Things managers do that leaders never would
simonsinek.com
simonsinek.com
And, bad managers play politics with information privy to them.
> 2. Managers Weaponize Policy. Leaders Bend Rules for People.
This is absolutely true. There is a saying that comes to my mind, said by a good manager, "Break the rules and justify it, I am here to ratify it"
> 3. Managers “Fire Fast.” Leaders Coach, Then Help People Land Softly.
Also true, bad managers consider people as "resources" to be used and disposed off.
> 5. Managers Reward Compliance. Leaders Reward Dissent.
This is directly related to the control issue. Compliance means control is easy. But this will not prevent them from blame dumping and un-ethical acts.
Leaders share the right amount of context so their people understand the overarching strategy and goals. They don't overshare.
Leaders help move their people away from rule-breaking in the first place.
Leaders prioritize the health of the team. While this should include giving timely correction and assistance to help people to the right track, and finding ways to lean in to individual strengths, it also absolutely includes removing people with poisonous attitudes, disruptive behavior, or someone dragging the team down with poor performance.
Leaders reward justified, rational dissent. Compliance is an expected norm until someone can demonstrate either an exception or the need for a new norm. Compliance is more often related to things that can sink the entire company, so no, it doesn't just mean "control." Compliance is not the same as conformity.
Its just a kind of bad management vs a kind of good management.
Obviously (just to pick one of the dichotomies there) blindly rewarding dissent is not really any better than blindly suppressing it. All of these need to be done with nuance and judgement. Because those are absolutely vital skills of any good leader.
The point is that managers (of a certain type) are approaching these particular issues in exactly the wrong way, and need to be shown that.
I have stuck my neck out of underperforming employees and was quickly disincentivized.
They’re extremely incentivized to have a simple, takeaway that makes you feel good for 2 minutes
"Managers Hoard Information. Leaders Overshare." - sure, until they don't. Because as companies grow, the probability that there is a hostile or careless employee in the audience approaches 1. That employee may tell a friend working at a competitor, may talk to a journalist, and so on. Most tech companies are funded on the principle of radical transparency, but then start compartmentalizing information because oversharing doesn't scale.
"Managers Weaponize Policy. Leaders Bend Rules for People." - likewise, this works up to a point. Past that point, if every "leader" within the company is bending the rules, you end up in an unmanageable mess, and outcomes that are unfair and legally perilous ("how come the company made an exception for Jill but not Joe?").
"Managers Fire Fast. Leaders Coach, Then Help People Land Softly." / "Managers Avoid Hard Conversations. Leaders Run Toward Them." - wait, so which one is it? Firing someone is a hard conversation, and in my experience, line managers often avoid it, letting performance problems fester for too long. Then, it's the "leaders" (the top brass - founders, etc) who decide that things have gone too far and we need to make brutal 10% cuts across the board.
"Managers Reward Compliance. Leaders Reward Dissent." - this varies, but the tolerance for dissent is usually higher among line managers than top leadership, simply because dissent is guaranteed once you hit a certain scale and your company can't be run as a perpetual discussion club. At some point, you need to get behind the plan or look for another job. I'd wager that Steve Jobs wasn't all that keen on dissent from random employees. Similarly, if you work at Palantir and tell them that they should sever ties with the Dept Homeland Security, I'm sure they will be happy to show you the door.
I agree with the general sentiment of your points, but aren't those 10-20-30% layoffs an attempt to make the bottom line look better before the call with the investors? In my experience most layoffs have a goal to reduce spend by X rather than churn underperformers. And often times managers aren't even allowed to target based on merit, but on some weird metric which is a mixture of compensation and impact.
> "leaders" (the top brass - founders, etc)
They said their definition of leader wasn't about job titles or org charts.
So then, who is the article about? And more to the point, if it's not a recipe for success, why should I follow its advice?
After all, if most managers valued the things in this post, we wouldn’t need the post.
Generalizing heavily, but I have turned relationships around to somewhat functional levels like this with weak leaders who leaned entirely into playing their supposed manager role.
Example: micromanager. Nagging you for updates. Inverted: insecure and craving information. I’ll flood you with information. Maybe you’ll back off and trust me if you’re not pathologically like this.
Information hoarding. Inverted: politically vulnerable, unsure of who to trust (maybe? If not a psychopath). Share information - not gossip - give them the credit, make them feel like they have allies and backup. See if you can’t go through something together and build trust.
