First-team mindset

Things were simpler as an individual contributor. You understood what your teammates were up to, you chatted every day, and you knew they had your back—and you had theirs. Now you’re a people manager. On bad days, it feels like you’re stuck on an island, squinting across the water at your peers busily doing … something on their own little islands.

Sooner or later, most people managers suffer a painful day that ends with self-searching questions like:

  • “Why can’t I get my team what they need?”
  • “How did I not see that coming? I feel out of the loop.”
  • “Why is everything so political?”

The good news is that you can take concrete actions to build the strong teammate-quality relationships you need with your peers to succeed.

Your peers are your first team

People management means playing on two teams, not one. One team consists of the people who report to you. The other team consists of your peers. This group includes people reporting the same boss as you, and more broadly, peers across the entire organization. Getting the support you need to succeed as a leader requires treating your peers as your team and not just an assortment of faces who happen to show up at staff meetings. The more senior a role you take on, the more important this becomes.

The priorities of these two teams will often, but not always, align. It’s inevitable that at some point, the demands of these dual roles will conflict. On the one hand, you now serve those who report to you—coaching, creating opportunities, sticking up for them against unreasonable demands, and shielding them from noise elsewhere in the organization. On the other hand, you now serve the entire organization you’re a part of, your peers, and the whole company. And ultimately, you are paid to deliver for the latter.

One antipattern newly promoted managers can fall into is prioritizing the interests of their direct reports over working with their new peers. The temptation is especially strong when managing people who used to be peers.

A useful way I’ve found to navigate this tension—and feel like you’re on a team again—is through what’s called a first-team mindset.

First-team mindset is treating your peers as your first team. Optimize first for your peers’ success, and second for supporting your direct reports. And yes, by treating your peers as your first team, you are treating your direct reports are your second team.

Thinking this way can feel overly hierarchical and wrong—so much of what we talk about when talking about the practice of management is serving your direct reports. However, in my experience, treating my peers as my first team is the most healthy way to operate because it motivates me to broaden my focus outward instead of narrowly focusing inward solely on my team’s immediate needs. In fact, adopting a first-team mindset enables you to serve your direct reports more effectively over the long haul.

I’ll discuss two ways to think about why a first-team mindset matters—suboptimization and relationships—and then I’ll explain six concrete actions for putting it into practice.

Suboptimization

Sometimes you will have to disappoint or cause hardship for the people you manage in order to help your peers or the company achieve big-picture objectives.

Simple but common examples of this are enforcing organization-wide standards such as supported languages and libraries, issue-tracking systems, or code review standards. While allowing an individual development team to choose whatever language they want might make it more efficient in the short term, if every team did the same, the efficiency of the entire organization would suffer as people struggled to make their code interoperate and every team had to write their own tooling. A better solution, optimized for the entire organization’s success, would be to task a platform team with writing a standard set of tooling, once, even though the standards it produces may be suboptimal for any individual front-line team it supports—including yours.

This is known as the rule of suboptimization. Making changes to improve one subsystem’s performance while ignoring the effects on the other subsystems will not lead to optimum performance of the whole. Maximizing the performance of the entire system means sub-optimizing the performance of individual parts.

Other examples include canceling a project your team is invested in or asking your team to temporarily take on an “unfair” customer support burden to support a critical customer.

This is simple enough in the abstract, but it takes courage to support and implement decisions that impose tangible negative impacts on individuals on your team.

Relationships, i.e. “politics”

Real life is messy.

Servant leadership is a wonderful mindset to adopt. But it cannot be the whole story, or at least the naive version of it can’t. Sometimes you will need to execute a decision that does not directly serve those who report to you but instead helps solve a problem for your peer’s team or helps you maintain a productive relationship with that peer.

The last one, in particular, feels a lot like the skin-crawling “politics” that everyone hates. But in the end, your team’s relationships with your peers’ teams are inseparable from your personal relationship with those peers.

Work, especially at leadership levels, is done through relationships. From the outside, this can look like politics. Many people don’t like doing it. But the alternative is not building productive give-and-take relationships with your peers. This will severely limit your ability to get things done when it’s your turn to ask your peer for help on your initiative or help take some load off your overloaded team. And you’ll always be watching your back.

