Ask HN: What are the best articles on managing people?
I recently found out about https://blog.sbensu.com/posts/lieutenants/ & was curious what are your favorite articles on management or generally managing people?
And WOW a proper book on the topic is SOOO much better than any random article that I find, be it from SWLW, HN, Reddit, or any other source. Articles and posts are easy to like when I already agree with their premise. But the depth of a proper book, from a real source of authority and not some random person online, looking at the problem from multiple points, that’s so much more insightful and useful.
So instead of hunting for best articles, I would 100% recommend getting Armstrong, or some textbook. Or at least High Output Management as other comment suggested, or some other well known and well regarded book. But Armstrong in particular can give you very deep understanding of most aspects of people management, plus it’s up-to-date.
I have read maybe 50% of the book only (there's no point in reading these things cover to cover) and haven't noticed many things specific to any particular laws or regulations. Performance management faces the same challenges in all markets. Knowledge management has the same principles everywhere. And so on.
https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Proje...
When i was picking up some team lead responsibilities for the first time, it was the first book suggested by my then mentor who was an experienced manager.
No.
[Ed: it is concerned with organizational dynamics - like senior management dreaming up release dates after talking amongst themselves - but they can (and do) do that in closed teams meetings or management/leadership zoom strategy chats...]
--
The comic partway through the article gives a good overview, and the following are a few highlights:
"Before the set-up-to-fail syndrome begins, the boss and the subordinate are typically engaged in a positive, or at least neutral, relationship. The triggering event in the set-up-to-fail syndrome is often minor or surreptitious. The subordinate may miss a deadline, lose a client, or submit a subpar report. [...]
"Reacting to the triggering event, the boss increases his supervision of the subordinate, gives more specific instructions, and wrangles longer over courses of action. The subordinate responds by beginning to suspect a lack of confidence and senses he's not part of the boss's in-group anymore. He starts to withdraw emotionally from the boss and from work. He may also fight to change the boss's image of him, reaching too high or running too fast to be effective.
"The boss interprets this problem-hoarding, overreaching, or tentativeness as signs that the subordinate has poor judgment and weak capabilities. If the subordinate does perform well, the boss does not acknowledge it or considers it a lucky "one off." [...] The subordinate feels boxed in and underappreciated. He increasingly withdraws from his boss and from work. He may even resort to ignoring instructions, openly disputing the boss, and occasionally lashing out because of feelings of rejection.
"In general, he performs his job mechanically and devotes more energy to self-protection. [...] The boss feels increasingly frustrated and is now convinced that the subordinate cannot perform without intense oversight. He makes this known by his words and deeds, further undermining the subordinate's confidence and prompting inaction."
---
My own summary follows. The idea is that a good relationship between a manager and a junior can unnecessarily fall off the rails, beginning with the manager perceiving that the junior has made a small or moderate mistake.
Instead of letting it go, the manager begins a corrective action with more micro-management (such as requests for more check-ins or progress reports). This can result in the junior becoming disengaged with the work, or alternatively trying to take on too many responsibilities to regain the manager's trust. In any case, the manager tries to correct this by increasing micro-management (which is the opposite of what the junior wants), which worsens the relationship.
To solve this, the article recommends an open discussion between the manager and junior, with specific, concrete goals for restoring trust in the relationship (as well as attempting to prevent this in the first place). The article also notes that an attempted solution entirely on the junior's side—where the junior over-achieves for a while to attempt to rebuild trust—is often ineffective, as a manager may not even notice these efforts due to a bias to already label the person as unreliable.
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
Intrinsic motivation is a function of autonomy, mastery, and purpose. A managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation.
When you identify a weak performer without understanding which pillar of motivation is weak, it generally results in a direct and total assault on intrinsic motivation.
Interventional supervision is decreased autonomy.
Interventional supervision is a powerful indirect invalidation of mastery. Being overruled is a powerful invalidation of mastery. Being told what to do or how to do something rather than being told a goal to achieve is an invalidation of mastery. Being ignored when you bring up an issue or not having your issue be treated with seriousness is incredibly invalidating. Being told, directly or indirectly, that you are wrong without having it explained to you is a complete invalidation of mastery.
Lastly, assigning lower risk work, work that doesn't matter as much, is a direct assault on purpose.
