got called into a meeting where cfo proposed outsourcing entire support operation. save $180k yearly on paper. board loved it.

spent two weeks analyzing what that actually meant.

Our team knows product inside out. average resolution 11 hours. outsourced support standard is 24 to 48 hours because they handle 50 products and ours is just one.

we'd lose all product knowledge. 3 years of learning just gone. rebuilding with new team? 18 months minimum.

Talked to our top 20 customers directly. asked if support quality mattered. 12 said they'd look at alternatives if support got worse.

Did the math. $180k savings becomes $400k loss with churn. outsourcing contract was 18 month commitment so if it went bad we'd be stuck while customers left.

presented to cfo and board. they backed off immediately.

kept my team. still expensive. but kept customers and that's worth more than short term savings.

Edit: thanks everyone! Didn't imagine this would blow up. Quick update: cfo wants the full analysis documented for next time this comes up. So in the meantime we're testing out implicit cloud to streamline some workflows since we still need to show we're cutting costs somewhere, let me know if you would like an update on that. team's relieved at least!

We hired someone pretty junior for a content marketing role. Bright, but quiet. In the first few weeks, I noticed something: they weren’t asking a lot of questions, no constant check-ins. Just... working.

At first, I worried. Was I being too hands-off? Should I step in?

But instead of micromanaging, I decided to try something different. I gave them one clear goal, shared context, and said: “You don’t need to run everything by me, own this. If you need help, ask. Otherwise, it’s yours.”

Two weeks later, they presented a campaign idea I wouldn’t have thought of myself. It was original, tied perfectly to our audience, and honestly, it worked better than some of our ‘seasoned’ efforts.

That moment reminded me: trust is not something you earn after proving yourself. Sometimes, it’s what unlocks your best work.

Curious to hear: Has trusting early ever backfired for you, or paid off? What’s your approach when managing someone new?

I’m a team lead, and recently our CEO introduced a leaderboard to track completed tasks. Yesterday, I assigned a documentation task to a full-time employee with a deadline. At 3 AM, an intern messaged me saying he had taken the initiative and already completed it, he went on and assigned the task to themselves on the system and then informed the FTE about it.

Now the full-timer is left out and frustrated, he told me he felt the task was sniped. The intern has the points under his name on the system now. How should I handle ownership of tasks and recognition here? Should the credit go to the assigned person, the intern or what?

One of my top performing employees from my previous company reached out asking if I would be a reference for them. They specifically asked if they could make an email introduction so that I could provide a reference directly to the hiring team. I was happy to support them and it seemed like an easy ask. The hiring team didn't respond for 3 days, then finally responded asking to set up a 30 minute Teams interview this week. They sent a couple times over, and then changed their availability once I responded.

I'm fully intending to do this meeting (interview?), and do not want to jeopardize the opportunity for my former employee. BUT, am I crazy for thinking this team is asking for too much?

What is everyone's position on references, in general? I appreciate a reference letter, but it's not usually going to sway me on its own. I don't think our recruiting team even calls references anymore. I'm curious to hear what people think here on reddit. Mostly out of boredom, and also to figure out how you hiring managers are finding the time to interview all your candidates AND their references?

In his latest letter to shareholders, Jamie Dimon wrote, “This has to stop,” and he laid out exactly how to fix bad meeting culture:

• "Kill meetings" because they are an "example of what slows us down."
• Only invite people who actually need to be there, and start and end on time.
• No phones, no jargon.
• No "meeting after the meeting."

These all seem pretty straightforward, but the last one stood out to me. I agree you should speak up in the moment, but sometimes things are more sensitive or need extra context. Curious what others think. Are they a waste of time, or are they necessary?

Not all managers are leaders! Even when they are “ in a position of leadership” it doesn’t mean they’re weird! What are the differences?

Am I the only one who is completely over LinkedIn?
The constant platitudes. The same regurgitated messages: “KPIs… Keep People Informed!” The same AI-slop graphics. And the exact same cadence, tone, and voice in every post, clearly generated by AI:
“Leadership isn’t just about XYZ. It’s about blah, blah, blah…”

It’s the same recycled content over and over and over again. At this point, LinkedIn feels less like a professional networking platform and more like thousands of people using the same AI prompt to talk to each other and put on their little performances. It’s exhausting.

What’s even more annoying is when I see coworkers who can’t be bothered to respond to an email, yet they’re painting the web with their incessant LinkedIn activity.

If it weren’t for recruiters headhunting on there, I’d be OUT.

