←back to thread

308 points matheusml | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
selecsosi ◴[] No.44984445[source]
IME the gap in management between ICs is accountability. It's easy to say you are sorry, or say things won't happen again but good management, and what I strive to do is hold myself accountable.

To me, that means 1. To identify the issue that occurred (especially when you caused it), and much more importantly, 2. Put systems into place that prevent it from happening again.

Employees can feel very clearly when a manager lacks accountability and as part of mid and especially high level management (if your goal is actually improving both output and quality of people's lives) to not just say you did something wrong, but actually put your skin in the game ensuring what happened will not happen again (usually it means being better at saying no or aggressively managing prioritization rather than heaping additional tasks on people).

replies(8): >>44984715 #>>44985294 #>>44985347 #>>44986174 #>>44986371 #>>44986614 #>>44987614 #>>44987654 #
bluGill ◴[] No.44985294[source]
Mostly I agree with 2, but be careful not to get so many systems that nothing can get done anymore. Finding that balance is hard.
replies(2): >>44985572 #>>44986775 #
n4r9 ◴[] No.44985572[source]
That, and be careful to avoid a "box-ticking" culture where people rely on systems over independent thought. Also a hard balance.
replies(1): >>44986170 #
euroderf ◴[] No.44986170[source]
Mere "box-ticking" in the form of checklists have been shown to greatly cut deaths in clinical/hospital settings. This may or may not apply to your systems.
replies(5): >>44986468 #>>44986594 #>>44987083 #>>44987193 #>>44987641 #
1. thunfischbrot ◴[] No.44987193[source]
According to Atul Gawande that‘s not strictly true as stated. It‘s not the box-ticking itself, it‘s several factors including the decisions about what the list should contain and adjusting the dynamics of the operating team to actually see results.