#business

another way of approaching this discussion is to ask: If you were to create your own (ideal) company, would you have/hire managers? How would you define that role? What would you expect of them?

Mainly, I was “managed” by someone who did 0 actual managing (but all the “manager” façades) and I hated my job to the point where I actually took action (which is very unlike me). Sure, I do my job pretty well on my own, which is what I did, but sometimes I have questions. Sometimes I need validation. Sometimes I need motivation.

Now, I have someone who connects with me, makes sure I’m doing alright, makes sure I have the resources I need, regularly checks in on what I’m doing and expects me to keep an ongoing projects and goals doc. It keeps me accountable, it keeps me encouraged. It helps me feel like I’m doing a good job.

Nothing has changed about my job between managers, but it’s made a massive difference to have someone who cares hold me accountable for the work I do.

Additionally, it’s flipping nice to feel confident talking to someone about, say, a project I’m unsure about how to approach. or ask a question that I’m not sure who else to ask.

Can fellow teammates accomplish this same aim? Does this "accountability" and "resource" person need to be a manager (solely)?

Could your "manager" instead just be your teammate, working along side you on similar projects? And could you reciprocate that "role" for the other person if need be?

My fellow teammate (who was in the same boat as me) couldn’t have. we were both too busy on our projects to be able to worry about each other (though we would _try_ occasionally). A manager is dedicated to the people on their team. They organize, delegate, run meetings and updates, build the reports, etc. They do a lot I can’t do, a lot I don’t know how to do.

I don’t have the skills to be a manager. I don’t have any desire to check in on someone and how they’re doing. Sure if we’re working on a project together, but even then, I’ll just ask, like “do you have your portion of the project done?” or whatever.

I think a manager is a sort of teammate, when done properly. They’re on your team, but their team tasks are different from your own.

Could a group of people — a team — "manage" themselves by holding each other accountable? Or does someone on that team need that specific role?

(You kinda answered this; I'm just rephrasing the same question)

Everything my manager does, I do not want to do. I think, in a group, someone will always end up becoming “manager”. I would never be that person, but someone needs to organize people.

I think managers can be helpful in a coordinating capacity and for support and handling or assisting with communication, but when there's a bad manager it's pretty bad news and most of the time there's not really anything anybody working under the manager can do about it. Personally I feel like it should be a sort of elected position or democratic in some way. Or in some cases maaaybe a computer could do what managers do but it nice to have someone keeping track of the logistics of a project.

I guess I think usually in a project it's helpful to have someone who really has a grand vision of what the project is who can coordinate things. In an ideal project where people are passionate about it, I would imagine that whoever is the most invested and passionate might find themself stepping up to do some of the management stuff. All of this probably becomes harder though if the wrong person is managing for whatever reason

I think the coordination is useful but not having a mechanism to swap out who the manager is as needed can be detrimental to a project and to a team of people. I guess I think management is the position most suited for having it not be a permanent position, hence my thought of it being either democratic or having someone who sees the grand vision of the project naturally step up to manage

Some of this is sort of adding to what Lauren said as well

I think it probably depends on the team too. Like, some teams probably could self-organize without a manager

I think it would just depend on if they want a manager to help them or not

At the same time some of the implications of this aren't always great either, like it sucks to just get rid of someone because they were in the wrong position. I think everyone's good at something and it's more a question of finding out how to, as a group, develop a sense for who can be best for what for a given project or role. But also I think if someone's in charge they should be accountable and responsible to the people they're in charge of. I think the traditional idea of someone whose job is just "manager" is a little flawed, because inflexible hierarchy isn't really how people work when they're left alone. I think depending on the situation different people might step up for different reasons and it's good to allow for that if possible. I guess it always felt to me that our society underestimates people's ability to self organize and adapt or change roles as needed It gets pretty complicated when stuff like money and health insurance, office politics about keeping your job so as to pay your bills comes into play though, because people aren't able to be honest about what they think for fear of losing that stuff. Which, really complicates all of this

:yikes: complications... but very true. (love this awareness of those problems)

I want to respond to this further

>At the same time some of the implications of this aren't always great either, like it sucks to just get rid of someone because they were in the wrong position. I think everyone's good at something and it's more a question of finding out how to, as a group, develop a sense for who can be best for what for a given project or role.

the above assumes that culture doesn't come into play here and that the work is the zero-sum totality of the way we think about whether someone is a good fit

what if the position is bad AND the person is just a shitty person?

studies have shown that it is far better to have several mediocre people that work together rather than one "rockstar" who does great work but is toxic

>I think the traditional idea of someone whose job is just "manager" is a little flawed, because inflexible hierarchy isn't really how people work when they're left alone. I think depending on the situation different people might step up for different reasons and it's good to allow for that if possible. I guess it always felt to me that our society underestimates people's ability to self organize and adapt or change roles as needed

The idea of a manager is someone who can provide guidance, mentorship, and collaboration to those who are direct reports to that person.

They are supposed to provide a sense of Being-within-Work.

the issue is not a manner of leaving people alone, but helping to keep them aligned and organized and for the manager to be accountable for keeping the ship straight; not necessarily rowing the boat

when we talk about self-organization we are shifting the pendulum to the other end of the extreme: who owns the results? who do I go to for guidance? who can help move my part forward?