Give and take is part of how humans build and maintain relationships. As an IC, you would do things personally for others on your team—take over their on-call shift so they could go to their kid’s school play, act as a sounding board for ideas, and more. You didn’t do that with a cynical view towards reciprocity, but because that’s what humans who care about and support each other do. This still applies now that you manage people. And one of the primary mechanisms of support you have available is the output of your team.

If you don’t take building relationships with your peers seriously enough to put your team’s skin in the game, then you are severely handicapping your team from getting the support they need to deliver.

Practices towards a first-team mindset

Here are some ways to put a first-team mindset into practice:

1. Know your peer’s work.

At a minimum, actively learn what your peers are working on and what they are trying to get done. Understand their incentives, their accountabilities, and their challenges. You can’t support someone if you don’t know what they need. This is also an opportunity to learn from people who may approach their work differently than you do. You can start small by dropping into your peer’s daily stand-ups, but doing this right takes work.

2. Hold regular 1:1s with your peers.

1:1s are a foundational practice for building and maintaining relationships with your direct reports. Making those appointments sacred and not to be missed ensures that you communicate regularly and sends the metacommunication that the relationship is important to you.

You can use a similar practice, the peer 1:1, to maintain your most crucial peer relationships. Here’s how:

  1. Identify your most important relationships. You don’t need to meet with everyone who reports to your boss, and your most important peers may report elsewhere. Focus on the peers that you work with the most or have the weakest relationship with. Start small, but aim for no more than 3-4 recurring peer 1:1s.
  2. Ask your peer if they would like to hold a recurring 1:1 meeting. Propose whatever cadence makes sense, but every other week or monthly are good places to start. If they are reluctant, propose a single one-off meeting to try it out.
  3. Tell your peer what they need to know. Make the meeting useful for them. Provide a quick, 10-minute update to them about initiatives on your team. Be open to questions.
  4. Build a relationship with your peer. Make a point to understand your peers as three-dimensional human beings and not just as job titles.

All of this applies doubly to people you don’t personally like. You don’t have the luxury of choosing your peers. You don’t have to be buddies to have a productive relationship.

Manager Tools has an excellent podcast on the topic.

3. Give (and graciously receive) peer feedback. Don’t “drop a dime.”

A benefit of building trusting, respectful relationships with your peers is that you can talk directly to them about real things that matter—especially when those conversations are challenging.

Ask for feedback from your peers. Graciously thank them and act on it when appropriate. This builds trust that you can take it as well as dish it out. If you’re working on a big initiative, get their input, and ask them to tell you the flaws. Not only will this result in a better product, but it will also likely result in an ally when the time comes to get others on board.

Give constructive feedback directly to your peers. It’s kinder and more respectful to talk to a peer directly instead of complaining to your boss. It’s also more effective because you can share specific details and context. No one likes being complained about behind their back, and doing so breeds distrust. Better yet, giving good-faith feedback helps drive your peer’s success, and done well, can build an even stronger relationship.

Don’t surprise your peer in public if you can avoid it. If your peer’s team is blocking your team, tell her directly and give her a chance to act on that information before calling out her team as a blocker in a staff meeting. No one likes someone dropping a dime on them. Speaking directly is both more respectful and efficient.

A metric of success is that you are talking with a peer 10x more than you are talking to your boss about that peer.

4. Trust your peers.

Respect each other’s turf. Let your peer team leads own their areas. This isn’t about staying in your lane or not engaging in productive debate, but it is about showing mutual respect. Ultimately, you don’t want them second-guessing decisions you or your team make in your area or expertise, so don’t do the same to them. Trust that they know their stuff. Let minor disagreements be.

5. Support your peer’s initiatives. Practice first follower.

Part of working together on a team of peer leaders is cooperating to drive big-picture initiatives. Sometimes cooperation means getting out of the way:

Give your support quickly to other leaders who are working to make improvements. Even if you disagree with their initial approach, someone trustworthy leading a project will almost always get to a good outcome.