When intrinsic motivation is assaulted, it is no surprise that the employee becomes less motivated, and therefore less capable, independent, and thoughtful, and therefore a much less appealing person to give work that matters creating a viscous cycle of being managed out at the cost of everyone's mental health.
So a managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation, but the standard actions taken are a direct assault on it. The manager adopts an "organization vs employee" approach rather than an "us vs the problem" approach and the consequences are always exactly as you would expect.
The proposed solution in this article (practice active listening, which means listen with the expectation of and desire to change your mind), is a core weakness I've seen from managers promoted from engineering, and especially managers from more hierarchical cultures.
I agree with the final assessment of the article. A mastery problem cannot be solved by a manager, so if the employee is truly not technically capable, they need to be let go. The entire purpose of a technical interview is to ensure there is a bar that is cleared for mastery. Autonomy and purpose problems are generally a problem with a manager failing to manage upwards, set expectations, or a managers inappropriate application of dominance (often manifested by a lack of active listening), rather than a failure to "manage" an employee.
First understand that management is administrative: accountability, task completion, retention, hiring. Leadership is direction, purpose, and motivation. The concepts are not related. Leaders own things and take risks. Managers balance spreadsheets. If you are an extreme introvert or find it difficult to be assertive you have a tremendous amount of catching up to do.
Secondly, your best source of knowledge is experience from people with proven delivery. Find them and ask them tough questions. Compare yourself to your managerial peers to determine if you are developing appropriately or if you are sucking. Do not look to your peers or the public for leadership guidance as they will set you up to fail, especially in software. If you really want to become a solid manager look for harsh criticism from the leaders you work for AND a path forward.
Finally, pay close attention to the measures and metrics of your staff. Such measures will include staff retention, speed of delivery, product performance, and so forth.
To help jump start your journey here is leadership according to the US Army: ADP 6-22, https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?P...
This can be a good thing. "Natural born leaders" by personality type tend to be overconfident and ignore their blindspots because they've never had a reason to challenge their ability.
Introverts, for example, are acutely aware that leading and managing doesn't come naturally and is a skill that is continually learned and built upon. In the long-run, introverts can be excellent leaders because they're aware of what it takes to be a good leader and they put an emphasis on professional development to get where they need to be.
Not to say extroverts are worse leaders. Both introverts and extroverts can be terrible leaders/managers. The best leaders/managers are the ones who have the self-awareness to reflect on themselves, identify their week points, and constantly improve.
Well, yeah. But if it were *that* easy then everyone would do it. "It's just..." find the right people. Anyone one with experience knows "it's just" is a red flag for "I lack the depth and understanding of the domain so I'll dismiss it as if it's child's play."
This leads to one of my never-fails heuristics: Making it look easy is very very hard.
Speaking of learning from people with completely different perspectives, if you want to learn about public speaking, read Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best public speakers, and that we can learn their techniques. Much of what they do well has nothing to do with being funny.
Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes.
> how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.
Specifics please?
> Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best public speakers, and that we can learn their techniques.
Nihill is a bad standup comedian who sort-of pivoted/reinvented himself as some corporate speaker. So, he would say something like that; doesn't make it authoritative. (I almost dragged my friends to one of his gigs once until I checked out his videos.) And it depends on what type of "public speaker" he means; John F Kennedy would probably have been terrible at corporate comedy gigs.
The Marines think about leadership very differently than that. Sure, parts are authoritarian, but most people are surprised to learn that training to be an independent thinker starts in boot camp. They don't even tell you how to "swab the deck," you are provided the tools and given the direction that the floor has to be spotless. Regular inspections provide continual feedback, and out of that recruits routinely develop their own procedures and novel techniques for mission success. (Did you know newspaper is extremely effective at finish polishing windows?)
Leadership is pushed hard at every level. If two Marines are on a job/mission/taking out the trash, even if they are the same rank, the one with more time is expected to take responsibility for the other. It's not bossing around authoritarian style, it's as real as that other Marine's life is your number one priority. Leaders are expected to support mission success, not drive it. You lay out the parameters of what success means, and the Marines your charge should have the tools and support necessary to accomplish that task.
In the programming world, it means that I set out a goal post, where I want the team to get to. But then I make sure they have the time to do it (I often take distracting support issues or annoying bugs so the team is not hampered), and the tools needed to get there. If the team does not, I have failed.
