I love so much about this, and yet so much of it misses the mark for me. I think, perhaps, that is because so much is written from a definitive point of view - it's what's true for her, which is...
Exemplary
I love so much about this, and yet so much of it misses the mark for me. I think, perhaps, that is because so much is written from a definitive point of view - it's what's true for her, which is important reflection, but it's served to the audience through a lens which frames it as the definitive truth. I think it would benefit the author to take a step back from herself when looking more broadly at the patterns she sees and question how others who share the trait of 'low maintenance' might approach and think about similar situations.
For example, right at the beginning she talks about a specific background that lead to her being the way she is. I resonated strongly with that background, with a few additional life-defining moments which lead me to realize that I need to be self-sufficient because help was not at my finger tips and when I asked for it from those who were capable they often focused on themselves instead of helping me. In the next paragraph she immediately jumps into a set of questions that I almost never ask myself, however, as there are ways of asking for help which can negate or discourage some of these ideas. I'm almost never worried about whether it will make me seem incapable, for example, because I am either upfront about said incapability (asking while I'm in the active process of learning a new skill) or I ask the question after explicitly framing what I've tried or my thought process to show competence as well as head-off simple answers or troubleshooting I've already completed.
The reasoning behind why I often don't ask for help and self-identify as low maintenance has more to do with respecting the time and energy of others for me. There's also a strong component of self sufficiency being a virtue I hold (I derive satisfaction out of knowing I can accomplish things by myself, if needed) and one of centering and valuing learning and knowing things about the world as well as prioritizing and centering the satisfaction of completing and doing things. This particular framing, however, even when combined with the author's, would still be not enough to explain the plethora of people from different walks of life who are low maintenance. I have known folks who are low maintenance because the very act of asking for help is anxiety inducing itself, even when the other person has explicitly made it clear that they are available for help. While this is explored somewhat when they talk about their perceived confidence and inconveniencing others, they do not explore it through the lens of emotional management which is centered on the self or through the lens of social anxiety.
One other aspect I wish the author had spent more time on, is the view from the other side of the lens. They briefly examine this when they consider how another felt that they hadn't asked them for help, but they don't dive particularly deep. She frames it as though the other person has perceived her as not trusting them, but I suspect there's more emotions at play. Because it's not only about trust, it's about the validation of completing tasks that they are withholding from another by not delegating. It's about the connection that she fails to grow with another because they are not brought into the circle. It's about not being given the opportunity to carry and contribute and how that effects the emotions of others. If she derives satisfaction when others ask her for help, she should consider that the same is likely true of others and by not asking them for help she is depriving others of this satisfaction. This can lead a relationship to feel very one sided as this benefit is withheld from another.
This outward facing reflection is what I was hoping this article would do a lot more. I had originally hoped the article was about more personal relationships, as "low maintenance" is something that I associate with romantic and sexual partners more than I do those in business. It is in this realm that I personally have struggled and suffered on account of my low maintenance and highly self sufficient tendencies. I have had countless partners worry about my relationship with them because I was rarely asking anything from them. I would hold space for emotions and help them process difficult issues and while I would often ask the same of them, because I had already done my own self reflection and processing I would come to them in a much more calm and collected state and thus the issues would seem less pressing or less like I was seeking their advice and emotional comfort. I've also struggled with people perceiving me as less invested in the relationship because I'm not enmeshing my life with theirs or depending on the partner to get needs met - my self sufficiency is seen as low engagement because enmeshment and dependency are often viewed through a romantic lens. After all, how can one feel desired if another asks so little of you? Even when one frames it as a soft ask "it would be nice if", or expresses their joy "I really like it when", it is easy to overlook these as asks when others demand or show strong emotions when their asks are denied.
I am happy, however, to read any musings on the pros and cons of self sufficiency and being low maintenance, as it's not a philosophical area I have seen much writing on. Perhaps ironically, those who are the most affected by this may feel less inclined to write about it because they have already figured out what works well for them and may not feel particularly inspired to share or work through their own emotions and framing on the subject. It is an interesting and salient subject to reflect upon and prior to this article not one I had considered in a corporate context. I have often throughout my career been told that I can come off as intimidating to others. This is often juxtaposed with praises of my own competency and deep thought. I think both of these are a reflection of self-sufficiency and that the intimidation is a side effect of asking for so little of others. What's ironic, perhaps, is that I have learned to tap into this in the corporate world as a means by which to ingratiate others and build rapport; I learned to ask those above me questions which I already knew the answer to in order to help them to feel both smart and useful and in order for them to start viewing me in a positive light as I came to them and not others for advice. What I have not learned yet, and this article has opened my eyes to is that I need to apply this to others below me to inoculate against intimidation - if I ask them for more help it can help to show them that I am also human and that I do not know everything in a way that simply stating those facts can't quite get across.
