This is a pitfall I see startup founders getting into frequently[1]. Some people think that as soon as they start their own startup that gives them a position of authority, they can tell others what to do and that's it. Unfortunately, even the CEO (perhaps even especially the CEO) still has to have skills of persuasion to get others to do as they ask.

[1] Really, it's a pitfall that anyone (myself included) can get into when they obtain a position of authority.

Yeah. Once someone grabs the CEO title they think it's all about talking. They fail to lead through example.

No. It's about doing.

"In the hour of danger it was shameful for the chief to be surpassed in valor by his companions; shameful for the companions not to equal the valor of their chief. To survive his fall in battle, was indelible infamy."

I mean, Gibbons was writing about barbarian warriors; rather a different breed from your usual computer nerd. However, I think this particular lesson is still applicable. If you are leading nerds, You need to spend some time working alongside them. If they see you create, your words will carry more weight than years of rhetorical training. (I find that in the short term, sophistry can often carry more weight, especially with less experienced employees... but in the long term? they need to respect you. And they will only respect you if they see you working, and they see that what you produce is not stupid.)

The romance of Gibbons aside, if you don't spend at least some time actually doing the work of the company, you are trusting without verifying; Delegation is important, but it's also important to occasionally verify what is actually happening.

Some companies are aware of this. Google seems to actually teach[1] project managers about this, as recently summarazied by stcredzero[2]:

"A workable program for teaching technical people how to effectively manage others in specific technical contexts is probably one of the most potent things a company could have.

So much of the quality and productivity of a programming group depends on how well the group is managed. Despite this, the production of effective managers is often shockingly haphazard.

They are not going to do something for you just because of your title. You really have to make your case...

"One of the practicalities of a less hierarchical company is that you aren't necessarily going to have the position power to decree something or dictate something..."

This is actually the case at most BigCo. If you think otherwise, then you've bought into the window dressing."

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230341040457746...

[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4204150

I think that is hardly the case at most Big Co's.....Google is an exception but at most other cubicle farms your success as a coder heavily depends on your ability to take and execute orders from upper management, whatever they may be.

Ultimate spear meets ultimate shield? At most Big Co's, a project manager or line manager's success depends on ability to persuade others (beside them and under them) to do as they desire.

Is there any evidence that this (that is, relatively democratic decision-making as described) is the case at most BigCos?

Don't disagree with the power of persuasion but the approach of expecting you to be persuaded is flawed I think. It makes the other person responsible for expressing his/her point effectively enough that you understand the importance of it. Tech industry particularly is rife with people who are extraordinary developers but very poor communicators. People like these are highly at disadvantage with the "persuade me" stance. I think if you are the decision maker, higher authority then it is your responsibility to have the insight to see the value of the point being made and not really hope to be nagged like a toddler into making a decision.

Unless Atwood had previously been against MLK's Birmingham Campaign, why would he use "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" as an example of a persuasive essay? I suppose there's the historical evidence that the letter is persuasive, but it sounds a lot more like Atwood is saying that he is judging the letter based on how persuasive it felt to him, which is silly since he already agreed with the premise. Much better to cite an essay which effectively persuades to a claim that most (modern) readers do not already accept.

I think he accepts it a priori as a historically persuasive letter, and he reverse engineers techniques from it.

Maybe I'm just not up on my history, but is it well-established that this letter changed anyone's mind? Or was it just very inspiring for people who already agreed with him? (The latter is, after all, the purpose of most political oration.) In any case, when Atwood says "It is remarkably persuasive without ever resorting to anger, incivility, or invective" he really seems to base that on reading the letter rather than an historical data.

Also, who would ever think that anger, incivility, or invectiveness would persuade?

This was only 3 sentences in Atwood's post, though, so it's not that big of a deal.

I'm never very easy on Atwood and I won't start to be now. However, I love this part of that movie. It's very nice. (have to balance comments some time :) )

I'll set aside what I think about including a comparison to "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to the rest of the things discussed in the post.

Maybe i'm out of the loop on this, but i've often wondered why people often take issue with Jeff Atwood. He has a pretty entertaining and well written blog, and helped put together Stack Overflow.