Marine leadership doesn't do IC work, which is the major thing I could improve. But then, Marines have a whole lot more people than I do. :)
> Management by objectives (MBO) is a process in which a manager and an employee agree on specific performance goals and then develop a plan to reach them.
I can say that never happened in my time, but I'm sure it does at the uppermost layers.
> Critics of MBO argue that it leads to employees trying to achieve the set goals by any means necessary, often at the cost of the company.
The Marines love creative thinking, but not if it violates mission objectives (the company being one). I don't think this fits, either.
> As MBO is entirely focused on goals and targets, it often ignores other parts of a company, such as the corporate culture, worker conduct, a healthy work ethos, environmental issues, and areas for involvement and contribution to the community and social good.
Oh okay, that can happen for sure. Besides the occasional "mandatory fun day," morale isn't often considered, and morale is often not great. Good leaders recognize it will impact their objectives but those can be greatly outnumbered by the careerists that want to score a win and move on.
I've always thought it had more overlap with "servant leadership," though I really dislike the term.
The following excerpt encourages respectful debate, instead of blindly going along with a leader's plans:
"Relations among all leaders—from corporal to general— should be based on honesty and frankness regardless of disparity between grades. Until a commander has reached and stated a decision, subordinates should consider it their duty to provide honest, professional opinions even though these may be in disagreement with the senior’s opinions.
"However, once the decision has been reached, juniors then must support it as if it were their own. Seniors must encourage candor among subordinates and must not hide behind their grade insignia. Ready compliance for the purpose of personal advancement—the behavior of “yes-men”—will not be tolerated.""
---
The idea of erring toward respectful disagreement when warranted with leaders, instead of being a yes-man, has helped me greatly with building trust in teams I've worked with in the past.
However, I don't believe that it's always the best approach that "juniors then must support [decisions they disagree with] as if it were their own." I get that you can seem less confident by saying "{My manager} wants us to take this approach," instead of saying "We're taking this approach."
But for decisions that you personally disagree with, the best approach would include an acknowledgement of the downsides. Phrasing might be: "We're doing this because of XYZ reasons from the leadership, while acknowledging the downsides ABC."
I believe that this phrase is balanced: it avoids directly saying that you disagree with the decision (which can lead to people implementing the decision poorly, possibly making it doomed even if it turns out to be the correct one), while also acknowledging potential downsides (because the juniors are likely to see them too). An expression as if the decision were truly your own might mean an enthusiastic delivery without acknowledging the downsides, which reduces your own credibility with your direct team.
---
In any case, I believe that reading about the approach—even if one doesn't agree with every idea—is a worthwhile exercise, as I've found that much of the principles remain relevant across vastly different organizational environments.
[1] (1997) https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa...
* the 20 years of coverup and inaction about prosecuting 1Lt Duncan D. Hunter for 2004 Iraq friendly-fire deaths of other Marines and Iraqis? He eventually got prosecuted much faster for congressional finance abuse.
"Marine friendly-fire deaths involving Duncan Hunter were kept hidden. His congressman dad denies interfering." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter#Military_serv...
* the pattern of fatal accidents involving the Boeing V-22 Osprey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Accide...
You made interesting comments about how to frame the narrative when people disagree-and-commit.
But reality is always different in important ways from prescribed ideals. Real-life behaviour by bad actors gets in the way, which is a limitation of the 1997 document: it appears that it assumes all team members are acting earnestly without personal agendas and in good faith.
In practice, I believe that the involvement of external checks and controls are key to ensure good-faith behaviour, even if people within the system prefer to deal with it in-house. Interventions by independent government investigators and press coverage are important ways to add external pressure, when there is a lack of internal accountability.
I can't remember the specifics any more, but I do remember being impressed. No, the ideas were much broader than "authoritarian-type management cultures." That's certainly not what I wanted to create as a manager.
I read it almost twenty-five years ago while trying to expose myself to opinions of people with a completely different perspective. I was just about to become a manager for the first time, and I wanted to be prepared. In particular, I wanted to make sure that I was serving the people I worked for well. I had had good managers and bad above me, and I had ideas about what had made the difference for me as a subordinate, but it didn't seem like just winging it would produce a good outcome. I had read some books on management in office jobs, but they weren't particularly helpful. I do remember being impressed by how much careful thought went into how the Marines taught people not only to follow, but also to lead, starting from their first day.
>> how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.
