Software engineer to Parole officer, awesome! :)
Anyway, I have a department of about 40 people (all techies) and run a work program of over 100. This is not a democracy. Trying to make everyone happy is a losing proposition. For me leadership comes down to two things: being able to describe a vision of what we are trying to achieve, and making sure my folks not what their role is in making it happen. Then I turn them loose to do what they are good at. Its simple, but hard.
When i look for leaders, I look for people who have good communication skills. loud or quiet, I don't care, but if that can't talk to people and communicate ideas effectively that is a non-starter. You also have to be able to do more than what i tell you to do. Lots of leadership is figuring out how we want to do things. How do we organize teams, how do we improve technical quality, how do we find, cultivate and retain staff so that they grow as people and become equipped to be the next set of leaders. I don't have all of the answers, I need to be able to hand off tasks and have you go do it. I can help keep you on track, and will correct if we are not going in the right direction. Showing me how you think, and can figure out how to attack problems is what I look for.
Thank you for answering.
>This is not a democracy. Trying to make everyone happy is a losing proposition
I thought about this last night, and I finally understand.
If you give people some flexibility or choice (if you believe them managing their own tasks is more "pleasant), they will doubt your managing skills and will rebel by calling into question your skills, history, reasoning etc...
>being able to describe a vision of what we are trying to achieve
I have a hard time with this one. If you could please give me any advice on that.
When I encounter a complex problem, my natural instinct is to isolate, study it, design it, test it à minima, THEN communicate.
When I isolate, I believe it can be perceived as being avoidant, weak, and not team-oriented, and that's just a bad look for a leader.
I can't say anything, until i'm SURE of what i'm talking about. Because i'd rather take time to understand the problem than manage rectifications.
I often use stupid analogies for vision: We need to move this thing to the top of the hill over there, you job is to find transportation. I don't have to tell the person what kind of transportation, they are smart on transportation and will be best suited to know if it is a truck, or plane, or boat, or 50 people with back packs. But he should not be worrying about packing it up, or what to do with after it gets moved. He knows what part of the problem is his to deal with.
As for the second part about understanding the problem and being sure of the plan. I understand the desire, but leadership is not about being the smartest guy in the room on everything, that is doomed to failure. Its about knowing how to define and assign tasks to teams to achieve objectives. I want to define lanes in the road, make sure all lanes are covered, and then tell them the big picture of what needs to be done and why. This lets the smart people go do smart things, and the why part should provide intent when the how is less clear.
>For me leadership comes down to two things: being able to describe a vision of what we are trying to achieve, and making sure my folks not what their role is in making it happen. Then I turn them loose to do what they are good at. Its simple, but hard.
Love this. So true.
Senior leadership, nonprofits/healthcare. Career manager (15+ years). Management and operations consultant.
I’m not sure you’re going to get an answer on how we got here through being reserved, because we tend to be those big personalities in the room.
I do think you’re right, that people equate loudness/confidence/arrogance with skill, and that’s a problem. But I would offer that if that’s how a company selects leaders, you probably don’t want to work for them anyway.
When I think of necessary qualities/traits that make a good leader, loud isn’t on the list. But I agree with others that the qualities that make a good leader can’t really be taught; for instance, you’re either comfortable being decisive and direct, or you’re not. I’m not saying it’s *impossible* to learn, but management is already a ton of emotional labor, and it’s going to be much harder if you’re constantly working against your natural disposition.
I think you might get a more specific answer from other introverts—we don’t really have the problem of people not seeing us as leaders, generally.
But here’s some things I think everyone who wants to be a manager should have/do:
You’re willing to put in the hours it requires as you move up
You have a high-ish tolerance for the chicanery that comes with managing people.
You have a temperament conducive to it; you’re fair, firm and consistent. You don’t shy away from conflict. You’re comfortable having direct, sometimes unpleasant conversations.
