[fartcannon]

Leaders or Liaisons? If they don't have the teams respect in a technical way, are they really leaders, or are they just liaising with other teams on the unnamed true team leader's position?

I find a lot of teams have this sort of set up. It gets abused.

[lee]

I don't think effective leadership requires that you be highly respected for your technical skills. Leadership requires that you're at least competent in technical understanding, but also competent across multiple domains too.

They don't have to be the most technical, but have enough chops to smell BS when it's being sold.

A good comparison would be how a good military captain or general doesn't have to be the best marksman, medic, or radioman, but they should know enough to coordinate those roles and understand how they should work.

[csydas]

There's truth to what you're saying, but good leadership means different things in different contexts/teams.

The teams I oversee have a comfort aspect to knowing that I can drop onto any situation and set the proper direction both from a political and technical standpoint. I don't think I'd feel comfortable with my role if I didn't have the technical knowledge to get __very__ specific on what direction to take. I try to be clear when I'm discussing a general best direction versus my personal preference, the latter arising usually when we're discussing subject matters I'm not as familiar with. When I am more confident in the way I think is ideal to handle something and have a specific desired outcome, I present more direct instruction. When we're exploring new territory for the team, then I try to share how I would approach this new territory so my team can have a place to start, and this seems to bring a lot of comfort to my newer team members.

A lot of people in management (general "management") treat the role like a position that tells people general guidelines on what to do, and that's when there are issues; "fix the problem" is of course a clear enough outcome, but it's still vague on how to get there or what the fix looks like. More specific instructions or guidance on different ways to get there and suggestions as to how to understand the problem scope that are digestible for your team is far more important than stating the obvious of "we need to get X resolved by Y date."

The example of a military hierarchy I get, and there is a value to it, but for me, leadership is about setting your team up to let them shine and helping to shield them from the elements that just drag them down or dull their senses.

[code4theages]

What you call “a comfort aspect” is something experienced ICs think of “micromanagement.” It does not bring me comfort when a lead decides to “get __very__ specific on what direction to take.” On the contrary, it makes me feel like they do not trust my judgment, which is an uncomfortable feeling indeed.

It is hard not to notice that the entirety of this response is about YOUR personal comfort level and YOUR perceptions as lead, with an afterthought noting that your newest team members seem to find comfort in it. You must recognize that your working relationship with them involves a marked power differential. Your junior employees are unlikely to voice any disagreement with your management style, but that does not imply it is a good style of leadership.

There is no mention of how you manage your more seasoned team members. Is that because there aren’t any left? This style of management often leads to retention problems as employees mature and realize there are more satisfying ways for them to work.

[fartcannon]

Sure, in the military, where disobedience is severely punished, you can think of your team like that.

[lee]

I don't think that applies to just the military. If you actively disobey your boss' direction and do something completely opposite, I'm sure you'd be dismissed or punished for that too.

[fartcannon]

I really hope you don't actually believe that!