Bad managers who lack good leadership qualities seem to distract people from the fact that leadership is still essential.
A manager that believes they are a leader because they are a manager is usually very bad news.
A leader doesn't need to be a manager.
It's difficult to find leadership qualities in managers, often times because many that WANT/DESIRE to manage want to for purposes of power and control.
A true "king" LEADS his army into battle on the field, he doesn't command and order them to fight from behind the front lines.
We would met before he went to an important meeting or before he took an official position on something, he'd tell me what he thought about it etc. We discuss what we could do, if there was something I needed or something I didn't want to happen. Sometimes I couldn't get what he needed, sometimes it was the other way around but it was very functional.
You nailed it.
It is the latter attitude that I find the best predictor of whether there's going to be endless frustration at a company.
Agreed. The MBA entitlement is pretty easy to spot and always toxic.
It's better to compromise on technical details (Clojure vs. Python, Git vs. Hg) than on quality of people. If you find yourself making excuses for people because you want to believe, chances are your initial judgment (stay away) was the right one.
You can remove the MBA, and it generalizes just fine.
It's better to compromise on technical details (Clojure vs. Python, Git vs. Hg) than on quality of people.
I would posit that the general tenor of a technical community, the quality of people attracted to it, and the efficiency with which it accrues value and gains the right kind of mindshare is really the crux of the matter. The technology is just a fortunate byproduct of technologist lives well lived. This applies equally to companies and programming language communities.
If you have the above and bad tech, you will still get by. If you have the above and good tech, you will prosper. If you have bad people/culture and excellent tech, you will fail anyways.
agreed - I've worked for MBA's and non MBA's. In my small sample the MBA's have actually been less entitled, but I also know that the multiple of anecdote != evidence
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-fox-knows/ - search for "plural of anecdote"
Yup, so much for "stuff you read on the Internet" being the basis of rigorous, insightful analysis. Sturgeon's Law applies.
To me multiple anecdotes signify a small uncontrolled, non random sample set, that you really shouldn't use to draw conclusions.
This is key. The first sin of management is to think they're managing people. Innovation comes from collaboration among talented equals trying to solve a real problem in the world, not from someone bestowing his unique vision upon the masses and giving them the privilege of working for him. It is the latter attitude that I find the best predictor of whether there's going to be endless frustration at a company.