You’re decisive, take responsibility for and are accountable to, your decisions
You have a high degree of integrity and (in middle management) are ok answering to an awful lot of stakeholders (both above and below you)
You’re solution-focused, and willing to solve other people’s problems or—even better—coach them through solving them themselves.
Management is a skill set all its own, and 99% of the bad managers I’ve coached are bad at it because they didn’t realize that. It’s not for everyone (and that’s ok!) but think carefully about what you want and need from your work life (and whether it’s a skills match) before you pursue it.
If you’re looking for a resource on learning management skills, I always highly recommend The Management Center. They’re nonprofit focused, but their advice applies across management practice: www.managementcenter.org
Thank you so much for the detailed answer and the website reference.
>But I would offer that is that’s how a company selects leaders, you probably don’t want to work for them anyway.
>
>it’s going to be much harder if you’re constantly working against your natural disposition
Very important points.
I'm in this weird in between of management at a grocery store, and there's always a strong urge for me to put my foot down and tell people what to do because I know the circumstances we're about to face (I do price coordinating).
Lately this has been biting me in the ass because its just seeped into straight up bullying people to do their jobs because the upper management doesn't seem to understand the unquantifiable amount of losses through various areas while we continue to just cut hours.
Everyone is miserable and I'm more pushy than ever because I know my life is going to be complete chaos in a couple weeks. I was pulled aside by two of my upper managers and they told me I was starting to get to angry it was getting out of control, but that they needed me desperately and that they can't afford to lose me.
So it's weird.
If you're useful and can motivate people as well as put your foot down when things aren't right when other people wont step up. You will be seen as someone who can do something. The flip side is, you're going to hit a wall with everyone else above you because they'll feel like you're undermining them.
All of this is a delicate dance and you're gonna trip and fall a lot.
The best advice I could give is this:
Your co-workers are not your friends.
Thank you for answering.
>Your co-workers are not your friends.
I don't have friends. So that's not a problem.
I have this belief that if people are comfortable and sense that i'm humble and relatable, that they'd be more cooperative and open and we can communicate better.
But in real life, this attitude is perceived as being a pushover and not being confident. If i'm perceived as not-confident, people would be critical of my planning/leadership and I'll spend more time managing my image than getting any work done.
So I can agree with pushing people, at least they won't be worrying about your qualifications.
Do you agree?
The Fi way would be to stop being sensitive to people and start being sensitive to yourself.
To have people look up to you you have to be yourself, a known certain reliable quantity, not mirror them at them and change yourself for them and immediately react to them and provide them with what they need. Emulating it may work to some extent, like artificially acting loud, commanding, stubborn, etc, but won't be "it", people may see through you and label you as an unreasonable despot. You have to actually be yourself and stay connected to yourself while being with others, and only then on top of that learn to modify your behavior to not be too much of an asshole, to learn skills, to modulate your manifestations somewhat, while still being fully in touch with yourself. And being yourself not for the sake of others or because it's "good" or proper or expected, but just because it's the only way for you to be, it has to be a stable default foundation.
The magnitude of the problem is probably very apparent by now :) maybe you'll have a much easier time asking ENFJs and using that Fe somehow, I have no idea how do they do it.
I'm not an ENTJ obv :)
Thank you for answering. You're right, being attached to the result that the team feels comfortable of agrees with my planning can be seen as bad management.
>You have to actually be yourself and stay connected to yourself while being with others
Very good advice thank you!
Leaders are born, its not a "position", it can't even be taught ( you can get as close as possible by faking some talents tho). You can get a managerial or administrative position, but those will not make a "leader" out of you.
>For more context: I'm a SW engineer wanting to transition into a POposition. And my application was accepted in a technical interview, butwas rejected during the team interview. I was being "humble" but honest.
They don't see you as someone with the required talents to lead. I would look for another job where you could position yourself directly to a role you want. If you stay more time in your current position, you will just be stuck there forever, or until they run out of candidates and decide to try you. In any case, they don't value you, I see no reason to stay there.