The second point is vital—knowing when to exercise humility and trust when someone else’s intelligence, knowledge, experience, and drive will likely lead to good results. Commit to supporting them, even if you disagree about some of the particulars. Support drives results further than criticism.

6. Disagree and commit.

A huge advantage of working with a true team of peers is that you debate and argue about real issues, driving better, more informed decisions. But once the debate is over and a decision is made, you must support it—even if you disagree, even if it is to your team’s immediate disadvantage. Airing your disagreements with your peers serves no one, especially not your team. It only sows confusion and destroys relationships. This, admittedly, can be difficult.

If you find yourself in a situation where you find it truly ethically objectionable to support a decision, you should resign. But short of that, find a way to sincerely speak to the merits of the path forward, and lead the way.

Level up

Leading a team is not just about the people who report to you; it is about working collaboratively with your peers to accomplish initiatives that are larger than the parochial interests of your team. It’s natural to see the world through your team’s lens—after all, you spend most of your time and attention there—but your success will be limited if you cannot look beyond that. Embracing the perspective of your peers is not only how to get the support you need to succeed; it is an effective way to learn and practice thinking at the next level in your career journey. The first step is looking beyond your own island to treat your peers as your first team.

References and further reading

Elsewhere on the web

The Metronome. “Two minutes early to a meeting. As much as possible. The last act of my morning opening productivity ramp. What lessons do I demonstrate to the meeting attendees by being there two minutes early? A couple: beginning on time is respectful to attendees, and meetings are expensive affairs, so let’s invest our time wisely. There’s a more fundamental lesson I am teaching: Leaders are capable of showing up to meetings on time.”

Receive Better Feedback by Asking and Listen, Lead, and Grow. A great two-parter about how to ask for and recieve feedback from others.

Speak in Stories. “Too often we present our work as a series of facts. The sad truth is that most humans are bad at remembering facts. When our audience is in a related conversation days later the data we shared isn’t likely to be top of mind anymore. Our impact remains localized.”

Does Palantir See Too Much?

What I’ve been reading

  • Ted Chiang, Exhalation. A collection of short stories from my favorite living fiction writer. The Merchant and the Alchemist’s Gate and the title story, Exhalation, are my favorites in this collection.
  • Gene Wolfe, Epiphany of the Long Sun. I enjoyed books 1 and 2 of the series, but I put this one down. I read for pages at a stretch with no idea what was physically happening in the story.
  • Rebecca Sykes, Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art. Neanderthals are much more interesting than you think.
  • David Carpenter, Henry III: The Rise to Power and Personal Rule, 1207-1258. The second book this month I put down. Well written, but I couldn’t get into it. That said, it’s interesting to read a biography of what sounds like an ineffective leader.
  • Steven Levy, Facebook: The Inside Story. A few technical howlers, but an engaging telling of the founding and growth of Facebook. I would have liked more detail on either the technology or the management practices.

Steve Jobs always gets it right

Fucking Steve always gets it right. … Steve really always gets it right. I mean it, precisely, like an engineer. I am not joking, and I am not exaggerating. … I didn’t say Steve is always right. I said he always gets it right. Like anyone, he is wrong sometimes, but he insists, and not gently either, that people tell him when he’s wrong, so he always gets it right in the end.

Andy Grove, as quoted in Radical Candor, by Kim Scott.

This is an interesting distinction. Steve Jobs is sometimes hagiographized as the always-right visionary genius, but the truth is more interesting. One story comes to mind: Apple’s decision in 2003 to bring iTunes to Windows.

Jobs was adamantly opposed, at one point shouting that letting iTunes and the iPod run on Windows would only happen “Over my dead body! Never! We need to sell Macs! This is going to be why people buy Macs!”

His team had to battle him loudly, many times to convince him. It wasn’t pretty. Jobs deflected responsibility for the decision. But he finally was convinced that the upside of increasing iPod sales would outweigh the downside of potentially fewer Mac purchases in the short term. So in the end Apple got it right, setting the stage for Apple’s resurgence, the iPhone, and everything that followed. This was the result of the Apple leadership team doing its job and telling Steve Jobs that he was wrong.

