7 ms·

I agree with you that's how it should be, but experience tells me that everyone is insecure and it's hardly correlated with position and job security. People l

I agree with you that's how it should be, but experience tells me that everyone is insecure and it's hardly correlated with position and job security. People lower down the chain are insecure because they could legitimately be let go at any time for any reason. People higher up the chain are insecure because any loss of face is debilitating. Especially having failings pointed out by someone "below" them.

hashtag-til 2y ago
From my experience, you build that non-fluff boundaries in the first one or two meetings with a senior leader. I’d advise against going in the first one throwing punches. Go with actionable feedback and be honest about what it is and what is not something you can solve. From there, if you genuinely care about whatever you’re complaning, you are more likely to be taken seriously.
- stavros 2y ago
  > I’d advise against going in the first one throwing punches. I’d advise against going in any one throwing punches. Instead, give actionable, honest, factual feedback with the intent to legitimately help the other person.
  - jms703 2y ago
    This is the correct approach.
  - hashtag-til 2y ago
    Fair enough, while I agree, in real project life, this calm, honest, factual feedback isn’t always enough for senior management to prioritise your issue. Sometimes you need to a bit more assertive and blunt so that you become the top of the agenda, that’s what I meant by “throwing punches”. Perhaps it means a much more over the top attitude in your view? (Happy to be corrected here)
    - stavros 2y ago
      If I need an issue prioritized, I'd have a discussion with senior leadership until one of us was convinced of the other's viewpoint, or we understood why we can't agree. For example, if my issue is clearly higher priority than anything else, I should easily be able to demonstrate that to senior leadership, and vice-versa. If we can't agree for a specific reason, we can say "the data is too fuzzy to know either way" and try to minimize risk. Not all organizations will work like this, but that's a dysfunction that will need to be corrected. In that case, you should do what works (and that will be different for everyone), my particular situation won't apply to your particular situation.
- rpmisms 2y ago
  Simply be blunt about other topics to set the tone for interactions.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
inopinatus 2y ago
I don't know what godawful chain you are hitched to but I hope you can find a way off it. High-performance managers realise they are there to enable the talent. You're Brian Epstein, not John Lennon. The job is to create the conditions for folks at the pointy end to be wildly successful. One of the most defining characteristics of this attitude is the maxim "hire people smarter than yourself", a very fine sentiment with the only problem being that by induction it makes the CEO the dumbest person in the company. But I digress. If I'm fucking up, then I hope to god my trusted lieutenants will tell me without any pussyfooting around. It's practically what I hired them for.
- NAHWheatCracker 2y ago
  I don't know you, but based on what you're saying, I guess you're in a much different environment than I've ever been in. You're probably also more of a "type A" person than I am. I've always worked in places that are essentially established businesses. People are mostly bureaucrats and lazy. I believe that's a large majority employers. If you honestly can't understand that that's how a lot of people work, then I think you live in a bubble.
  - inopinatus 2y ago
    I cannot disagree with your assertion that the majority of employment environments have a toxic pathology of hierarchical insecurities, and I've certainly worked within them. Albeit, yes, with a flagrant disregard for authority (I hesitate to label myself "type A", it's such a reductive term) that worked best when in the second and third decades of my career I was generally engaged on a consulting basis as a fixer/troubleshooter. So I would admit guilt to an accusation that I have placed myself inside my current bubble intentionally. It's a matter of psychological safety and self-respect. I wasn't kidding when I said I hope you can find a way off that chain, it's an outcome I'd wish on all my peers.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  Can I suggest there is a difference between feedback and therapy We are all human, we have biases and blindspots. Your trusted lieutenants can come to you and tell you you forgot to do X and because doing X is something either within your personality comfort zone or just outside it, you can if reasonably adjusted take that on. But there will be things you are not reasonably adjusted for, things that require you to make significant adjustments to your world view and personality - things that you need to make serious compromises on Some people are so maladjusted they cannot compromise on stuff most of the world agrees on - generally we call them criminals. But this is a spectrum - bad managers usually have very poor matching between their personal problems and the needs of the role. But even good managers reach a point that their instincts and their rational mind cannot take them past. In short “everyone is promoted to their level of incompetence” is not a skills problem, but a character problem.
Kamq 2y ago
> People higher up the chain are insecure because any loss of face is debilitating. You don't do it in public. There's no face to lose in private (you're a subordinate, face is only lost among peers and superiors). It is, however, not really a good idea to be 100% blunt out of the gate. There's a dance to it. But in public, I'm there to make my manager look good, and in private I'll tell them exactly what I think. Once they're confident I'm there to be at their back, it's never gone wrong, even in highly disfunctional orgs (I'm a consultant and get brought in to play "doctor" with hopeless projects a lot).
- dpig_ 2y ago
  Even if you do it in private, they may take it as a sign of a subordinate who has designs on their job. Or on toppling them at any rate. Insecurity is everywhere.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - zenogantner 2y ago
    "The people" are the president's superior.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Only in the same sense that bottom-level employees are the CEO's superior. Which is to say, they aren't. Formal structure can stabilize a system and make it resilient to shocks. But there's a limit to how much stability can be provided, and if you provide enough shock, the structure will change.
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        > Only in the same sense that bottom-level employees are the CEO's superior. Which is to say, they aren't. Fascinating: What companies do you know of that have democratic elections of CEOs?
namdnay 2y ago
in my experience, people higher up the chain are much more at risk of being let go at any time
- joz1-k 2y ago
  I agree. And the insecurity that these managers feel makes them very poor leaders. They tend to be overly subservient to higher-ups and just pass all management decisions down the chain without too much thought. And they like to punish any disagreement (no matter how reasonable) from their subordinates. Insecurity is the opposite of a culture of trust. And where there is no trust, there is no real leadership.