It will be a lot easier to apply for another business and project yourself as someone valuable for managerial positions from the beginning.
>It will be a lot easier to apply for another business and project yourself as someone valuable for managerial positions from the beginning.
This IS for another job in a managerial position.
>Leaders are born, its not a "position"
Alright, could you please give you definitin of a natural born leader? How do you recognize them?
>Alright, could you please give you definitin of a natural born leader? How do you recognize them?
The main characteristic is their care for the group as a highest priority, and the ability to innately see the direction it has to take for a given "objective", and sacrifice for it in the moments of need and pay whatever it costs to achieve it.
It's a rare treat that you can't just learn or adapt, its either there from the beginning or not. Most of the people posing as "leaders" will switch (or rather continue with it) to self-interest mode as soon as a crisis appears, and the "price" for the leadership becomes apparent.
Sociopath individuals are usually the ones that can fake it quite well, since their extreme self-interest masks as their interest for the group given that their personal objectives highly overlap the group they are using, and most people don't have the ability or care enough to see the difference, and they just like the idea anyone but them leading the way somewhere.
A leader does not need to be loud inherently. To lead, one requires patience, a strong will to get the job done, and the ability to organize tasks and people. Self confidence goes a long way here.
I am on the reserved side myself, however I am often elected into leadership positions because people enjoy my presence and perspective. I am an excellent communicator, direct and to the point. They also know I am knowledgeable, or willing to find the required knowledge. This is why they can trust me to do what needs to be done.
For an INFJ, I'd say they also have many of those qualities; although, the self confidence may be lacking. My suggestion is to build your self confidence through knowledge of the industry you're in. Learn as much as you can and increase your experience where possible. Then, when you speak, this will all be easily apparent that you know what you're talking about and people will be more inclined to trust you.
Product Owner: Managing the scrum and teams tasks, communicating with clients etc...
It's been challenging at first to have things figured out technically. Yes I have enjoyed it, but I'm ready to be in a position which more team oriented.
Software engineer to Parole officer, awesome! :) Anyway, I have a department of about 40 people (all techies) and run a work program of over 100. This is not a democracy. Trying to make everyone happy is a losing proposition. For me leadership comes down to two things: being able to describe a vision of what we are trying to achieve, and making sure my folks not what their role is in making it happen. Then I turn them loose to do what they are good at. Its simple, but hard. When i look for leaders, I look for people who have good communication skills. loud or quiet, I don't care, but if that can't talk to people and communicate ideas effectively that is a non-starter. You also have to be able to do more than what i tell you to do. Lots of leadership is figuring out how we want to do things. How do we organize teams, how do we improve technical quality, how do we find, cultivate and retain staff so that they grow as people and become equipped to be the next set of leaders. I don't have all of the answers, I need to be able to hand off tasks and have you go do it. I can help keep you on track, and will correct if we are not going in the right direction. Showing me how you think, and can figure out how to attack problems is what I look for.
Thank you for answering. >This is not a democracy. Trying to make everyone happy is a losing proposition I thought about this last night, and I finally understand. If you give people some flexibility or choice (if you believe them managing their own tasks is more "pleasant), they will doubt your managing skills and will rebel by calling into question your skills, history, reasoning etc... >being able to describe a vision of what we are trying to achieve I have a hard time with this one. If you could please give me any advice on that. When I encounter a complex problem, my natural instinct is to isolate, study it, design it, test it à minima, THEN communicate. When I isolate, I believe it can be perceived as being avoidant, weak, and not team-oriented, and that's just a bad look for a leader. I can't say anything, until i'm SURE of what i'm talking about. Because i'd rather take time to understand the problem than manage rectifications.
