alive at the end of it.
- darkerside 4y ago
  One of my favorite war speeches is from Gladiator. Short but sweet. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechgladiator1.html https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechgl...
- solarmist 4y ago
  To me, this screams a lack of trust. By explaining your reasoning in every situation you can will build trust, so that on the rare occasion that you need them to act without sharing, they will trust you enough to do so. For example, when in an execution environment where response time matters. And in practice, this is how good commanders I've worked with have operated. And this is explicitly a principle of the US Army, by understanding the objective and it's purpose units are able to continue acting to fulfill their objectives even if they are cut off. The upside of explaining whenever you can let them build a mental model to know how you would likely handle an unexpected situation, allowing them to act in your absence.
  - Hermitian909 4y ago
    > To me, this screams a lack of trust. It is unusual to have a team emotionally mature enough to handle actual transparency. You only have to read HN to know people live with extreme cognitive dissonance between wanting their high salaries and hating the business practices that enable them. My experience has always been that certain employees get marked as "adults in the room" and are given real transparency in 1:1s.
ZephyrBlu 4y ago
I'm not a manager, but at the very least it seems like an implicit expectation associated with the role. I wouldn't be surprised if it was explicit at some companies.
- flashgordon 4y ago
  It is painful because it is explicit. In an implicit world every one know it is bs and just move on

In general, if you want your reports to accept company decisions, it is in your interest as a manager to align your stated opinions with company policy. Openly disagreeing, or just trying to take a neutral position will only reduce faith in the company and sow unrest for which you will be held accountable.

joxel 4y ago
If it’s in your interest to lie you should probably get a job that doesn’t make you a shithead.
Aeolun 4y ago
Isn’t that the entire purpose of being a manager? If I were just going to repeat the company line and not advocate for my team then I might as well be a rock.
- superjan 4y ago
  You can and should do both. What I wrote above is a job a manager has to do every now and then, not the fun part, but also hard to evade.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RugnirViking 4y ago
"I don't like it either. Here's what I'm doing to try to get them to change course. In the meantime, we need to do xyz, and I need you to do abc as part of that" I have absolubtely had managers that did an excellent job of making us feel like we were in it together. In fact I'd say its one of the key skills of being a manager at all?

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

> Is this actually the expectation at the places you work? Can you imagine a manager saying, "I don't agree with these decisions, but you need to do A, B, C." This might be being frank and open with your reports, but at the same time you reduce their motivation. And if top management learns about this, they won't be happy. So yes, there is such unspoken pressure to at least not to distance oneself from the things you ask others to do, whether they come from you or from your boss.

joxel 4y ago
Yes, it happens all the time. Each time we get a new form we have to fill out to do something or some extra hoop to jump through. If the manager I worked for didn’t act like a normal person that thought that shit was stupid I would absolutely hate working with/for that liar/crazy person.
rodgerd 4y ago
> Can you imagine a manager saying, "I don't agree with these decisions, but you need to do A, B, C." Some of my best managers, on well-regarded teams, have done exactly that. Those managers are doing me a favour by flagging that it's a waste of my time, emotional energy, and political capital to argue with decisions that neither they nor I can affect, and that it will be better if we just get on with it.
snowwrestler 4y ago
I’ve been a manager for decades and this is the way to handle it sometimes. Life is full of things that suck but you have to do them anyway, like paying taxes or cleaning your bathroom. Why should we try to pretend that work, of all places, is exempt from that? Wrapping it in pink wrapping paper fools no one but kills personal credibility, which is the most important asset a manager has. Top management often does not give a shit if people are happy about the thing (who is happy about layoffs?), just that it gets done satisfactorily. So yeah, sometimes I tell my team “this sucks but just get it done and then we can get back to the interesting work.”
flashgordon 4y ago
This is how I operate when I have a close trust with my team and boss. But I have also been in very transactional environments where I was "ratted out" for my frankness!

saberience 4y ago

Imagine this from a military perspective. The general/field marshal etc makes the call that you're going over the top and as a smart Major or whatever you know this means most of your men are going to die. Are you going to say to your men: "Hello gents, we have our new orders, we're going to go over the top tomorrow at 8am and try and take the village one mile down the road, however, I think this is a horrible idea and you're all probably going to die." Even if you really believe this is the case, it's a bad idea to tell your men as it means the plan (which is going to happen anyway) is even LESS likely to succeed. That is, if you can make your men believe the plan is genius and they're going to destroy the enemy easily, it may give them more confidence and leave more of them alive at the end of it.

darkerside 4y ago
One of my favorite war speeches is from Gladiator. Short but sweet. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechgladiator1.html https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechgl...
solarmist 4y ago
To me, this screams a lack of trust. By explaining your reasoning in every situation you can will build trust, so that on the rare occasion that you need them to act without sharing, they will trust you enough to do so. For example, when in an execution environment where response time matters. And in practice, this is how good commanders I've worked with have operated. And this is explicitly a principle of the US Army, by understanding the objective and it's purpose units are able to continue acting to fulfill their objectives even if they are cut off. The upside of explaining whenever you can let them build a mental model to know how you would likely handle an unexpected situation, allowing them to act in your absence.
- Hermitian909 4y ago
  > To me, this screams a lack of trust. It is unusual to have a team emotionally mature enough to handle actual transparency. You only have to read HN to know people live with extreme cognitive dissonance between wanting their high salaries and hating the business practices that enable them. My experience has always been that certain employees get marked as "adults in the room" and are given real transparency in 1:1s.

ZephyrBlu 4y ago

I'm not a manager, but at the very least it seems like an implicit expectation associated with the role. I wouldn't be surprised if it was explicit at some companies.

flashgordon 4y ago
It is painful because it is explicit. In an implicit world every one know it is bs and just move on