Finding Your Swagger
kevinyien.com
kevinyien.com
And getting fired after a whiteboard session with no heads up? Even though he knew he is going to fire you the next day? Man, you are BETTER off without that company. There will be other jobs, there will be other gigs but nothing is worth this.
My 2 cents anyway.
Clearly the actions as described, and the choice of words ("complete download"), hint at the fact that they had decided months in advance that he would go, and just put in action a transition plan without telling him (COO more involved, etc). Absolutely cynical move.
Likewise, barging into meetings like a metaphorical Koolaid Man or Cosmo Kramer is not going to win alignment in a Leadership meeting.
That whole situation was no win for the author and is an unrealistic standard to set, especially if the company grows.
Also, please let go of the thought that companies will be in any way kind to you. That you got COBRA? Your company is legally obligated to extend that option. They did, literally, the bare minimum they were forced to do by the law.
For myself, I don’t think having “swagger” is particularly constructive. Ego is a mind-killer. It is selling smoke.
I’m quite good at what I do. In some things, I am very good; but at many, many other things, I still have a lot to learn, and in other areas, it’s best I stay out of the kitchen, entirely.
In the areas in which I excel, I often exude great confidence, which is sometimes mistaken for arrogance.
The key difference, though, is that I’m quite aware that I have yet to reach the summit. False confidence is a lie, but so is false humility. I’m good at what I do. I want people to feel assured. Confidence is a trait that helps to add to a team environment. Arrogance is corrosive. It damages a team.
Regardless of how good I get, I’ve learned that kindness, respect, and empathy never go out of style. I can always listen to others, and treat them well. And, even more important; I always have something to learn.
If I am working for others; either as an employee, or under contract, they are the boss. They may make rash, uninformed decisions, give terrible orders, and treat me (or worse, my work) like crap. I have to tuck in my bib, pick up a spoon, and engage in coprophagy. It sucks, but that’s life. I had to deal with it for a long, long time, and am grateful that I am finally free of it.
I was a manager for a long time. I was a very good one, but I hated that job. I did a lot of open-source work during that time, as it kept me sane. Being humble was not a problem. I wasn’t that high on the food chain, and my bib was quite stained.
During a long career, filled with bad decisions and mistakes, I have learned that there’s really no substitute for the kind of self-confidence (and humility) that is wrought by experience.
“Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.”
> What is swagger? For me, it's knowing what you're good at and acting accordingly — earned confidence. But it's not arrogance. Your behavior and ability are in lock step.
> Be assertive and opinionated even when you aren't as sure. Go back to having strong beliefs. Know your beliefs. Hold onto them.
> Don’t be an asshole about it, but push for what you need and don’t give in to every request.
Separately, and speaking as a current manager: the last thing I want is for the people on my team to just blithely go along, “just following orders,” if (when, and probably frequently) I’m asking for something shortsighted, ill-considered, or just plain stupid. I crave feedback from the talented experts on my team because it helps make sure we’re not suffering from blind spots, silos, or echo chambers. Like you’re saying: experience has taught me that I always have something to learn.
It's just that words matter. In my experience, many folks run with the first dictionary listing, and ignore any nuances.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swagger
I prefer "confidence."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confidence
And, to your second point, one of the reasons that I was a good manager, was because I actively solicited and valued pushback from my employees. This was seldom a luxury that I was given, by my superiors.
And, as a "gentleman of a certain age," I'll lay odds that a big reason for ageism in tech, is because most tech managers don't want to hire people that may have the ability, backbone, and judgment to push back on badly-formed strategies. I managed a "tiger team" of experienced C++ engineers. I had to pay attention to them, and treat them with respect.
I think you might be misunderstanding ego.
That's like saying, "The engine in your car is bad." It's not good or bad, it's a part of your car. Ego is part of the triad of the Freudian model of the human mind.
When people use ego the way you are using it, they are usually referring to a narcissistic personality disorder. Instead, cognitive behavioral therapists will refer to "ego strength". Which is important for healthy functioning.
