One of the things that I've done multiple times over my career is, to be completely open and clarify expectations on the other side / higher ups. One of the ways this manifests is that I never put my signature on something I don't believe in; I can sign up to get as far as possible, but will be explicit on not guaranteeing a destination that I'm not empowered to reach. Another is to make it clear that my execution decisions are aimed not at doing what you ask me, but doing what future you will be happy I did.
Naturally, things like that limit quite a lot the range of responsibilities that I could potentially reach, but also prevent me from going to places where I will not want to be.
Then I ask what budget they are prepared to allocate to meet said expectations. If the answer is "none", I ask them which other expectation shall be lowered. This may seem confrontational, but it isn't really. If you want me to do more stuff without giving me the means and time to do it, something will suffer, and that needs to be made explicit by me, because I am the person facing the consequences when this something else can't be done adequately.
I was once asked to become the responsible electrical engineer for my institution. For them this was just a position they had to fill for legal reasons (otherwise they are liable in case of damages) and I have the qualifications, so they asked me. Then I explained to them that legally my role is only seen as valid if I am given the time and the means (equipment, room, powers to stop failings, etc) to do the job properly. Otherwise they would still be liable. I then asked them if they were prepared to dedicate that amount of my work time and an extra budget to that role. Surprise, they were not. So I declined. As of now I am still not sure where that liability went.
Too often management wants to have their cake and eat it too, and pointing that out isn't rude. It is one thing to ask someone who is idling have the time to take on tasks that are close to their job. But it is a totally different thing to ask someone who is already at 110% capacity and doing the job of three people to take on yet another job.
This is bad management. It is flattering that I am apparently good enough at my job to be constantly offered new responsibilities and asked advice at projects, but that is how you lose people like me.
It worked brilliantly for a while, but since things were getting done fast, well, and cheap, the expectations increased. I gave notice two weeks ago without a job lined up.
wow. real!
What concrete differences in behaviour would you expect to see?
For me the main difference between a good and a bad manager is that the good manager is interested in delivering good work in a sustainable way that improves the team, while bad managers are interested primarily in looking good while burning resources and bridges for fast victories.
If you think what it takes to for example write a legendarily good piece of software, while building a team that is top class among other comparable teams, the surest way to not reach that is to cower in front of superiors and play both sides. If anything it requires a lot of resilience, patience, diplomacy, persistence and the backbone to defend ones ideals, projects and subordinates.
The writer did a very poor job of explaining how to do this. I question how much experience they have writing. But actual diplomacy is necessary in systems like this.
Even a CEO can't bend physics for example. If they want you to make you transmit information between two sites faster then the limit is still light speed no matter who asks or how great your team is. Other situations are often a bit more flexible, e.g. how long a team will take to do a thing, but also not infinitely flexible. If you know at the best time it took your team 5 days to do a thing, but usually it takes 8, then promising your CEO to do it 2 is both ridiculous and a lie. Telling them that the best you ever did when all the stars aligned was 5 days, and then telling them how the company could help to make the stars align even better is probably the better route.
You've put forward a false dichotomy between punching my manager in the face and nodding along silently to everything I'm told. Frankly, both will get me fired pretty quickly.
Business don't work on managers fighting to the death on every decision we think is right. They work on managers pushing back where we think something isn't correct. If my manager disagrees, it's his job to override me and say "I hear your concerns. Do it anyway." That can happen for many reasons, some good and some bad. At that point, however, my role as a manager is to disagree, accept the decision and do my best. Or look for another job.
No I did not. I characterized a certain type of person by how they would act at the extremes. Naturally most day to day decisions are not taking part at those extremes. Also these being a false dichotomy would mean you can somehow both nod along and tell them they are wrong at the same time. Nodding along implies you are not telling them they are wrong, which means they are mutally exclusive types of behavior, or: a dichtomy.
If I read you favourably you probably thought I meant people literally just have those two extreme options, while obviously there are many shades inbetween. But I did not claim there were no such shades.