I agree management is more an Art than a science

and the best managers give you a lift to be better at the Work that matters, not necessarily the work at hand

I read some ‘how to be a good manager’ books, I liked them.

#Multipliers

It’s never one size fits all. I hate hate hate this business book culture. Interact with your peers/employees/coworkers/managers/etc. in real life and learn and adjust from that. Heirarchys, interactions, meetings… they’re ALL different based on how PEOPLE are different. Those SOI things are supposed to let you know “how to have a meeting with xyz type of person” but - what happened to straight up learning about that person yourself? Go talk to the person and realize! Oh! You know, they work really well when “abc” so I should take this approach or … Reading a book or taking a test is just putting things into formulas and taking away the real interactions and connections between people

#OneMinuteManager

#TheBible

I hate them

OH

:joy:

DAvid

GOTCHYA

Yes, treat others as you want to treat yourself.

Well not even just that

I mean it includes salary as well

Well, I'm not even sure if treating others how you want to be treated always works, because some people have different frameworks and understandings of interaction. And if you're coming from a different way of thought than the other person, it might not always work to treat them the way you would want to be treated. I don't think it's entirely universilizable (is that a word lol). And also on the off chance that someone treats themself badly or holds themself to an unrealistic standard, it might not really be fair for them to hold everyone else to that standard too

^ hence interacting with the people you “manage” or whatever the case, and learning about them

I don’t know if we need managers but I feel, everyone needs a good leader.

I remember picking up the book _The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People_ and thinking, " :gross: ". But then I was highly surprised by the intro... In the intro to the book, the author, Stephen Covey, opens by breaking down "Character Ethic" vs "Personality Ethic" approaches to "success" according to the last 200 years of literature (:books:) on the subject. ... Without diving into copying and pasting snippets of it,... the latest success books of the past 50 years are usually based in "Personality Ethic"... > much of the success literature of the past 50 years was superficial. It was filled with social image consciousness, techniques and quick fixes—with social Band-Aids and aspirin that addressed acute problems and sometimes even appeared to solve them temporarily, but left the underlying chronic problems untouched to fester and resurface time and again.

I want to address two points here that are a bit more complicated: 1) >It’s never one size fits all. I hate hate hate this business book culture. Interact with your peers/employees/coworkers/managers/etc. in real life and learn and adjust from that.

> Success became more a function of personality, of public image, of attitudes and behaviors, skills and techniques that lubricate the processes of human interaction. [...] Other parts of the personality approach were clearly manipulative, even deceptive, encouraging people to use techniques to get other people to like them, or to fake interest in the hobbies of others to get out of them what they wanted, or to use the “power look,” or to intimidate their way through life.

and 2) Well, I'm not even sure if treating others how you want to be treated always works, because some people have different frameworks and understandings of interaction.

the entire point of managing is to have recognize and understand the power structures at play and how you fit into that. To that extent business relationships ARE about one-size-fits all; you have to make sure that people can do work; you have to understand the work to be done; you have to understand who make the decision about the work and who it effects. To manage effectively, on one end, is understanding the nature of Work and how to make it fit all people. Work is the common denominator in managing in a business setting - not people.

But to the second point - if we talk about managing as being about Work and not people, then the concept of universalizing that relationship (or better yet, normalizing it) becomes important. Essentially the manager is there to teach ettitquette of the environment that they, and they people the work with, in order to facilitate Work.

But do the above two points invalidate the humanizing turn that the work place has gone through? No. I think those are added bonuses and we start to realize that Work is more than money and that you have to like the people you work with

if you don't set standards about appropriate actions, how the culture works (or doesn't work) then the work of Working becomes hampered - especially in a knowledge worker environment.

Those are good managers that help you enjoy the Work and teach you principles of working.

but what do GREAT managers do? They add one important factor to the mix (and I still believe it doesn't have to do with the relationship you engender with others): they listen

All business books, at one point or another, keep coming back to the concept of listening

and it is a valuable distinction to make; we are not here to make friends, we are here to Work

however if we make friends, all the better

if we have someone that advocates to us, listens to our expertise, makes us feel that work MATTERS - well, we are that much better

Ultimately, if you listen in the work environment, you end up doing a few things that make you a great manager: you clearly define tasks, goals, vision, and priority; you understand the WHY of Work; you also understand how people's lives are structured around it (unpopular opinion but important to recognize the time and energy we put to Work)

okay well the jig is up, i might get yelled at for this but iq isn't real lol. it's based on a false understanding of what learning is in my opinion. this is my hottest take

:hott: :hott: :hott:

or perhaps it is a very narrow and incomplete definition / classification / measurement of intelligence

yeah, it would take too long to explain here I think but my short explanation is that I think it's basically more of a language test than anything (to the extent that math is a language, which I think you could argue it is. that's a whole other topic though), and people who can afford to go to fancy schools just know the language of what the IQ test is testing for better due to, having been more exposed to the brand or version of thought the test is testing for. It's basically testing how well someone learned abstract thought in the style of what the creators of the test deemed worthy of "iq". But it's biased towards certain languages and styles of thinking in a way that is obscured by how abstract it is. It's kind of like phrenology but for statistics, which, is really bad. I think eventually it'll be exposed as such, you can't condense something as complex as intelligence down to a single number in my opinion

he is my hero

the business genius only exists..... in the twilight zone

"We have to sell 500 widgets by Wednesday and get the reports out by Thursday EOD." "There's no way we could do that!" "No... but there is someone who can...!"