"Ego strength" is what the author is referring to. It is how we act assertively, instead of aggressively (bad) or passive-aggressively (also bad). This is a widespread confusion on HN, people think being assertive is the same as being aggressive, or being a narcissist.
A person with low ego strength will act in a passive-aggressive way rather than be forthcoming, they will allow their boundaries to be ignored. Ego strength is how we hang on to ourselves.
Ego strength is critical for a mental well-being. That is what this article is about.
Be kind. I thought we weren't supposed to do this stuff, 'round these parts; but I'm often wrong.
Actually, I know about the Freud stuff, and the scientific meaning of "ego."
Basically, the meaning that almost no one actually ever attributes to the word.
Words tend to adapt to the meaning that is most often applied to them. Dictionary be damned. It's how people actually use the word, that defines it.
For example, look up the etymology of "nice." (It made me change "be nice," to "be kind").
> This is a widespread confusion on HN, people think being assertive is the same as being aggressive, or being a narcissist.
My take on "the Modern Societal Zeitgeist," so to speak, is that aggressiveness, narcissism, avarice, arrogance, and just plain ol' bein' cruel, are traits to be admired, and emulated; especially amongst the types of people that run businesses.
Those of us that speak to being kind, empathetic, or generous, are often attacked, and mocked as being "weak."
Would "I think you might be misunderstanding ego" have been a better way to phrase it?
> are traits to be admired
Oh I agree, I am not making a claim about what HN-types revere, I was addressing how two very distinct psychological terms are often misused. Like, for example, if I kept calling C an interpreted language; or claimed there's no difference between TCP or UDP; that's the same as equating assertiveness and aggression that I quite frequently see here.
No.
"The way that I understand the word 'ego,' is thus..."
If you really can't live without applying a slap, may I suggest:
"I feel that this word is often misused. The way that I understand the word is ... If it is applied in the way that I understand it, then ..."
I'm a fairly decent chap. I have some experience and knowledge, relevant to the OP. I'm not at all interested in being a bloviatasaurus, and, if presented with corrections, or alternative points of view, I'm always more than willing to concede the point. I'm not really interested in being a foil to someone's strawman.
On the one hand, yeah, the original comment could have used softer phrasing, could equivocate more, could signal curiosity better. On the other hand, if you know something just say what it is you think you know.
On the responder's end, yeah, if you think someone is being excessively aggressive with their language, call it out. On the other hand, apply the principle of charity and try to hear what the other person is saying.
Flexible people can either be door stops or assertive, and which they are has to do with how much they think of their own opinions and abilities.
Strength doesn't have to mean rigid, and there are multiple neuroses depending on which mix you're discussing. 'Ego-strength' suggests one dimension which IMO simply muddies the waters.
And if you are clever you also get your experience from bad judgment others make.
Another favorite aphorism:
"A fool never learns. A smart man learns from his mistakes. A wise man learns from the mistakes of others."
One problem that I have with people being given huge responsibility, before getting much experience, is that we haven’t had time to see others make mistakes.
One key reason that I was a good manager, was that I had many bad managers, and learned what not to do.
Not sure where this comes from, but I realized at some point that not everybody makes use of this ability.
Isn't that how the article defines swagger?
1) He did great (like, there's actual metrics mentioned)
2) Others wanted a different direction (even though he did great?) and didn't tell him
3) They excluded him from meetings
4) They fired him
5) He blamed not "re-centering" himself
In the notes, he mentions that one of his later decisions (splitting engineering) was a bad choice. So isn't that the core of it, then?
The way he describes it, it sounds like the problem was him not being himself but it sounds like it's a simple management error that the others were too socially awkward to point out to him, instead firing him outright.
This is "getting kicked out of the tribe" 101 and people are normally very sensitive to this. But as a new leader it's hard to understand all your status relationships (and that the happiness of the people under you on the org chart affects the happiness of the people listed above you).
You can disagree with everyone else, you can be overridden (and quit, or disagree and commit or whatever you have to do) but not to see it coming is to live in a fundamentally different reality than your team.