Avoiding hard convos (coward). Inversion: insecure about people skills, probably bad history of making things worse. Start the hard convos for them by setting them up and handing them off. Take the risk and make the icebreaker moves, scheduling or calling or introducing. Play a support role if it’s them vs externals, detach and be supportive and nonreactive or limit it to positive reinforcement only and active listening if 1 on 1.
Typically I see immediate improvement with these if behavior stems from insecurity, but psychopaths and narcissists can and will take advantage.
I think nonreactivity and some pity for the cowardly go a long way to stabilizing things if they’re trying but failing. Cut them off and leave if it’s hopeless.
Without adversity, what is there to defy?
Leaders Overshare? Simon shares material non-public information on linkedin. Now he and the company are in trouble.
Leaders bend the rules? Simon bent the rules for some of his team but not others, now multiple past employees are bringing discrimination lawsuits.
Leaders coach and help people land softly? Simon kept too many low performers on his team and now the company's product is buggy, behind competitors and forced to downsize so his entire team is being cut.
I think this is within the team. Maybe you never worked for someone who doesn't share, who keep secrets, within the team. I did. It is frustrating. It makes you doubt every word they say, even a simple "everything is going fine" sows doubt in you, making you wonder if they are hidding bad news. It makes you doubt what you are doing is useful, because some time ago they hide a change of focus for weeks.
Then the secrets are revealed, they are stupid and pointless (not industrial secrets like you imply), they kept it secret just in case.
The best coaches, “mentors” etc I’ve had would never issue blanket advice like that because they know it’d be wrong for most people.
His rant about avocado on toast only cemented my view that he never starts with why he’s wrong every time he opens his mouth.
Dissent is rarely rewarded by leadership to the point I can't think of a single example of it happening
Some of them are more leader-y than others but all of them act like those bad managers some of the time.
Eg, if I say, "real programmers never ship untested code," well, I've shipped untested code either on accident or to address a production incident. I'm just some dude, but I'm sure many of the very best programmers would say the same. But I think there would be a consensus among them that you ought not to if possible.
Here's a far from complete list of famous people. Are these managers? No? Who is famous and a manager? Are these leaders? Yes. Are these role models? Also yes
- Stanislav Petrov: a true Scotsman who prevented WW3
- Irena Sendler: a true Scotsman who created illegal documents to help Jewish children escape the Gestapo
- Rosa Parks: a true Scotsman who stood up for what's right and catalyzed the civil rights movement in America
- Martin Luther King Jr: a true Scotsman who led the civil rights movement and is so well known you'll find a street named after him in every major city in America and a ton of minor ones too.
- Jeffrey Wigand: a true Scotsman who blew the whistle on tobacco companies
- Edward Snowden: a true Scotsman who blew the whistle the on illegal actions of the NSA
- Daniel Ellsberg: a true Scotsman who blew the whistle on the Pentagon Papers
- Ignaz Semmelweis: a true Scotsman who brought us hand washing for doctors and saved hundreds of millions of lives
- John Snow: a true Scotsman who saved thousands from cholera and helped us learn how germs spread
- Katalin Karikó: a true Scotsman who pursued her beliefs, leading to the development of mRNA vaccines despite this pursuit leading to the loss of funding as well as being denied tenure.
Then there's millions more who are not famous or are less known. Just because their actions didn't change the world outright doesn't mean they didn't save many. It doesn't mean they didn't have tremendous impact on their communities.
If you look at the history of man, one thing is certain: the world changed by those who were not deterred by their obstacles. The world changed because of the action of thousands or millions of these Scotsman.
A "leader" isn't someone in the C-suite; it's someone who does these things. They have a leadership mindset, and should be put into leadership roles, but very rarely are.
A "manager" isn't someone with "manager" in their title; it's someone who does those things. They have a toxic "corporate management" mindset, whether they are actually in a managerial role or not.
So why are you trying to find excuses to dismiss them? Are you afraid to try? Are you afraid to stick your neck out for what you believe? Do you want to justify complacency?
It's okay, not everyone needs to stick their neck out. But you enable the very thing you fear by telling others not to. Don't impede people who are trying to make the world a better place
Seems they missed the mark, likely because their ideas are pretty far removed from reality.
I’ve both been rewarded for dissent from leadership throughout my career and had greater respect for and advocated more strongly for those willing to stick out their necks and disagree earnestly and productively when in leadership positions.
