Unexamined Theory Y Management
I had a thought today about the prevailing management theory in my industry—Theory Y—and the conflict that arises in one dimension of that approach.
Most managers in software development are untrained Theory Y managers[1]. Most of their philosophy is unexamined, a collection of experiences in different companies, reporting to different people - you learn how to manage by what your managers did and sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t. You tend towards what you believe is right and what you’ve seen work best.
This average Theory Y manager falls somewhere on the authoritative/permissive dimension. The Authoritative end keeps trying to put boundaries in place because order is more predictable and people want safety. The Permissive end keeps trying to set things free and give people all the space they need, because from freedom joy and productivity will naturally arise. A common scenario I’ve observed is Permissive Y’s reporting to Authoritative Y’s and a resultant values mismatch—when these beliefs are “two sides of the same coin”. You end up with conflict over practice instead of outcomes, even as both ends of the spectrum can show clear evidence and value in their approach.
Those Authoritatives haven’t discovered their nuance. For example: that people lose morale from arbitrary barriers that don’t make sense. That only giving people just enough information to answer your question will never empower, nor get you the answers you haven’t already thought of. That unconsciously putting people into a hierarchy fails as soon as you run out of time in your day, but you probably won’t notice. If you box them in too much they’ll only ever be, at best, the average of what makes sense to you.
Those Permissives haven’t discovered their nuance. For example: that an absence of boundaries will struggle to grow confidence as it too easily amplifies uncertainty. That not saying “no” means they can never learn what works. That soft deadlines teach analysis paralysis. That teams don’t know what they don’t know. If you leave them to it they’ll only ever be, at best, the average of what makes sense to them.
Why call out these two extremes? It’s not because these approaches are wrong or entirely ineffective - stick to a simple approach and you’ll find a team or person that benefits from it, even if you don’t understand why it doesn’t benefit another[2]. It’s the unexamined nature of this default manager and their approaches that limits the multiplying power of great management.
I’m still working with Theory Z, rumbling with Postmodern People Management. Conscious, nuanced, complicated management tends to sound to your Authoritative like dereliction of duty and at the same time to your Permissive like harsh control.
Whatever approach you find value in, your challenge as someone who leads (and doesn’t simply see management as a side effect of their role) is to continuously examine and refine your philosophies, values & goals. Inspect and Adapt. Keep adding new tools to your toolbox even when they don’t fit with the ones you have. Management is craft and dedication to your craft takes time and energy.
Endnotes
1: You get the odd Theory X throwback but that’s out of scope here. ↩
2: Or if you choose to double-down as so many do, to think they just didn’t get it, or were wrong. ↩
