(tech) Leaders, Managers, and Tennis Umpires

There’s a lot of talk about leadership in technology these days. Organizations want tech leaders, as much — if not more — than engineers or other technical folks. “Tech leader” has become the buzzword, which circulates freely with almost no one sensing a false note in the buzz. There have been quite a few false notes over which I’ve been silent for many years, until, finally, I set myself a goal to call them all, one by one; and I’d start with this one. The one that makes me cringe any time I hear it *full disclosure*. What’s the deal, one might ask, “tech leader” is just a ubiquitous term for …. well, for what?

We’ve all seen those images. An executive of a tech company on a big stage, against a screen showing their presentation slides. The body language of this executive — and, rest assured, he’s been trained on how to elicit the body language of “leadership” — is meant to convey an aura of a sage who is about to reveal some life-changing truth to their audience. Yet, all they speak about are their latest product features, or tweaks in their corporate strategy (to fix the damage done to their product users, for instance). You can literally sense how faux their attempts to squeeze some charisma into their backyard kitchen are. Come on, face it, Steve Jobs is dead, R.I.P.; and we’re not in the mid or late 2000’s anymore. Now, if there was one time in history when the “tech leader” word combo sounded authentic, that would be then. But we made it to mid-late 2010’s, which looks like an expiry date for anything leader-ish about technology. Some tech executives make pathetic figures in their pretense of riding a leadership bandwagon over something that has to do with their … operational prowess and integrity, and nothing more.

Let’s now zoom in and consider who do we need to retain the said operational prowess and integrity in the average-Joe tech companies. Would that be leaders, or… well, managers? I’ll give a simple answer. If your organization has gone into a stasis, on whichever level, then you will want leaders, because leaders are the drivers of change. The grass-roots leaders, I should add. Folks usually sense it when their company has stalled in one way or another, with the bottlenecks bulging, about to burst, all over the place. Yet, it takes some leadership skills such as courage and integrity to call spade a spade, and to ignite the need-for-change awareness, because — if left undisturbed — organizational stasis will eventually suffocate the business itself. The grass-roots leaders’ fate is an unrewarding one more often than not, because, likely, most others have put up with the status quo and just go along, including those formally in charge of the organization. When would your organization be in need of managers, then? I hurry to say that good managers are usually the ones who are the first to sense the stasis but the question is… will those folks be able to step out as the harbingers of change? Basically, as someone who cares, or who is in charge, you have to ask yourself: do we need more of leadership, or of management? Or, which unique mix of the two are we looking for? Traditionally, managers oversee operations and interactions. They are the steering power behind getting things done, and when getting things done gets tough — due to the above mentioned stasis —managers are often the ones who call bullshit. But, the bulshitty-er the work process gets, the less time and energy the managers have to act as leaders, swamped in the vicious circle.

I wrote an article once, about courage, shortly after an US Open tennis tournament. It looks like US Open 2018 is an inspiration, too, as it has provided an illustration for the “leader-manager” point I’m making here. This is about Serena Williams (the player, who acted like a leader), Carlos Ramos (the chair umpire, who acted like a manager-not-leader), the tennis authorities, and the bulging bottlenecks. In professional tennis, there’s a code which is supposed to be strictly observed (or, so it seems). Most chair umpires (the managers-in-the-trenches) have been using their human judgement quietly, letting the players go with some code violations. Not Carlos Ramos, and not for the US Open women’s final 2018. The umpire called code violations for coaching, improper conduct and verbal abuse on Serena Williams, a larger-than-tennis figure who is known for her courage and outspoken behavior. Tennis organizations have the rules that penalize coaching during matches, but everyone seems to be passing on it, and there’s hardly a coach who wouldn’t tele-prompt their player from the box while watching. Yet, the rule exists formally, and when the stickler-to-the-rules umpire hit Serena Williams with the coaching violation, the US Open final match turned into a drama. The dust has now settled a bit, and looking at this whole situation from an objective standpoint, we can see that the root cause for the controversy lies in the way tennis authorities have compromised their integrity. For years, they have lived with the code which hasn’t been formally observed (that’s the stasis), as the umpires mostly let it go loose on the players (managers trying to be humane amid the bullshit). Until one umpire decided to act like he’s some sort of an AI, calling a coaching violation on Serena Williams in the tournament final. Serena erupted. She called bullshit, and she acted like a leader, making the public aware of the issue. Rest assured, tennis authorities, players and umpires will have to make a change to the status quo now.

Here’s what comes to my mind when I hear the buzz around “tech leaders”. Think about it.