Apologies, I got lost early in the article when she talked about the gendered differences and apparently misread it. I have updated my post to use the correct pronouns (I think... I'm a bit tired...
Apologies, I got lost early in the article when she talked about the gendered differences and apparently misread it. I have updated my post to use the correct pronouns (I think... I'm a bit tired after all the partying this weekend)
In my case, the resonant experiences were in early adulthood rather than in my childhood or teen years, but yes, there are absolutely many paths that lead to becoming “low maintanence”. For me it...
In my case, the resonant experiences were in early adulthood rather than in my childhood or teen years, but yes, there are absolutely many paths that lead to becoming “low maintanence”. For me it was having (sometimes unwittingly) thrown myself into situations well beyond the scope of my experience and prior capabilities on multiple occasions, which involves a lot of self-sufficiency even if you have the benefit of support from others. After a few rounds of that one internalizes that a great many daunting things can be worked through with some effort and perseverance.
Similar to you, this has led me to usually be forthright when it comes to my abilities. There’s no hesitation to state my lack of experience for something and ask for help, should it be needed. That last phrase is key here: have I made a reasonable effort to find a solution on my own? Those who I would request help from are busy and have enough going on already without me adding to the pile. Would I be unnecessarily disrupting them by asking for help? There’s little I want to be less than in the way.
The personal relationship angle is interesting, but that’s one area in which I’ve learned to clam up somewhat. Coming out of high school I was more or less an open book, but that is generally not received well socially except for with those closest, and even they still may not always be receptive. This one is mildly worrisome for me because I think it might be the root cause of somewhat dulled emotional reactions, even when there’s no third party to worry about. The social acceptability damper doesn’t necessarily have an off switch.
In terms of background, I thought that part interesting. I'm also a child 80's, like the author, but in my case I learned to program on an Apple II. No internet, and no one to ask for help. (My...
In terms of background, I thought that part interesting. I'm also a child 80's, like the author, but in my case I learned to program on an Apple II. No internet, and no one to ask for help. (My dad had learned some light programming to help with his work, but it was only a means to an end and I quickly blew past what he new.) Whenever I got stuck, it was either bash my head on it until I puzzled it out on my own, or research the computer books in the library until I found one that gave me a clue. Either way, it was all self-driven. From that I developed a self reliance through a combination of sheer stubborn persistence (surely this time it will work!), and the self-confidence that I will solve things on my own eventually given enough time.
The downside is that I find it really difficult to know when to reach out for help. And I find it probably harder than others to give estimates in presence of unknowns. Will another day on this task yield the breakthrough I'm looking for? Or in gambling terms, will another pull at the slot machine payoff? This can lead to the quiet drowning noted in the article. There are two things that I've found help with this:
Timeboxing tasks with unknowns. If I can't get something done by myself with some preset time limit then I'll call out for help. Going back to the gambling analogy, this is like budgeting yourself a fixed amount of money to gamble with, win or lose. Setting a time limit up front really helps to avoid the one more day... one more day... one more day... cycle.
People joke about project managers being useless, but I've found that having a good, intellectually safe one helps immensely, especially with the quiet drowning part. I've had some who have been great about helping me decide on how much to time box things to in consideration of the schedule, prioritize my tasks when there are too many, and redistribute the overflow across the team if I'm starting to feel really overwhelmed. But having a good rapport of trust is key here.
I'll add one other danger that I've noticed about being the low maintenance type: it can be easy to get overlooked when it comes to promotions or new opportunities when you're just off in the corner, quietly solving problems on your own and getting stuff done without drama. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. I've learned to keep both a brag document and a task journal, as well try to mitigate this effect by making sure to check in with my manager regularly with FYIs about what I'm doing even if I don't need help.
Quite often we consider positions like that to be about managing tasks, and while that is important I think that managing expectations and even (some, not all) emotions that come with it is...
People joke about project managers being useless, but I've found that having a good, intellectually safe one helps immensely, especially with the quiet drowning part.
