Let's call this disingenuous bullshit what it is - management by fear. Don't tell me you're about 'collective problem solving' in an environment where people are constantly fearing for their jobs.
My interpretation is he's simply advocating that if someone is aware of an issue that will set a project deadline back, don't keep it a secret and surprise everyone when the deadline isn't met.
Instead of "management by fear", build a culture where missing meeting deadlines is OK as long as a valid reason was communicated to the stake holders BEFORE the due date (no surprises). If a someone who's a project dependency had a family member pass away which will likely lead to a project delay, Blank is suggesting that's something that can be communicated honestly + transparently to a superior (and very much understandably - should be no fear involved). The upside is the superior can potentially reallocate resources to keep the project on track while not be getting caught off guard with a project unexpectedly derailed.
If this is his point, he's a lousy writer.
Blank is talking about acknowledging and dealing with risks early.
True that. He also mentioned firing people for not complying with his new rules several times. And also that he did. Those seem like the more substantive acts of his reign, as communicated in this post.
However, we don't know the exact circumstances behind the firings. I'm giving Steve the benefit of the doubt that he didn't fire folks who slipped deadlines just once, but removed though who consistently didn't deliver or acknowledge risks early.
Effective policies need teeth. Particularly if your company is in a lean position (emerging from bankruptcy). It reminds me of the "War time CEO" chapter from Ben Horowitz's "The Hard Thing about Hard Things".
That's like expecting your relationships to go well with no upkeep on your side, only a "tell me if I'm doing something wrong"!
A common attitude of effective managers as documented by First, Break All The Rules can be summed up by, "I never waited too long to make the right hire. I never fired the wrong one quickly enough." Having the wrong employee is very toxic for your organization and culture.
The rules that Steve laid out do not actually put pressure on people. They amount to, "Be accountable for what you say, try to make it work, and let people know quickly once you hit a roadblock." It is about effort and communication, not achieving results.
People who don't put in effort and don't communicate can't be made to, and can't stay. But people who do, can. And, on average, this will work out well.
Just want to clarify: It's subjective perspective. It is pressure and it is about achieving results, but it's not unreasonable or unexpected for any business. I pay you, you do work. Period. Or the company fails.
>> People who don't put in effort and don't communicate can't be made to, and can't stay.
Depends on the personality of the individual. Make sure you work with them first and figure out if you CAN get them to cooperate. If you don't bother trying but just put up the rules and say "follow this", there is the possibility you'll dump a good employee and have to spend the next 6 months getting HR to replace him/her.
Right. Whether there is pressure is a subjective judgement. But the fact that you feel pressure DOES NOT make it an objective fact that someone else is putting pressure on you.
To get to an objective fact, you would need to find fair and neutral third parties. Neither of the two people directly involved can actually judge.
As a neutral third party, my impression of Steve Blank is that he is probably a very good person to work for. I have been in environments similar to the one that he described. And I found them very good environments to be in.
To paraphrase what someone else said, "If a person is saying you're pressuring them, it's not your place to say you aren't"
The challenge with Steve's rules is that people have to fight defensive behavior within themselves. If you believe that Steve will use your actions against you, it is really hard to follow his rules. If everyone follows his rules with trust that things will work well, following them is easy and things work well. If you can't trust him, then you don't belong in that organization.
But given what I know about him from years of observation at a distance, he means what he says and says what he means. I do not believe that he will use people's actions against them. And it would quickly not work out for him if he did.
For the rest of us, setting clear expectations produces the opposite of fear, it gives you confidence in what you are expected to do.