Dissent isn’t the same thing as sabotage. There’s healthy conflict and open disagreement which helps illuminate risks and gaps and uncover opportunities in productive ways and then there’s just stirring the pot or trying to tear things down without bringing alternative proposals to the conversation — being unwilling to contribute in positive ways if you don’t always get your way.
The latter kills the ability for the team to work well while the former is key to allowing colleagues bring insights and value to the team
Some folks (eg younger me) are not interested in learning this art, and just want to say things and have everyone immediately see their genius. When I think about the times folks have done that to me, I didn't take it well.
Maybe I'm limited by the small number of experiences I've had at work related to someone being disagreeable, or maybe it is rare to be rewarded for dissent even when "you're right"
It doesn't sound like you were rewarded for your dissent from the group behavior, like standing up in a meeting (which is weird if everyone else is seated).
If you choose to act differently than "everyone" else (which can seem unusual, like you can't read the room), you're dissenting. You say something about being in line or out of line, but from your comment I don't know what you think you were doing.
Why did you choose to dissent from the team by being obliviously obedient and following rules "to the T" rather than going along with the team?
But everyone else could tell that wasn't a rule that needed to be followed "to a T" as you describe
> Just because everyone else got tired of following the rules that the C Suite took time to make, does that mean I should also stop following the rules?
If someone asked me to do something dumb, wasn't there to talk about it, and everyone else present realized it was a dumb request that didn't need my rigourus obedience, yes. I would not follow a dumb rule that no one else was following. Standing when everyone else sits is dissent behavior among the group you are part of (you're not part of the C suite).
> And standing during a standup so they don't go on and on and on like they always did made perfect sense to me.
It sounds like this is the reason you chose to stand, even when everyone else around you indicated they were going to sit and be more comfortable and casual, you chose to be rigid and probably loomed over the meeting if everyone else was staring at your belt buckle.
> So the more wrongs, the more right?
No. I would suggest the takeaway here is that you may have been blind to how your actions were actually self-serving (you wanted short meetings, and standing made others feel rushed ... at least you hoped) and the reason you stuck to the rules when everyone else was relaxed was because you wanted to use the C suite rules to manipulate other people's behavior to shorten the meeting you didn't want to be part of. Again, you were the dissenter in this situation based on your own retelling.
Lack of empathy for managers from their teams and the organization.
Good managers are often caught between a rock and a hard place, trying to balance competing interests and navigate difficult situations, since they also have managers and business priorities. Depending on the team size, this pressure is almost on a logarithmic scale. I have seen people choose the IC path because they consider a manager's job too stressful, and they can be paid the same (or sometimes even more than their managers).
I agree with the general sentiment here in the comments section — the article sounds good at first glance, but it's missing the nuances that get in the way of a manager acting like a leader.
The “common” experience is that managers are not very good and empathetic. Maybe the problem is indeed with the managers and how our systems make them so to begin with.
A manager who doesn’t lead will end up the issues raised in the article.
A leader who can’t manage will face administrative chaos.
In that sense it could be reconstructed as ”soft power mode” and ”hard power mode” where the former inspires confidence and encourages creativity and the latter emphasizes compliance and alignment. Any person in a position of power will utilize strategies that could be seen as signs of either mode depending on the situation.
> Same crisis. Same pressure. Completely different responses.
> Managers love the ‘hire slow, fire fast’ mantra,” Simon says. “But leaders know that letting someone go isn’t about making an example—it’s about dignity
> A manager might say, “You’re not meeting expectations. Today’s your last day.” A leader takes a different approach:
> Managers love yes-men and yes-women—people who nod along and follow orders without question. Leaders actively seek out the people who will challenge them.
I worked almost 12 hour days for him and I never complained about this behaviour, even after I quit. I gave him the full extent of my work and loyalty and he somehow never even understood that. To this day I am sure he has no idea of how much I put myself out for him.
Almost as if he thinks that work life and personal life are two completely separate non linked spheres of reality. His ignorance to this day is almost a point of sheer bafoonery and hilarity which brings me a bit of joy now when I remember him / see him.
EDIT > I wasn't going to read the article but when I saw comments of managers offended by some random article, I knew it would be good.
Once decided to leave, I felt as a final mark of respect I would both leave quietly, and more importantly I did not owe them the feedback, which would ofcourse help.