Specifics please?
Read the book.
> Nihill is a bad standup comedian who sort-of pivoted/reinvented himself as some corporate speaker. So, he would say something like that; doesn't make it authoritative.
I urge you to read the book rather than just speculate. I found it full of excellent ideas for structuring talks, connecting with the audience, adapting to circumstances, etc., which is why I recommended it. It wasn't about humor at all. Your ad hominem comment about him isn't relevant to whether the material in the book is good.
Thats the most succinct advice I have on being a better manager. Not a self-indulgent medium article.
At some point you have to decide, “do I work for my team and the people I’m supposed to lead, or do I work for the business?”
Great managers choose their people over the business. Ironically, this best serves both in the long-run.
https://davidmarquet.com/turn-the-ship-around-book/
The anecdotes are good fun. I've not used it specifically as a model but I like the general principles it represents.
This helps people respond with flexibility, as it gives them a better understanding of when to deviate from the exact set of instructions you give them (such as if assumptions turn out to be wrong, or conditions change), and what parts of a request are necessary to follow exactly.
Though I remembered using this wording often, I actually forgot that I learned about the principle from this book until I read this comment. But the idea itself has stuck with me.
There is also a 45-minute "Talks at Google" video by the author, which looks like a good overview for his main ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzJL8zX3EVk
One problem I have with it, and with many similar books, is that it tells managers to move to a less directive way of steering people. This is very good for quite a lot of existing managers. But it's not very good advice for non-established leaders.
If, for example, you're not very assertive anyway, you might find that everybody has already taken the authority to do whatever they want. In that case you need to be a bit more assertive and directive.
This might be a less common failure mode for a ship's commander, who is already a very senior leader and has a strong formal authority. But if one day a manager tells a seniorish programmer "maybe lead the juniors a bit more", you're in a whole different position, and you need a very different strategy.
The "I intend to" advice is pretty good for non-managers too. In some companies you may find that no one is willing to stick their neck out too much. In that case communicating what you intend to do, and doing it unless stopped, gives you perfect cover. If it's actually a problem, people will say. If people are just scared to put their name on something, they won't stop you and you can improve things. You will also look like an A-player and a leader.
I worked with a person (in the same work position as me at the time, so I judged he was giving an honest opinion) who said that he strongly prefers managers who give specific and detailed instructions for tasks, instead of leaving most of the specifics up to him. If I remember correctly, this is the opposite reaction to that of a sailor mentioned in a book's anecdote. The author mentioned giving a command to a sailor for something that the sailor was likely going to do, but realized after the fact that the instruction reduced the sailor's autonomy, and thus eroded his job satisfaction. However, my past colleague would have reacted differently and wouldn't have minded—he likely would have even appreciated the clear direction.
So, some of the ideas of the book do not apply universally to all people. A person in a leadership role should instead adapt one's communication style—while still acting with respect and fairness to each person—depending on a team member's preferences and personality. Having a direct conversation with a person about their preferences, in most contexts where you are viewed as trustworthy, can be useful if there is uncertainty.
Multipliers - an excellent book on how to avoid becoming a stereotypical bad boss. Chapters are easy to read independently and have great summaries at the end.
Crucial Conversations - good for both professional and personal conversations. Learn how to have a difficult conversation without burning down the relationship.
Finally, look up SOON (acronym) for when someone you manage comes to you seeking guidance.
https://trainingindustry.com/articles/performance-management...
Ask them to define success, what the obstacles are to it, what their options are to overcome it, and immediate next steps to take.
Basically a modern version of "teach a man to fish".
i wish one day i have such a Manager.. before i'm dead anyway (~40y making sw.. still some more to go). i am under "CTO"-label now but that does not make any difference..
I find it's really more a practical guide, less so a "recipe of success" that other self-help tend to be.
https://www.amazon.com/Managers-Path-Leaders-Navigating-Grow...
> From the founders's perspective the org is basically an overactive genie. It will do what you say, but not what you mean. Want to increase sales in two quarters? No problem, sales increased. Oh, and we also subtly destroyed our customers's trust. Once the stakes are high, founders basically have to treat their org as an adversarial agent. You might think -- but a good founder will notice! Doesn't matter how good you are -- you've selected world class politicians that are good at getting past your exact psychological makeup.
This is a particularly good quote!
