Hacker News Reader

Comment by koonsolo | Hacker News Reader

I hate it when people mix terminology together. For me: a leader is the one that sets the direction. A manager is the one that supports the team so they can do their job. Those are 2 different responsibilities. Sure, they can be combined into 1 person, but don't have to. So for me it's always weird to read articles where they interchangeably use "manager" and "leader", as if it's the same thing. No it's not! And there the problem starts where companies think that a "manager" == "boss". NO! A manager is at the service of their team!

View on HN

For what it’s worth, the book this article is based on explicitly talks about these two different responsibilities and why a manager (by title) will always have to do both in some capacity.

And the amount of each responsibility a manager holds varies depending on level, like a “Director of Engineering” will be more on the “leadership” side setting direction but they still need “management” of their direct reports (other engineering managers or managers of managers), whereas an “Engineering Manager” will likely spend more time in “management” at the service of their team of IC engineers.

I fully agree with you on this one.

I don’t disagree with you but if your manager is the one who does your performance reviews, approves your time off, etc how are they not your boss?

I hope you also do a performance review of your work environment and wage. If your "boss" doesn't qualify, just go work somewhere else.

I always look at it like this: If I get fired, they need to hire someone, train them, and only after months they will come close to the productivity that I'm currently providing. In other words, it will cost them loads of time and money.

When I leave, I get paid >=100% at another place, from day 1 when I start.

You are in a much stronger position than you think. Of course your manager doesn't want to make this too obvious ;).

You have an easier time firing your "boss" than the other way around, don't forget that.

That's all fine - but if somebody has the power to fire you then they are your boss. Yes, a manager's job contains many responsibilities. But they are not just a coach and people should internalize that. If you want somebody who is just a coach or a mentor, find somebody outside of your reporting chain to do that.

At most companies managers cannot unilaterally fire someone. HR is always involved and often at least the skip manager as well.

I'm a freelancer. It basically means I do exactly the same job as an employee, and can be "fired" for the exact same reasons as an employee. But I never consider my customers as a "boss". If they don't want to work with me anymore, I just find another customer.

And in the end, the difference between freelance and employee is just a legal one.

I never understand why some people willingly put themselves as a "servant" of "the boss". It's a very limiting view on the world. Why not view it as a win-win relationship, where if either party doesn't have any benefit, you can just leave. They pay you, you do the job. They are literally buying your service. If you want to put yourself in a position where "you have to do what they tell you", that's all fine by me. But I will never put myself mentally in that position, because it really is not like that. I don't have to do anything, I'm selling my service under very strict conditions.

Agreed. I suspect in this case it's his military background. That is, your immediate superior is your leader. Afaik, in that scenario you don't have much room for push back, etc.

Regardless, confusing leader and manager is going lead to both failing (or at least coming up very short). That is, if a manager is failing sonewhere there's a failing leader.

Put another way (as I already left in a free-standing comment): If management is failing...it's because leadership is failing. Whether that's culture that's lacking, or training and development given a back seat, failures - with rare exception - should be by definition owned by leadership.

A good manager can to some extent shield a team from subpar leadership. But not always, not forever. Eventually, poor leadership will tilt the game. That's not managers' fault.

The distinction you make is correct and important.

However, when we do break it down that way you start realizing that nearly everybody has to be a leader, but at different levels.

Your CEO has to be the leader for the company setting the vision and direction for the entire company. Your department head has to be the leader for the department setting the vision and direction for the department that best allows the department to fulfill the CEO’s overall vision. The manager has to do the same for the team. And every IC has to do that for themselves individually.

Every good manager will also necessarily also need to be a good leader.

Leader and manager being different person is quite rare. Mostly because it is unstable setup - the leader will be out of touch, the manager will dethrone the leader. Unless the leader has some additional power.

Also, manager that has not have sufficient power over decisions is just secretary.

In a software development context, the functionality should be specified by analysts, not by the manager. The technical architecture should be specified by an architect, not by a manager. The development process should be steered by the conclusions of retrospectives, not by some management vision.

To be honest, the best places I worked at was where the manager was at the service of the team, relying on all the experts. Never the manager that thought he knew better than everyone else.

Analysts are not leaders by literally any reasonable definition. sometimes they don't even add own vision into the mix, but instead have to fill in somebody elses initial vision with details. Specifying technical architecture is being leader to some limited extend. But it is leading one aspect of the development, that all.

> The development process should be steered by the conclusions of retrospectives, not by some management vision.

Retrospectives are actually run by managers and whether they are useful or not depends primary on the person that is running them.

Then there are things like: setting priorities, negotiating with customers, negotiating with other teams or upper management, deciding what will be promised and what wont. How much of the testing will be done, what is the target quality, final decision on whether to hire or fire people.

> setting priorities

Done by product owner

> negotiating with customers

Done by sales

> negotiating with other teams or upper management

This is indeed done by a manager, but I don't really see how the "leader" fits into this. It's more of a management function

> deciding what will be promised and what wont.

I hope the manager discusses this with the team, and that it's actually the team telling the manager, and not the other way around.

> final decision on whether to hire or fire people.

This is the manager indeed

Final contract is definitely not done by sales. That would be ridiculous as they have literally zero knowledge over how much the thing should cost and when it could be done. Maybe if you have packed done software where you are selling it without making contracts about future features.

The negotiating is done by manager.

> This is indeed done by a manager, but I don't really see how the "leader" fits into this. It's more of a management function

If you cant do this, you cant lead. Because these negotiations are key to both what resources team will get and to what will be expected from the team. Everyone else then need to fit their visions into whatever was agreed on here and in discussions with customes.

> I hope the manager discusses this with the team, and that it's actually the team telling the manager, and not the other way around.

Discussing with others before making decision does not make you not not lead. But, the idea that discussing with others somehow excludes you from leadership position explains why there is tendency to attribute leadership to less powerful positions that indeed discuss with others less.

Not sure where you worked, but in my last 18 years of experience over some 7 companies, if the team is big enough, there is always dedicated PM and dev lead (and test lead etc.).

Sure its doesn't apply to some 2-man projects but anything sufficiently large requires this division. I've seen control freaks trying to hold many seats on their projects but it never ends well (either heading to burnout or just not being able to tackle it all)

> if the team is big enough, there is always dedicated PM and dev lead

The PM there is leader and manager. The dev/test lead are managers of smaller sub-teams or aspects. But, the actual project leadership belongs to the PM, not to test lead.

I hope the one taking the lead for which features need to be built is the product owner and not the project manager.

Slight detour, but I believe it's the same issue with politicians around the world.

I always thought a manager was an emotional buffer so people could talk about the overall planning and team spirit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com