Hacker News Reader

Comment by cntainer | Hacker News Reader

This!

I've been in the industry for 10+ years moving through the ranks in all kinds of setups, from developer to senior management, and I think you expressed nicely the gist of it:

The irony is that you don't really notice a great manager. Their job seems like a walk through the park, and you have a "I could do that job easily" feeling

Very similar to what you're saying is this quote from Laozi, a personal favorite:

A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, "We did this ourselves."

It's a tough path to walk on, as you have to let go of your ego, but seeing the team succeed always makes up for it.

View on HN

>A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, "We did this ourselves."

I see a potential problem here. This may be true if you have one iteration of needing a leader. But if you have something that needs a leader on a repeating basis, is this really sustainable? It is like good IT that is so good their budget gets cut for lack of visibility.

In general the people being lead do realize they have a good leader/manager after some time, even if they tend to underestimate the effort needed to provide that level of leadership.

I was that guy that had a great manager in the beginning of my career for 2 years. At the time I was thinking he's a good guy but not great. Only later (+5 years) did I realize what a great manager he was and what an impact he actually had on my career.

But you're right, the biggest risk I've seen for this kind of leader is how upper management perceives you. Not a huge risk though, as in most companies upper management ranks leaders/managers like this:

1. people obey and acclaim him -> best leader

2. people barely know that he exists, but good things just seem to happen in his teams -> ok leader. "He's lucky to have a great team" - Average Joe CEO

3. people despise him -> bad leader

Instead, if your company ranks 2-1-3 then you're lucky to be working for a great company, but if your company ranks 1-3-2 then run for the hills.

From what I've seen number 2 gives the best results overall with very positive long-term effects on the team, but it takes another good manager to recognize and appreciate that. So you might end up frustrated if you're expecting recognition and accolades from someone like Average Joe CEO that I quoted above.

In the wild I think a continuous balancing act between 1 & 2 works best. You're probably a saint if you can pull number 2 all the time while also keeping your sanity. :)

Ultimately, your good manager needs a good manager in order to be effective. I run a department and have amazing support from the company president. Because of that, I don't have to play games trying to raise the visibility of the problems my department solves.

It works if the leader is a birthright aristocrat leader who has no need to justify his position, but still wants to be good.

The ancient wisdom didn't account for the politicking of corporations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com