5 ms·
First, I didn’t read that at all as a remark about someone’s qualifications. It seems a straightforward and friendly admission of where 2 different styles exist
by kasey_junk 3y ago
First, I didn’t read that at all as a remark about someone’s qualifications. It seems a straightforward and friendly admission of where 2 different styles exist. Acknowledging those style differences is a _good_ and healthy thing and not a tacit appeal to hierarchy.
Second, your whole comment is littered with implicit reinforcement of the hierarchy. You use terms like underling, bosses, and equate the founding of the company with founding of a hierarchy. If you, who claim to be skeptical of the hierarchy, can’t stop doing that how can you expect those around you who are trying to model their behavior off of you?
In knowledge industries managers aren’t leaders, they are support staff. The best software managers and executives know this and do everything in their power to make it easy for the actual leaders and experts, the IC doing the work (yes including that intern you just hired) to get on with it.
But one of the support functions of the executive team is to set that expectation by example.
- switch007 3y ago> In knowledge industries managers aren’t leaders, they are support staff. The best software managers and executives know this and do everything in their power to make it easy for the actual leaders and experts, the IC doing the work (yes including that intern you just hired) to get on with it That’s just lip service. Who goes to the annual offsite, the quarterly planning, manages or sets the budget, decides on initiatives. Not the ICs Why in companies that espouse this servant leadership nonsense does it take 3 months to get approval for a new monitor? This whole “servant leadership” crap is just PR. Every year there is a new orange coloured book about Leadership and some new cult-like idea filters down the layers. But companies are the same hierarchy they have been for hundreds of years.
- halfmatthalfcat 3y agoCompletely agree and in my specific company they have this concept of "Highest Performers" who get to go to an annual offsite/party for a week. Guess who only gets picked? Directors and VPs. It's almost satirical how unaware leadership is or the optics they emit.
- ryandrake 3y agoYou and I might have worked at the same company. They’d call it the Top-100 Summit or whatever, where the “best innovators” would gather to decide the direction of the product lines. Who were these “top” innovators? You already said it: Directors and VPs. Comical.
- lapcat 3y ago> First, I didn’t read that at all as a remark about someone’s qualifications. It wasn't. That's why I said, "It looks like an almost inadvertent admission." The rest of the blog post, though, is explaining in detail why the author qualified for their promotion. > Second, your whole comment is littered with implicit reinforcement of the hierarchy. You use terms like underling, bosses, and equate the founding of the company with founding of a hierarchy. If you, who claim to be skeptical of the hierarchy, can’t stop doing that how can you expect those around you who are trying to model their behavior off of you? I don't understand this comment. Of course I used terms to describe hierarchies. How can one talk about about thing, even critically, without using terms to describe it? > In knowledge industries managers aren’t leaders, they are support staff. The best software managers and executives know this and do everything in their power to make it easy for the actual leaders and experts, the IC doing the work (yes including that intern you just hired) to get on with it. "Support staff" who by strange coincidence get paid a lot more money than the people they supposedly "support" and also have the power to hire and fire them. Hmm...
- kasey_junk 3y ago> "Support staff" who by strange coincidence get paid a lot more money than the people they supposedly "support" and also have the power to hire and fire them. Hmm... One wonders why hierarchical thinking endures. Hmmm…
- hitekker 3y agoSome people are afraid to question authority. You have to sugercoat the message a few times before they can stomach the complexities of social hierarchies.
- m_rpn 3y agoIn modern, tech-enabled knowledge industries managers aren't leaders, they are just a waste of money that could instead go to the people actually getting things done.
- the_sleaze9 3y agoI disagree with this. People add burden, that burden increases exponentially (to a point), and that burden is taken on by managers. Some management is better than others, of course. But they ARE necessary.
- icedchai 3y agoThis isn't 100% true. Some are good leaders and protect their team from BS and distractions, letting them focus on getting things done instead.
- m_rpn 3y agoUnfortunately good leadership is so rare that it's not worth having the entire category just to retain the 1 in a million good leaders.
- ddq 3y ago> Second, your whole comment is littered with implicit reinforcement of the hierarchy. You use terms like underling, bosses, and equate the founding of the company with founding of a hierarchy. If you, who claim to be skeptical of the hierarchy, can’t stop doing that how can you expect those around you who are trying to model their behavior off of you? This is a venture capitalist-minded audience, so “when in Rome”. Text often lacks important tone so try reading the comment aloud and add an air of disgust when you encounter a word that you interpret as loaded with implication. That critique doesn’t really hold up or add value to the discussion. Its thesis resembles “yet you participate in society, curious” and bad-faith tone policing, but that’s just my interpretation. Could just be miscommunication or a differing moral framework.