
Don't Create Chaos - bengtan
https://staysaasy.com/management/2020/07/07/dont-create-chaos.html
======
dkarl
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.

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.

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.

~~~
meta_boy
This is very true. Great leaders are Stevie Wonder - they are super good
because that's what they want. They want to see the good in humans.

------
staysaasy
Hey, that's us!

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.

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.

Thanks for reading!

~~~
hnzix
"So I'm not sure if our budget is going to be approved and that would mean
we'd have to let some of you go. Anyway have a good long weekend and we'll get
back to our project goals next week. Just keeping it real!"

------
Kaze404
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.

~~~
staysaasy
(OP - thanks for reading!)

Imo asking questions and figuring out where there are holes in a plan is
natural, expected, and part of a responsible person's job. In a sibling post
Bjartr describes how to do this really well.

The chaos-creating behavior that this post referred to is disruptive behavior
that accidentally or intentionally distracts the team from accomplishing its
goals in a high quality way. Eg disagreeing with or poking holes in a plan in
order to get to a good outcome is totally normal – but poking holes just for
the hell of it is not.

Also if you're worried, I'd consider just asking your teammates for feedback
on whether the way you approached situations was helpful. Most people are
really amenable to giving this type of feedback.

~~~
Kaze404
> Also if you're worried, I'd consider just asking your teammates for feedback
> on whether the way you approached situations was helpful. Most people are
> really amenable to giving this type of feedback.

That's a very good idea. Thank you :)

------
mlthoughts2018
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.

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.

Lobbying to get something in the roadmap may be critical because the whole
process is bullshit politics and nobody is actually solving customer needs.

The bigger and more bureaucratic the company, the more urgently needed an
agent of chaos really is.

“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.

I especially hate that this article associates it with being a manager or
leader.

“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.

~~~
jhinra
The 11th hour change was just one example of causing chaos provided by a
leader, but for the sake of argument, let's focus on it. Let's imagine a
hypothetical situation where a product does ship next week, there are some
pretty critical flaws, and we're doing some final review with leadership. I
think we can still raise red flags and follow the author's advice. The author
of this article is suggesting there's a good way and a bad way to handle this.

Bad way: "Back to the drawing board, we can't ship, this is garbage."

Good way: "I see some serious errors here, let's outline them and make a plan
to address these specifically."

I really like article's litmus test because of this - "Any room that you enter
should have more certainty and a firmer plan by the time that you leave it."
That's not suggesting that there can't be a change of plan.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
I think your reply is a bit disingenuous though, because whether that leader
is deemed to be in the first case or the second case will be a matter of
opinion mostly. Otherwise all you are talking about is having good manners and
diplomacy, which is not what the article is talking about.

If you propose the changes, you’re rocking the boat. And if they are urgent
and can’t be overlooked for the convenience of sticking to the status quo for
others, you’ll be internally persecuted for saying so, no matter how
diplomatically.

The article’s advice is about reading the room and doing what won’t upset the
others, because if we reinforce this as a norm, then existing leaders don’t
feel threatened, and we can all celebrate mediocrity and keep our jobs. The
more we advocate for this to have a hallowed place in our most critical
workplace social norms, the more that the dissent of intellectual integrity
can be quelled, so people write like this to popularize that tribal norm.

~~~
jhinra
> whether that leader is deemed to be in the first case or the second case
> will be a matter of opinion mostly.

Respectfully, I disagree. One scenario results in a plan, one doesn't, and
that's a core distinction between the two scenarios. Whether it's a good plan
or not is a subject of opinion, but its presence or absence is not.

> you’ll be internally persecuted for saying so, no matter how diplomatically.

That's not true in my experience. It sounds like you've worked in some pretty
rough places!

~~~
mlthoughts2018
Not really. I’ve worked in three large publicly traded ecommerce companies
that are household names, one large education tech company, two startups and a
defense research lab after grad school.

All of them were identical in this regard. What defines a “good plan” or what
qualifies as “good leadership” is fully subjective and at the discretion of
leaders most interested in entrenching their power.

This also has a lot of research behind it, eg like in the book Moral Mazes.

The description you give sounds like an extreme outlier that doesn’t have
relevance for that vast majority of modern workplaces.

------
errantspark
In this limited management context it seems like sound advice.

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.

------
ozten
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.

If you and your org aren't willing to confront and fix these behaviors... run,
don't walk, to the nearest exit.

------
deeblering4
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.

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.

------
cbd384
Pretty interesting - I'd love to hear more about the "how to scale as
individual piece below"?

I have highlighted a relevant excerpt below.

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.

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.

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.)?

"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.

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."

------
bengtan
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.).

~~~
staysaasy
That's rough... I think it speaks to the fact that some people unfortunately
view causing chaos as a virtue (because it feels like doing "real work").

~~~
bengtan
No no, you misunderstand.

I didn't put that label on him. That was a description he chose for himself on
his (intranet version of) social media profile.

~~~
Talanes
Nobody thought you put the label on. They were speculating on why someone
would ascribe that label to themselves.

~~~
staysaasy
Yup exactly

------
dvanduzer
Hail Eris

~~~
dddw
Came here for this. Fnord