hashtag-til 2y ago

From my experience, you build that non-fluff boundaries in the first one or two meetings with a senior leader. I’d advise against going in the first one throwing punches. Go with actionable feedback and be honest about what it is and what is not something you can solve. From there, if you genuinely care about whatever you’re complaning, you are more likely to be taken seriously.

stavros 2y ago
> I’d advise against going in the first one throwing punches. I’d advise against going in any one throwing punches. Instead, give actionable, honest, factual feedback with the intent to legitimately help the other person.
- jms703 2y ago
  This is the correct approach.
- hashtag-til 2y ago
  Fair enough, while I agree, in real project life, this calm, honest, factual feedback isn’t always enough for senior management to prioritise your issue. Sometimes you need to a bit more assertive and blunt so that you become the top of the agenda, that’s what I meant by “throwing punches”. Perhaps it means a much more over the top attitude in your view? (Happy to be corrected here)
  - stavros 2y ago
    If I need an issue prioritized, I'd have a discussion with senior leadership until one of us was convinced of the other's viewpoint, or we understood why we can't agree. For example, if my issue is clearly higher priority than anything else, I should easily be able to demonstrate that to senior leadership, and vice-versa. If we can't agree for a specific reason, we can say "the data is too fuzzy to know either way" and try to minimize risk. Not all organizations will work like this, but that's a dysfunction that will need to be corrected. In that case, you should do what works (and that will be different for everyone), my particular situation won't apply to your particular situation.
rpmisms 2y ago
Simply be blunt about other topics to set the tone for interactions.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

inopinatus 2y ago

I don't know what godawful chain you are hitched to but I hope you can find a way off it. High-performance managers realise they are there to enable the talent. You're Brian Epstein, not John Lennon. The job is to create the conditions for folks at the pointy end to be wildly successful. One of the most defining characteristics of this attitude is the maxim "hire people smarter than yourself", a very fine sentiment with the only problem being that by induction it makes the CEO the dumbest person in the company. But I digress. If I'm fucking up, then I hope to god my trusted lieutenants will tell me without any pussyfooting around. It's practically what I hired them for.

NAHWheatCracker 2y ago
I don't know you, but based on what you're saying, I guess you're in a much different environment than I've ever been in. You're probably also more of a "type A" person than I am. I've always worked in places that are essentially established businesses. People are mostly bureaucrats and lazy. I believe that's a large majority employers. If you honestly can't understand that that's how a lot of people work, then I think you live in a bubble.
- inopinatus 2y ago
  I cannot disagree with your assertion that the majority of employment environments have a toxic pathology of hierarchical insecurities, and I've certainly worked within them. Albeit, yes, with a flagrant disregard for authority (I hesitate to label myself "type A", it's such a reductive term) that worked best when in the second and third decades of my career I was generally engaged on a consulting basis as a fixer/troubleshooter. So I would admit guilt to an accusation that I have placed myself inside my current bubble intentionally. It's a matter of psychological safety and self-respect. I wasn't kidding when I said I hope you can find a way off that chain, it's an outcome I'd wish on all my peers.
lifeisstillgood 2y ago
Can I suggest there is a difference between feedback and therapy We are all human, we have biases and blindspots. Your trusted lieutenants can come to you and tell you you forgot to do X and because doing X is something either within your personality comfort zone or just outside it, you can if reasonably adjusted take that on. But there will be things you are not reasonably adjusted for, things that require you to make significant adjustments to your world view and personality - things that you need to make serious compromises on Some people are so maladjusted they cannot compromise on stuff most of the world agrees on - generally we call them criminals. But this is a spectrum - bad managers usually have very poor matching between their personal problems and the needs of the role. But even good managers reach a point that their instincts and their rational mind cannot take them past. In short “everyone is promoted to their level of incompetence” is not a skills problem, but a character problem.

Kamq 2y ago

> People higher up the chain are insecure because any loss of face is debilitating. You don't do it in public. There's no face to lose in private (you're a subordinate, face is only lost among peers and superiors). It is, however, not really a good idea to be 100% blunt out of the gate. There's a dance to it. But in public, I'm there to make my manager look good, and in private I'll tell them exactly what I think. Once they're confident I'm there to be at their back, it's never gone wrong, even in highly disfunctional orgs (I'm a consultant and get brought in to play "doctor" with hopeless projects a lot).

dpig_ 2y ago
Even if you do it in private, they may take it as a sign of a subordinate who has designs on their job. Or on toppling them at any rate. Insecurity is everywhere.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
[flagged]
- zenogantner 2y ago
  "The people" are the president's superior.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Only in the same sense that bottom-level employees are the CEO's superior. Which is to say, they aren't. Formal structure can stabilize a system and make it resilient to shocks. But there's a limit to how much stability can be provided, and if you provide enough shock, the structure will change.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      > Only in the same sense that bottom-level employees are the CEO's superior. Which is to say, they aren't. Fascinating: What companies do you know of that have democratic elections of CEOs?

namdnay 2y ago

in my experience, people higher up the chain are much more at risk of being let go at any time

joz1-k 2y ago
I agree. And the insecurity that these managers feel makes them very poor leaders. They tend to be overly subservient to higher-ups and just pass all management decisions down the chain without too much thought. And they like to punish any disagreement (no matter how reasonable) from their subordinates. Insecurity is the opposite of a culture of trust. And where there is no trust, there is no real leadership.