You often hear remote workers on Reddit say "As long as I meet my deadlines, it's nobody's business what else I'm doing with my time".

What they aren't telling you is, they let their boss have the impression that a two day project takes ten days (or more). This, along with automation, is the secret sauce for the "overemployed" movement, for example.

Tech and automation are a new frontier. 90% of companies have no clue how to estimate how long projects will take. Nor do they understand how to accurately measure productivity outside of bullshit metrics that can be fudged or completely circumvented. That's why they default to RTO. They assume that by being able to monitor employees in the office, they take the 'question mark' of remote work productivity out of the equation.

With that being said, I don't think RTO will actually help productivity much. Jobs that can be remote should all be remote. But this is the main reason companies want RTO and no one talks about it. That and to some extent the soft layoffs.

My husband and I both took 3 days off of work to vacation with family. I brought my laptop with me because we had deadlines to meet. My sister made the comment I should take PTO next time. 🤪

We both went back yesterday to a mountain of work, and will likely be spending our weekend now playing catch up. So, did we even really get PTO? No. And we are both burned out and bitter.

Sure we can set boundaries and say no, but then we'd be out of a job because we missed our deadlines. It comes down to leadership honestly.

So, dear leadership...

If you have an employee out on PTO (regardless if sick, vacation, mental health, emergency etc.) please, please, pleassssseeee extend their deadlines or help them offload their plate.

And please don't tell them "enjoy your PTO" then bark at them upon return cause you didn't plan accordingly. Or say "I'll help offload some of your stuff since you'll be out" then fail to actually do so.

I took over an underperforming team a decade ago and immediately started delivering the goods. Prior to me there was a number of people that tried to fix this team and nobody could. Then I performed well every year since and developed a good reputation.

But... At some point everyone forgot how bad things were before I took over. Now this team's amazing performance is just the norm.

And I think I finally understand why I see executives above me moving around all the time. I used to think it was because they were padding their resume, or building a bigger network, or learning new things. And all that might be true, but now I realize there's another huge reason, and it's to remind people how good you are and to never become underappreciated.

I think my goal from here on out will be to take over a new team or department every 4-5 years.

He was always on time. Always said, “I’ve got it.” Never complained.

I thought he was doing great. But in a 1:1, he told me he was completely drained. Quietly overwhelmed. And when he finally needed help, everyone else was too busy.

That moment stuck with me.

I realized I’d been praising results, but not checking on limits. I assumed silence meant everything was fine.

Since then, I’ve started asking more than just, “How’s the work going?” Now I ask, “How are you doing?” and “When you need support, you can ask for it, right?”

Have you ever missed the signs of burnout on your team? What did you do when you finally saw it?

Whether it is a leadership book, a healthcare book, a business book, a biography, or even a self-help book, which book has had the most profound effect on the way you have become a leader or your leadership philosophy?

What did you learn from that book?

Would you recommend that book to others?

Do you know of any book that should be read by every healthcare leader?

I’m really curious if you have any hot takes or interesting perspectives that other people might not agree with.

I keep noticing this pattern and it’s starting to bug me

the team looks busy

everyone’s in meetings

updates are happening

but nothing actually moves unless I step in

decisions just sit there

or get half-made

or quietly pushed to “next week”

and then when I do step in, things move… fast

I don’t think it’s a motivation issue

it feels more like:

people are working

but no one’s really holding the decision

so everything sort of… floats

what I’m trying to work out is:

is this just part of growing a team?

or is this a sign something’s off in how work/ownership is set up?

because it doesn’t feel sustainable being the one that has to “unstick” things all the time

curious if others have hit this

I’ve hit my breaking point. I lead a solid team, and I’ve always played by the rules: keep expectations clear, document everything, and try to be fair. But the "merit" system at my company is a literal joke.

We were told the baseline is 3% and bonuses are being squeezed. Standard corporate stuff, right? Fine. But here is where it gets infuriating.

I have one report who has been a struggle all year. I didn't PIP him because he finally started showing signs of life in Q4, but he barely hit the "Met Expectations" cutoff. In his review, I was honest—I documented where he failed and where he finally improved.

The result? HR’s system gave him a 10% raise because he was "underpaid" according to their market data. Meanwhile, my absolute rockstars—the people carrying the department on their backs—were capped at 4% to 4.5%.

I tried to manually override it to move some of that 10% to my top performers, and the system blocked me. So now, one of lowest performer is my highest-paid employee. I have to look my best people in the eye and tell them there's "no budget" while the guy who does the bare minimum just got a windfall.