If even the most celebrated visionary can be wrong, you can be too, and so can your boss. Have the courage and humility to seek the truth, and the conviction to act.

Definite vs. indefinite thinking: Notes from Zero to One by Peter Thiel

Zero to One Cover

Peter Thiel is a controversial figure for a good reason. But he’s also brilliant, accomplished, and takes (for better and worse) unpopular public stances. His track record of success makes him worth listening to.

Zero To One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future is a collection of his thoughts about Silicon Valley startups. It is very much attuned to that particular environment, but I recommend it if you work in software anywhere. It’s easily digestible even as an audiobook.

Thiel covers a fair amount of ground, but I’m going ignore most of it in favor of discussing the one idea that’s stuck with me: his framing of definite thinking versus indefinite thinking.

He argues that you can choose to think of the future in either definite or indefinite terms, and that choice has a real effect on how you approach and live your life:

You can expect the future to take a definite form or you can treat it as hazily uncertain. If you treat the future as something definite, it makes sense to understand it in advance and to work to shape it. But if you expect an indefinite future ruled by randomness, you’ll give up on trying to master it. … Process trumps substance: when people lack concrete plans to carry out, they use formal rules to assemble a portfolio of various options. … A definite view, by contrast, favors firm convictions.

Indefinite attitudes, he argues, explain much of what’s dysfunctional in today’s world. It’s a hyperbolic statement but worth thinking about. I certainly have a lot of (well-founded?) cynicism about our society’s ability to define, plan, and take on big challenges, which has only increased with COVID-19. This is most obvious at the federal level—it is tragic how little of federal stimulus money this year went to projects that actively and concretely tried to combat the actual threat that we faced. (Project Warp Speed, despite the controversy surrounding it, is a fortunate counterexample, along with the incredible acceleration of scientific research across the world.)

Thiel defines four quadrants combining the two axes of definite/indefinite thinking and optimism/pessimism:

Definite versus indefinite thinking quadrants

Let’s cover these in turn:

  • Indefinite Pessimism. “An indefinite pessimist looks out onto a bleak future, but he has no idea what to do about it.”
  • Definite Pessimism. “A definite pessimist believes the future can be known, but since it will be bleak, he must prepare for it.”
  • Indefinite Optimism. “To an indefinite optimist, the future will be better, but he doesn’t know how exactly, so he won’t make any specific plans. He expects to profit from the future but sees no reason to design it concretely.”
  • Definite Optimism. The future will be better than the present if you make plans and work to make it better. “From the 17th century through the 1950s and ’60s, definite optimists led the Western world. Scientists, engineers, doctors, and businessmen made the world richer, healthier, and more long-lived than previously imaginable.” Thiel gives some of the expected examples of the Golden Gate Bridge (1933-1937), The Manhattan Project (1941-1945), and the Interstate Highway System (1956-1965).

Thiel contends that the U.S. since 1982 (Reagan) has been defined by indefinite optimism, exemplified by the rise of finance as a driver of the economy. We believe in progress; we just don’t believe in planning for it:

Instead of working for years to build a new product, indefinite optimists rearrange already-invented ones. Bankers make money by rearranging the capital structures of already existing companies. Lawyers resolve disputes over old things or help other people structure their affairs. And private equity investors and management consultants don’t start new businesses; they squeeze extra efficiency from old ones with incessant procedural optimizations.

Definite vs. indefinite thinking is about agency. If you see the future only indefinitely, there is no reason to plan. It’s something that happens to you, not something you can create. Therefore, embracing definite optimism is the way to create a better future.

The other three views of the future can work. Definite optimism works when you build the future you envision. Definite pessimism works by building what can be copied without expecting anything new. Indefinite pessimism works because it’s self-fulfilling: if you’re a slacker with low expectations, they’ll probably be met. But indefinite optimism seems inherently unsustainable: how can the future get better if no one plans for it?

