Prelude
After watching my friends working ‘India hours’ having a life outside of work and following their hobbies and ‘pursuits’, there was an inkling of self-pity, which I realized would overflow out of control if not addressed. The sure-shot way towards ‘addressing’ the question of pastime is by coming back to this relic of a Substack blog and frantically typing something. It sounded like the dumbest of ideas, thereby matching with the theme,
Sidenote : I was about to type ‘aligning’ - one of those English words I have come to hate, especially because of how abused it is in workplaces. Just as a thinking out loud, why do people not ‘agree’ with one another anymore in corporate? For all the ‘disagree but commit’ modus operandi of the majority of workplaces, why and how did ‘aligning’ become such an important word? Can I remain ‘oblique’ or ‘perpendicular’ to an objective but still work towards it? Or, even if I agree with it, can I not remain ‘in parallel’ to the stated goal? In case I am in complete agreement, can I ‘superimpose’ with the ask, instead of ‘aligning’ with it? ‘Align’ reminds me of the graph sheets and geometry diagrams, OR the four-line notebooks we used as handwriting improvement tools back in primary school; ‘align’ seldom appears to me a jargon that is apt in a professional setting. Perhaps, the absurdity and meaninglessness of the word makes it part of the corporate dictionary. Anyway!
Gyans and Yarns
Eons ago, when listening to ‘business podcasts’ (without realizing that most of them were essentially hour-long advertisements) was a habit, I kept hearing several of these cash-burning, non-profitable, no-green-in-sight startup founders state, “I am not the smartest person in the room. In all probability, I am the dumbest. But my strength lies in taking smarter folks along.” This trope seemed like a hyperbole to me, especially in the wake of every Tharun, Dravid, and Hari (Why not create a desi version of ‘Tom, Dick, and Harry’, ahem!) repeating this almost verbatim, in the context of ‘organizational culture and leadership’.
However, as difficult it is to admit, that trope seems to have a bit of - actually, a lot of - truth attached to it. And, this was a very weird learning in the last couple of months in the capacity as a ‘Manager’, a title I am still getting used to.
‘Dumb’lebrag
The name tag of a job role signals a lot, even though in reality, the nature of work might not always undergo a significant difference. A ‘Manager’, by the sheer nature of the tag, has more on one’s plate than an individual contributor does. However, the ‘Manager’ has to come to terms with the fact that in this capacity, the possibility of working hands-on slowly goes away. This is a very difficult transition, particularly for individuals used to working on-the-ground and focusing on the nitty-gritties. Thinking about it, the “promotion” from an individual contributor to a ‘Manager’ happens over a day or over a few weeks, but the psychological promotion takes much longer. There are internal battles to handle, such as:
Am I dictating terms and becoming authoritative? (Hate to do that)
Am I becoming a rent-seeker in the team? (Everyone else is “actually” working whereas I am only “overseeing” a lot)
What is the actual value I am bringing to the table by being a “manager” in the team? (I was happier in the individual role, wherein there were no need to be mentally worried about these introspective questions)
Over time, am I going to lose the foot-in-the-ground nature of way of working that I like? (Hard to remain superficial and ‘high level’ even if the role demands it)
Given I have been confronting quite a few of these hard-hitting questions, I have been observing a lot of ‘Managers’ and how they try to cope with it. In the process, I ‘aligned’ with one of those styles that fit in neatly with what I believe is my natural persona.
Become aloof - This avatar has the tendency to keep stating, “I am the manager. The team executes work, and my role is to advise, course-correct, and generally oversee. I won’t get my hands dirty. At all.” without saying it out loud all the time. The persona almost always confronts the urge to keep stating how busy of a work schedule it has, thereby justifying its non-involvement.
Become authoritative - This one is a slightly more persuasive variant of the previous version, and the persona brings an aura of ‘brilliant jerk’ attitude to the equation (the subject of ‘brilliance’ is questionable, but 'that of ‘jerk’ is never open to debate). The oft-repeated statement reads, “How can you folks not know this?” Some of the most important, pre-requisite traits are throwing around one’s weight unnecessarily, pretending to project self-intelligence while occasionally throwing the team under the bus, and generally looking out for self*.
(*The list is non-exhaustive, of course.)
Become a ‘Dumb’lebrag - This one is a slightly evasive one. Here, the ‘Manager’ kicks self in the butt before anyone can sling mud. The openness about being half-baked/less competent is a hallmark. While this sort of humblebrag earns brownies by making the ‘Manager’ seem very friendly and approachable, the threat of being steamrolled by the team is always palpable.
Become ignorant - This persona helps the ‘Manager’ stay sane, but is dangerous for the work productivity of the team. Imagine a lead committing to outcomes that were not part of the package at all, without understanding the nuance behind such requirements. The upside is supreme customer satisfaction, while the downside is plummeting employee satisfaction.