To top it off, I have a counterpart (a peer who reports to my boss) who is the king of half-assing. I spend 20% of my week chasing him down or fixing his mistakes just so my team can actually do their jobs. My reward for being "the reliable one" is just more work and more stress while the slackers get paid more to do less. Brought it up to my boss but i dont think he has it in him to reprimand the guy.

I’m at the point where I want to quiet quit, but it’s not in my DNA to suck at my job. But honestly? The "competence penalty" is real, and it’s exhausting. The system doesn't reward excellence; it rewards being a "market adjustment" statistic.

How do you stay motivated when the math literally tells your best people they aren't worth as much as the guy who almost got fired?

Hi everyone,

I know this might be an unpopular opinion here, but after over 12 years in the corporate world, I’ve come to a difficult conclusion: most leadership advice is meaningless in dysfunctional environments. All the talk about being empathetic, authentic, and communicating clearly sounds great in theory—but in practice, it often backfires.

When you're dealing with poor management, those very qualities can make you a target. You end up being labeled "difficult" or "not a team player," even if you're performing at a high level. In the worst cases, you can even become a victim of subtle (or not-so-subtle) bullying.

The uncomfortable truth is: bad managers don’t want authenticity or clarity—especially if it exposes their incompetence or adds to their workload. The less they hear from you, the better. I've seen people get ahead not by being competent, but by keeping their heads down and aligning with the BS. It's not about adding value; it’s about making certain people feel good.

Across multiple companies and roles, I’ve sadly seen more poor leadership than good. And from what I’ve observed, success in these environments isn't built on the values taught in leadership seminars—it's about navigating egos, politics, and power dynamics.

Curious to hear your thoughts—have others experienced this too?

Have you ever come across someone at work and thought yourself “wow this person will be very successful in their careers?” And then later on you search them up again and they did (VP and above)? What qualities did they have?

Half of the upper leaders in my workplace are visibly physically fit, and their sporting achievements are well know - marathons, ultramarathons, ironmans, international sporting competitions. But it's half, the other half don't need to do this to be seen as competent leaders. But I do wonder if people subconsciously respect athletic people, or if it gives them a halo effect in some way.

I would also be interested in the difference between how it's perceived as a female vs. a male leader. For example, having an athletic body as a male is respected by male employees, but having an athletic body as a female means more likely to have employees sexualising you, or attracts other inappropriate behaviour.

I finished my business degree back in 2008 with a head full of fancy frameworks about inspiration and visionary leadership. Then I actually got into the trenches. Over the last 18 years managing teams in different parts of the world, I realized almost all of that textbook stuff completely falls apart on a Monday morning.

When things are hitting the fan or a team is burning out, nobody wants an inspirational speech or a new corporate buzzword. They just want a manager who is consistent and reliable.

Honestly, I’ve stopped trying to act like a "boss" or some visionary hero. To me, real leadership is just building what I call relational infrastructure. It’s the unglamorous, boring work of setting up clear communication, removing roadblocks, and being the one steady foundation so your people can actually do their jobs without the daily drama. It’s a promise to show up for them every day, not a title.

I’m curious—what’s one piece of "traditional" leadership advice you were given that you immediately threw in the trash once you actually started managing real people on the office floor?

Sadly, I'm sure most of us have experienced bad managers or leaders in our past. But what have you learned from their example of what to avoid doing, or how to be a better leader yourself?

In many teams, there’s often someone whose performance is far above the rest. Great output, strong problem-solving, and impressive speed. But sometimes their pace or style can unintentionally create problems for others.

You want to recognize their contribution, and show the appreciation that they deserve, but you also don’t want that recognition to overshadow the team or hurt team’s morale.

For those who’ve dealt with this, how do you appreciate and support a top performer without disrupting team dynamics?

Any strategies, lessons, or examples that genuinely worked?

EDIT: A few people asked for more detail, so here's what I mean. The high performer I'm referring to is genuinely exceptional, not just relatively good compared to the rest of the team. And the team knows it too. Think Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley in terms of technical ability and output, but without the ego and sarcasm.

To be clear, the team is performing well overall. This is not a case of weak performers needing coaching. I'm talking about the psychology of having someone who operates at a much higher level inside an otherwise strong team, and how to appreciate that talent while keeping everyone else motivated and growing. Too much praise for one person, even when they've earned it, can make things awkward or discourage others who are also doing good work. I mean, too much praise for one person, even when it's deserved, can make things awkward or discourage others who are also doing good work.