That’s the sad part. Once you personally encounter this, as i also have, though not as a founder, you cant help but notice it everywhere and question everything. Like the irl The Thing
Now I'm reminded of https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2019/04/15/mediocratopia-4.
I know the intent, but I found this typo funny
> Once the steaks are high
There are much better "this is how things ACTUALLY work" takes like Ribbonfarm's "Gervais Principal" [0] to feast on.
[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
>...that still doesn't mean they will do what you want them to do.
I get the generalization/perspective, but I reject the premise that you can't influence or manage subordinates to "do what you want." While you can't avoid your subordinate (a) daytrading their job or (b) empirebuilding for the sake of empirebuilding, you can for sure mitigate with monitoring, prioritization, and termination.
> <anecdote about Larry Page getting frustrated about PMs not doing what he wants in early Google>
I don't know the context of the Larry Page story, but the qualifier of "early Google" makes my point that they were still figuring out their leadership presence as rising managers/leaders. Jobs was also a known micro-manager. The answer, I assume, is that they began to realize how to manage results and I bet they could get a random employee to "do what they wanted," but prefer a different approach.
> learning to be hyper-aware of how your employees' agendas/motives can subvert your goals
I don't disagree, but there are checks and balances you can incorporate as a principal. The Gervais Principle takes it one step further by incorporating how these "subverters" can be useful to take risks that if things work out (and nobody gets caught), you get a pat on the back and the bonus. But, if you get caught (for doing something illegal but highly profitable), well we have to fire you. Either way, the principal is getting subverted, but it's not always against the principal's wishes.
I can’t find it online now, though the whole book is on archive.org. Here’s a good summary:
https://uncomn.com/leadership-part-1-lessons-from-douglas-so...
I don't know the research on this (and would be hesitant to believe anything out of the business press about management). I only have anecdata, intuition, and speculation.
I'm not perfect at any of these, but they seem to be a really good guide.
Note that not everyone has picked up the same influences in the past, so they might not have seen all of these, and they might've learned a lot of other ideas.
For examples of other influences (not just managers, but execs including startups): Many seem to prioritize projecting confidence, over everything else. Others seem wired to persuade, to doing what they want or to having a positive impression of them, at all costs. Others seem to think they must assert authority, first and foremost.
The difference in past experiences, and the reality of industry conventions in practice, means you sometimes have to explain something that seems obvious to you.
One time I failed to communicate well, I was characterizing to a startup CEO how I'd run a forthcoming engineering team, and I added something at the end, "and they'll be my people". I intended it as shorthand for a style of conscientiously looking after their needs, and fostering a culture of loyalty to the team/project/company. Of course that was ambiguous, especially in a business context, where aggressive self-interest is the most likely explanation for any behavior. Later, I realized that he was looking to be the leader of more of a lifestyle company, with the entire company his people in a somewhat different sense (which was an influence he'd seen in his own career). So I'd maybe sounded like I was saying I'd silo off a fiefdom of loyalists to me rather than to him or the company, shape part of the company in my image, or otherwise get between him and the people.
* Peopleware, Demarco & Lister
* Rands - anything/everything he has written. Start with Managing Humans.
* The 5 dysfunctions of a team, Lencioni
* Gervais Principle (broke my rule, its a set of articles about The Office) https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
More practically, here's a fun blog where you can ask specific questions: https://www.askamanager.org/
One thing I have oriented myself to doing is being a servant leader. As I told one team I led, “I’m your bitch. Tell me where your rocks are and I’ll move them out of the way so you can get your work done.” And then I do exactly that. I’ve had to work miracles sometimes but I can usually clear the path.
I detest micro management in every conceivable way, but I do believe in accountability and ensuring the work is done on time by the team with no surprises. This has worked well for me.
Been some time since I read about this stuff but Five Dysfunctions of a Team I recall being descent. Summary article here: https://www.runn.io/blog/5-dysfunctions-of-a-team-summary
There is a big risk that your career stops at that - being a servant.
Wouldn't it be a small red flag about an organisation if this wasn't the case?
Are the servant tasks even what you want to spend your time with?
I am not suggesting that the answer to those questions has to be "no". But good to think about it.
> Will your next workplace value all the effort you spent that way?
I'd hope so - as it's reasonable to assume that a next role for someone already managing/leading would involve more management/leadership. So yes, skills/achievements/examples in that area should be valued.