Quite often we consider positions like that to be about managing tasks, and while that is important I think that managing expectations and even (some, not all) emotions that come with it is actually more important. Being able to talk safely about your performance, ability to ask for help, functioning in a working environment, capable to discuss what you are and not comfortable with can, at least for me, improve how well I can work.
Though, I may of course be projecting my own issues with being neurodivergent and working. It's sometimes a bit difficult to say when that is the only life you've ever known.
Thank you for sharing this. The ideas covered resonate strongly with me: quiet and competent means safe. I was recently promoted into a position that oversees two other managers. One was a highly...
Thank you for sharing this. The ideas covered resonate strongly with me: quiet and competent means safe. I was recently promoted into a position that oversees two other managers. One was a highly tenured peer of mine, and one is a new manager that reported to be in an individual contributor role. I see many of the same traits with them. It might be a good essay to share and have us reflect on a bit.
This is tangential, but this piece made me think of a conversation I heard on one of Myke Hurley’s podcasts. Myke was speaking on the hidden truths of business. One of his convictions was that...
This is tangential, but this piece made me think of a conversation I heard on one of Myke Hurley’s podcasts. Myke was speaking on the hidden truths of business. One of his convictions was that good leaders hide/absorb problems from their subordinates.
Personal reflection has led me to believe that this is an unfortunate yet poignant truth. The teams I’ve been on where members are aware of the issues that leadership is dealing with almost always have some substantial hidden costs. The cost is not necessarily the well-being of individual employees (though sometimes it is), but moreso because everyone generally feels less competent, more hopeless, and cynical. When I reflect on my leadership, I’ve been at my best when my relationship with members is friendly but not close. People want to feel secure in their leaders, which often means not showing weakness.
While I have been on teams that haven’t followed this approach and been fine, I’ve noticed that the success of teams with leaders that show unsteadiness pretty strongly correlates with the problems not being that bad. If the problems are bad, it’s almost always better for the leader to bear the burden alone.
I bring this up because while most of the piece doesn’t mention hierarchy, the conclusion asks “What does [the low maintenance] badge protect?”. If you are a leader, that badge can often protect your subordinates. That doesn’t mean not asking for help, but you should be asking peers. Great leaders maintain the veneer of stability and resilience for those who really do depend on you.
It's interesting that this is your take, because I strongly feel quite the opposite when my leaders appear to be infallible. I am acutely aware of politics and problems in the workplace and when...
People want to feel secure in their leaders, which often means not showing weakness.
It's interesting that this is your take, because I strongly feel quite the opposite when my leaders appear to be infallible. I am acutely aware of politics and problems in the workplace and when my leaders hide these from me I begin to doubt their competence and ability to read the political climate at work. This makes me worry about the department as a whole because I have no way to assess if they can foresee political barriers and problems. I also feel like the manager is not trusting of me and my peers if they are unwilling to share some of the issues they are encountering. I do believe that there is an appropriate balance - I don't need to know all the inner workings of what is going on in the company, but when the politics are appropriate it is important for me to get a high level summary of what is going on. Some of the information can be withheld as simply not being important or directly relevant to me at that point in time, such as some minor political quibble which will likely be resolved shortly. But patterns in behavior and major roadblocks need to be surfaced in order for me to have confidence in those who are leading. For the current company I work in, I also have a wealth of institutional knowledge when it comes to politics due to my long tenure, and may be able to resolve or help with political problems that are above my head because I have insider knowledge of the history of how departments have interacted and insight into the desires and need of certain key political players.
I think some of that has to do with my own personality and belief system, however. I strongly believe that anyone who has been bestowed authority needs to respect the source of that authority - the very people they direct. Any leader who dictates their own positions and ignores the voices of those for whom the decrees directly affect is a leader who is ignoring their responsibility. I am extremely wary of leaders without a sense of responsibility as it is an indicator, especially in the corporate realm, that they will both make my job more annoying (by ignoring my professional opinion or by micromanaging my work) and increase the risk of layoffs or being targeted (more likely to point fingers than take responsibility for failures, less likely to correctly read political situations and paint a target on the departments back, and more likely to create political enemies by being less political in their decisions).
Universally it is a red flag if someone is treated as infallible. But I didn't read the parent comment as implying a leader must be infallible. Rather, in the appropriate setting, a leader should...
