5 ms·

I carefully reviewed all three of these articles. While it's possible that I still missed something, I did not find any material that aligns with the unique poi

I carefully reviewed all three of these articles. While it's possible that I still missed something, I did not find any material that aligns with the unique point of Paul's post. Nothing that says leaders may have to directly engage with employees underneath their direct reports to understand what is actually going on in the company. It is perhaps possible to interpret these articles as saying anything whatsoever, but they don't seem to specifically say what Paul's article says.

giarc 2y ago
But even PG goes back on that by saying "Obviously founders can't keep running a 2000 person company the way they ran it when it had 20. There's going to have to be some amount of delegation." So what he is saying is managers should talk to their reports. He writes like this is some groundbreaking realization, but to me I'm not even sure what he's getting at. For example he pushes back against the idea of hiring and letting them do work, but then says don't micromanage them, so which is it?
- cal85 2y ago
  When he says "That would be micromanaging them, which is bad" he is describing the traditional view. He continues, "Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs. Sounds great when it's described that way, doesn't it? Except in practice..."
- ta988 2y ago
  There is a balance between letting people run free, and controlling every tiny decisions. You have to keep the direction and vision, and you have to make sure everyone is going toward that. But you shouldn't trust they will do it by themselves (they may not have internalized it as much as you do either) and you shouldn't trust your ability to deal with every detail of the complex system you are trying to build. If you hired specialists that's also because you were lacking some abilities, not just because you want extensions of yourself by lack of time. And if you hired generalists that's because you needed glue to make the whole operation work with a level of understanding that you can't allocate your time to, and because you may lack the variety of skills that allow for efficient communication with the specialists. As with any complex system, you have to be careful about degrees of freedom, too many and it can break down and too little and it can get seized.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- getnormality 2y ago
  He isn't going back on anything. This is a misrepresentative oversimplification of the text.
neom 2y ago
Maybe I misinterpreted Pauls blog post, but what i got was: Mangers != Leaders, Leaders != Managers. Management and Leadership need to be well understood in any organization. Good Mangers can be good leaders. The CEO is often the manager of the leadership. This is effectively what they teach in the Harvard MBA.
- tinco 2y ago
  Yeah I think you did. You can't just switch founder for leader. A great leader would inspire the organization to work productively and effectively, but that's not what distinguishes the founder. The founder would make sure the organization is actually working on the most effective thing, and I think what Paul tries to convey is that one of the tools the founder uses to accomplish this is crossing the organizational tree (i.e. skip-level meetings). I think the founder not only motivates people to work on the correct thing by doing this, but the founder also directly experiences feedback from working with people lower on the org chart, enabling them to steer the company with more accurate information.
  - neom 2y ago
    But what scale are we talking about? I've scaled from zero to IPO a couple of times, I've never seen past a few k people, airbnb is at 38,000. The only real world stuff I know to get about leadership and management at 38,000 people is learnings from harvard. I thought Brian was saying he manages his leadership team tightly, not that he spends a lot of time with ICs? I think that's conventional advice, manage your leadership team well? What is skip level at this scale? CEO going to sr. director level? I don't mind having lunch with a VP but I can't imagine doing work with them from the C level? To my mind the CEO job at scale is 4 things - Keeping the fight fair-- The leadership and executive management should argue viciously, The CEO should make sure these conflicts remain constructive and aligned with company goals Holding the vision true-- There's a risk of mission drift, continually reinforce and refine the company's vision, make sure all leaders remain aligned with longterm goals Enforcing strategic adherence-- A strategy is only as good as its execution. ensure the leadership team not only understands the strategy but implements it across all levels of the organization. Manager of Leaders Deal with the real world-- Q-calls, investor relations, supply chains/vendors/etc. This is often the problem I have with business advice, it's general but not generally applicable. Scale matters probably most in the context, followed by the type of business.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nickpsecurity 2y ago
There’s been many news stories, business articles, and studies suggesting that. I don’t know how popular they are in management literature. I just know many stayed promoting this with high resistance from big business, management people, etc. At the least, they said you need to hear directly from the people on the ground to know what they’re experiencing. The people on top could talk to them about what they learned. Additionally, companies like IBM and FedEx used to give rewards to employees for ideas to improve the company. It was often a percentage of what those ideas made or saved up to a certain cap. A bunch of people would usually collect the max reward whenever this way implemented. Those are a few examples that I saw show up in many places.