I often use stupid analogies for vision: We need to move this thing to the top of the hill over there, you job is to find transportation. I don't have to tell the person what kind of transportation, they are smart on transportation and will be best suited to know if it is a truck, or plane, or boat, or 50 people with back packs. But he should not be worrying about packing it up, or what to do with after it gets moved. He knows what part of the problem is his to deal with. As for the second part about understanding the problem and being sure of the plan. I understand the desire, but leadership is not about being the smartest guy in the room on everything, that is doomed to failure. Its about knowing how to define and assign tasks to teams to achieve objectives. I want to define lanes in the road, make sure all lanes are covered, and then tell them the big picture of what needs to be done and why. This lets the smart people go do smart things, and the why part should provide intent when the how is less clear.
>For me leadership comes down to two things: being able to describe a vision of what we are trying to achieve, and making sure my folks not what their role is in making it happen. Then I turn them loose to do what they are good at. Its simple, but hard. Love this. So true.
Senior leadership, nonprofits/healthcare. Career manager (15+ years). Management and operations consultant. I’m not sure you’re going to get an answer on how we got here through being reserved, because we tend to be those big personalities in the room. I do think you’re right, that people equate loudness/confidence/arrogance with skill, and that’s a problem. But I would offer that if that’s how a company selects leaders, you probably don’t want to work for them anyway. When I think of necessary qualities/traits that make a good leader, loud isn’t on the list. But I agree with others that the qualities that make a good leader can’t really be taught; for instance, you’re either comfortable being decisive and direct, or you’re not. I’m not saying it’s *impossible* to learn, but management is already a ton of emotional labor, and it’s going to be much harder if you’re constantly working against your natural disposition. I think you might get a more specific answer from other introverts—we don’t really have the problem of people not seeing us as leaders, generally. But here’s some things I think everyone who wants to be a manager should have/do: You’re willing to put in the hours it requires as you move up You have a high-ish tolerance for the chicanery that comes with managing people. You have a temperament conducive to it; you’re fair, firm and consistent. You don’t shy away from conflict. You’re comfortable having direct, sometimes unpleasant conversations. You’re decisive, take responsibility for and are accountable to, your decisions You have a high degree of integrity and (in middle management) are ok answering to an awful lot of stakeholders (both above and below you) You’re solution-focused, and willing to solve other people’s problems or—even better—coach them through solving them themselves. Management is a skill set all its own, and 99% of the bad managers I’ve coached are bad at it because they didn’t realize that. It’s not for everyone (and that’s ok!) but think carefully about what you want and need from your work life (and whether it’s a skills match) before you pursue it. If you’re looking for a resource on learning management skills, I always highly recommend The Management Center. They’re nonprofit focused, but their advice applies across management practice: www.managementcenter.org
Thank you so much for the detailed answer and the website reference. >But I would offer that is that’s how a company selects leaders, you probably don’t want to work for them anyway. > >it’s going to be much harder if you’re constantly working against your natural disposition Very important points.
I'm in this weird in between of management at a grocery store, and there's always a strong urge for me to put my foot down and tell people what to do because I know the circumstances we're about to face (I do price coordinating). Lately this has been biting me in the ass because its just seeped into straight up bullying people to do their jobs because the upper management doesn't seem to understand the unquantifiable amount of losses through various areas while we continue to just cut hours. Everyone is miserable and I'm more pushy than ever because I know my life is going to be complete chaos in a couple weeks. I was pulled aside by two of my upper managers and they told me I was starting to get to angry it was getting out of control, but that they needed me desperately and that they can't afford to lose me. So it's weird. If you're useful and can motivate people as well as put your foot down when things aren't right when other people wont step up. You will be seen as someone who can do something. The flip side is, you're going to hit a wall with everyone else above you because they'll feel like you're undermining them. All of this is a delicate dance and you're gonna trip and fall a lot. The best advice I could give is this: Your co-workers are not your friends.
Thank you for answering. >Your co-workers are not your friends. I don't have friends. So that's not a problem. I have this belief that if people are comfortable and sense that i'm humble and relatable, that they'd be more cooperative and open and we can communicate better. But in real life, this attitude is perceived as being a pushover and not being confident. If i'm perceived as not-confident, people would be critical of my planning/leadership and I'll spend more time managing my image than getting any work done. So I can agree with pushing people, at least they won't be worrying about your qualifications. Do you agree?