Universally it is a red flag if someone is treated as infallible. But I didn't read the parent comment as implying a leader must be infallible. Rather, in the appropriate setting, a leader should be able to authentically and confidently speak to politics or technical unknowns. They don't need to have the answer, but they should instill confidence that they can work collaboratively to find a solution without over committing their team. The need to project that they have access to resources politically and technically to address challenges.
Me and my manager use the analogy of being a lineman in American football. One of our primary jobs is to clear the path forward for our teams and block ticky-tack distractions. It means him and I do a lot of the ad-hoc stuff and field meetings to allow our teams to do the deep work necessary for quality products. The larger things we work on tend to be more strategic and political. Only until that is done do we pass work on to our teams. From there I tend to operate in an advisor role, being available to collaborate, troubleshoot, and otherwise support and grow our team members. Meetings with my team a lot like the meetings I had with my PhD advisor. Recap how things have gone since our last meeting and then talk about actual challenges and how we can navigate those.
But I think a manager's goal should be to help team members achieve their own goals. I have employees who want to put in their 8 hours and collect a check. I have others with ambitions for management and more responsibility. To that end I am pretty transparent with what I'm thinking about, where I am hesitant, and my strategies when working with particular personalities. The things they don't hear about really are either highly sensitive data or topics that generally distill down to executive bikeshedding.
I've heard elsewhere that good leaders are able to hold some cognitive dissonance. Meaning I can be stressed or nervous about something but I have confidence in my team. I should lead my team to deliver to the best of our ability and get in front of things that could be issues. Success is owned by my team member, shortcomings are owned by me.
I think a middle ground probably exists between the two. Naturally everything changes depending on who you are working with. I also think we’re speaking about slightly different things. I think...
I think a middle ground probably exists between the two. Naturally everything changes depending on who you are working with. I also think we’re speaking about slightly different things.
I think leaders admitting fallibility and responsibility are important. When I say they need to hide or absorb problems, I mean that if there’s a problem, either not mentioning it and handling it yourself, or saying “X is an issue, and here’s the plan to deal with it” are valuable. Saying “This is a problem that I do not have a plan to solve” can really damage morale, even if sometimes true.
Also, lots of the problems leaders deal with shouldn’t be brought up depending on team members’ responsibility. The most egregious example I can think of is talking about problems the boss is having with employee A to employee B (a peer), who is not involved. Even if the boss does not know what to do, they should be generally going outside the team for advice to handle those issues.
Any leader who dictates their own positions and ignores the voices of those for whom the decrees directly affect is a leader who is ignoring their responsibility.
Agreed. If those affected cannot trust the leader, there’s an even bigger issue. The best leaders can advocate for those they represent without they people they represent actually being aware of that advocacy. It’s good if you know “this problem could have happened but the leader addressed it”, but that can still cause concern. It’s better for your focus to just not see those problems at all, but for that to be effective, the leader needs to handle the responsibilities well without you knowing. Otherwise, the problem actually appears and then the leader has lost all trust.
I understand where you are coming from, but in short I think I simply disagree with the idea that one shouldn't share problems which have no apparent or clear solution. Aside from the possibility...
I understand where you are coming from, but in short I think I simply disagree with the idea that one shouldn't share problems which have no apparent or clear solution. Aside from the possibility of brainstorming with direct reports (if this makes sense for the problem), transparency into an issue which has no clear solution is important for building trust and transparency. If I have a project which requires a roadblock to be cleared, for example, and my boss is encountering a political problem or roadblock that they do not have a plan to solve, I would argue that it is vitally important that I understand this.
I absolutely agree that some issues are not appropriate to discuss in certain forums (employee A/B interaction). It is definitely an important distinction to bring up. Anything HR related and anything told in confidence really shouldn't be discussed openly, but only with the directly affected individuals.
It’s better for your focus to just not see those problems at all, but for that to be effective, the leader needs to handle the responsibilities well without you knowing.
I strongly disagree. There is a balance, of course, but if it is always invisible I have no way to be grateful and I have no capacity to build trust with the person doing this work. But perhaps I am unlike the employees that you've had, that I do not view any of this as a split of my focus. I have never viewed these as a distraction from my work and I've never viewed these issues as causing any anxiety to me either. In my experience as well, there's been a reasonable number of these issues where I was able to provide emotional support for my boss (venting), a solution or possible path which had not been considered, or in some cases provide vital context which can inform possible actions. Even when I am unable to provide any actionable or useful input, I view it as vital to building trust with my manager, as it is them explicitly involving me in difficult conversations, asking for my opinion, or otherwise showing some level of vulnerability. These discussions demonstrate that my boss values my opinion and thoughts and being transparent with me - all things I desire out of management.