Become super-involved - At first glance, this persona seems to be the most useful out of the lot. Except that it would tend to burn itself out over a period of time. This avatar does not know when to entangle self within the precincts of problem-solving and when to take a step back; the result of this unclarity is the classic theory of ‘Everybody thinks somebody is working, hence nobody is working’. The perception about this ‘Manager’ from among the team can be summarize best via an inverted hockey stick graph. The involvement initially receives appreciation and applause, but over time, the lack of boundaries for the team causes trouble.
Relinquish - This is a psychological predicament all the four other personas face, invariably. However, the professional race deems the possibility of relinquishment moot - hence, the persona keeps running. Eventually, the long-term battle between I want to let go vs. I don’t want to be perceived weak is the start of professional dissatisfaction leading to transitioning out of an organization. Any org. with a bloated middle management can possibly try this as a Squid Game-ish exercise to create voluntary attrition.
What was my decision, though? I took some time to do a few 2x2 matrices, mental models, first principles thinking, mind maps, scientific approaches, and beyond. Bullshit! Of course, not. I tried imbibing the traits of a few of these personas and experimented around what works. Becoming super-involved dragged me back and put me in a spot of bother with my manager due to lack of prioritization. Becoming aloof meant there were chaos in the team, with nothing concrete being done. Becoming authoritative was never an option. Ignorance is despised, and Relinquishment is never an option, thereby leaving me with the kinda-sorta final and relatively easy way out - Just go and confess to the team that you are a douchebag. In short, the ‘Dumb’lebrag.
Rent-seeking
As a student of Human Resources, I have been confused about the justification given to installing several layers of management hierarchies. That is not to say that I am siding with maniacs like Elon Musk, who ridicule the idea of management degrees and management professionals. There is that famous Google experiment called ‘Project Oxygen’ wherein they tried taking out managers and had to reinstate some form of hierarchical structure - so, there is merit to management layers.
However, what I have observed is that the hierarchical level wherein one is no more an individual contributor but has not reached a point yet to be considered an unarguable leader creates a damning possibility - that of rent-seeking. My mentor classifies the hierarchy into three easily digestible buckets.
L1 - There are people who do work
L2 - There are people who manage people who do work
L3 - There are people who manage people managing people who do work
L4 - There are leaders (technically, the C-suite)
L1 has clearly laid out responsibilities and outcomes. L3 has high-pressure situations to be handled. Let’s leave L4 out for a while. The curious case of L2 is worth pondering for a while.
L1 reports to L2, and L2 reports to L3. Now, it is easy for L2 to do nothing, boss around L1, and subtly present its own ‘accomplishments’ (in reality to be credited to L1) to L3 when and where possible. If that is not bad enough, L2 can also shift blame to L1 if L3 questions L2 on non-performance. Now, this does not always work because L3 will school L2 on the need to keep L1 on track. However, consider a case wherein L2 gains the utmost confidence of L3 through a few spike performances. Imagine this trust peaks to such an extent that L3 vests complete ownership on L2. This is where things get tricky and unfortunate.
The China manufacturing phenomenon - L2 exploits L1, extracts all inputs from L1, packages them neatly and, just for the heck of it, makes some tweaks to justify its existence, and takes the accolades from L3 and beyond. This is what I would call ‘The China manufacturing phenomenon’. Components are manufactured in China, assembly and packaging happens elsewhere, but the final product stamp can indicate it as X country’s product.
And, it is stunning how easy it is across several organizations to survive as these L2 rent-seekers. The rent-seekers do a few activities ‘proactively’:
The L2 rent-seekers almost always:
Overcommunicate non-updates to L3.
Lament about the self-perceived ‘incompetence’ of L1. (I call it the ‘Boomerants’ - think of it akin to the “Children of this generation are so lacklustre…” yap that oldies keep throwing as jabs)
Volunteer to help L3, and when given work, burden it over to L1 and keep shepherding L1 with whiplashes.
Miraculously, this arrangement works. For, the L1 is always dangled the carrot of becoming L2 at some point, thereby gaining proximal access to L3.
The Dilemma of the Douchebag
The biggest dilemma of a ‘Manager’ hits when work involves being an individual contributor plus a manager. This is where things start to crack, and the chasm is visible. An L2 used to not getting hands dirty is going to face the predicament of embarrassment, and the only way then is to offload even more to L1. The crucial caveat, as a result, then is how knowledgeable L2 is on the subject. Imagine an L1 getting so pissed with the L2 that the L1 takes the work offloaded by L2 but intentionally decides to provide something sub-optimal or, worse, irrelevant. The litmus test for the L2 then is to separate actual fuel from effluent gas. And in order to do the same, the L2 should not be a Master of Effluent Gas oneself.
All the mudslinging at a ‘Manager’ does not really mean rent-seeking does not happen elsewhere. An individual contributor can be a free-rider and have enough justifiable reasons for being a no-show. In fact, an individual contributor coming into a workplace has more inferiority complexes and imposter syndromes than anyone else. And, I have been fortunate to have got some great ‘Managers’ amidst the pool of absolutely abysmal ones. But, this is to clearly say that rent-seeking at the level of L2 can go unnoticed for a fairly long time before coming to the limelight. People can be ‘Dumb’lebrags, but should not be left to be that forever.