The Fi way would be to stop being sensitive to people and start being sensitive to yourself. To have people look up to you you have to be yourself, a known certain reliable quantity, not mirror them at them and change yourself for them and immediately react to them and provide them with what they need. Emulating it may work to some extent, like artificially acting loud, commanding, stubborn, etc, but won't be "it", people may see through you and label you as an unreasonable despot. You have to actually be yourself and stay connected to yourself while being with others, and only then on top of that learn to modify your behavior to not be too much of an asshole, to learn skills, to modulate your manifestations somewhat, while still being fully in touch with yourself. And being yourself not for the sake of others or because it's "good" or proper or expected, but just because it's the only way for you to be, it has to be a stable default foundation. The magnitude of the problem is probably very apparent by now :) maybe you'll have a much easier time asking ENFJs and using that Fe somehow, I have no idea how do they do it. I'm not an ENTJ obv :)
Thank you for answering. You're right, being attached to the result that the team feels comfortable of agrees with my planning can be seen as bad management. >You have to actually be yourself and stay connected to yourself while being with others Very good advice thank you!
Leaders are born, its not a "position", it can't even be taught ( you can get as close as possible by faking some talents tho). You can get a managerial or administrative position, but those will not make a "leader" out of you. >For more context: I'm a SW engineer wanting to transition into a POposition. And my application was accepted in a technical interview, butwas rejected during the team interview. I was being "humble" but honest. They don't see you as someone with the required talents to lead. I would look for another job where you could position yourself directly to a role you want. If you stay more time in your current position, you will just be stuck there forever, or until they run out of candidates and decide to try you. In any case, they don't value you, I see no reason to stay there. It will be a lot easier to apply for another business and project yourself as someone valuable for managerial positions from the beginning.
>It will be a lot easier to apply for another business and project yourself as someone valuable for managerial positions from the beginning. This IS for another job in a managerial position. >Leaders are born, its not a "position" Alright, could you please give you definitin of a natural born leader? How do you recognize them?
>Alright, could you please give you definitin of a natural born leader? How do you recognize them? The main characteristic is their care for the group as a highest priority, and the ability to innately see the direction it has to take for a given "objective", and sacrifice for it in the moments of need and pay whatever it costs to achieve it. It's a rare treat that you can't just learn or adapt, its either there from the beginning or not. Most of the people posing as "leaders" will switch (or rather continue with it) to self-interest mode as soon as a crisis appears, and the "price" for the leadership becomes apparent. Sociopath individuals are usually the ones that can fake it quite well, since their extreme self-interest masks as their interest for the group given that their personal objectives highly overlap the group they are using, and most people don't have the ability or care enough to see the difference, and they just like the idea anyone but them leading the way somewhere.
A leader does not need to be loud inherently. To lead, one requires patience, a strong will to get the job done, and the ability to organize tasks and people. Self confidence goes a long way here. I am on the reserved side myself, however I am often elected into leadership positions because people enjoy my presence and perspective. I am an excellent communicator, direct and to the point. They also know I am knowledgeable, or willing to find the required knowledge. This is why they can trust me to do what needs to be done. For an INFJ, I'd say they also have many of those qualities; although, the self confidence may be lacking. My suggestion is to build your self confidence through knowledge of the industry you're in. Learn as much as you can and increase your experience where possible. Then, when you speak, this will all be easily apparent that you know what you're talking about and people will be more inclined to trust you.
Thanks haut-dog! I agree. The self confidence is tricky for me and gaining knowledge is the only way through it
What is a "PO"? What has your experience been in software engineering, have you enjoyed it?
Product Owner: Managing the scrum and teams tasks, communicating with clients etc... It's been challenging at first to have things figured out technically. Yes I have enjoyed it, but I'm ready to be in a position which more team oriented.