Great leaders don't just vacuum up chaos. They also gracefully stay out of the way when they realize they've missed a big decision. If they were inappropriately excluded from the decision or kept in the dark about it, maybe some individual or individuals need to be held responsible, but in the meantime, if they can see that the team has taken a direction and is comfortable with it, they don't insist on revisiting it.<p>This is a pitfall for engineering managers that get promoted and end up spending a lot of their time unavailable to their teams because of travel, executive-level meetings, and dog and pony shows for customers. They have to get used to major technical decisions flying under their radar.<p>It's also a hallmark of one type of toxic boss: the kind that wants everyone to think that he is the only smart person in engineering. On one hand, his big brain cannot be wasted on boring stuff. On the other hand, he always has to intervene in big meaty decisions in case his moronic minions are messing something up. When this kind of boss realize that a decision he delegated as not worth his time was actually strategically important, he will stop everything, halt work, and reopen the discussion. The resulting chaos is a collective punishment for his organization, and it gives him a chance to find some reason to choose a different solution. Then he can declare that he has averted disaster and prove (once again) that he is indispensable.
Hey, that's us!<p>I'm really passionate about this topic... I think that causing chaos is one of the most dangerous and annoying things that a manager/leader/human can do.<p>On the flip side, the best leaders I've met make everything feel clear and effortless. It's like how great teachers can explain complex concepts in a dead simple way.<p>Thanks for reading!
I don't understand what this article is about, but it made me self conscious about something I believe to be productive (and enjoy) doing. Whenever I'm communicated of a decision the team reached without me (because I wasn't in the project yet, for example), my first Instinct is to poke holes in it and try and see how it can fail so we can think about it together. It's helped me immensely over my career, but now I'm starting to wonder if it just introduces chaos.
This is usually just an excuse to entrench status quo behavior. People don’t like being confronted with needs for radical change, so they invent reasons why it would violate social norms to espouse anything perceived that way.<p>Challenging the established plan at the 11th hour is often critical because nobody validated the plan would succeed with customers or actually was viable with engineers etc.<p>Lobbying to get something in the roadmap may be critical because the whole process is bullshit politics and nobody is actually solving customer needs.<p>The bigger and more bureaucratic the company, the more urgently needed an agent of chaos really is.<p>“Don’t create chaos” sounds patriarchal to me. Keep papa company happy. Don’t rock the boat. Don’t go against the grain. Just keep your head down, forget your creativity, don’t lobby hard for what’s right.<p>I especially hate that this article associates it with being a manager or leader.<p>“A good leader just smiles and eats the shit, doesn’t stir up controversy.” That’s not any leader I want to work for or become.
In this limited management context it seems like sound advice.<p>In a broader view I think most people err far too much on the side of order. A greater respect, tolerance and appreciation of chaos and it's utility is something almost everyone could stand to learn and benefit from.
This is one of those messages that seem obvious, that it is hard to deeply appreciate, until one works underneath a director or boss that creates chaos.<p>If you and your org aren't willing to confront and fix these behaviors... run, don't walk, to the nearest exit.
I can relate to this. I used to work in a role with multiple bosses (co-founders) who all held the same job title and description.<p>They didn't sync up well, were spread across time zones, and would often disagree. So, depending on who you talked to there would be a different set of priorities and requirements. And one would call a meeting to review/challenge the others designs and decisions. It was very chaotic and stressful.
Pretty interesting - I'd love to hear more about the "how to scale as individual piece below"?<p>I have highlighted a relevant excerpt below.<p>My experience is that a lot of this has to do with the cohesiveness of the founders. If there are 2 or 3 founders and they all acknowledge the necessity to scale, engage support, and seek out mentorship, there is potential to scale.<p>Alternatively (and more frequently), one founder (let's say the CEO) may be able to scale a bit more than others (story-telling, pitching vision can grow overtime) or could benefit from bringing on experienced leadership to replace founders/other leaders.<p>In this case, early employees/forward get hired over but they likely have an equity reward relative to the risk (joining early). Wouldn't it then be best for these early employees to hone in on roles and opportunities to scale as opposed to trying to scale into roles they probably aren't qualified to do overtime (but were owning early on -- i.e., engineering, operations, HR, product, etc.)?<p>"You’re heading a key function at your 25-person startup. Maybe you’re head of engineering; maybe you run marketing. Hell, maybe you’re the CEO. You kick ass and your startup grows fast – and with that growth, the needs of the company evolve. Things in the new world are now going okay, but perhaps not optimally. Eventually, the CEO and board of directors get in a room to discuss what to do.<p>I can tell you what will happen in this room. The board will discuss your performance, and compare it to the performance of other, hypothetical executives – just as if you were interviewing for your own job. In your favor: you are a known quantity, presumably viewed as talented, and perhaps even a close friend. Against you: you haven’t done this before, and we need results now."
I had an ex-boss who, on the intranet messaging system, had a profile which said 'I cause confusion' (or something that like that. My memory is vague.).