But I think your suggestions mirror my experience in actually getting the person to do the thing. The other benefit is that the same steps, more or less, work well when managing up as well as down.
Sometimes, that's fine. After all, I would assume no rational human is going to "command" someone to do a thing if they don't think they want that thing done. Personally, I've found that pointing people in a general direction ends up yielding far superior results. Empower your team, and they'll surprise you, usually in a good way.
Sometimes your team will surprise you but often they’ll horribly disappoint you. If the stakes are low, sure do whatever, but if shit matters …
Long term, if you have the right team, the positive surprises will more than cancel out the disappointments and the "meh" results. But, if it's a life or death type matter, fuck the long term -- you have to survive the short term before you start worrying about that. You can't manage or lead an organization that's at war the same way you would one that's at peace, and nor should you try.
Worst are the people who both don’t like the “I need you to …” task giving and do absolutely nothing when left alone or only given a goal and a direction. How do you deal with it if you are working on an industry where performance adjustments and feedback can take years and you can coast without doing anything four more than a couple of years?
The bad engineering managers I've seen seem to suffer from anthropophobia when they aren't giving orders in a meeting room.
When a specific task absolutely needs to be done, the boss asks for volunteers, delegates, or does it themselves in that order.
The era of militarist corporations dictating downward, monopolizing information like it's some fucking government intelligence agency, and employees bending the knee to inflated egos upward is over.
Bosses now are organizational and individual employee facilitators of said employees getting shit done and improvements thereof.
Laying out what milestones need to get done and helpful bits to get there without micromanaging. Checking in and asking questions if there are any blocking items is okay.
Open-mindedness, dispassionate failure analysis, and 360 feedback are important to maintain professionalism and growth.
> Handle bad results in the same way that the NTSB deals with plane crashes - find the flaws in the system instead of somebody to blame.
Definitely. I'd like to see a lot more of that, but the default often seems to be blame.
I recall a system at a place I worked where the stakeholders (native or skilled non-native English speakers) would produce requirements by holding meetings with the developer (much less skilled non-native speaker), dictate what they wanted, and have the developer take notes (which the stakeholders would not check) then immediately implement the software. When the resulting software was built incorrectly they would blame the developer for incompetence, and hold another meeting.
The "nice" corner of the chart simply screams hypocrisy to me. Like they want to say or mean "do this" but they try to couch it in some passive aggressive pleasantry. No thank you. I prefer clear communication.
What's wrong with a nice, "Please foo?"
Especially for filling out time sheets or heck, TPS reports. This goes really well.
For anyone who has not seen the movie Office Space, you need to see it. While you are at it, also watch the series Silicon Valley.
It's a hard time for people like us to be in tech (particularly startups and small companies), because the culture of extreme passive aggressive is widespread and prevalent. Many people, most people, view direct requests as rudeness or condescension, even though the net result is exactly the same.
The worst part of it to me though, is that it can be hard sometimes to figure out what the person means. If they could just say what they mean, it would be so much easier. But no, instead we have to imply and hint our way to what we want lest we be taken as rude, and this requires the receiver to exercise some part of mind reading. Most of the time it actually works fine, but there are sometimes important and consequential moments when it doesn't work fine and there is miscommunication, sometimes with disastrous results. And completely unnecessary, if the person could have just said what they meant instead of trying to hint it. It doesn't need to be this way people.
And that's not some terrible thing. Like you said, a job is something you do for money. If it weren't, it would be a hobby.
Having people be passionate about the work they do is a great way to lower the wages and working conditions. Look at gamedev, or other sectors people are passionate about. Because so many people want to build games, they are considered expendable/replaceable and are treated poorly, both in terms of wages, working hours, and other labour conditions. The same thing applies to FAANG companies to some extent - they just "burn up" young talent by motivating them to spend as much time crunching in the office as possible.
...well, that explains its popularity in the corporate world then. rimshot
I've managed equally passionate teams. All I'd have to say most times is, "We gotta get this done." And somebody would jump up and say they would do it, because they saw the value of learning it, the value to the team, the value to the organization, or all three.
The last two places I have worked (A non-profit and a mission-based Linux company) have been completely different. Almost everybody was passionate only about keeping a roof over their heads (if that). It is a source of constant chuckles that I found more passion in a second tier ad-tech company than I do in mission-driven organizations.
I think companies have earned this though because of exactly what others have said in this thread. Companies have taken advantage of passion so that now. Say what you will about the ad-tech company they did retreats all around the world, gave us interesting swag and threw incredible parties. The mission driven organizations are like "Do it because you belieeeeeve."
[edited to remove nonsense]
If person says no or asks why I can elaborate or hear them out why and maybe I will do it on my own or delegate to another person.
That sentence seems clear on what needs to be done and that it needs to be done, there is no “could, maybe” on the “do it” part and still gives other person control over the situation.
For reasonable request and from boss position I don’t see how would it backfire.