Why did you turn what I said into "punch them in the face"? Because my original statement wasn't that easy to attack?
> It's his job to override me and say "I hear your concerns. Do it anyway."
Contrary to your perception everything I said is in perfect alignment with this statement. I didn't even talk about outcomes, only about behaviors and only behaviours by the manager.
If a superior asks a manager if a thing can be done in two days although the manager knows their team can at best do it in six, assuming your superior wants to know the truth and telling them: "the fastest we ever did this was six days and that was already problematic" isn't what you called punching them in the face it is simply a statement of fact. If the manager is good they then add a: "We can try to do it in 5, if Greg and Linda from Design are 100% on the project and my team is lifted from all other day to day responsibilities for that duration. Afterwards they probably need a day off."
The superior obviously has many options to go forward, but this is offering a realistic step towards their direction, states what is needed to make it possible and gives a realistic feeling about how possible it is. But what if the manager had not said the truth but (trying to please the superior) promised impossible things? That way the superiors choice suddenly involves more risk than they might be aware of. And bad managers consistently choose the latter as they are more concerned with their appearance than with the result of the work.
> I characterized a certain type of person by how they would act at the extremes.
This is literally a false dichotomy.
> Why did you turn what I said into "punch them in the face"?
It's called dramatic effect, I don't literally think that you said it but my comment stands even if you take your literal argument.
> But what if the manager had not said the truth but (trying to please the superior) promised impossible things?
Neither I nor the article argue you should do this, so you threw a strawman on top of your false dichotomy. I don't see how we can have a fruitful discussion when the positions you claim are being taken are positions that exist only in your head.
I already mentioned that running your mouth isn’t an option. Upward management is part of the job and “shut up and fall in line” isn’t upward management. Plenty of leaders manage to shield their teams from incompetent management and it is usually what is in the best interests of the company.
And there’s nothing wrong with looking out for yourself as a manager when you have responsibilities, but characterizing it as “best practices when navigating a difficult time” doesn’t sit well with me.
If a manager isn't able to function in this environment then, frankly, I'm not sure that person is cut out to be a leader or manager...
This part. You seem under the impression that it’s impossible to do a good job unless you’re in total agreement with your management chain. That simply can’t happen 100% of the time, even in a job where you generally enjoy the work.
> It is good for your well-being, your self-respect
You seem to think one loses their self respect when they pick their battles and focus their energy on what they can control. I say that it’s better for your well being to not scream your life away into the void.
Look, there comes a time in every job where you need to move on because it’s not giving you what you want or need any more. I don’t judge that.
But part of management is knowing when you gotta suck it up, put on your big boy pants, and tell the team something you don’t agree with and that you need to make it work somehow. If you can’t handle that part of the job, then you’re really not cut out for management or leadership.
if something ever came along where I was surprised and not informed ahead of time, I'd not loudly disagree publicly until I had more info and I'd tell my people as much. but that would be an exceptional circumstance and I'd probably feel I'm on the chopping block anyway since I was out of the loop.
so I don't play both sides but if you choose to stay employed at a place you're choosing to buy into the vision of leadership. if I wasn't bought in, I'd leave. if someone under me wasn't bought in, I'd support them and keep it between us but recommend they leave. because life is short and you'll regret working for people you detest. I get there's practical considerations because a job is a life decision but that's always why I'm careful about where I commit to work at and don't just aim for best salary or TC.
You're "part of the system" the moment you sign the employment contract for a manager position, this is literally your job to fall in line with upper management. As middle manager you can and should raise concerns to higher management, but once they take a decision, you have to apply it. Being empathetic is not playing both sides, manager's job is to apply upper management decision even if you don't fully agree. And you don't have to pretend in private to agree on everything, no one will buy that.
That is not at all true. The manager’s job is to manage employees in a way that is in the best interests of the company. I’ve met plenty of leaders through my career who are successfully able to shield their employees from an incompetent management. That is part of the job.