3 ms·

> What's the logical endpoint of "nobody is better than me" or "nobody is better than anybody?" Just like, no rules whatsoever for anybody, unless you explicitl

> What's the logical endpoint of "nobody is better than me" or "nobody is better than anybody?" Just like, no rules whatsoever for anybody, unless you explicitly opt-in to some specific rule or authority figure you happen to like? Negotiation as equals and on the merits of the matter at hand. For example, rather than a senior colleague telling a junior colleague to do something "because I say so", the expectation would be that they actually provide justification for their decision, and to persuade you rather than simply overrule there is disagreement. Ditto for a parent, teacher or other authority figure. And that where there is unresolvable disagreement (and one persons decision has to be followed despite lack of consensus), that there is accountability around that decision, and that the results of it are taken into account when resolving future disputes. In other words, authority is earned not decreed.

sethhochberg 3y ago
This is a very reasonable default way of operating, and the effort that goes into helping those you're leading understand and build agreement with the path we're taking together is IMO one of the key traits of a good leader - but anyone who has been in a leadership role for a long time will probably have had an interaction with a colleague where someone they're leading either lacks so much of the bigger picture that the nuances can't possibly all be explained in sufficient detail right now, or for situations involving personnel perhaps aren't allowed to be explained, and the answer in those situations will sometimes be "I need you to trust me even though you don't feel like you fully understand or fully agree". Hopefully those situations are extremely few and far between. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. I've had some colleagues handle that handle that situation well, and others for whom it has been a real challenge and sets the relationship back.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  That's very well said. Thank you. I agree so much. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. Yeah. And ultimately, it's just a maturity and practicality issue, quite honestly. It is not practical for 100% of team members to be in 100% agreement 100% of the time. And even the most egalitarian manager can't necessarily explain 100% of the reasoning behind 100% of decisions to 100% of the team members 100% of the time. And hopefully each individual team member will realize they are not correct 100% of the time either. Even if those are the ideals to which we aspire. There are times when we should dig in and defend our decisions to the death (hopefully, figuratively speaking!) but these battles should be chosen and fought carefully and not reflexively. I think most people generally understand this, most of the time. Spectrum or otherwise. Which is why I find the linked article so misguided and even insulting. The notion that those on the spectrum are hardwired to be incompatible with authority and everybody else just needs to accept this is just so wrong.
JohnBooty 3y ago
rather than a senior colleague telling a junior colleague to do something "because I say so" Sure. Agree 1,000% in this specific example. There are a lot of other contexts where it seems wildly impractical. Should Linus have explain to you and negotiate your right to be (or not) a Linux kernel committer? Should a crossing guard at an intersection negotiate with every car? Should an air traffic controller negotiate and explain with every given aircraft? Okay, maybe we could treat the role of ATC as an education issue during pilot training and certification, so nobody has to "blindly" obey. But what if I don't want to obey even in an informed way? What if I think the certification process sucks? Why submit to the FAA's authority in the first place? They don't own the sky! Ideally, we should all have individualized speed limits on roadways, too, based on our skill, the weather conditions, and the vehicle we're driving at the moment. And yet we recognize that this is just sort of impractical. There are a lot of issues with negotiation that get awfully intractable if we scale them up past much more than two people.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Do we recognize that as impractical? The Autobahn seems to work fine on that model.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    You will perhaps be surprised to know that there is a speed limit on the autobahn. There is a minimum speed limit and a strict set of laws governing your driving behavior. So no, you don’t get to pick your own specially negotiated arbitrary driving speed or negotiate your own special individual set of driving laws. German driving requirements (exams, licensing, etc) are said to be quite strict as well relative to many other countries and again, I am not aware of any part of this process where you are permitted to set your own personalized driving laws (but only if you have deemed your assigned personalized negotiator to be worthy of that authority) In short, a spectacularly poor choice of example (on multiple axes) to illustrate your point. If it’s any consolation this is a common mistake. I suspect people in Germany are often amused and baffled by others’ tendency to point to the Autobahn as some sort of lassiez-faire libertarian “do whatever you want” zone.

sethhochberg 3y ago

This is a very reasonable default way of operating, and the effort that goes into helping those you're leading understand and build agreement with the path we're taking together is IMO one of the key traits of a good leader - but anyone who has been in a leadership role for a long time will probably have had an interaction with a colleague where someone they're leading either lacks so much of the bigger picture that the nuances can't possibly all be explained in sufficient detail right now, or for situations involving personnel perhaps aren't allowed to be explained, and the answer in those situations will sometimes be "I need you to trust me even though you don't feel like you fully understand or fully agree". Hopefully those situations are extremely few and far between. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. I've had some colleagues handle that handle that situation well, and others for whom it has been a real challenge and sets the relationship back.

JohnBooty 3y ago
That's very well said. Thank you. I agree so much. But some of the hardest conversations any leader will have, especially when the default _is_ to keep discussing until everything is mutually transparent and understood, are going to be on this theme. Yeah. And ultimately, it's just a maturity and practicality issue, quite honestly. It is not practical for 100% of team members to be in 100% agreement 100% of the time. And even the most egalitarian manager can't necessarily explain 100% of the reasoning behind 100% of decisions to 100% of the team members 100% of the time. And hopefully each individual team member will realize they are not correct 100% of the time either. Even if those are the ideals to which we aspire. There are times when we should dig in and defend our decisions to the death (hopefully, figuratively speaking!) but these battles should be chosen and fought carefully and not reflexively. I think most people generally understand this, most of the time. Spectrum or otherwise. Which is why I find the linked article so misguided and even insulting. The notion that those on the spectrum are hardwired to be incompatible with authority and everybody else just needs to accept this is just so wrong.

JohnBooty 3y ago

rather than a senior colleague telling a junior colleague to do something "because I say so" Sure. Agree 1,000% in this specific example. There are a lot of other contexts where it seems wildly impractical. Should Linus have explain to you and negotiate your right to be (or not) a Linux kernel committer? Should a crossing guard at an intersection negotiate with every car? Should an air traffic controller negotiate and explain with every given aircraft? Okay, maybe we could treat the role of ATC as an education issue during pilot training and certification, so nobody has to "blindly" obey. But what if I don't want to obey even in an informed way? What if I think the certification process sucks? Why submit to the FAA's authority in the first place? They don't own the sky! Ideally, we should all have individualized speed limits on roadways, too, based on our skill, the weather conditions, and the vehicle we're driving at the moment. And yet we recognize that this is just sort of impractical. There are a lot of issues with negotiation that get awfully intractable if we scale them up past much more than two people.

fallingknife 3y ago
Do we recognize that as impractical? The Autobahn seems to work fine on that model.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  You will perhaps be surprised to know that there is a speed limit on the autobahn. There is a minimum speed limit and a strict set of laws governing your driving behavior. So no, you don’t get to pick your own specially negotiated arbitrary driving speed or negotiate your own special individual set of driving laws. German driving requirements (exams, licensing, etc) are said to be quite strict as well relative to many other countries and again, I am not aware of any part of this process where you are permitted to set your own personalized driving laws (but only if you have deemed your assigned personalized negotiator to be worthy of that authority) In short, a spectacularly poor choice of example (on multiple axes) to illustrate your point. If it’s any consolation this is a common mistake. I suspect people in Germany are often amused and baffled by others’ tendency to point to the Autobahn as some sort of lassiez-faire libertarian “do whatever you want” zone.