Unless you are wrong, that is.

Good listening mitigates against information censorship, and improves coordination. Your reports might do better if they listened better, and they might listen better if anyone else at the company set a proper example.

I guess what I'm saying is I like my boss better than the hypothetical boss outlined by the grandparent poster. He is also sharp as a tack and quickly spots weaknesses in bad plans, but I would hardly describe his approach to communicating those flaws as "scaring the crap out of me." Too often people in software management (or really, any power relationship) think gentleness and efficiency are antithetical.

>> "Essentially I could design myself and be 10 times quicker."

The first claim here makes no sense in light of the second. If you could do the work 10 times quicker, then do it and keep all three salaries to yourself and use less time than you do right now. There is no "growth" going on if the three people working under you are ten times slower than you could - unless the work they're doing isn't really important to the growth of the company, in which case why are they there?

And then you say this:

"if a candidate does not challenge you in your authority, he or she is crap."

... which makes me thing that either (a) you have not hired good candidates at all, since they are ten times slower than you; or (b) you're leaving out the part of the design review where they show you that you're an idiot and challenge you by producing something you never would have thought of.

In general, though, the feeling I get is that you approach these design reviews knowing that they will be painful, and that all designs presented will be wrong. In which case, again, this seems like an exercise in utter futility.

So - yeah. I don't really understand your point. Maybe you're saying you wish your CEO or whomever had done a better job hiring the people that report to you?

Are you Linus or Steve Jobs? Are you as talented? And also the head of some important effort that people are desperate to join?

If not, then perhaps you shouldn't model yourself on people who are widely regarded as total assholes.

5 seconds is the maximum allowed thinking time? That must lead to comprehensively great decisions.

but yes, i enjoy that style of environment, i can guess it is like professional sports. your feelings are worth crap.

maybe it is a very male worldview. or a nerdy male one. i don't know.

my CEO is a nice person. but he is sharp like a razorblade. have a suggestion? be prepared to have it cut, but never just so, but with publicly stated reasoning - that no one can dispute. it impresses me. i respect it and him.

Are you impressed, or intimidated? In the type of work environment you describe, the former can be mistaken for the latter. You say nobody can dispute his reasoning when he criticizes them. Is that because his criticism is correct, or because people are too scared to speak up?

I don't manage people, but I'm a senior engineer and am in a position of influence in my department. The junior engineers often come to me for help. You know what though? Before that could happen, I had to learn to become approachable. This meant getting rid of my highly critical attitude, as well as my belief that "I am always right unless proven otherwise." The result is a happier work environment and more productive team members.

Couple of thoughts on this: Good managers have a worldview, and they learn to communicate effectively. Its much more efficient, functional, and practical. That is the art of leadership, vs babysitting (or helicopter parenting, etc).

Consider the counter-example: The worst manager is one is unpredictable, all over the place, capricious. He cannot scale, however smart he is. Beacuse nobody can decipher him. You cannot avoid or minimize a meeting, because you cannot prepare in advance for expected lines of reasoning, etc.

That's part of creating a culture and having values.

The best leaders I have ever worked for all had very stong, idiosynchratic lines of inquiry. They were all very tough, but always fair. You learned to "keep them in mind" as you did your work. Looking back, its very effective to help crystallize your own view in relation. That's how you develop.etc.

So, in some sense this is independent of "approachable". You don't always want to be approachable. You want people to work independently but under a common vision. You want them to internalize things. Then, for the nuance, the edge case, the final decision/s...they can come and have a chat.

Thus one sets out the right time and a right place to be approachable. But the context is critically important to distinguish. The questions and issues you raise need to be thought of inside the bigger picture. For things to make sense. Hope this helps.