Transparent leadership beats servant leadership
Servant leadership vs. how it’s portrayed
- Many commenters say the article straw-mans “servant leadership” as a kind of overprotective “curling parent.”
- In their view, genuine servant leadership:
- Focuses on growing and empowering reports, not doing everything for them.
- Is about managers serving the team’s needs (removing impediments, enabling careers, ensuring clarity), not infantilizing them.
- Often gets abused or hollowed out by corporations into vague “be nice” rhetoric or cover for micromanagement.
“Transparent leadership” largely overlaps with good servant leadership
- Several argue that what the article calls “transparent leadership” (coaching, delegating, training replacements, avoiding bottlenecks, sharing context) is exactly what well‑practiced servant leadership should be.
- The new label is seen by some as buzzword rebranding driven by a shallow or narrow reading of Greenleaf.
What good managers actually do
- Recurring descriptions of effective managers:
- “Bulldozer / shit shield / heat shield”: clearing political and organizational obstacles so ICs can focus.
- Providing context and direction: explaining why priorities exist and how work ties to higher‑level goals.
- Handling the work only managers can do: conflict resolution, performance management, hiring/firing, cross‑team negotiation.
- A manager’s value is often framed as translation and information routing, not typing code or sitting idle.
Coaching, “bring me solutions,” and absent managers
- The phrase “bring me solutions, not problems” splits opinion:
- Some see it as abdication and a way to shift blame downward.
- Others use it to encourage ownership: “you know the problem best; propose options and I’ll help with bigger‑picture constraints.”
- Management fads like “coaching only” are criticized when they devolve into endless rubber‑ducking and refusal to use managerial authority.
- Several horror stories describe “empowerment” as code for “you solve everything with no support.”
Power, accountability, and broken orgs
- Multiple comments stress that control, responsibility, and accountability must align; responsibility without authority is demoralizing.
- Both servant and transparent leadership are said to “only work in orgs that don’t suck”; when leadership is exploitative, these models become manipulative cover.
- There’s skepticism that managers will genuinely make themselves “redundant” in systems that reward headcount and control.