It sort of should make sense. I am often confused why people who decide to quit a company that has wronged them, would voluntarily provide feedback. I feel they only do it to vent, but control of ones emotions is an act of discipline one should not shirk in professional settings.
The sooner we accept this, the better we are. Even in professional environments.
[] Marcus Buckingham, First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently
What’s a good metric to tell which companies have toxic managers?
Any manager who’s been in the trenches knows the real game is shielding your team while still getting things done. Be as much of a “leader” as you want, but without authority and accountability, you’re just cosplaying. The rah-rah leadership Kool-Aid is mostly there to keep people inspired while the actual decisions happen in rooms you’ll never be invited to.
Gallant gets curious about what systems were in place to prevent this and why they weren't sufficient. He understands that nobody is perfect and that we succeed by cooperating.
The writing is aspirational, yes, but why are so many quick to nitpick? It looks like you're reaching for reasons not listen. If you choose to not stick your neck out, so be it, but don't knock those who do. You'll only enable the thing you're afraid of.
The utility of Utopian writing is not to serve as a set of instructions to achieve Utopia. It is to inspire those to push for it. A Utopia is unobtainable, but it serves as a direction to pursue. The world changes, and so too must our actions, but the direction appears to hold constant for millennia. We're the only ones who can create a utopia, but we're also the ones who prevent us from reaching it. The choice is about which side you want to be on. Do you want to work towards that utopia? Will you sit silent watching others build? Will you justify your inaction? Or will you enable those who only want that future for themselves?
I really do want you all to ask yourselves: why are you so quick to dismiss those who want to inspire you to do great things?
> The choice is about which side you want to be on. Do you want to work towards that utopia?
No, this utopia is something you're only imagining and isn't a real shared goal any of us can work toward.
> utopia is something you're only imagining
I assume you aren't just some emotionless automate, so I'm pretty sure you do have dreams. In the words of Shia Laboef, just do it, make your dreams come true
> isn't a real shared goal any of us can work toward.
Whether or not you agree with my goals/dreams won't change the impossibility of your suggestion of a human utopia.
>>>> A Utopia is unobtainable, but it serves as a direction to pursue
>>>> but the direction appears to hold constant for millennia.
> that's just around the corner.
> the impossibility of your suggestion
Did you intend to respond to someone else? Because your criticism is acknowledged in the premise. Or are you trying that hard to not have dreams?
Can I change my answer retroactively?
You're thinking of daydreams or wishes.
To offer a concrete example, mathematicians failed to unify mathematics. They discovered it was impossible. But that's an important result, and there were other valuable intermediate results (like set theory).
There was an article here the other day about how the Sagrada Familia is nearly finished. Gaudi's original vision would have involved bulldozing a bunch of surrounding homes and businesses. That's unlikely to happen. Regardless, the project is considered a huge achievement in architecture.
Maybe you're thinking of an aspiration? Goals are achievable.
> Ambitious goals are never fully realized.
"Unreachable aspirations are never fully realized" is accurate. However, I've reached many actual "ambitious goals" in life, because whether easy or difficult goals are things you can fully realize.
> This is like saying a compass is only useful if you travel all the way to the north pole.
I have no idea where this example came from and it seems to only be half explained. But, a compass is useful because it gives you direction -- not because you expect to reach the North Pole every time you check direction.
An aspiration provides value in the pursuit itself and the valuable discoveries you make along the way.
Aspiration: A journey (still valuable, but you might not reach or even have an exact destination)
Goal: A destination (As in "achievable" -- see "A" in S.M.A.R.T. goals, a very common framework for understanding how to set and use goals effectively)
Let's not confuse the two concepts. It serves no purpose and might actually get in the way of your success.
Presenting a disagreement as a "misunderstanding" on my part because I don't use your terminology is disingenuous. I assure you, differences in terminology will not interfere in my success. Just like speaking a different language wouldn't interfere.
I will leave you with a final thought. If an aspiration is a goal that can't be realized - then we only know this in retrospect. All goals are possible until proven otherwise. Russell and Whitehead thought mathematics could be unified. Who are we to judge them as fools? They didn't know what we know, because they taught us.
People learn something new every day. This is your opportunity to learn how goals (which are always achievable) are different than things like wishes, daydreams, hopes, or even aspirations.
If you'd rather not learn, that's OK. But it is not disingenuous to correctly define a word when someone else is misusing it repeatedly.