This brings to mind the famous Steve Jobs quote, “We’re here to put a dent in the universe. Otherwise why else even be here?” John Siracusa, in his remembrance of Steve Jobs, said this:

I was 9 years old at the time. … My grandfather also had a subscription to Macworld magazine, including multiple copies of issue #1, two of which I took home with me. I cut the Macintosh team picture out of one and left the other intact. (I still have both.)

I pored over that magazine for years, long after the technical and product information it contained was useless. It was the Macintosh team that fascinated me. That’s why I’d chosen to cut out this particular picture, not a photo of the hardware or software. After seeing the Macintosh and then reading this issue of Macworld, I had an important realization in my young life: people made this.

The Macintosh was the first thing in my life that I recognized as being wholly new. Everything I’d seen thus far in my nine years had seemed like it already existed prior to my birth—perhaps like it had always existed. But here was something different, something amazing, and this magazine explained how it had been created by this small group of people.

The implications bloomed in my mind. We aren’t stuck with the things we have now. We can make new things, better things. And it doesn’t take many people to do it. The team that had created this mind-bending new machine were all up on my wall, their individual faces clearly recognizable.

That is: those with a definite vision for the future are the ones who can actually build the future. Thiel argues that in contrast, the common belief in modern software practice in incrementalism—that the best way forward is small, iterative, adjacent steps—diminishes potential:

Even in engineering-driven Silicon Valley, the buzzwords of the moment call for building a “lean startup” that can “adapt” and “evolve” to an ever-changing environment. Would-be entrepreneurs are told that nothing can be known in advance: we’re supposed to listen to what customers say they want, make nothing more than a “minimum viable product,” and iterate our way to success.

But leanness is a methodology, not a goal. Making small changes to things that already exist might lead you to a local maximum, but it won’t help you find the global maximum. You could build the best version of an app that lets people order toilet paper from their iPhone. But iteration without a bold plan won’t take you from 0 to 1. A company is the strangest place of all for an indefinite optimist: why should you expect your own business to succeed without a plan to make it happen?

In other words, for a company to be great, it needs to create for itself a concrete vision for the future that is different and better in some fundamental way from the present. This sounds grandiose, but it is an excellent way to encapsulate the goal of building and delivering a unique and superior product to your customers. It is creating a future that other people have not yet imagined.

Thiel’s discussion made me realize that I can tend toward indefinite thinking. By nature, I am suspicious of the Big Plan and gravitate towards refining already existing processes and products. This, perhaps uncoincidentally, is the same trap that I see many Agile practitioners fall into. Sprints lead people towards a two-week planning horizon. Which is a feature! But I have found that if I’m not careful, this approach’s clear tactical advantages and comfort can lead to myopia and discourage me from committing to a concrete and big-picture strategy. Long-term planning is not just for waterfall development.

It’s easy for cynicism about the world and our ability to change it to prevent us from making big concrete plans for the future, or worse, from imagining a future that is better in some big, tangible way from the present. It can cause us to turn our focus inward toward relative status games or internal company politics instead of outwards toward the wider world and what we’re trying to build. It’s this diminishment of the imagination that I think is a real tragedy and something I am now trying to guard against in my own thinking.

Thiel issues the challenge to think bigger, be a definite optimist, and be determined to shape the future to your vision, even if in a small way, make a plan, and do the work. Even if the universe is too big for most of us to make a dent in it, this approach has to be better than capitulating to indefinite cynicism about the future.

What I’ve been reading

I’ve never been into audiobooks, but I’ve taken up listening to them while exercising. I like it and feel better about it than listening to yet another podcast about Apple products.

Acceptance is not agreement

“It’ll be a disaster,” Marie says. Her eyes narrow, and she raps the table. “We don’t have the people and we’ve never used that stack in production.”

Devon, who’s been silent for the entire team meeting, nods, just barely.

Angela’s heart rate spikes. Yesterday the company’s biggest customer asked—demanded really—a new feature nowhere on the roadmap with hairy technical implications. Angela, the team’s tech lead, immediately sprung into action, whiteboarded with other tech leads and senior engineers on her team and across the company, and even endured an interminable one-hour phone call with that one sales guy she can’t stand. Nobody likes the situation, but Angela is proud of the plan she worked hard to put together. It’s a good plan.

