Hacker News Reader

The vast majority of literature in management (definitely in the tech sector) is essentially a long form opinion of a single person.

I personally only started to take more seriously the writing of people who a) have been managing for a long while successfully, and b) regularly sync up with other managers so that their pieces aren't a sample size of 1.

Because I apparently have an infinite appetite for masochism: do you have any recommendations for authors you've read and liked?

I’m not the OP, but here’s my reading list: https://tuckerconnelly.com/management-leadership

Will Larson [1] is a favourite of mine. Some parts os his writing are still "one person's opinion" but

a) has credentials to back up his opinions

b) often he triangulates with other people to give more weight to his arguments. For example for Staff Engineer he did interviews with many Staff+ ICs

c) is very humble and open about what he doesn't know or what is "the best of my knowledge"

Overall I give him more credit than any internet rando.

[1] https://lethain.com/

Can you give us some links to writings you found particularly inspiring?

Please also give the things you did not find inspiring but did find useful after trying them out. I think one of the flaws of modern management is that it often ends up being about the feelings of managers. I'd expect there to be significant negative correlation between the things that feel inspiring upon reading versus those that are practically helpful to the work and the people being managed.

My favourite article on technical delivery is so simple and obvious https://www.bti360.com/what-ive-learned-in-45-years-in-the-s... I use it to get people to focus on the basics which is more consequential that grand initiatives and metrics

Longer reply above, but I really like https://lethain.com/

management is a lifetime of experience and they themselves often don't entirely understand what they're doing.

My favorite manager of all time just left me alone and believed everything I told him when communicating back to the business. It was never clear to me if that was on purpose (he trusted me) or if he was just a lazy ass.

And I don't care, I loved working for that man. But if you were to ask him to lay out what makes him such a great manager he'd never be able to do it.

These types of bloggers are exactly the people you don't want to be taking management advice from, they have an ulterior motive other than being great managers. They want to *sound* like great managers, not actually be great managers.

He probably loved you because you left him alone. You loved him because you're a self starter and didn't want to deal with bullshit and he probably was checked out of life and just wanted to coast. The business you worked for benefited from your goal alignment.

Sometimes you have to take non synchronous goals and mash them through a form to press out a result. The middle manager is there drive results, end of story. Friends along the way, is meh. Just look how finance people manage each other.

> He probably loved you because you left him alone.

Where in the post you’re replying to did you get enough information to make this assumption?

As a manager, it’s not my job to prescribe one universal management style for every employee. If I trust someone, they ask for autonomy, are proactive when they need help, and can execute, then a very solid baseline is to let ‘em cook.

> Just look how finance people manage each other.

Isn't finance in general a dystopian hellscape?

As a manager in a startup recently acquired by a large finance company - yes.

Your story leaves a number of open questions. Would your manager even know if you were not worthy of the trust given? Was your manager guiding you to work on problems that would best grow you to the future (this is a both where you want to go, and where your organization needs you to be - sometimes the two are in conflict!)? Was your manager taking care of the things his bosses needed to know about you?

Do not make this a person question about you, it is a generic question about everyone your manager is in charge of. The managers job isn't just to hire good people and stay out of the way.

Managers who are well studied in management techniques are often unbearable to me.

They lack the acting ability to pass off something they read as their genuine response, so it feels artificial and further divides us. It's like being charismatic. Some people have it naturally, others can develop it over time with real experience, but it isn't something you can pick up in a course.

Doesn't everyone who goes through a military academy study to be a manager of people? (Or for that matter OCS or NCO school, if for a shorter time.)

No direct experience with the military or working with vets, but for sure they have a grand old tradition of being ruthlessly practical, and in a lot of ways practically invented things like KISS and data-driven decision making. Probably dealing with life/death has a tendency to focus the wandering individual mind and even the meandering motivations of a vast bureaucracy. Someone else can likely provide better references, but for just one random example, BLUF ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) ) is something I wish more managers were aware of.

I agree on the solution posed being the same as the problem claimed.

"but none of them has offered me, in the end, more credibility as a manager."

Spoken like a true manager. Is credibility/credentializing the point? I mean, it's certainly used everywhere like requirements of having an MBA (which often include leadership/management classes). But I don't know if any training really makes someone a good people leader who didn't already have some natural talent at it.

Talent and inclination. I actually got an MBA at one point and while I rather enjoyed the whole experience and it was a rather useful credential at the time I decided I had very little interest in becoming a manager.

> But I don't know if any training really makes someone a good people leader who didn't already have some natural talent at it.

I think that inherent talent (by which I mean "a deep and genuine interest") is important in any field of expertise, including management. But I also agree with Adam Savage's opinion on this: you can achieve 80% mastery of anything through practice. Getting that last 20% requires talent.

I didn't get that the author was saying this post was going to fix everything.

What seemed incredibly valuable was that it provides the top level context for how we got here. This article does a good job getting you past first order thinking of how to manage, and makes one consider how & where managers arrived; it's the Chesterton's Fence of management. https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/

Why are you asking them to recognize that? That's explicitly their point.