Thanks for your detailed response. I think I see that the settings in which you work probably change your perspective on this, possibly dramatically. On the split focus, I’m actually speaking for...
Thanks for your detailed response. I think I see that the settings in which you work probably change your perspective on this, possibly dramatically.
But perhaps I am unlike the employees that you've had, that I do not view any of this as a split of my focus.
On the split focus, I’m actually speaking for myself and peers as employees. In some of these situations, at the time I was grateful for having the full picture, but in hindsight my effectiveness certainly suffered as a result.
It’s also relevant that my previous field (academia) and my current field (vague legal field as to not identify myself) tend to have flat hierarchies compared to big corporations, so there’s lots of information asymmetry and sometimes big experience differentials between different levels of the hierarchy.
Listening to the podcast I mentioned above, I kind of assumed this was a general principle, as counterexamples I had experience with were hard to find. I definitely see how it could be different depending on the nature of the work and organization.
I love so much about this, and yet so much of it misses the mark for me. I think, perhaps, that is because so much is written from a definitive point of view - it's what's true for her, which is important reflection, but it's served to the audience through a lens which frames it as the definitive truth. I think it would benefit the author to take a step back from herself when looking more broadly at the patterns she sees and question how others who share the trait of 'low maintenance' might approach and think about similar situations.
For example, right at the beginning she talks about a specific background that lead to her being the way she is. I resonated strongly with that background, with a few additional life-defining moments which lead me to realize that I need to be self-sufficient because help was not at my finger tips and when I asked for it from those who were capable they often focused on themselves instead of helping me. In the next paragraph she immediately jumps into a set of questions that I almost never ask myself, however, as there are ways of asking for help which can negate or discourage some of these ideas. I'm almost never worried about whether it will make me seem incapable, for example, because I am either upfront about said incapability (asking while I'm in the active process of learning a new skill) or I ask the question after explicitly framing what I've tried or my thought process to show competence as well as head-off simple answers or troubleshooting I've already completed.
The reasoning behind why I often don't ask for help and self-identify as low maintenance has more to do with respecting the time and energy of others for me. There's also a strong component of self sufficiency being a virtue I hold (I derive satisfaction out of knowing I can accomplish things by myself, if needed) and one of centering and valuing learning and knowing things about the world as well as prioritizing and centering the satisfaction of completing and doing things. This particular framing, however, even when combined with the author's, would still be not enough to explain the plethora of people from different walks of life who are low maintenance. I have known folks who are low maintenance because the very act of asking for help is anxiety inducing itself, even when the other person has explicitly made it clear that they are available for help. While this is explored somewhat when they talk about their perceived confidence and inconveniencing others, they do not explore it through the lens of emotional management which is centered on the self or through the lens of social anxiety.
One other aspect I wish the author had spent more time on, is the view from the other side of the lens. They briefly examine this when they consider how another felt that they hadn't asked them for help, but they don't dive particularly deep. She frames it as though the other person has perceived her as not trusting them, but I suspect there's more emotions at play. Because it's not only about trust, it's about the validation of completing tasks that they are withholding from another by not delegating. It's about the connection that she fails to grow with another because they are not brought into the circle. It's about not being given the opportunity to carry and contribute and how that effects the emotions of others. If she derives satisfaction when others ask her for help, she should consider that the same is likely true of others and by not asking them for help she is depriving others of this satisfaction. This can lead a relationship to feel very one sided as this benefit is withheld from another.
This outward facing reflection is what I was hoping this article would do a lot more. I had originally hoped the article was about more personal relationships, as "low maintenance" is something that I associate with romantic and sexual partners more than I do those in business. It is in this realm that I personally have struggled and suffered on account of my low maintenance and highly self sufficient tendencies. I have had countless partners worry about my relationship with them because I was rarely asking anything from them. I would hold space for emotions and help them process difficult issues and while I would often ask the same of them, because I had already done my own self reflection and processing I would come to them in a much more calm and collected state and thus the issues would seem less pressing or less like I was seeking their advice and emotional comfort. I've also struggled with people perceiving me as less invested in the relationship because I'm not enmeshing my life with theirs or depending on the partner to get needs met - my self sufficiency is seen as low engagement because enmeshment and dependency are often viewed through a romantic lens. After all, how can one feel desired if another asks so little of you? Even when one frames it as a soft ask "it would be nice if", or expresses their joy "I really like it when", it is easy to overlook these as asks when others demand or show strong emotions when their asks are denied.
