Björn Jeffery

A job well done may mean being almost invisible

Being a great manager is really hard. More so than I first thought since I think you more often notice the things that aren’t good, than the things that are. Think about a bad manager that you’ve had. That’s easy. Everyone has had one. Now think about a really great manager. Some of you have had them, and congratulations to you! But I suspect many find it harder to think of a really great manager than a really bad one. And that this isn’t just a matter of there being more bad managers out there either.

I’m starting to think that having a great manager means that you almost don’t notice him/her. I don’t mean this in an absent way — more like they are there when you need them, and not in your way when you don’t. No micro-managing, no unnecessary struggles, no sudden changes of plan. Instead they are there for direction, feedback and decision making. When your manager is great, your work flows. Often it probably flows so well that you hardly notice that he/she is there. Because he/she is just filling in the gaps that you need.

Of course the actual life of a manager contains much more than just the things above. In this lies the dilemma. When your work as a manager is great, then people notice it the least. Sometimes to the point that they think you’re not needed.

I think the primary skill as a manager is facilitating the progress of the team. Answering the question of: “Where do we want to go, and how can I make sure that we get there?” This means reducing friction and removing obstacles, hopefully before they even appear. In small teams this can mean anything from discussing processes and giving feedback on communication skills, to buying new office chairs or running out for coffee. It’s all part of the same, forward-driving, motion.

I started to think more about this as the team I was managing increased. And I had also been thinking about what I in turn expected from my superior, which in this case in the chairman of our board. That relationship is a little different, but I think the general point is the same. It’s harder to notice the good things.

When things flow, it’s easy to attribute it to the circumstances and surroundings without thinking about how they actually occurred. And for that matter — what is consistently being done to uphold and develop these circumstances. I frequently forget to think about this, and I expect that my colleagues do the same. It’s a shame. So consider if your manager is doing a great job, then let him/her know. I’ll do the same.

There are numerous articles every week on how to scale and grow a company. Startup metrics, growth hacking, technology choices. While they are all important, there are many other traits that also affect the growth rate of a company. I would argue that trust is one of the most important ones. It is a recurring theme in both my own projects and others that I look at.

First there is gaining, growing and keeping the trust of your customers. Here are three examples of not doing that very well (even if two of the companies admittedly are doing well anyway).

• It can be designing in a way that leads to the desired result of the customer without unwanted surprises.
• It can be stating changes in a clear way that aligns with what the customers were expecting. Or at least explaining why the changes are necessary, in a good way.
• It can be simply keeping your service up and running consistently.

These are all relatively well known examples, but still trust is rarely referenced in this context.

Even more rare, is talking about the trust within a company that needs to occur in order for companies to grow. A key component of growth and scaling is being productive — doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way. In order to make this happen, it is helpful to look at the company as a series of groups and then see how efficiently and focused these groups perform.

I’ve had some brief training using Susan Wheeler’s model for group development, and using that as a framework it is clear that moving the group from Stage 1 (Dependency and Inclusion) to Stage 2 (Counterdependency and Fight) is a matter of maturity and comfort in having different opinions, and to not always follow the leader. The conflicts that occur are also the foundation for moving to Stage 3 (Trust / Structure). If you can get past the conflicts, the group will start trusting each other to a much higher degree. And there is research to support that groups that reach Stage 3 (or higher) are more productive than others. Trust is therefore paramount when it comes to creating a productive company that can scale.

Startups are in many ways not that different from any other company or organization, even if the people running them like to think so. I know there are a lot of specific circumstances and prerequisites that don’t apply to bigger companies, but these are widely covered every day in Silicon Valley press. The simpler, more human, traits that are the same however — they are sometimes forgotten.

(this post was originally posted on Svbtle. I’m evaluating my publishing options.)