Hacker News Reader

I completely agree. Leaving a gap and waiting for someone to fill it is practically the opposite of management.

> ..once employees know this is a short cut for promotion, they will focus a lot of their energy and attention to find 'the void' and try to fill it, or act like they can fill it, thus neglecting the real work that need to be done.

This in particular is really dangerous because it can poison an organisation's culture. For example, imagine Ben decides to focus on managing upwards in an effort to get Adam to promote him. Meanwhile, he neglects his duties, forcing his team-mates to pick up the slack. They start getting annoyed at Ben because he's not pulling his weight.

It's not uncommon, in my experience (and I'm aware that I'm at risk of stereo-typing here), for good, smart, conscientious people in technical roles to focus first on doing the job that they've been assigned and trust that management will recognise and reward them for doing so (and, conversely, punish anyone who slacks off), and that one of those rewards is that they will be considered for any opportunity for promotion that arises. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen.

If Adam promotes Ben, his old team-mates are going to be really pissed off. From their perspective, Ben's bad behaviour has been rewarded, instead of rectified. Meanwhile, the extra work they've been putting in to make up for that bad behaviour has been completely ignored.

The end result is an unhappy team, They'll resent both Ben and Adam, their productivity will probably drop (because whey the hell should they work their asses off when they're clearly not going to be rewarded for it?), and may well start looking elsewhere for work.

In that scenario, Adam has not done a good job as a manager, and he's definitely not a good leader.

There's nothing wrong with identifying a gap and opening a dialogue about how it can be filled (including asking if anyone's interested in filling it) but if someone moves to plug a gap, that generally means that they're going to leave a gap somewhere else. A good manager needs to make sure that they understand the implications of shifting people around, and explicitly recognise the indirect contribution that Ben's old team-mates are making to fill the gap.

Organisations are about teams, not individuals. It's astounding how many managers fail to grasp that.

Organisations are about politics and status. As a sideline, sometimes useful work gets done.

>In that scenario, Adam has not done a good job as a manager, and he's definitely not a good leader.

One difference between good and bad management is that good managers understand politics, they understand people, and most of all they understand the consequences of different political options. (I mean effective and ineffective, not good vs evil.)

Effective managers don't - ever - rule by formula, campfire or sports coach platitudes, or read-it-in-a-book business mythology.

So if you're dealing with someone who does any of the above as a first choice, they're unlikely to be making rational choices, or to have any deep understanding of the team(s) they're managing.

Evil managers can have a good understanding of consequences but their choices will be designed to increase their own income and status at the expense of their team/company. So they can appear to be doing stupid counterproductive things, but in fact they'll likely be promoted because they're gaming the system. They're a horror to work for, because they'll exploit their team as a resource and discard it without looking back. (I've seen people boast about this. It's not hypothetical.)

Good managers have an interest in developing the talent in their team as well as shipping good things and getting themselves promoted. But they won't be doing it with platitudes like "Leave space for people to act like managers" and then punishing anyone who actually does. They'll be more politically adept than that.

The big problem for employees is that politics and culture are invisible. I've seen plenty of management books, but I can't remember seeing a useful book that explains the practical differences between exploitation/support and good/bad good/evil management. Simple metrics like hours worked are a start, but a bigger picture with standard examples of management practices and styles, and supportive/unhealthy team cultures would be very useful.

I see this all the time, and I call it "organizational priority inversion."

Not only is the real execution/critical work boring, but management often doesn't really understand it or how to measure the effectiveness and contributions of people that are spending their time on it, so they make a blanket assumption that everyone is performing at a satisfactory level ("we only hire the best") and turn to other metrics that are simpler to understand and measure. It's much easier to count how many "organizational initiatives" Bob helped to launch, how many informational lunchtime talks he gave and the number of important meetings he made an influential remark at than it is to judge how much wasted time and aggravation his poor designs and implementations generated, and as a result, the work that Bob was actually hired to do (quickly dismissed as his "day job" by his manager during performance reviews) becomes the worst use of his time. As Bob realizes this, his reputation improves even more because he spends less time on his work - obviously someone putting his thumbprint on so many initiatives and decisions must be a key player, and it would be a waste to have such a person spending his time "in the trenches."

In an organization that conflates influence with effectiveness, it doesn't matter what you're influencing others to do, only that you do it often and well.

+1

If you watch some of those "Unscripted" shows where everyone is being judged for their leadership, what do you find? Everyone acting like a full-on sociopathic Type A personality, fighting over who steers the car while nobody builds the car.

It's great entertainment, and perhaps it works for selecting leaders in small doses on completely made-up projects like selling bottles of water with the Cult-of-Personality leader's face on the label.

But it's a terrible way to actually run your core business.

You're highlighting this taken extreme levels where people are able to chop between what they are doing, which what Enron used to do to pretty disastrous effects. This reads much more about people remaining in their teams, on their projects but not being micromanaged. It should tie nicely into Scrum retrospectives (as an example) where people bring things up versus just staying silent.

It's a really good example that leadership is something that everyone has an opportunity to exercise, not just management, and that in most companies leadership is very rarely exercised merely a job title.

Scrum retrospectives will no doubt help to address voids in work flow, product, or technology. However this seldom make one as manager.

In fact, very likely once good programmers done all the work, some jokers (within the team or otherwise) will jump out and grab the credits by sending out emails, then the joker is promoted.

This is the initial stage of what I described in my previous post. Again, you need technical strong managers to see through the mist, but sadly, these managers are rare (at least in my industry).