THIS IS MY IDEAL PARTNER

in other words, myself

I hate to say this but I think I have to condemn the business genius for liking business too much

Ian, how can I buy your love?

what if business was turned inside out. what if instead of getting the money they gave it away!

i guess it's the free money stand from sponge bob

David and I are discussing this and I think that what drives the concept of business can be recapitulated as ownership, money, and work

you can invert those value sets to get to something that strikes a really powerful, albeit exhausting, concept of business that is focused on Work-as-Joy

so the reverse of that would be "nonpossession", "unwealth", and leisure?

hahaha

my goal in life is to create the free money stand from spongebob

it would have a pipe attatched to it that shoots money out into the crowd

Hey Ian

SMOKEM IF YOU GOTTEM

eyyy!

Hey Ian,

How do I buy your love?

i'm not sure! i was thinking of trying to create a kickstarter to buy every company in the world and turn them all into the free money stand from spongebob. Either that or to create pipes, which would shoot money into the crowd. I've been stuck on the planning stage of this for a little while

It's really a problem of logistics

POT is big now

People always think I'm doing drugs when in reality I've just achieved the ultimate galaxy brain by reading a lot of wikipedia pages (not whole books) about philosophy

Also sociology is pretty good. I guess I read books too. It turns out books are actually very good

I am in seattle for work right now though, , i hear they have pot here. I haven't really looked for it

either have I

philosophy books are great

real big thinking bits

really big bits

some great threads in Lauren and Ian's first posts. (and the thread you're in Shree)

Why, if we, a lot of non-managers, are able to assemble a rough definition of what makes a good vs bad manager (and the role of a manager), are there a vast number of bad managers? If all these “how to be a manager” books are actually worth while, why are all the people reading them still bad managers?

Perhaps... it is a matter of "not knowing" -- as in, not knowing the best way to do their role well. They may know that their role should be, primarily, to "listen", but they may _not_ know _How_ to best listen to others.

OR perhaps... it is a matter of mismatching roles -- as in, the person managing is actually best fit for, say, "operations" or "sales" or something. They might really want to manage or maybe leaders think they should manage, but their skill set is best fit for a totally different role.

While working at the drilling motor shop, one other guy and I managed the day to day business. We found it necessary to keep two managers. One for the back of the shop for what people should be doing and what was being built and able to communicate with the other manager who was organizing the importance and time of required orders. Since the orders would constantly be changing on the fly, or time needed would be moved up or pushed back. It's nearly impossible to be reading all the emails and communicating with the boss while still being hands on with all the motors. I feel it depends on whether or not the day to day runs itself or if it is detail driven.

I want to comment on this as it provides another facet of management : the type of work. Manufacturing vs service vs knowledge work

All require different type of management

And I have commented on knowledge work

As a Gemini, I know business

As such I don't want to say he is the ideal manager but I feel like it's a very good representation of what I feel like a good manager is. Someone who insures the larger team is all working towards the larger goal and insuring I have the tools I need to do my work effectively. I do not think the team I am on would be effective at all if we were in any way responsible for managing each other and I feel like there would be an inordinate amount of time wasted if we had to come to a group consensus on what direction we needed to go or which parts of the business each of us supported. These are critical roles that require a management figure to fulfill.

Another perspective here would be to imagine a work situation where everyone rotates each others job; that would be super interesting in terms of gaining perspective to talk to and facilitate work in a place, with skill, you have experience in. Management would warp from a position of organizing labor to facilitating the true concept of a knowledge worker: teaching!

I would love to envision a management style that was more peer coordinated rather than mentor role. I think it takes a lot of discipline and awareness to facilitate an organization like that.

I wish I could draw a venn diagram. Managers can be leaders, but not all managers are, and I think that’s where you get managers that aren’t good at their job. I think we need people to lead (managers) but those managers should be leaders in some capacity

also, see #6

https://thecooperreview.com/10-more-tricks-appear-smart-in-meetings/

10 More Tricks to Appear Smart in Meetings

If you're trying to get ahead in the corporate world, you must appear smart in meetings. Here are 10 tricks to help you do that.

It seemed applicable to the previous discussion, and I sort of like that idea. a leader is someone you can follow because you agree with them/you choose to follow them. A manager is just there because it’s a needed business role.

if you made one for people born on the 4th of any month I would respond

:peace_symbol: Peace, cheers, I'm out

he ends all his videos with that :peace_symbol:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth

Ok, actually, I had a dream and Matt, you legitimately showed this to me.

:yes: AND one-handed. Give up the keyboard!! I use a variation of this T9 that IS context and grammar aware! https://www.sainsmograf.com/labs/t9-emulator/