Here is an example of a proven set of leadership principles that is a worthwhile read: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/leadership.htm . Someone who can embody all of these principles that the Marine Corps espouses is someone I can respect immensely regardless of profession.
This might be a good idea for running a military unit but fails miserably in IT. As a leader I hardly ever supervise my engineers, they have to understand the tasks and only come to me if there something that they do not understand. Giving them as much freedom as possible is one reason they like to work with us, feedback we got from 90% of them. Sometimes if the task is impossible to be done we expect them to come back, explain why and also provide an alternative. This happens a lot too.
This explains why IT has such losers in management positions. Most managers in IT think all they are supposed to do in a day is browse internet, forward emails, approve leaves/vacations, build their cartels and leave.
Sorry. But to ensure people under you understand the work they do and the sole responsibility of achieving the goals assigned is on you, the manager.
https://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Ownership-U-S-Navy-SEALs/dp/1...
>> 9. Exercise care and thought in supervision. Over supervision hurts initiative and creates resentment; under supervision will not get the job done.
You might give your engineers a lot of freedom but at the end of the day you know what they're working on and you see their outputs.
They're intentionally contradictory, but that's just an acknowledgement that perfection is impossible. When you choose to focus on one aspect of your career, that's often going to be at the detriment of something else. This also means that there's always room for career development and self-improvement.
I didn't know what to expect seeing that it was a link to the Marine Corps...
But essentially, I agree. The examples in that link are about as close as you can get to some actual generally inspiring leadership principals.
The amazon leadership principals, by contrast, look and sound like empty corporate marketing fluff.
By comparison, far from being something that makes them stand out and sound different, it makes them sound exactly the same as every other big company :(
Amazon recently reached out to me to attend a giant recruiting event and included a link to these principles, and the "Are Right, A Lot" line item turned me off completely. There's something about stating that as a guiding principle that runs counter to my instincts and experience.
I'm as smart and as "right" as anyone on my team, but as a headline that rubbed me the wrong way. The finer print "...seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs" sounds better, but confirming my beliefs along with every else's has worked pretty well so far.
For what it's worth, I was probably looking for an excuse to back off anyways. I have a great job where I am.
This doesn't apply to an AB test where you don't care what's right, you're just putting it out there and letting the users decide. What's 'right' there is the AB test itself and doing it.
My manager there largely did what you are talking about and it did nothing good for anyone involved. It's pretty much the reason why one of the guys who worked for him as an engineer is now moving up to senior manager well my former manager is still stuck at the same place.
Acting the way you describe just leads to poor performance from your subordinates, up to them just leaving. That reflects poorly on you.
For example this:
> 1.Put your Marines' welfare before your own--correct grievances and remove discontent.
reminded me of an essay ("The Concept of the Political") that I've read recently, written by Carl Schmitt, where he defines politics as the conflict between friends and enemies, and nothing more. His later "Theory of the Partisan" was also very interesting.
Later edit: this point
> 7. Protect the health of your unit by active supervision of hygiene and sanitation.
reminded me of how the first recorded presence of a doctor on the territory of my country (which, of course, at that time hadn't been formed yet) happened almost 2,000 years ago when the Romans decided to invade this territory and when they brought doctors with them in order to heal and care the wounded soldiers. At least another ~1,500 years would pass until medics would be present again around these parts, approximately during the late Middle Age. To say nothing of the complex sanitation installations that the Romans were putting in place almost immediately after they had finished building a fort in the middle of nothingness. The more I read about the Romans' organizational structure and logistics the more impressed I am, they somehow look like an alien species.
Their structure was far ahead of it's time, and indeed, laid the groundwork for today. Any staff officer today who went back in time to review a Roman unit would have no problems identifying the various components of the organization.
Yep, sometimes I wonder what society would look like today if the (western) Roman empire had never collapsed, and they had somehow been able to correct its fatal flaws in time. Europe basically did nothing for 1000 years.
That said, ya, I don't think they were meant for anything else but Amazon.
However at the same time, I am reading your argument and thinking, having a bunch of random contradicting guidelines and hoping that the law of averages smooths out the error inherent, can't be better than a more thoughtful list of consistent, higher-level principles.