>> Ensure the task is understood, supervised, and accomplished

This might be a good idea for running a military unit but fails miserably in IT. As a leader I hardly ever supervise my engineers, they have to understand the tasks and only come to me if there something that they do not understand. Giving them as much freedom as possible is one reason they like to work with us, feedback we got from 90% of them. Sometimes if the task is impossible to be done we expect them to come back, explain why and also provide an alternative. This happens a lot too.

Supervision doesn't always mean micromanaging or looking over their shoulders. You have to adjust your supervision strategies to the task and environment.

>> 9. Exercise care and thought in supervision. Over supervision hurts initiative and creates resentment; under supervision will not get the job done.

You might give your engineers a lot of freedom but at the end of the day you know what they're working on and you see their outputs.

>>This might be a good idea for running a military unit but fails miserably in IT.

This explains why IT has such losers in management positions. Most managers in IT think all they are supposed to do in a day is browse internet, forward emails, approve leaves/vacations, build their cartels and leave.

Sorry. But to ensure people under you understand the work they do and the sole responsibility of achieving the goals assigned is on you, the manager.

Sounds a lot like the "decentralized command" leadership principle.

https://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Ownership-U-S-Navy-SEALs/dp/1...

There's a reason why that style is called "command and control"...

I used to work at Amazon, and I liked their leadership principles.

They're intentionally contradictory, but that's just an acknowledgement that perfection is impossible. When you choose to focus on one aspect of your career, that's often going to be at the detriment of something else. This also means that there's always room for career development and self-improvement.

I felt compelled to write a response.

I didn't know what to expect seeing that it was a link to the Marine Corps...

But essentially, I agree. The examples in that link are about as close as you can get to some actual generally inspiring leadership principals.

The amazon leadership principals, by contrast, look and sound like empty corporate marketing fluff.

By comparison, far from being something that makes them stand out and sound different, it makes them sound exactly the same as every other big company :(

The USMC have had a few more years to work their principles out.

I was introduced to these at USMC Officer Candidate School and agree wholeheartedly; these principles are effective and I have tried to live into them (as appropriate) as I've taken on manager/director roles in my career.

Amazon recently reached out to me to attend a giant recruiting event and included a link to these principles, and the "Are Right, A Lot" line item turned me off completely. There's something about stating that as a guiding principle that runs counter to my instincts and experience.

I'm as smart and as "right" as anyone on my team, but as a headline that rubbed me the wrong way. The finer print "...seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs" sounds better, but confirming my beliefs along with every else's has worked pretty well so far.

For what it's worth, I was probably looking for an excuse to back off anyways. I have a great job where I am.

Those USMC principles are fine principles; they exhort leaders to care for and develop the juniors under them. In my experience, in a political corporate environment, behaving that way will hold you back. Instead of "know your marines and look out for their welfare" you should "know your manager and look out for his/her welfare" ie "manage upwards". Instead of "keep your marines informed" you should "keep your manager informed, and only share information with your juniors selectively". Instead of "take responsibility for your actions" you should "ensure failures can be blamed on some scapegoat". If you're "managing out" a weak team member to avoid a payout you should "ensure the task is not accomplished" to build a paper trail justifying their later dismissal.

If you are a leader and you aren't looking out for the people under you then you are a shit leader. Applies to the Marines, applies to Amazon.

My manager there largely did what you are talking about and it did nothing good for anyone involved. It's pretty much the reason why one of the guys who worked for him as an engineer is now moving up to senior manager well my former manager is still stuck at the same place.

Acting the way you describe just leads to poor performance from your subordinates, up to them just leaving. That reflects poorly on you.

I've seen the tactics I described work very well in investment banking, purely in terms of personal advancement. I naively adopted a USMC style approach as a newly minted manager and got beaten up and stabbed in the back massively by the more experienced and Machiavellian managers. So I left. It's important to realize the difference between a mature org and a growing business. In a mature org the senior staff are all fighting to get a bigger slice of a pie that doesn't grow. That's not the case in a growing business. Note that I'm using the term manager, not leader.

Bummer, thankfully I don't work in a place like that...luck of the draw.

You should check it out and see. The implicit precursor to "right, alot" is that you're trying things that might be wrong. Don't just try things for kicks, have some intention that they'll most likely turn out right (presuming there's a cost).

This doesn't apply to an AB test where you don't care what's right, you're just putting it out there and letting the users decide. What's 'right' there is the AB test itself and doing it.

That sounds better for sure, but not the way it came across. I put the emphasis "Right" not "A Lot"...maybe next time.

I believe you can manage upwards and downwards. You don't and shouldn't have to shit on your team to make your superior look good, but if you can in a way that benefits the team, then do it!

I work for one of the big three strategy consulting firms and our values / principles are intentionally similarly contradictory. There are simply things that cannot be black and white and where it is about constantly trying to make the best out of the grey zone in between. Some of the best and deepest discussions I had with colleagues was exactely about that particular grey zone and how to find the right balance

Thanks for the link, really interesting. I'm an anti-militarist but I've recently become a little obsessed with the idea of conflict, the use of force, and how we negotiate the force-related conflicts we have with the others.

For example this:

> 1.Put your Marines' welfare before your own--correct grievances and remove discontent.

reminded me of an essay ("The Concept of the Political") that I've read recently, written by Carl Schmitt, where he defines politics as the conflict between friends and enemies, and nothing more. His later "Theory of the Partisan" was also very interesting.

Later edit: this point

> 7. Protect the health of your unit by active supervision of hygiene and sanitation.

reminded me of how the first recorded presence of a doctor on the territory of my country (which, of course, at that time hadn't been formed yet) happened almost 2,000 years ago when the Romans decided to invade this territory and when they brought doctors with them in order to heal and care the wounded soldiers. At least another ~1,500 years would pass until medics would be present again around these parts, approximately during the late Middle Age. To say nothing of the complex sanitation installations that the Romans were putting in place almost immediately after they had finished building a fort in the middle of nothingness. The more I read about the Romans' organizational structure and logistics the more impressed I am, they somehow look like an alien species.

>AThe more I read about the Romans' organizational structure and logistics the more impressed I am, they somehow look like an alien species.

Yep, sometimes I wonder what society would look like today if the (western) Roman empire had never collapsed, and they had somehow been able to correct its fatal flaws in time. Europe basically did nothing for 1000 years.

There is nothing more damaging to the morale of a soldier than the idea that if he or she is hurt then they will not be cared for.

Their structure was far ahead of it's time, and indeed, laid the groundwork for today. Any staff officer today who went back in time to review a Roman unit would have no problems identifying the various components of the organization.

They contradict each other on purpose. They tend to act as a balancing function.

That said, ya, I don't think they were meant for anything else but Amazon.

I'm reminded of the fox/hedgehog delineation. Very clearly, tech values would be a fox and USMC values would be a hedgehog.

However at the same time, I am reading your argument and thinking, having a bunch of random contradicting guidelines and hoping that the law of averages smooths out the error inherent, can't be better than a more thoughtful list of consistent, higher-level principles.

Thanks for the link. I agree with you. Respect due.