> Are the servant tasks even what you want to spend your time with?
It's probably not for everyone; but if someone doesn't want to perform the tasks that (many would say) are necessary to be a good manager/leader, maybe they shouldn't be in a manager/leader position in the first place?
The mentality "what's in it for me" is toxic and shows one is not ready for higher level management in a large org where cooperation is necessary to do anything interesting. Better questions are "is my team working on the right thing?", "does my team have the right skills to deliver on that thing?", "what relationships do we need to succeed?", and last but definitely not least "is my manager competent enough to provide the support I need for my team to be successful?". The last question is the key one: you won't grow if you are reporting to a muppet.
Is it not possible to see yourself as having thought too much about maximizing your companys success without thinking about your own needs?
I wouldnt qualify this as toxic. And they can go alongside if you make it clear for yourself and your manager.
I honestly don't think being too selfless is an adequate explanation for career stagnation though. Selfless behavior will generally help you get ahead in life and in your career, because good relationships matter a lot. However you won't get promoted just because you help everyone. What if you are just servicing the squeaky wheels rather than solving the biggest problem on your plate? A good manager will only look to promote you because you have demonstrated you are capable of solving larger problems. There are other things too: like the business actually has the need for a higher level role. If that's the case, then your behavior is irrelevant—you just need to leave to someplace that does have the growth opportunity.
Overall the reason I said your comment was strange is because it clearly comes from some personal experience you had, but it lacks enough context to be actionable to anyone who reads it. I can think of a dozen different ways I've seen a "servant leader" mentality succeed or fail, but it all depends very much on context. Ultimately if you want to succeed you need to understand what game is being played and not fallback to abstract platitudes.
But of course YMMV and all that. I am not saying don't, I am saying do - think about it first.
(1) The track you get on by demonstrating viability in roles of escalating seniority, such as by leaving a Sr. Manager job for a Director job.
(2) The track you get on by having an easily observable or articulable track record of getting important (or at least interesting) things done.
Ruthlessly working "track 1" may rule out "serving" a team (and at the same time rationalizing that by avoiding that "trap" you're "serving" the broader company mission), but that mindset practically rules out progression on "track 2".
Great mindset and thoughts, but I hope this isn't what you actually said. I'd also like to point out serving someone or some thing doesn't make you a bitch.
I'm not dunking on you; maybe you aren't a servant-leader, but rather just a servant. That's a great way to be: a servant of "the mission" (replace with whatever term keeps the contents of your stomach down).
Effective management --- do not groan before I finish this sentence --- tends to look a lot more like adminship on Wikipedia than it does, like, war leadership. It's about picking up a mop and a bucket and making the way clear for people to do their best work. And, in our field, doing one's best work often means making and communicating big decisions, which is what leadership is.
There's also a distinction between the kind of leadership the whole company needs --- hard decisions about where to allocate resources and what bets to make --- and the day-to-day "leadership" involved in getting things done as a team. I term I hear a lot is "vibes based management", which is a recognition that somebody (probably not engineering management!) is making these kinds of decisions and communicating them just well enough for line engineers to make good choices.
If you're looking for management advice because you're running a whole company, that kind of leadership is in scope! But if you're looking to learn how to be a good engineering manager, I'm not sure how much "leadership" has to do with doing a good job.
Your whole comment is spot on, but I think there's a trap here. Yes, an EM should be empowering as many IC leaders as possible, but that can't be done if the EM does not recognize true leadership. While it's theoretically possible to succeed as a manager leveraging others without having your own true tech lead chops, the majority of managers like this end up either putting too much trust in the wrong ICs or (worse) devolve into cover-your-ass "agile" process bullshit.
I.e. it's now your job to lead. Do it, and take responsibility for doing it.
Also:
The Manager's Path by Camille Fournier Released March 2017 Publisher(s): O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN: 9781491973899
0: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper 1: https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/hopper-wit.html
For example, his book Smart and Gets Things Done[1] is great.
Although not management, per se, Steve McConnell's stuff[2] has been of invaluable assistance, in my career. He talks about Quality Process, and that's the kind of stuff that managers should (IMO) know and enforce. Again, I don't think folks, hereabouts, have much love for him.
His book, Rapid Development[3], was a watershed, in my development.
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/06/05/smart-and-gets-thi...
[2] https://stevemcconnell.com
[3] https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/rapid-development-...
