This article was written by Ken Leaver who comes from a product & commercial background. He has founded multiple companies and held senior product positions at SEA tech companies like Lazada and Pomelo Fashion.
Now Ken runs his own agency that helps early stage startups with content and traction called End Game.
Guest Author: Ken Leaver
I was reflecting on this the other day and decided it would be my topic for this week.
I think I am a much better manager than I was even three or four years ago. I mean like… I get 2-3x more done on average. And I get it done faster and more accurately.
But how?
- Is it because I changed my personal style or my personality? Not really.
- Is it because I got more adept politically? Definitely no.
- Is it because I am a better strategist? Or that I got smarter? No.
Rather it is simply because…
<drumroll>
…I changed completely how I manage.
How I manage now
Now I:
- Do not really invest effort into trying to develop relationships (which also means that I do not really play favorites or politics)
- I give very clear direction on every task (what is expected? What is the definition of what good looks like?)
- I give clear direction as to what is prioritised and when it is expected by?
- I give micro-feedback on tasks everytime someone asks me (as comments on clickup tasks)
So basically I have made it very easy & straightforward to be managed by me. Because you do not need to fit with my personality or style.
You do not need to try and develop rapport with me and get me to like you.
You do not need to guess what I want and at what level of depth or detail.
Rather you just need to execute on the clear instructions that were given to you.
And trust me… this is a lot easier than guessing and assuming what your manager expects of you when he or she gives you vague instructions.
I have taken ‘vague’…. and I have flushed it down the toilet. lol
But am I better manager? What actually makes for a good manager?
If you ask your average person what will they say?
You’ll probably hear things like:
(1) They give clear direction
(2) They are supportive and responsive
(3) They give you room to come up with your own solutions but guide you when you fall off track
(4) They help pave the way for you to be successful politically, etc.
And I generally agree with all of these things. But I think how you achieve them can make a ton of difference.
I tried to achieve these things using the ‘traditional’ way for almost 20 years. And consider myself very average despite how many management books I read or how many trainings I did.
Now I achieve these things using a ‘new’ way for 3-4 years and find the results to be on a different level.
Let’s first look at your ‘traditional manager’
Your traditional manager will operate something like this:
- They will also agree on a set of priorities… that are perhaps captured as a set of KPI’s for the quarter. Or perhaps they use OKRs.
- They’ll hold a weekly 1-on-1 with their direct report using some type of agenda where they get updates and give feedback
- They’ll set the expectation that if something is urgent their report will ping them and they will respond
Now… let’s look at how a typical week will proceed. Their direct report will work on their objectives and do a lot of interpreting as to what they should prioritise first and to what level of depth they should do it.
They will probably not want to bother their manager except for important things that block them. Because to them there is kind of an unwritten assumption that they should be able to handle these things on their own.
Then they’ll come to the next 1-on-1 and give an update on their results.
Hopefully most of their assumptions will have been correct and their manager will be happy with their progress.
In my experience that happened perhaps 25% of the time.
And I just got used to it. Because that was the system.
Let’s look at how I do it now… “the new Ken”
Now I manage in such a way that each person that reports to me has all of their tasks clearly written out with a context (why are we doing it?) and goal (the definition of done).
They do not interpret to what level of depth they should do something. It is written in the card either by me or them and then aligned.
It is also very clear what they should work on and what they should not.. because I use statuses like “Prioritised” to reflect things that they should work on vs. “Backlog” for things they should not.
I also give them explicit instructions that all work should be captured as an update to a task. And that I will comment near-real time if I think they’re falling off track or if they need help on something.
This results in what I call ‘microsteering’ and prevents them from investing lots of time in the wrong thing.
Let’s compare who the better manager is?
We can compare using the four criteria for what makes a good manager that I mentioned above:
Criteria 1: They give clear direction
- Winner: “The new Ken” writes out everything explicitly as tasks with a definition of done
- Loser: The ‘traditional manager’ agrees verbally during their weekly 1-1 and some of the tasks were relatively vague
Criteria 2: They are supportive and responsive
- Winner: “The new Ken” is reading & responding to comments and updates to tasks of his team near real-time, and thus ‘micro-steering’ to keep them on track.
- Loser: The ‘traditional manager’ waits for the next week’s 1-1 and gives them feedback. When things are not as expected… they tell their report that their expectations have not been met. Thus putting more stress on this person.
Criteria 3: They give you room to come up with your own solutions but guide you when you fall off track
- Winner: “The new Ken” responds to suggestions of his team near real-time and still gives them plenty of space to come up with their own solutions.
- Loser: The ‘traditional manager’ also gives space to his team but if they chose a direction that is off track… he has lost an entire week of them going in the wrong direction.
Criteria 4: They help pave the way for you to be successful politically, etc.
- Winner: “The new Ken” tries to almost completely remove politics from the system. Whoever should have visibility to a person’s tasks is following it directly. The system is extremely ‘fair’ because everything is a task and there is no need for much interpretation.
- Loser: The ‘traditional manager’ ensures that his opinion weighs heaviest on the performance of his team members. Your review is less a direct function of the projects you executed (because they’re poorly documented) and more a reflection of your manager’s opinion of you.
Final Thoughts
‘Traditional managers’ typically manage by communicating. This can be in their team meetings, their 1-1’s, etc.
And so communication skills are key for the manager… because their success essentially rides on how well they conveyed their expectations/feedback during these meetings. And how much rapport they are able to create with their team members.
This is why often in most companies… the managers are great ‘communicators’. Even if they are not the most intelligent or the best strategists.
And thus leadership in most companies is a reflection of this fact.
Which I would argue impairs their performance massively.
In my system… you don’t need to be more than an average communicator and you can still do extremely well by being systematic and giving clear written direction.
But even more importantly…. your team will appreciate working for this new manager much more. Because he is clearer, fairer and it is more enjoyable long-term.