For unreasonable request or unreasonable person on receiving end - I guess there is no good way anyway :)
Can you say more about this? I use this phrase (or slight variations) all the time in both work and personal contexts. I had no idea it could be abrasive.
Better to say that it is the thing that has 'needs' - e.g. 'the rubbish needs to be taken out [before the dustbin people get here]'
People on the spectrum will probably struggle with that type of ambiguity too, which is worth keeping in mind.
In those cases I strongly prefer to use and hear, "Will you please..."
There's something in it that feels like I don't exist. It's just an announcement of what the King or Queen wants. I'm not worthy of consideration in the request.
Having said that, I think it is wise to try to keep things amicable and only fall back to more rigid language and requests, stated as requirements, only after kinder communication has failed.
I don't think I've ever used this phrasing in writing, maybe because I also hear something similar to what you're hearing when I read it to myself...
And there's nothing wrong with being irritated.
The phrase used to mean responses like "I wonder why some people act like moronic pieces of shit about others' seats". See how it's non-direct but aggressive at the same time?
When I'm asking someone to do something, I almost always want to know if that request is a stupid thing to do right then. So, "Will you please" implies my intent. If you don't think it's the right thing, then let me know and I'll almost always be persuaded by the new information.
If the reason is, "I don't feel like it." that's one kind of conversation, but the more common response is, "I'm right in the middle of xyz, can we do this tomorrow?", or even "I'm not sure we should do that at all because, x, y and z."
The answer is almost always, "Of course, thanks for letting me know."
All that said, a "Will you please" when you really mean, "Do this shit right now, or else!" is one of the most infuriating things people do and I've left an otherwise great relationship in large part because that nonsense was constant.
An issue can run the gambit from "it's the system" to person X is not doing their job inline with the basic expectations. Subpar managers will always try and blame the system over individual accountability even when the problem is blatantly obvious because if the person is the problem then that necessitates an uncomfortable social interaction. Best to understand the facts of a given problem and not jump to any conclusions about it must be the "system". There has to be some individual responsibility in the work place.
When your kids are young, it matters much less and in some cases not at all. But especially as they get older, and can start to exercise reason, you should always, always explain why you are making a decision or a rule. Even if the why is "because I get too hot and I like the thermostat being low" being honest is not only going to get more compliance, but it will build trust, and your kids will learn from your example.
It really is good general life success advice.
As often happens on HN, a comment worth more than the article. A concise and deep set of rules!
This is a lesson I learned and it now bothers me to no end if it ever happens to me. When decisions are made behind closed doors and then commands rain down from above then I feel rage.
One thing I often say to people who I am responsible to lead is that they don't always have to agree but they need to understand. It is impossible for people to understand if information is kept from them. Even worse is if you try to fake compliance through faux-understanding using disinformation or by selectively editing information.
Another thing I do is plainly recognize when someone is being asked to do something they won't like. Understanding works here, but so does some empathy. You can both understand why the unpleasant task is required to achieve the goal and acknowledge the fact that the person tasked with the duty has a right to their feelings.
And as a boss, you need to learn to delegate and first thing about delegation is that the other person must know clearly something was delegated to them.
Playing games around delegation only makes for worse experience. Creates noise, uncertainty and unnecessary failure.
In the end, if I am hired and paid for 8h of my time, I expect my boss to tell me what she needs me to do within those 8h.
Now, there are different ways to delegate. You can tell them "I need you to" 20 times a day pointing to small things or they can tell them "I need you to" on the first day of their job and then shut up about it.
One of my first questions to my new bosses is literally "what do you need me to do", unless they have already told me. This is to avoid any confusion about what I am supposed to be doing.
--
All this nice and softy stuff comes after you have the very basic business of managing team done. To be nice to your team you need to have a reason to have a team and then you need to have a team or at least collection of people who are assigned as your resources for you to delegate work to.
--
There is a pyramid of needs on both employer and employee side.
The employee needs to be paid first. Then treated nicely. Given the choice of being paid and treated nicely I would chose being treated nicely but that's just because I can go somewhere else to be paid and also have savings to not have to worry about it for a long time. If you don't have savings and don't have somewhere else to get paid, you care less about being treated nicely.
Likewise, the employer needs work to be done first. Whether they care for their workforce or not, work is more important because if the work isn't taken care of then there is no chance they can take care for the team anyway. At least not long term.
But more seriously:
Ensure people know what and why something is important, ideally by arriving at that conclusion jointly and as part of an overarching plan that everyone can feel involved in - thus requests shouldn't be a surprise, they aren't coming from you so much as from the plan (nebulous though it may be).
Don't try to maintain 'superiority' by withholding information.
Show consideration for other pressures that somebody might be under.
Listen when they say no.
Close the loop so that good results get back to the person who did the thing.
Handle bad results in the same way that the NTSB deals with plane crashes - find the flaws in the system instead of somebody to blame.
Be ready to help out others as they have helped out you.