> All goals are possible until proven otherwise.
I'll enjoy this more than you know.
> I am not responsible for the commonly understood meaning and definitions of words in the English language.
Let's have a look, shall we?
goal (noun)
1 : the end toward which effort is directed : aim
| The goal is high-speed rail travel.
Synonyms:
purpose aim plan objective intention
intent idea object ambition dream
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goal
Let's have a look at another word, just for fun...
aspirational (adjective)
: of, relating to, or characterized by aspiration
| aspirational goals
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspirational
You had aspirations of proving us wrong, they gave you direction, but you failed.
Thank you for the active demonstration of the utility of unachievable goals.
aspirational (adjective)
: of, relating to, or characterized by aspiration
I'm always happy to put a smile on someone's face, but I think if you reflect on it you'll find that you have evidence to support the impossibility of goals you believe impossible (in other words, they have been "proven otherwise" in the past). If you've made up your mind without any evidence, well, you do you but that may be a belief that hinders you rather than helps.
Guest: You know how sometimes you can pronounce the same word differently? Well—two things can be true.
Interviewee: Wait, what are you saying?
Guest: When you're from the Midwest, you say 'meeyulk' for milk or 'peeloh' for pillow, and that's not incorrect. It's just, you know, two things can be true. So, that's what I was saying.
Interviewer: Yeah. [wideyed confusion]
Guest: So, what's that all about?
(hint: it isn't linguistic descriptivism & I'm not the guest in this scenario)
All goals begin with imagination, daydreams, or wishes. Whichever you want to call it. Every single one of them begins in your head before they become reality. So what's your beef here? I know you're not that dumb, as you're actively demonstrating the capacity for metacognition. So what are you actually trying to argue?
Besides, so what if all your dreams don't come true. Do you still not have them? I'm sure you've settled for things. Did your idealistic dream not help you make those decisions? It'd be lunacy to suggest that they did not. There would be no compromise or settling if this higher desire did not exist. Similarly, in the other direction, the fear or dystopia.
Do you not have 5 year, 10 year, and other long term goals? Do these not change? I'd call you a liar if you were able to pursue precisely the path you thought things would take over a long period of time, because I know you're not omniscient.
*Your lived experience demonstrates the utility of wishful thinking.*
Good god, my pet cat has dreams and desires that she'll never obtain yet help her pursue her more realistic goals. There's the saying "Shoot for the moon, land in the trees". Shooting for the moon gave you direction and landing in the trees still gave you progress, right?
Why are you being so flippant?
followed one breath later with this lack of self-awareness:
> Why are you being so flippant?
Your exasperation in the form of italics doesn't do much for your argument.
Reading between the lines, I'm pretty sure your real disagreement here is aesthetic. Perhaps it feels icky or touchy feely to you. And your semantic and tone arguments are reverse engineered from that perspective. But if I'm wrong I'd be interested to hear you answer GP's question.
It sounds like you don't need anyone to answer your questions, you can just lean into that excellent internet clairvoyance you're displaying.
If anything, it seems dear GP & I should be asking you to tell us more about ourselves.
You've every right to feel that way, but I'm as disappointed in that outcome as you are. Take care and I'll see you around.
Oh well. Wishing you unachievably bold aspirations. To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching, the path that is clear does not go all the way.
I'm not sure why they're trying to manufacture outrage but I've been seeing interactions like that appear more and more on HN.
Calling someone names and making baseless accusations is a good sign that you're out of anything meaningful to add.
> I've been seeing interactions like that appear more and more on HN.
Is continuing to compare other commenters to LLMs an example of the type of helpful and beneficial interaction you'd like to see in comparison?
> you're out of anything meaningful to add.
The problem isn't that we disagree with you, the problem is you are not making an attempt to have a productive conversation. So we gave up.
Was there a meeting where you were made spokesperson for you and this other person, or did you just start speaking for them?
> So we gave up.
What part of responding nonstop in great detail with intricate formatting indicates you've given up, even if just speaking for yourself this time?
Your fortune cookie sign-off does no justice to the work you claim to be referencing. I guess if you spend your days working with agreeable LLMs, it is very inconvenient and upsetting when a person comes along who doesn't agree and polish up every concept you espouse.
I also enjoyed noticing how you and the person you sense agrees with you is a "we" - but I'm not a person, apparently because I wasn't swept off my feet by your eloquent arguments.