Which company has a bad Glassdoor score? StackExchange? Fog Creek? Construx? All of the above?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18FiJbYn53fTtPmphfdCKT2TM...
His writing vs talking stuff though is truly great, and I changed how I run many meetings through it.
https://www.donaldegray.com/managing-in-mayberry-an-examinat...
There are some fantastic other suggestions in comments though, and it looks like all my suggestions already accounted for.
There are two important distinctions: how you manage mediocre workers you didn't hire, and how you manage good workers. The former will require 98% of the effort of the latter, and will give you a fraction of the same results. If you are running a tech company, the former will probably prevent you from ever running things well or smoothly. The former can include people who don't show up for work, but it can also include high IQ people who are constantly screwing around and coming up with elaborate excuses. The best way to manage those people is to fire them as fast as possible.
For managing the former, let them get their work done and don't do stupid shit that impairs it. If you can't figure that out yourself, you shouldn't be a manager.
There, I just saved you 10,000 hours of reading.
Depending on the country you're in, this can be really difficult legally.
Fire these people first since they have a tendency to be manipulate the truth: "high IQ people who are constantly screwing around and coming up with elaborate excuses".
did you mean "latter" here ?
> For managing the former, let them get their work done and don't do stupid shit that impairs it. If you can't figure that out yourself, you shouldn't be a manager.
I have a manager who also can't write two sentences without mixing up "former" and "later", "production" and "dev" and "staging" and "testing", "monday" and "thursday" and "wednesday". Doesn't help he's also an insufferable know-it-all taking everyone for an idiot (even though that's true more often than not but you get the point).
My favourite piece of reading here is The Eleven Laws of Showrunning by Javier Grillo-Marxuach: http://okbjgm.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/5/0/31506003/11_laws_of...
It's about how to be the showrunner on a TV show, but is full of advice that works really well for managing people in software engineering environments as well (if you squint at it the right way).
He makes the argument that by putting a lot of effort in understanding your own and other peoples viewpoint you are able to build good relationship.
But what I believe sets his work apart from others is his psychological view on why it’s sometimes hard for people to listen to each other. He dissects which anxieties drives our behavior to listen or not to listen etc. without coming of as a know it all.
Probably not for everyone because of the psych framing. But if that speaks to you, give it a try.
Overall: five out of five toasters.
1. It clearly explains the difference between a leader and a manager, and how those are 2 different roles
2. "Stewardship management" is so powerful that another book has been written about the application of that concept: "Turn the ship around"
I always evaluate everything about management to the previous 2 concepts.
Not explicitly related to management but good advice. I’ve seen too many people put in a position of power and become assholes. It destroys morale.
Edit: a non paywalled link https://www.qualitymanagementinstitute.com/images/hrsolution...
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
The reason I say this is that articles are usually 800-3,000 words, with a median around 1,200 words. I'd ask if you can really gain much depth or promote deep change in yourself based on a bunch of short pieces?
Meanwhile there are numerous private courses, conferences, research papers, and books that dive into these topics in much more greater depth which is likely to have a more lasting impact on your life.
I'd venture a guess that you want articles because they are easier and faster to read. They don't require much time or effort to go through and you can get a few quick hits of dopamine that make you artificially feel like you impacted your career. Leadership isn't something you're going to be able to learn with a couple listacles and blog posts. It's going to take a lot more time and dedication to get good at.
As others have mentioned. Management is easy. Leadership is hard.
I was initially quite reluctant even to read it, but I opened the link as it came from a quite notable friend.
I liked how these guys have summed up all the things that you can practice to become the top tech talent. (I am not sure top 1%) and what it means to be that.
Strengths finder 2.0 Rework Deep work Rick Rubins book Start with why
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23848190-extreme-ownersh... - Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willink, Leif Babin - showcase of leadership techniques (with references from US Navy)
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18077903-creativity-inc - Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull, Amy Wallace - explains how to create a working environment that drives creativity and
For each one I tried to extract the key point or Tl;Dr in the description.
And it's a book of his articles.
Also, you're asking asking HN - WTF!!!
For some reason it grinds my gears when people in formal positions of authority insist on talking about being a leader instead of a boss.
[1] I’m all for pleasantries and being nice even though there really is no choice (ask/order). Don’t get me wrong. But not to the point where either party starts getting delusional about what’s going on.