A particular part of this article stood out, because it's not the first time I've had someone claim this:
Wondering what happen to Jerry? Feel like you’re getting half the story? Wrong, you’re getting 1/10th of the story. People are messy and a huge part of the management gig is managing this messiness. Who knows what personal or professional issue Jerry has that is forcing this management change. It’s really none of your business. However, it is your manager’s business because the people are her job.
Why is it not? People may not be my job, but people are part of what helps me get my job done. For that matter, they aren't even the manager's job, which is really to make sure his department is adding value to the company however it can. It just happens that dealing with people problems can be part of how he/she accomplishes that goal.
But this philosophy screams of mushroom management. I can understand if Jerry is on some sort of medical leave, and has asked that people respect his privacy. But to universally say that people are expected to be disinterested in the leadership and staffing changes of their team and organization is insane. Leadership and teammate changes affect peoples' morale and their ability to get their job done, and to assert brusquely that it should not affect them, or that they shouldn't care that it does, will not make people go back to being unconcerned drones. People don't stop being concerned just because they are ordered to by an authority. Instead, you're just as likely to cultivate more drama, as people start wondering, speculating, and digging to find out what provoked the change. They aren't stupid enough to actually believe, and will generally find a way to find out anyway, except now they'll start trusting you less. They'll start to believe that you have political motives that they need to be acutely aware of, and they'll start politically positioning themselves in a way that probably won't benefit anyone to keep themselves safe.
There is a difference between protecting people from things that aren't particularly important or useful for them to know so that they can keep working, and controlling information to make sure they remain largely in the dark and without a say with respect to political and professional matters that really do matter. It's a judgment call, and I'd honestly say that it is better to err on the side of saying too much. At least that way, your employees won't start getting suspicious of you and your goals.
I'm one of those people on the fence about whether I want to follow a management career or a technical one. Articles like these shove me firmly towards the latter.
"You want a team of people who aren’t bringing you every little thing, but if you successfully build this team, your reward is that what is ends up in your office is uniquely kooky."
Very enlightening. I recently did a week or two of ad-hoc product management (in contrast to my day-to-day backend engineering) on a tight timeline. I wish this had been written/on HN a month ago!
Wondering what happen to Jerry? Feel like you’re getting half the story? Wrong, you’re getting 1/10th of the story. People are messy and a huge part of the management gig is managing this messiness. Who knows what personal or professional issue Jerry has that is forcing this management change. It’s really none of your business. However, it is your manager’s business because the people are her job.
Why is it not? People may not be my job, but people are part of what helps me get my job done. For that matter, they aren't even the manager's job, which is really to make sure his department is adding value to the company however it can. It just happens that dealing with people problems can be part of how he/she accomplishes that goal.
But this philosophy screams of mushroom management. I can understand if Jerry is on some sort of medical leave, and has asked that people respect his privacy. But to universally say that people are expected to be disinterested in the leadership and staffing changes of their team and organization is insane. Leadership and teammate changes affect peoples' morale and their ability to get their job done, and to assert brusquely that it should not affect them, or that they shouldn't care that it does, will not make people go back to being unconcerned drones. People don't stop being concerned just because they are ordered to by an authority. Instead, you're just as likely to cultivate more drama, as people start wondering, speculating, and digging to find out what provoked the change. They aren't stupid enough to actually believe, and will generally find a way to find out anyway, except now they'll start trusting you less. They'll start to believe that you have political motives that they need to be acutely aware of, and they'll start politically positioning themselves in a way that probably won't benefit anyone to keep themselves safe.
There is a difference between protecting people from things that aren't particularly important or useful for them to know so that they can keep working, and controlling information to make sure they remain largely in the dark and without a say with respect to political and professional matters that really do matter. It's a judgment call, and I'd honestly say that it is better to err on the side of saying too much. At least that way, your employees won't start getting suspicious of you and your goals.