One thing I notice is a lot of words devoted to senior leadership and the author's personal leadership experience but not much focus on the experience or input of the (100+) people doing the work. The reason you don't fire a really good leader is because they'll take the team with them! The blog post is a bit of a Rorschach test but for me that's how I parse the blind spot.
I actually think it's a great blog post due to the Rashomon effect it seems to provoke among people who read it.
https://hbr.org/1983/09/moral-mazes-bureaucracy-and-manageri... https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/moral-mazes
I don't know if the isolation happened suddenly or gradually. I realized it all at once, but by the time I did, it had been happening for so long I don't know how it started. Somehow people stopped telling me what was going on and stopped consulting me on new decisions. I am the last person to find out about anything. One part of their existing pathology is a background churn of unilateral, unannounced, shuffling-the-deck-chairs "improvements" that cause a lot of errors and interruptions without making a worthwhile difference, but this is different. Even the changes that are formally talked about are talked about without me.
I know that leadership has my back (they came into the picture more recently and can see that the team is underperforming) and they are planning changes that include me, but other than management, which is detached from day-to-day work, I'm on an island. Reading between the lines, I think I was brought in to try to fix the team, but without any management authority (and management not involved day-to-day) and with the team just ignoring my ideas and trying to assimilate me into their way of doing things, I have accomplished almost nothing on that score. Meanwhile, my social isolation is such that I can't stand to stick around much longer. I am going to go somewhere where I can be part of a team again.
EDIT: Reading the article through fully, I think I should learn from his characterization of "swagger" (though I don't think the word is quite right.) When I wasn't listened to after repeated attempts to make the same point with the people who needed to hear it, I shouldn't have stopped talking. I should have kept saying the same thing whenever it was warranted. I should have talked louder. I should have taken my points to venues that included a larger audience than just the people who needed to act on them. I should have pressured management to put their weight behind me. I didn't do these things because I didn't want to be an asshole, and I didn't want to alienate people, and maybe because I was afraid of inviting open aggression against myself, but I should have been prepared to stand up to that. Why was I avoiding confrontation instead of inviting it? Maybe because I wasn't confident in my ability to argue my points in the face of hostility, but if that's the case, I should be practicing it more, not avoiding it.
If you are making any decision, it is on you to seek out and include all relevant stakeholders and include them. People should not have to walk around sniffing for meetings that they weren't invited to and pushing their opinions in so that they feel heard.
I trust my coworkers to include me if they want my opinion, and I trust them to make a good decision on their own if they don't!
Did the COO want to get what was on his mind so the company would lose nothing by firing him? Or was he utterly disappointed about said mind?
I really don't understand what any of this has to do with swagger.
Yet it is true you have to find it, and it's not obvious. Many times, what you're good at is what you can do better than others with less effort. But we can't see it because we associate value with effort; if it's easy for me then surely it's worthless?
Well, no. If it's easy for you (and difficult for others) then that's your trade.
In abusive environments, there is no logic, both things can be "true" at the same time. The COO wants to hurt him by firing him, but on some level also realizes that his contribution is valuable. Just because they want to get rid of him, that is no reason not to use him for one last time.
(Usually this works the other way round: people are told that they are worthless, but also that it would be highly irresponsible and unethical of them to leave. Somehow, both things can be "true" at the same time.)
If he had the confidence to come back to who he was, even after being targeted by jealous executives and messing up with one decision (splitting the eng team), he would have done a better job.
That’s my take of it
Given the meetings where decisions were being made were happening behind closed doors, he very well may have complained about a direction the CEO had chosen.
Too many blind spots.
First of all, no one should feel blindsided and fired like that! It sounds like the only feedback he ever got was some received was some vague 'get your mojo back'. Also, having to force yourself into meetings is just a sign of toxic politics to me. It certainly doesn't need to be a formal top down structure, but when people start getting exclusionary and territorial that is a bad sign.
I understand this is a startup, but there were 100 people! If the company is counting on everyone to impulsively take initiative that sounds like total chaos. Even when I worked at a company with 10 people I would think through proposals, then discuss them with my manager or the CEO before actually executing.