giarc 2y ago

But even PG goes back on that by saying "Obviously founders can't keep running a 2000 person company the way they ran it when it had 20. There's going to have to be some amount of delegation." So what he is saying is managers should talk to their reports. He writes like this is some groundbreaking realization, but to me I'm not even sure what he's getting at. For example he pushes back against the idea of hiring and letting them do work, but then says don't micromanage them, so which is it?

cal85 2y ago
When he says "That would be micromanaging them, which is bad" he is describing the traditional view. He continues, "Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs. Sounds great when it's described that way, doesn't it? Except in practice..."
ta988 2y ago
There is a balance between letting people run free, and controlling every tiny decisions. You have to keep the direction and vision, and you have to make sure everyone is going toward that. But you shouldn't trust they will do it by themselves (they may not have internalized it as much as you do either) and you shouldn't trust your ability to deal with every detail of the complex system you are trying to build. If you hired specialists that's also because you were lacking some abilities, not just because you want extensions of yourself by lack of time. And if you hired generalists that's because you needed glue to make the whole operation work with a level of understanding that you can't allocate your time to, and because you may lack the variety of skills that allow for efficient communication with the specialists. As with any complex system, you have to be careful about degrees of freedom, too many and it can break down and too little and it can get seized.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
getnormality 2y ago
He isn't going back on anything. This is a misrepresentative oversimplification of the text.

neom 2y ago

Maybe I misinterpreted Pauls blog post, but what i got was: Mangers != Leaders, Leaders != Managers. Management and Leadership need to be well understood in any organization. Good Mangers can be good leaders. The CEO is often the manager of the leadership. This is effectively what they teach in the Harvard MBA.

tinco 2y ago
Yeah I think you did. You can't just switch founder for leader. A great leader would inspire the organization to work productively and effectively, but that's not what distinguishes the founder. The founder would make sure the organization is actually working on the most effective thing, and I think what Paul tries to convey is that one of the tools the founder uses to accomplish this is crossing the organizational tree (i.e. skip-level meetings). I think the founder not only motivates people to work on the correct thing by doing this, but the founder also directly experiences feedback from working with people lower on the org chart, enabling them to steer the company with more accurate information.
- neom 2y ago
  But what scale are we talking about? I've scaled from zero to IPO a couple of times, I've never seen past a few k people, airbnb is at 38,000. The only real world stuff I know to get about leadership and management at 38,000 people is learnings from harvard. I thought Brian was saying he manages his leadership team tightly, not that he spends a lot of time with ICs? I think that's conventional advice, manage your leadership team well? What is skip level at this scale? CEO going to sr. director level? I don't mind having lunch with a VP but I can't imagine doing work with them from the C level? To my mind the CEO job at scale is 4 things - Keeping the fight fair-- The leadership and executive management should argue viciously, The CEO should make sure these conflicts remain constructive and aligned with company goals Holding the vision true-- There's a risk of mission drift, continually reinforce and refine the company's vision, make sure all leaders remain aligned with longterm goals Enforcing strategic adherence-- A strategy is only as good as its execution. ensure the leadership team not only understands the strategy but implements it across all levels of the organization. Manager of Leaders Deal with the real world-- Q-calls, investor relations, supply chains/vendors/etc. This is often the problem I have with business advice, it's general but not generally applicable. Scale matters probably most in the context, followed by the type of business.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nickpsecurity 2y ago

There’s been many news stories, business articles, and studies suggesting that. I don’t know how popular they are in management literature. I just know many stayed promoting this with high resistance from big business, management people, etc. At the least, they said you need to hear directly from the people on the ground to know what they’re experiencing. The people on top could talk to them about what they learned. Additionally, companies like IBM and FedEx used to give rewards to employees for ideas to improve the company. It was often a percentage of what those ideas made or saved up to a certain cap. A bunch of people would usually collect the max reward whenever this way implemented. Those are a few examples that I saw show up in many places.