I am happy, however, to read any musings on the pros and cons of self sufficiency and being low maintenance, as it's not a philosophical area I have seen much writing on. Perhaps ironically, those who are the most affected by this may feel less inclined to write about it because they have already figured out what works well for them and may not feel particularly inspired to share or work through their own emotions and framing on the subject. It is an interesting and salient subject to reflect upon and prior to this article not one I had considered in a corporate context. I have often throughout my career been told that I can come off as intimidating to others. This is often juxtaposed with praises of my own competency and deep thought. I think both of these are a reflection of self-sufficiency and that the intimidation is a side effect of asking for so little of others. What's ironic, perhaps, is that I have learned to tap into this in the corporate world as a means by which to ingratiate others and build rapport; I learned to ask those above me questions which I already knew the answer to in order to help them to feel both smart and useful and in order for them to start viewing me in a positive light as I came to them and not others for advice. What I have not learned yet, and this article has opened my eyes to is that I need to apply this to others below me to inoculate against intimidation - if I ask them for more help it can help to show them that I am also human and that I do not know everything in a way that simply stating those facts can't quite get across.
Her - gender even came up specifically as part of the psychology. And the site uses a traditionally female name.
Apologies, I got lost early in the article when she talked about the gendered differences and apparently misread it. I have updated my post to use the correct pronouns (I think... I'm a bit tired after all the partying this weekend)
In my case, the resonant experiences were in early adulthood rather than in my childhood or teen years, but yes, there are absolutely many paths that lead to becoming “low maintanence”. For me it was having (sometimes unwittingly) thrown myself into situations well beyond the scope of my experience and prior capabilities on multiple occasions, which involves a lot of self-sufficiency even if you have the benefit of support from others. After a few rounds of that one internalizes that a great many daunting things can be worked through with some effort and perseverance.
Similar to you, this has led me to usually be forthright when it comes to my abilities. There’s no hesitation to state my lack of experience for something and ask for help, should it be needed. That last phrase is key here: have I made a reasonable effort to find a solution on my own? Those who I would request help from are busy and have enough going on already without me adding to the pile. Would I be unnecessarily disrupting them by asking for help? There’s little I want to be less than in the way.
The personal relationship angle is interesting, but that’s one area in which I’ve learned to clam up somewhat. Coming out of high school I was more or less an open book, but that is generally not received well socially except for with those closest, and even they still may not always be receptive. This one is mildly worrisome for me because I think it might be the root cause of somewhat dulled emotional reactions, even when there’s no third party to worry about. The social acceptability damper doesn’t necessarily have an off switch.
In terms of background, I thought that part interesting. I'm also a child 80's, like the author, but in my case I learned to program on an Apple II. No internet, and no one to ask for help. (My dad had learned some light programming to help with his work, but it was only a means to an end and I quickly blew past what he new.) Whenever I got stuck, it was either bash my head on it until I puzzled it out on my own, or research the computer books in the library until I found one that gave me a clue. Either way, it was all self-driven. From that I developed a self reliance through a combination of sheer stubborn persistence (surely this time it will work!), and the self-confidence that I will solve things on my own eventually given enough time.
The downside is that I find it really difficult to know when to reach out for help. And I find it probably harder than others to give estimates in presence of unknowns. Will another day on this task yield the breakthrough I'm looking for? Or in gambling terms, will another pull at the slot machine payoff? This can lead to the quiet drowning noted in the article. There are two things that I've found help with this:
Timeboxing tasks with unknowns. If I can't get something done by myself with some preset time limit then I'll call out for help. Going back to the gambling analogy, this is like budgeting yourself a fixed amount of money to gamble with, win or lose. Setting a time limit up front really helps to avoid the one more day... one more day... one more day... cycle.
People joke about project managers being useless, but I've found that having a good, intellectually safe one helps immensely, especially with the quiet drowning part. I've had some who have been great about helping me decide on how much to time box things to in consideration of the schedule, prioritize my tasks when there are too many, and redistribute the overflow across the team if I'm starting to feel really overwhelmed. But having a good rapport of trust is key here.