The last thing is that having swagger shouldn't replace authenticity. People have a good ability to sniff out a phony, so be yourself. If you end up in some wild chaotic environment where you have to fight to survive, the best option may be to leave!
I agree with others here - this was a toxic work culture. None of this was your fault but your method of building back up your confidence seems useful.
Also anyone who fires someone with a pregnant wife is a repugnant human being.
On the flip side, I've worked with junior and mid-level developers who want to have the entire context of every executive decision, and worse want to second-guess and judge those decisions rather than implement the feature or fix the bug they were told to.
I think more information is almost always better, but sometimes you just need to get your work done. Titles are a very rough and arbitrary way of trying to draw those boundaries between what you're supposed to decide, what you're supposed to influence, and what you're supposed to accept.
Being fired for not speaking when he was previously excluded from those discussions seems absurd. Anyway, he was hired as a PO, he wasn't a CTO or COO and wasn't responsible for the company strategy.
Maybe he was fired because they didn't like him and he didn't go well along with the others? That would explain also why he was excluded from the discussions.
In this case, it's clear that at some point upper management lost faith in the guy and excluded him from steering decisions. He didn't fight back. When shit finally hit the fan they gaslit him by saying it was his fault, then proceeded to put in place a covert transition plan without telling him. He was naive in not seeing it coming, mis-identifying a series of brain dumps as "reconnecting", and when they felt they had everything they needed, the axe fell.
Confidence, let's you say I'm valuable enough that I can find another job. It gives you negotiation leverage. Confidence empowers you to write to the CEO and say things like: It is beginning to look like my expertise and skills are no longer valued here. As a result, I started looking around and I have an offer from another company where I feel like I can better contribute. Confidence changes things so that you are never really trapped at at toxic company.
https://staffeng.com/guides/getting-in-the-room
Funny, because someone with a similar role from my workplace just recently left for roughly the same reason (at least peacefully). Basically when the gatekeeper(s) of The Room made it clear that you are not welcome, there is little you could do other than walking.
Now on the topic of swagger. I agree, it's important to know who you are and be comfortable to be that person. Every human contributes in their own way. Swagger doesn't mean ego or arrogance, to me swagger means you know your strengths and feel comfortable to play your role in your team/community/family/etc.
Some people are great critical thinkers, some are great motivators, jokers, conservatives and risk averse planners, etc.
You need all of them. Everyone has their own swagger. Some people are quiet and sit in the corner of a room and throw in a critical question at the right moment of a meeting which others might find annoying but in the end everyone knows it was good that it happened. Some talk a lot, walk into a room and make jokes and struggle to sometimes focus on the topic at hand but they lift up spirits and soften the mood when things get heated. Like there is really no perfect human being. You need all those different characters to contribute and it requires everyone to be accepting of the other person in order to really become a great team. This is how it works in strong families who go through thick and thin and this is how it works in great performing teams.
Know yourself and know your swagger!
Love this. It's also interesting how when someone leaves a team, oftentimes teammates will step in a little to fill in the role the ex-teammate used to provide. It is kind of like a form a growth. I find myself thinking "What would ____ say about this?"
I do think Swagger/Mojo is important in a work context though, as it is in other areas such as sports.
Some people seem to make 1 or 2 good decisions, make a good impression, then their charisma and confidence propels them to leadership positions in a virtuous signal despite them being nothing special. They will then get to ride off the backs of others success if the project is going well.
I’ve had a few jobs and projects myself where I seem to go from success to responsibility and respect undeservedly so, then others where I just can’t seem to get the virtuous circle spinning. It’s totally down to X factors like perception, confidence and personal fit rather than ability and decision making.
As a manager I’ve even seen his the cards can be stacked in the early hours or weeks of a new gig. If someone comes in, is switched on, personable and makes some good decisions, it is incredibly difficult to stop that virtuous circle even if it isn’t deserved.
Sounded more like COO & his clique felt threatened by him and he got out maneuvered politically.
Yes, you could have stood up when they started excluding you, but they could have just as easily fired you for standing up too.
