Recently, I experienced something: I joined a startup and voluntarily resigned after working for two weeks. Although it was only a short two weeks, it felt like a long time, and I learned or realized many things from it. There are many reasons for leaving, involving specific issues, which I will continue to reflect on and summarize. Today, I thought of an interesting topic that can serve as a simple entry point. Of course, there are some inconvenient things that I won’t mention :P
I found that the programmer community generally has an “animalistic” trait: whoever has the best technical skills is the most powerful, and whoever is technically proficient, I will listen to and respect. I might even call them a god or a big boss, worship them, and believe in them. Conversely, if someone with poor technical skills becomes my team leader, technical director, or CTO, directing my work, I will not respect or be willing to listen to them. For managers, if their abilities are not convincing, it will be particularly difficult to advance things.
This issue was also mentioned by Luo Yonghao in a certain program, but I don’t remember if it was in his entrepreneurship podcast or some interview program. I specifically looked for it but couldn’t find it since he has too many quotes. At the same time, I realized that after having the experience of joining a startup and observing some phenomena, looking back at his entrepreneurship podcast, what he said is indeed quite valuable for startup companies.
This phenomenon is not only present in the programmer community but also in many films and TV dramas. For example, in the forest, the lion with the strongest fighting power is the king; in monkey groups, the strongest becomes the monkey king; or in a brave and skilled primitive tribe, power is contested by force, and the winner is obeyed. Similarly, in Western cowboy duels, the winner gains a certain status and symbol, and so on.
This phenomenon is called the “obedience to authority” psychology. Analyzing the word authority, authority is not actually a negative term. Although we see some opinions saying to overthrow authority and not blindly believe in authority, the authority in that context refers to those who have gained power illegitimately, those who are undeserving, and those who deceive the masses. The authority in “obedience to authority” refers to the true strong individuals within the group. Most people are not averse to true strong individuals.
Returning to workplace relationships, according to my superficial understanding, workplace relationships can be simply divided into “collaborative relationships” and “subordinate relationships.”
Typical collaborative relationships include cooperation between companies, cooperation between partners within a company, cooperation between two department heads, cooperation between two team leaders, and so on. The status is equal. In such collaborative situations, abilities can be complementary. One party has ability A, the other party has ability B, and cooperation can yield greater results. Many companies have roles like CEO, CTO, and COO, which are backed by extremely professional abilities.
Subordinate relationships are also easy to understand: between bosses and employees, between leaders and subordinates. As long as there is a superior-subordinate relationship, it belongs to a subordinate relationship. Generally, the abilities in subordinate relationships are vertical. For example, the CTO is responsible for setting the technical route and strategic direction, and frontline technical personnel complete specific work according to the plan. This belongs to different role divisions, but both the CTO and subordinates have technical backgrounds. If the company’s COO leads the technical team, wouldn’t things be messed up?
The “obedience to authority” psychology of programmers exists in subordinate relationships, requiring a vertical comparison to produce the so-called “authority.” In collaborative relationships, the abilities are not measured by the same standard, making it difficult to compare.
Since this psychological phenomenon is widespread and objectively exists, what inspiration does it offer us?
For the non-authoritative side: Understand what kind of authority you should pursue. For example, if you feel pressure from your superior at work, understand whether it is meaningful pressure or meaningless pressure. If the other party is an authority in your field, strive to improve your abilities, defeat them, and become the new authority. If the other party is not an authority in your field and is only directing you for some reason, you should resist or leave the difficult situation in time.
For the authoritative side: Understand the source of your authority. For example, technical ability is also hierarchical. If you have a broad technical vision and some non-authoritative person challenges you with how many words they can type in a minute, you can completely ignore it without worrying.
If you do not possess authoritative ability but are in an authoritative position, what should you do? Transform subordinate relationships into collaborative relationships, so you don’t have to worry about someone challenging authority, not being convincing, or someone being unconvinced. Because the “obedience to authority” psychology only exists in subordinate relationships and rarely appears in collaborative relationships. In simple terms, leaders who are not experts should know how to delegate power.