And now this.

The hairs on the back of Angela’s neck prick up. Marie’s only been on the team for what, a month? She takes a breath.

“You’re wrong.”

Disagreement is inevitable on any team: whenever two or more humans come together, they bring differing knowledge, context, and motivations. This is healthy, but that doesn’t prevent the words “you’re wrong” from physically wrenching you into fight-or-flight.

Reacting to that feeling, digging in, and aggressively arguing your case is almost always counterproductive. Instead, disagreement is an opportunity to learn something, and maybe counterintuitively, build a stronger relationship by grappling honestly with another person’s perspective. All of this starts with being willing to recreate and acknowledge the other person and accept what they are saying without resistance, even if—especially if—you just know they are wrong.

Acceptance is not agreement: You can fully accept what someone is saying and still wholly disagree with it. You can acknowledge that understanding without looking weak, giving in, or committing to any action you don’t want to. Showing acceptance in the face of disagreement is an act of kindness, it builds knowledge, and it increases your influence and ability to drive agreement.

If you’re doing your job as an engineering leader, you should face disagreement all the time. You should encourage it! Being able to listen and explain your position without disempowering is a critical behavior of a leader.

Acceptance is a kindness

“It all starts with the universally applicable premise that people want to be understood and accepted. Listening is the cheapest, yet most effective concession we can make to get there.” - Chris Voss, Never Split the Difference

Actively listening to someone and accepting what they are saying is kind. Just think of how agonizing it can feel to be misunderstood, alone, or that no one listens when you talk. Lifting this burden from someone is a gift.

The key is to truly listen, don’t just hear. Don’t just shut up long enough to let the other person talk, nodding along until you get your turn. Don’t just murmur empty sounds of sympathy. That doesn’t accomplish anything. You should tune into and try to grasp their underlying ideas, feelings, and motivations. If done well, you can start to see what’s underneath the surface-level facts.

You may have to ask direct clarifying questions. That can feel uncomfortable and weird:

  • “It sounds like you are angry about this.”
  • “It sounds like you think I didn’t consider the team’s thoughts about this.”
  • “What I’m hearing is that you’re fine about this decision, but from your body language, it looks like you have doubts.”

This is hard work! And it can feel downright impossible if your adrenaline is pumping because you disagree about something that matters. In Crucial Conversations, the authors refer to this as “exploring others’ paths.” They recommend focusing intently on your sense of curiosity about the mystery of the other person:

To keep ourselves from feeling nervous while exploring others’ paths—no matter how different or wrong they seem—remember we’re trying to understand their point of view, not necessarily agree with it or support it. Understanding doesn’t equate with agreement. Sensitivity does equate to acquiescence. … There will be plenty of time later for us to share our path as well. For now, we’re merely trying to get at what others think in order to understand why they’re feeling the way they’re feeling and doing what they’re doing.

Once you think you understand what a person is saying, summarize it back to them in your own words to confirm. If you find this a struggle, have a go-to phrase you can use. For example: “Let me see if I follow what you’re saying. What this looks like from your point of view is…”

Repeat until you get it right. And thank them.

Note that nothing here involves apologizing, agreeing with them, or saying that you are wrong.

Acceptance can build knowledge

Beliefs are hypotheses to be tested, not treasures to be guarded. - Philip Tetlock

If you succeed at grappling with someone’s perspective, a magical thing may happen: you may learn where you are mistaken.

It may be flaws in your reasoning. Or facts that were hidden from you. Or maybe that you’re just plain wrong. If you can manage to listen in this way, you’ll invariably learn something. People bring different facts to the table because they know different things, have talked to different people, and spend their time thinking about things that you don’t. It’s foolish to ignore that! It’s not your job to have all the answers.

Acceptance can build consensus

One of the best ways to persuade others is with your ears—by listening to them. - Dean Rusk

The quickest way to ensure someone never changes their mind is to try to ram something down their throat. Just think about how you would feel! However, by showing that you are genuinely open to what they are saying, you signal that you yourself are open to change, and therefore, make the other person feel a little bit safer about being open to change themselves. People will not listen unless they feel listened to. Consensus is not achieved by steamrolling or by downplaying someone else’s opinions.

From Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In:

Unless you acknowledge what they are saying and demonstrate that you understand them, they may believe you have not heard them. When you then try to explain a different point of view, they will suppose that you still have not grasped what they mean. They will say to themselves, “I told him my view, but now he’s saying something different, so he must not have understood it.” Then instead of listening to your point, they will be considering how to make their argument in a new way so that this time maybe you will fathom it.

Reaching consensus is not about rationally weighing objective facts. It is a narrative. Each person needs to be able to tell themselves a story in which they are the protagonist who is respected, heard, and acts with autonomy. When someone makes an argument, they are (1) presenting their facts for judgment, but more importantly, they are (2) putting up their story, and themselves, for validation. Acceptance—even without agreement—is the first step towards consensus.

As a leader and a human, be committed to getting to the right outcome, but not invested in personally being right. You don’t look like less of a leader by listening intently and being open to change. People respect the ability to accept criticism with grace more than you might think. It’s hard! People get that.

Don’t let your fear of giving in dissuade you from engaging with and understanding someone else’s perspective. You’ll usually learn something. You can’t make everyone happy all of the time, but if you work at it, you can make everyone feel respected and heard.

Listen

Angela listens. She asks questions. She repeats and summarizes. She bites her lip.

“I just don’t like being jerked around,” Marie says. She looks straight at Angela, then exhales. “I think if we get some support from an SRE up front, this can work.”

Angela nods. “I like that. I’ll see what we can do.”

What I’ve been reading

  • Kim Scott, Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity. This is a fantastic book. I resisted reading it for a long time because I associated “radical candor” with Silicon Valley bros patting themselves on the back for being a jerk. It’s not that, at all. This has reframed my approach to communication in the workplace. Recommended.
  • Roger Lowenstein, Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist. A straightforward narrative read, and a gentle introduction to the idea of value investing and Buffett’s general approach. Buffett has had a more complicated personal life than I realized. I found the author overly credulous.
  • Alison Weir, Henry VIII: The King and His Court. Heavy on inconsequential details; light on context, analysis, and narrative.
  • Ken Kocienda, Creative Selection: Inside Apple’s Design Process During the Golden Age of Steve Jobs. An easy narrative read by a software engineer who created the original touchscreen keyboard on the iPhone. I found it insightful and interesting. My biggest takeaway was the critical importance in product development of a rapid feedback loop of working software. As the author is careful to state, the specifics aren’t necessarily applicable outside of the context of mid-2000s Apple. It’s written for a general audience, so software engineers will find some parts tedious.

Elsewhere on the web

Statistics, lies and the virus: five lessons from a pandemic.

Practical Management Expectations (and Mandates). The VPE of Spotify’s expectations for managers.

Being the grumpy engineer is harmful to your career. Avoid falling into the feasibility trap.

Camille Fournier on Effectively Managing Internal Platform Teams. “Great platform teams can tell a story about what they have built, what they are building, and why these products make the overall engineering team more effective.”

Elsewhere on the web

To lead, you have to follow. “I think this is the most important lesson I’ve learned over the past few years: the most effective leaders spend more time following than they do leading. This idea also comes up in the idea of the “first follower creates a leader”, but effective leaders don’t split the world into a leader and follower dichotomy, rather they move in and out of leadership and follower roles with the folks around them.”

Implementing Shape Up.

The Paradox of Autonomy and Recognition. “We work tirelessly, doing our very best to get things done on time, but somehow we get passed over—in favor of someone else whom you honestly believe didn’t contribute nearly as much as you did. What happened to meritocracy and being recognized for your work?”

The Startling Convexity of Expertise. “There are studies showing that productivity per hour drops after forty hours per week, and turns negative at higher levels — but these are studies of dangerous factory jobs, or monotonous call-center work. And I don’t doubt it. If I spent a hundred hours a week on the assembly line at a munitions factory, I’d probably end up dropping a missile on my foot or something, which would do a number on my productivity.”