I'll add one other danger that I've noticed about being the low maintenance type: it can be easy to get overlooked when it comes to promotions or new opportunities when you're just off in the corner, quietly solving problems on your own and getting stuff done without drama. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. I've learned to keep both a brag document and a task journal, as well try to mitigate this effect by making sure to check in with my manager regularly with FYIs about what I'm doing even if I don't need help.
Quite often we consider positions like that to be about managing tasks, and while that is important I think that managing expectations and even (some, not all) emotions that come with it is actually more important. Being able to talk safely about your performance, ability to ask for help, functioning in a working environment, capable to discuss what you are and not comfortable with can, at least for me, improve how well I can work.
Though, I may of course be projecting my own issues with being neurodivergent and working. It's sometimes a bit difficult to say when that is the only life you've ever known.
Thank you for sharing this. The ideas covered resonate strongly with me: quiet and competent means safe. I was recently promoted into a position that oversees two other managers. One was a highly tenured peer of mine, and one is a new manager that reported to be in an individual contributor role. I see many of the same traits with them. It might be a good essay to share and have us reflect on a bit.
This is tangential, but this piece made me think of a conversation I heard on one of Myke Hurley’s podcasts. Myke was speaking on the hidden truths of business. One of his convictions was that good leaders hide/absorb problems from their subordinates.
Personal reflection has led me to believe that this is an unfortunate yet poignant truth. The teams I’ve been on where members are aware of the issues that leadership is dealing with almost always have some substantial hidden costs. The cost is not necessarily the well-being of individual employees (though sometimes it is), but moreso because everyone generally feels less competent, more hopeless, and cynical. When I reflect on my leadership, I’ve been at my best when my relationship with members is friendly but not close. People want to feel secure in their leaders, which often means not showing weakness.
While I have been on teams that haven’t followed this approach and been fine, I’ve noticed that the success of teams with leaders that show unsteadiness pretty strongly correlates with the problems not being that bad. If the problems are bad, it’s almost always better for the leader to bear the burden alone.
I bring this up because while most of the piece doesn’t mention hierarchy, the conclusion asks “What does [the low maintenance] badge protect?”. If you are a leader, that badge can often protect your subordinates. That doesn’t mean not asking for help, but you should be asking peers. Great leaders maintain the veneer of stability and resilience for those who really do depend on you.
It's interesting that this is your take, because I strongly feel quite the opposite when my leaders appear to be infallible. I am acutely aware of politics and problems in the workplace and when my leaders hide these from me I begin to doubt their competence and ability to read the political climate at work. This makes me worry about the department as a whole because I have no way to assess if they can foresee political barriers and problems. I also feel like the manager is not trusting of me and my peers if they are unwilling to share some of the issues they are encountering. I do believe that there is an appropriate balance - I don't need to know all the inner workings of what is going on in the company, but when the politics are appropriate it is important for me to get a high level summary of what is going on. Some of the information can be withheld as simply not being important or directly relevant to me at that point in time, such as some minor political quibble which will likely be resolved shortly. But patterns in behavior and major roadblocks need to be surfaced in order for me to have confidence in those who are leading. For the current company I work in, I also have a wealth of institutional knowledge when it comes to politics due to my long tenure, and may be able to resolve or help with political problems that are above my head because I have insider knowledge of the history of how departments have interacted and insight into the desires and need of certain key political players.
I think some of that has to do with my own personality and belief system, however. I strongly believe that anyone who has been bestowed authority needs to respect the source of that authority - the very people they direct. Any leader who dictates their own positions and ignores the voices of those for whom the decrees directly affect is a leader who is ignoring their responsibility. I am extremely wary of leaders without a sense of responsibility as it is an indicator, especially in the corporate realm, that they will both make my job more annoying (by ignoring my professional opinion or by micromanaging my work) and increase the risk of layoffs or being targeted (more likely to point fingers than take responsibility for failures, less likely to correctly read political situations and paint a target on the departments back, and more likely to create political enemies by being less political in their decisions).
Universally it is a red flag if someone is treated as infallible. But I didn't read the parent comment as implying a leader must be infallible. Rather, in the appropriate setting, a leader should be able to authentically and confidently speak to politics or technical unknowns. They don't need to have the answer, but they should instill confidence that they can work collaboratively to find a solution without over committing their team. The need to project that they have access to resources politically and technically to address challenges.