The environment was toxic - they excluded you behind your back, the CEO blamed you for being excluded, the COO fired you summarily after listening to your ideas, and they even did it as your wife was 7 months pregnant (which I'm sure they knew).
That's not a company to work for, Swagger or not.
It also means they find you very valuable.
A good thing to highlight are all the things that could go wrong + associated costs to company and what you’re actively doing to manage those problems.
That’ll give them pause.
But:
“4] This is a weird but recurring behavior of mine. When sitting with a (professional) group for the first time, I will always put myself at the edge. It's not because I'm avoiding the "power position" or anything. It's that I prefer to observe everyone first. And the best place to do that, is from the edge.”
No. No. In American society, this 1-1.5 sigma deviant behavior. You were broadcasting, “I’m considering, on my terms, whether or not to join this group.” Consider overriding this strategy, even if it is “work.” In a group, I would consider trying to sit as close to the center of mass as possible.
It's very hard to know the exact circumstances from one side of the story, but I agree wholeheartedly with voicing opinions when important, even if difficult or 'not your place'.
And of course, it's usually a sign something has gone wrong with people management if someone is very surprised when they're fired.
"I thought about my best moments. I thought about my worst moments. I derived the behaviors and attributes that led to each. I wrote a list of personal values"
I don't think it's right or even helpful to try to quantify and reduce a human being to a list of values and pluses or minuses. Saying that you "lost yourself" and need to find it back sounds like agreeing with the premise that you fit in this neat mold that the CEO and COO have defined for you and puts you in danger of "losing your shape" whenever those people decide so.
It sounds like a very externally-oriented appraisal of one's self.
This is so crazy and why employer based insurance cannot be a safety net in the case you end up needing an expensive treatment while also losing your job.
One anecdote that stuck in my mind was someone's grandfather in the 1950s quitting and going to work to a different factory only because they gave one week's pay in advance and they needed the money to take a girl on a date that weekend.
Nowadays I hear things have changed a tiny little bit. But if you're a software engineer who reads Hacker News, you probably still don't need to worry much about finding a job at all, only about finding an enjoyable job in the right place that ensures a sufficiently upper-class salary.
It reads as if the upper management treated the employee as a highly unpredictable individual who would undermine the company out of spite. They might have thought: if the author were to be informed in advance about potential firing, he would become… “problematic”, hold a grudge, sabotage knowledge transfer, leak something, or use the advance notice for some diversion and future legal action.
On the face of it, this would point to insecurity or nearly-psychopathic tendencies in the employee—but, I suspect, it actually points to somebody in upper management who, probably due to childhood trauma, operates this way in life and hurts others by presuming they’re the same.
People join, politics gets played out, people leave or are fired, those in power consolidate their position.
I’ve never lacked swagger but I’ve been the powerful and I’ve also been the fired.
Indeed having confidence is just another reason to get fired …. If you’re smarter than someone else then they don’t want you there …. it’s just politics it means nothing.
It’s not personal, it’s politics. Just find somewhere else that you fit better.
Also, if you plan to be in any level of management, read “The Prince”.
this is terrible advice.
Anyway, this post reminds me of the subplot in the show Succession where the son-in-law thinks he's going to be promoted to CEO (from some meh position) and is strutting around like he's king... but in reality it is his wife that is on that track... and everyone is mocking the SIL behind his back.
Not always. Some depend on others to "build them up", and they crumble if isolated.
Also, what is good for the company is not necessarily good for you. But this is true for all employees, therefore there is nothing contradictory with people being "justifiably" motivated to take actions that are detrimental to the company. For example, excluding and railroading you.
The only solution with those people is to enter into political dramas. If that doesn't sound attractive, go elsewhere.
> knowing what you're good at and acting accordingly — earned confidence
It's possible to make the mistake believing that competence holds currency. In some environments (maybe like in the company in question), it's rather "swagger" or "momentum" that is rewarded.
If confidence is failing you, think about the work your grandad did to make a living. ( Mine used to toil away on 3 acres of land for his entire life.)