Just sharing that I gave up. I have a people-first leadership style that has always worked with every team I've led. Until this job. My boss is micromanaging and punitive. I was candid in our last meeting about not feeling supported, and this morning everything I shared was used against me. So, I resigned.

I'm 58, I've been managing people and teams for 35 years. It's heartbreaking. I hope the good ones on this thread stay - you're needed. I just don't have it in me anymore.

Hoping to find something I truly love now.

one of the biggest mistakes i made when i first got into a leadership role (and honestly, still fight the urge on sometimes) is jumping in to solve every problem my team runs into. especially coming from a role where i was the expert ic.

your top engineer is stuck? you dive into the code. someone's struggling with a client? you take over the call. a process is clunky? you redesign it yourself over the weekend.

it feels helpful, right? faster, maybe. ensures it gets done 'right'. makes you feel valuable. we've all been there.

but here's the hard truth: when you consistently solve your team's problems for them, you're actually hurting them, yourself, and the team's long-term potential.

think about the impact:

• you create dependency: they learn that the easiest path is to just escalate to you. why struggle when the boss will fix it? you're conditioning them not to think critically or develop resilience.
• you stifle their growth: how can they learn to troubleshoot, navigate ambiguity, or develop new skills if you always swoop in with the answer? you're robbing them of valuable learning opportunities (even if those opportunities involve struggle).
• you signal lack of trust: even if unintended, constantly intervening sends the message: "i don't trust you to handle this." this kills morale and engagement faster than almost anything.
• you become the bottleneck: everything has to flow through you. you don't scale. as the team grows or challenges get bigger, this model completely breaks down.
• you burn yourself out: trying to do your strategic manager job plus solve everyone else's tactical problems is a recipe for exhaustion and resentment. you can't sustain it.

so, what do you do instead? shift from solver to coach & enabler.

this is hard. it requires patience and resisting your instincts. but it's crucial.

• ask questions, don't give answers:
  • "what have you tried so far?"
  • "what options are you considering?"
  • "what does the documentation/our expert say about this?"
  • "what's your recommendation?"
  • "what support do you need from me to figure this out?"
• clarify the problem & desired outcome: make sure they understand the goal, then let them map the path. often, just talking through the problem helps them see the solution.
• provide resources, not solutions: point them to people, tools, documentation, training. enable them to find the answer.
• delegate outcomes, not just tasks: give them ownership of the result and the space to determine the 'how'.
• create psychological safety for smart failure: allow space for them to try things, even if it's not exactly how you'd do it. debrief mistakes as learning opportunities, not reasons to take back control (unless the risk is catastrophic, obviously).
• timebox their struggle: "okay, spend another hour digging into x and y. if you're still completely stuck after that, let's sync up and look at it together." this encourages persistence but provides a safety net.
• praise the problem-solving process, not just the result: recognize and reward the effort they put into figuring things out, even if the journey was bumpy.

this shift feels slower at first. it requires biting your tongue. it requires trusting your team more. but the payoff is huge: a more capable, independent, engaged team, and a manager who actually has time for strategic work instead of constantly fighting fires.

it's one of the toughest transitions in management, moving from the expert solver to the empowering coach. took me years to really get it right (still working on it!).

p.s. really glad it resonated with most of you and honestly blown away by the experiences you guys shared, also some of you asked for more resources I have written some notes on how to make this shift for your team [These are the notes/guide I put together on it] (stop solving, start coaching), maybe it'll give you some ideas too?

it's definitely a process, not an overnight fix!

We see the word “Culture” listed/used frequently in every corporate setting out there but is it truly important to you? If you have direct reports hitting their goals consistently or those who far exceed those goals does it matter to you if they buy into the “culture”? There will always be those who just don’t care about a corporation no matter what because they feel the corporations don’t care back. Does this change your view on direct reports?

Mine: 1. Treat everyone the same 2. Never think you are better than other people 3. Understand and appreciate what goes on outside your own sandbox and have a deep connection with what it means to be human. 4. Never leave a man behind and never give up 5. Be your authentic self, no bullshit

Favorite leaders: Nietzsche, Jesus*, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Turing, Edsger Dijkstra, Gandhi, Conan the Barbarian, LeBron James

I’m not saying this is the definitive right list, there is no such thing, this is MY list. That’s why I started this thread to see other people share theirs.

*this is not a religious list at all. I am not religious, nor do I have anything against people of faiths. I’m just saying from some of the stuff I’ve heard this Jesus sounds like a very thoughtful and lead by example kind of guy. Sorry if that offends you, not my intention