Me and my manager use the analogy of being a lineman in American football. One of our primary jobs is to clear the path forward for our teams and block ticky-tack distractions. It means him and I do a lot of the ad-hoc stuff and field meetings to allow our teams to do the deep work necessary for quality products. The larger things we work on tend to be more strategic and political. Only until that is done do we pass work on to our teams. From there I tend to operate in an advisor role, being available to collaborate, troubleshoot, and otherwise support and grow our team members. Meetings with my team a lot like the meetings I had with my PhD advisor. Recap how things have gone since our last meeting and then talk about actual challenges and how we can navigate those.
But I think a manager's goal should be to help team members achieve their own goals. I have employees who want to put in their 8 hours and collect a check. I have others with ambitions for management and more responsibility. To that end I am pretty transparent with what I'm thinking about, where I am hesitant, and my strategies when working with particular personalities. The things they don't hear about really are either highly sensitive data or topics that generally distill down to executive bikeshedding.
I've heard elsewhere that good leaders are able to hold some cognitive dissonance. Meaning I can be stressed or nervous about something but I have confidence in my team. I should lead my team to deliver to the best of our ability and get in front of things that could be issues. Success is owned by my team member, shortcomings are owned by me.
I think a middle ground probably exists between the two. Naturally everything changes depending on who you are working with. I also think we’re speaking about slightly different things.
I think leaders admitting fallibility and responsibility are important. When I say they need to hide or absorb problems, I mean that if there’s a problem, either not mentioning it and handling it yourself, or saying “X is an issue, and here’s the plan to deal with it” are valuable. Saying “This is a problem that I do not have a plan to solve” can really damage morale, even if sometimes true.
Also, lots of the problems leaders deal with shouldn’t be brought up depending on team members’ responsibility. The most egregious example I can think of is talking about problems the boss is having with employee A to employee B (a peer), who is not involved. Even if the boss does not know what to do, they should be generally going outside the team for advice to handle those issues.
Agreed. If those affected cannot trust the leader, there’s an even bigger issue. The best leaders can advocate for those they represent without they people they represent actually being aware of that advocacy. It’s good if you know “this problem could have happened but the leader addressed it”, but that can still cause concern. It’s better for your focus to just not see those problems at all, but for that to be effective, the leader needs to handle the responsibilities well without you knowing. Otherwise, the problem actually appears and then the leader has lost all trust.
I understand where you are coming from, but in short I think I simply disagree with the idea that one shouldn't share problems which have no apparent or clear solution. Aside from the possibility of brainstorming with direct reports (if this makes sense for the problem), transparency into an issue which has no clear solution is important for building trust and transparency. If I have a project which requires a roadblock to be cleared, for example, and my boss is encountering a political problem or roadblock that they do not have a plan to solve, I would argue that it is vitally important that I understand this.
I absolutely agree that some issues are not appropriate to discuss in certain forums (employee A/B interaction). It is definitely an important distinction to bring up. Anything HR related and anything told in confidence really shouldn't be discussed openly, but only with the directly affected individuals.
I strongly disagree. There is a balance, of course, but if it is always invisible I have no way to be grateful and I have no capacity to build trust with the person doing this work. But perhaps I am unlike the employees that you've had, that I do not view any of this as a split of my focus. I have never viewed these as a distraction from my work and I've never viewed these issues as causing any anxiety to me either. In my experience as well, there's been a reasonable number of these issues where I was able to provide emotional support for my boss (venting), a solution or possible path which had not been considered, or in some cases provide vital context which can inform possible actions. Even when I am unable to provide any actionable or useful input, I view it as vital to building trust with my manager, as it is them explicitly involving me in difficult conversations, asking for my opinion, or otherwise showing some level of vulnerability. These discussions demonstrate that my boss values my opinion and thoughts and being transparent with me - all things I desire out of management.
Thanks for your detailed response. I think I see that the settings in which you work probably change your perspective on this, possibly dramatically.
On the split focus, I’m actually speaking for myself and peers as employees. In some of these situations, at the time I was grateful for having the full picture, but in hindsight my effectiveness certainly suffered as a result.
It’s also relevant that my previous field (academia) and my current field (vague legal field as to not identify myself) tend to have flat hierarchies compared to big corporations, so there’s lots of information asymmetry and sometimes big experience differentials between different levels of the hierarchy.
Listening to the podcast I mentioned above, I kind of assumed this was a general principle, as counterexamples I had experience with were hard to find. I definitely see how it could be different depending on the nature of the work and organization.