The Valuable Employee Paradox
Here’s a seeming paradox:
Every great manager I know tells me that the reports they find most valuable are the ones who convince them to do things differently.
However, most reports believe they are most valuable when they do what their manager wants. (View Highlight)
The people I value the most are the ones who regularly challenge my thinking to present different and better ideas. (View Highlight)
So how do we circle this square? I present to you the midwit curve, which is my favorite encapsulation of everything in life:
(View Highlight)
The worst reports…
…do what they want but in a way that goes against the team’s interests. (View Highlight)
These are the folks who blow past deadlines because the sequel to their favorite video game just came out that week. The ones who put up an “off-the-grid” message right after checking in a massive buggy commit. The ones who decline a double-digit percentage of meetings because they’re slightly inconvenienced—it’s too early, or too late, or they’re too hungry, or their brains are too fried.
Since a manager’s job is to make teams successful, a member who lets the team down because they are optimizing for themselves is obviously a thank u, next. (View Highlight)
The average reports…
…support and do what their manager says. If the manager goes, “Let’s do Project X” they shrug their shoulders and ask “When?” and “How?” even if Project X is kinda loony.
There are a few reasons why folks adopt this strategy:
They are optimizing for promotions and they genuinely believe that “Do what my manager says” is the best path to attain that.
They are optimizing for team success but they genuinely believe their manager always makes higher quality decisions than they do.
They are optimizing for comfort / ease and thus prefer to avoid the energy-consuming work of critically evaluating how they feel about Project X. (View Highlight)
Since a manager’s job is to make teams successful, this type of “yes-boss” report is generally useful to have around. They are reliable. They get shit done. They don’t spin up drama.
However, their presence doesn’t do much to strengthen the team. In fact, the team’s success is fragile, banking entirely on the quality of the manager’s judgements. (View Highlight)
The best reports…
…do what they want but in a way that furthers the team’s interests.
If the manager goes, “Let’s do Project X” they ask themselves, “Is Project X smart or loony?” If they think it’s loony, they dig further until they either a) now believe it’s smart or b) propose an alternative that’s smarter. (View Highlight)
Even if they do support Project X, they ask, “Am I the best person to work on Project X?” If yes, then they’re all in. If not, then they volunteer for some other project.
Since a manager’s job is to make teams successful, these keen people who peer critically at plans with the goal of spotting and strengthening holes are worth more than a truckload of rubies. Most CEOs I know would trade multiple “Yes-boss” types for a single one of these Jedi (View Highlight)
If you want to be a top performer, if you want to be a leader or among the most valued folks at your company, you’re probably not going to get there by yes-bossing (unless your workplace is one of those super hierarchical types).
Instead, to become a Jedi, you’re going to need to:
a) care a ton about your team’s success
b) develop excellent judgement
c) do things your manager isn’t directing you to do because you care about your team’s success. (View Highlight)
What’s wrong with workplace hierarchy? Aren’t we humans by nature hierarchical?
Before we go critiquing hierarchy, let’s first define it:
A hierarchy is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being “above”, “below”, or “at the same level as” one another (from Wikipedia)
In a workplace setting, this is generally taken to mean that some employees are considered above, below, or at the same level as others. (View Highlight)
But what do we mean when we say “level?”
One common definition is the power to decide. (View Highlight)
So another job of hierarchy is to identify and enable the most qualified people to make the best decisions. (View Highlight)
If we lived in perfectly perfect hierarchy, all of us can sleep easy trusting that our CEO would always make better decisions than a VP, who would always makes better decisions than a director, who would always make better decisions than a senior, who would always make better decisions than a junior, who would always make better decisions than the intern. (View Highlight)
Whatever well-meaning system of levels or titles a workplace may come up with, it simply cannot encapsulate all the nuances of good judgement that come from skill and domain knowledge.
If you become a zealous adherent to the idea of hierarchy—a person at a higher level will make better decisions than a person at a lower level—you’re going to be wrong. A lot. Being hierarchical is a mindset—company cultures can be overly hierarchical, and so can individuals. (View Highlight)
A strongly hierarchical company CAN operate well if the higher level folks are humble and self-aware enough to know when to make the call and when to defer decision-making. But if they aren’t, or the problem space is highly complex (which leads to more unknown-unknowns), then they’ll make a lot of shitty calls. The company will eventually pay the price.
The point of any system of hierarchy is to enable faster, better decisions. Things get bad and ugly when people forget that. (View Highlight)
(View Highlight)