Hacker News Reader

Comment by stncls | Hacker News Reader

I was once part of a department that was so well-managed and functional that I couldn't quite believe it. Then when time came choose a new department head, someone told me that they had always specifically avoided people who wanted to lead the department for the job.

View on HN

Good policy. In worker owned enterprises that are run democratically the owner/employees elect their managers from the ranks. They act as manager for a term and then go back to their original position after the next election. Keeps everyone based in reality.

Decades ago, the Boston University Free Press (the alternative views newspaper) was managed in this manner. My buddy ended up running the paper for a year because he was the least political, most liked guy working at the place. He just wanted people to be happy. After a year, he was no longer happy and was glad to give up the job.

Managers, like politicians, should have term limits. The temptation for abuse and favoritism is too strong.

I agree with you for the most part, but what happens when you've got a damn good manager? They exist for sure. They're just unfortunately a minority.

Then they should share their knowledge with the rest of us and produce more good managers.

“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” - Douglas Adams

A perfect model for democracy I would say.

The flaw is that it forces someone into a role they do not want to fulfil, that could see the occupant become resentful of those around them and act out of spite.

The short answer is there is no perfect model, people will always be people.

I somehow expect that person wouldn't have become spiteful _just_ because of the election, so wouldn't get elected in the first place... but yeah, we only have bad or worse solutions.

An idea that goes back to Plato's republic.

My simple mind thinks:-

Why would you want someone who does not want to do a job do that job?

If you are interviewing someone and that person said “I don’t want to do this job” would you hire that person?

There's a difference between "I don't want to do this job", and "I don't want to do this job, but it needs to be done, and apparently everyone else thinks I'm the best fit for it. As much as I now hate you all, I'll do it, and may God have mercy on your souls."

I've been told several times that I become scarily competent at anything I hate, far in excess of those things that make me happy or bring me joy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't discount disgust or aversion to something or it's lack as a disqualification to manage that thing. Quite to the contrary, they may be just the person aware enough of the thing in question to reliably manage it. I'll take a candidate who can explain at length why they hate that job over the most eager "this'll be great" candidate ever.

I'll just be realistic about my assessment of their tenure, and the compensation offered, and try really hard to figure out what they actually want before pulling the trigger on the hire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com